How KOTCS could've been made better?

Matt "I've got a problem" deMille said:

Now, arguing whether Indy was actually 58 based on the retcon lore of the TV in a thread where we're supposed to be discussing what could have made that movie better, that is trivial indeed.

Click to expand...

deMille, you really like to make a mountian out of a molehill. My original post (#165) disagreed with you on a few points. You flew off the handle, had a hissy-fit and then turned them into 5 pages worth of arguments in just a couple of days! (...and you said you were in a "good mood". Shame on you.)

Your brain must've been spinning like the Akator Throne Room the other day (post #195) since you merged 2 people into one and lashed out at Rocket Surgeon for things he never said. Rocket Surgeon and Stoo are not the same guy so, please, try to stay on track.

Matt deMille said:

News flash: Lucas tends to rewrite things, and continuity issues sometimes occur.

Click to expand...

I'm very well versed in the 'continuity issues' so there's no need for your 'News Flash". Fantasy films require a suspension of disbelief. If Indy's age in the prologue of "Crusade" bothers you then that's your problem.

Here's a 'news flash' for you: INDY'S AGE WAS DETERMINED IN 1989, in conjunction with the release of "Crusade" - BEFORE THE TV SHOW! All your hot air concerning the subject is laughable. Especially this:

Matt deMille said:

Or, are you saying they could have cast Indy with an actress (ya know, a woman), but still referred to her as a "him" because the script says Indy is male, regardless of the physical stature of the actor/actress? That's pretty much what you're saying. And it's really, really stupid.

Click to expand...

BE REAL. You're imagining things again. Quite a stretch to reach from my simple statement: "An actor's real age doesn't always equal the age of the character."

I can't believe you are actually trying to argue against Indy's age. The 1899 date has become a well-established fact in Indyland years & years before Indy 4 was made. To the average, popcorn-munching "Crystal Skull" audience member, Indy's specific age isn't that important, however...

No matter how one looks at it, Abner would/should be about 20+ years older than Indy. If you want to believe that Indy is 65 in 1957 then Abner would be about 85-90. You think it would be better to have someone OLDER THAN OXLEY running around the jungle alongside Indy? You want to have Abner in there just because it's Abner without actually thinking about the logistics of his age.

I haven't even bothered to comment on the Staff of Ra business but it was you who brought it up in the 1st place. You then whine about the topic being derailed - Way to go, deMille!

Sharkey said:

Yeah, another member tired of your sh!t so save the melodrama. Let's see if you can guess right again. What do all these off topic posts have in common lately? You.

You sure do bring out the best in people.

Click to expand...

I'm posting just to let you all know that I'm here.

kongisking said:

I'm posting just to let you all know that I'm here.

Click to expand...

And be aware that it isn't safe to go into the water right now!

I'm posting just to say I really enjoy this topic!

Lots of brutal punches and bloody noses... More action here than in all of KOCKS.

ResidentAlien said:

I'm posting just to say I really enjoy this topic!

Lots of brutal punches and bloody noses... More action here than in all of KOCKS.

Click to expand...

"KOCKS"
BAN HIM!

Insomniac said:

"KOCKS"
BAN HIM!

Click to expand...

*YAWN*

This thread could be a script. So much verbal jousting, subterfuge, plotting. It has all the hallmarks of a grand soap opera, maybe even a movie. Just put it in the right historical circumstance and place and it will be great!

Mickiana said:

This thread could be a script. So much verbal jousting, subterfuge, plotting. It has all the hallmarks of a grand soap opera, maybe even a movie. Just put it in the right historical circumstance and place and it will be great!

Click to expand...

It could be the plot of Nolan's next Batman movie.

The setting: Arkham Ayslim.

The cast: All it's inmates! (That means most of us are getting roles!)


It's ironic how some of the simplest of threads turn into the most hotly debated.

Montana Smith said:

It's ironic how some of the simplest of threads turn into the most hotly debated.

Click to expand...

It's something we've been discussing since KOTCS came out. This thread seems to have crystalised some of those thoughts. It's clear that most feel that KOTCS could have been improved by changes (be they small or sizeable)... which is itself reflective of the movie.

Darth Vile said:

It's something we've been discussing since KOTCS came out. This thread seems to have crystalised some of those thoughts. It's clear that most feel that KOTCS could have been improved by changes (be they small or sizeable)... which is itself reflective of the movie.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I agree. But just to offer another point of view, perhaps the degree to which IndyFans will debate (sometimes hotly so) this film reflects not so much our varying degrees of satisfaction or disappointment with KOTCS specifically, but our care for and desire to see more Indy on the big screen. Meaning, in a strange way, I'm offering compliments to how much fans do indeed care. This thread shows it.

Matt deMille said:

Hmmm, I agree. But just to offer another point of view, perhaps the degree to which IndyFans will debate (sometimes hotly so) this film reflects not so much our varying degrees of satisfaction or disappointment with KOTCS specifically, but our care for and desire to see more Indy on the big screen. Meaning, in a strange way, I'm offering compliments to how much fans do indeed care. This thread shows it.

Click to expand...

It's possible that if we'd had discussion boards like this (and if we were old enough at the time), we would have had the same amount of heated debates concerning TOD and TLC... and I do think there is a section of the public who just like something to complain about regardless. However, I do think KOTCS is probably the most flawed Indy movie to date (not that I agree with all the critiques).

Personally speaking, I actually think TOD is the weakest Indy movie... and that's primarily because of the seismic shift in tone between Raiders and TOD i.e. it's basically a cartoon with little to zero plot (although the action/set pieces are still brilliant). So although my issue with TOD may be more fundamental, the palpable change in tone (less realistic, little plot) is something you can either buy into or not. Ergo, there is not that much to argue about. On the other hand, as much as I may genuinely like KOTCS, it is a mixed bag of a movie that had the opportunity to be much more than it is... Therefore, there is naturally more conjecture, debate and disagreement about what it could/should have been.

Matt deMille said:

I'm saying that Indy could indeed have been 65 in KOTCS, and thus we could have had a greater variety of supporting characters of various ages (such as Abner).

Click to expand...

How could the notion of Indy being 65 in 'Skull' provide the possibility of a "greater variety of supporting characters of various ages"??? This doesn't make any sense at all because the older Indy is, the lesser spread of ages there could be in your fan-fiction. In an Abner-fantasy-realm, one is better off accepting Indy as 58.

Darth Vile said:

It's clear that most feel that KOTCS could have been improved by changes (be they small or sizeable)...

Click to expand...

Yeah, but this is supposed to about the 'small' ones. Not a re-write of the entire story.

Stoo said:

Yeah, but this is supposed to about the 'small' ones. Not a re-write of the entire story.

Click to expand...

Would the Moderators accept a new thread about big changes to make KOTCS better? Would that justify a separate thread?

deMille, you've stated several times that Indy 4 is a "damn good movie". Why would you want to bother discussing BIG changes to the story in order to make it better (when it's already 'damn good')?

Stoo said:

deMille, you've stated several times that Indy 4 is a "damn good movie". Why would you want to bother discussing BIG changes to the story in order to make it better (when it's already 'damn good')?

Click to expand...

Good question. My answer is that I simply think the Indy movies are great but at the same time it's fun to imagine what could have been. Dreaming and discussing possibilities do not necessarily mean that what we already have is in any way lacking. It's just exercise for the imagination. I really don't see why you seem to insist that they are mutually exclusive.

This happens in all aspects of life. Say, with family. You love your daughter or father or whatever, but often offer advice or suggestions on how they can better their lives. That doesn't mean they are bad or weak people or that you don't love them. You just care enough about them that you always look to their betterment. Is that so wrong?

Sure, this thread is titled "simple ideas", but many posters have suggested radical changes, not just me. I believe you continue to single me out due to past grievances on old threads. Many other posters than me have clearly taken it upon themselves to discuss changes to KOTCS both big or small. It's not really off-topic. It's just a matter of degree. And nobody else seems to really have a problem with that degree. Just let it go, Stoo. I mean, really, what difference does it make if we're suggesting large or small changes? It's still changes to KOTCS, not the other movies or any radically different topic. It's splitting hairs to be concerned with big vs small changes suggested in this thread (or should I say, splitting threads?)

"Old threads"? (plural)? You just joined The Raven and I've only talked to you in one other thread a couple of weeks ago. Like Sharkey said, stop playing the victim.

Matt deMille said:

This happens in all aspects of life. Say, with family. You love your daughter or father or whatever, but often offer advice or suggestions on how they can better their lives. That doesn't mean they are bad or weak people or that you don't love them. You just care enough about them that you always look to their betterment. Is that so wrong?

Click to expand...

Bad analogy. Unlike people, the film has already been made and you can't change it.

Please answer this:
How could the notion of Indy being 65 in 'Skull' provide the possibility of a "greater variety of supporting characters of various ages"??? This doesn't make any sense at all because the older Indy is, the lesser spread of ages there could be in your fan-fiction. In an Abner-fantasy-realm, one is better off accepting Indy as 58.

Matt deMille said:

Good question. My answer is that I simply think the Indy movies are great but at the same time it's fun to imagine what could have been. Dreaming and discussing possibilities do not necessarily mean that what we already have is in any way lacking. It's just exercise for the imagination. I really don't see why you seem to insist that they are mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

I agree, it's the purpose of this thread, and why us fanboys continually come here to bicker about the details.

And yeah, the family bit was a bad analogy.....doesn't take away from the truth of it, though.

It's the never-ending place we find ourselves in here. I can't speak for everyone (obviously) but ROTLA was so groundbreaking in it's day that it's almost impossible to equal it let alone top it. We all wanted and demanded it from Indy 4, though. As well we should, we've waited so long for it, and the expectations were built up higher than what was possible. That is to say, that KOTCS would have been a much better movie if it was made 10 years ago when Ford was younger, and mutt was made the offspring of a different gal to maintain a correct age and therefore his usefulness to the action......

In short, KOTCS was bound to divide the fanbase by the simple fact that GL, SS, and HF didn't strike while the iron was hot. The "Simple Idea that would have made Indy IV so much better" was to have made the film sooner. That would have (hopefully) given us more practical effects, & everyone involved would have to rely on more recent memory of the source material instead of fading recollections of an iconic character that has evolved to mean something different between them..... and to all of us.

That's a good point Ib about making the film a lot earlier. Something had changed a great deal since the trilogy. I wish they had continued making Indy movies every three years since they started. But god knows how things would have changed in that regard. As you say, they outdid themselves with Raiders and it was always going to be a hard act to follow. From that point of view, maybe we were lucky to have gotten a movie as good as KotCS.

Mickiana said:

That's a good point Ib about making the film a lot earlier. Something had changed a great deal since the trilogy.

Click to expand...

One of the things that changed was audience expectation, or maybe rather film-makers' perception of audience expectation. If all that matters is the spectacle, then story and reason will take second place.

If KOTCS had a younger audience in mind as a major target, then all subtlety could likely go out the window.

Mickiana said:

I wish they had continued making Indy movies every three years since they started.

Click to expand...

That would probably have just lead to Indy's deterioration coming a lot sooner than it did.

Mickiana said:

But god knows how things would have changed in that regard. As you say, they outdid themselves with Raiders and it was always going to be a hard act to follow. From that point of view, maybe we were lucky to have gotten a movie as good as KotCS.

Click to expand...

I agree that KOTCS could have been a lot worse. We were lucky in the regard that at least Indy played a part in it!

Indy's brother said:

ROTLA was so groundbreaking in its day that it's almost impossible to equal it let alone top it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but we go back to the same sentiment: I don't want them to top it or repeat it, that's the attitude that gave us ____________. (fill in the blank). Many of us just want an inspired film with the same sensibilities of Raiders. I always fall back to them, but the Eastwood spaghetti westerns...while they were not all equal, they did have the same tone and level of invention. Juggling a hat in the air with a six shooter isn't possible, yet it's not unbridled fantasy. It seems the "we'll make do" attitude infected the story side of the sequels as opposed to the physical production side of Raiders.

Indy's brother said:

KOTCS would have been a much better movie if it was made 10 years ago.

Click to expand...

They wouldn't have had to handcuff themselves with regards to the era and talk themselves into a new genre to make it interesting, that’s for sure.