How KOTCS could've been made better?

Major Eaton

New member
IAdventurer01 said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that CG was used for the whip. There was some admittedly bizarre camera play, but CG was not the problem there.

I may be incorrect but I certainly thought it was CG'd at the time. IMDB states that no CGI was ever used with the whip. I remember checking the web after the show for details and many had mentioned it. Matter of fact, didn't Harrison Ford threaten to quite the movie if the whip was CGI'd? Anyway, I watched the sequence at 13:16 a little while ago on BD and it is difficult to tell now, especially with that camera in tight like that.
 
That's exactly what they could have done with Skull

On Oxley/Abner:

"No. I think this would complicate matters. Finding Abner could be a movie in itself. The whole story of what happened to him, where he's been all these years."

The flimsy alien story would have become more of a backdrop/motivator to resolve the real story of what happened to Abner.

It would have been more of a character study like Last Crusade. Of course, if Oxley had been Abner, they would have to tie elements of the broken relationship thoughout the movie (at least from the point of Mutt's introduction).

Then Indy's obsession with finding Abner so he could find Marion could have been played out and created a little more suspense and tension, worthy of the grand cliffhangers of previous movies. Of course, this might make the movie feel a little too close to the "searching for father" aspect of last Crusade.

I forgot to mention the Indy/Marion reunion. That scene felt so forced it was almost groan-worthy. I love Harrison Ford, but his acting skills did not pull off the "surprise" of finding out that Marion was Mutt's mother very well. And the way everyone just stood around during the whole "you still leaving a path of destruction..." argument and who left who for what reasons scene was kind of weak.

This movie has some major flaws. I still like it a lot, it's just that a little more script-polishing/rewrite could have made a world of difference.

Back to Oxley/Abner. Since we did not get a movie about Abner, maybe the next one could incorporate these ideas. I'm hearing rumblings of a time-travel plot. Not sure this is going to work very well. Let's hope they really polish the script if they are going to tread in that territory. Aliens were okay but I wish they had taken less of a parody approach to the central Indy myths.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
punisher5150 said:
Back to Oxley/Abner. Since we did not get a movie about Abner, maybe the next one could incorporate these ideas. I'm hearing rumblings of a time-travel plot. Not sure this is going to work very well. Let's hope they really polish the script if they are going to tread in that territory. Aliens were okay but I wish they had taken less of a parody approach to the central Indy myths.

At least the Abner angle would give a reason for the presence of Marion and Mutt. It would also bring in a 1930s reference - the period Abner went missing. (That might then tie in with the Fourth Reich... ;) )
 
Dr.Jonesy said:
Guys,

May 22nd was over 2 years ago. It's over...the film is as it is. Take it or leave it. These topics have been done and done over since then. It's over. The film is as it is.

Just let it go...

Just my 2 cents.
:hat:

It's still fun to talk about what "could have been" and guage what people really want from a fifth one. And people still discuss the pros/cons of the original three so why not KotCS? Heck, I've even seen some of the ToD fan-edits that were done years later. I'm sure these were done because of discussions like the one going on now. I can't say the ToD fan edits are better. It's just the way some fans would have liked the movie even more.

I've seen KotCS four times and I still like more than I dislike. The ratio of like to dislike was just a little less with this particular episode of the series.
 
Novel vs film

Montana Smith said:
Yes. The novel writes this scene with more 'believability'. Indy emerges dazed and confused.

The novel did an excellent job of writing the whole movie. I really wanted to see Rollins given the contract to write a couple of original Indy novels. I think he could rival MacGregor/McCoy given the chance.

Another thing I loved about the novel is the introduction of Mac through the dig in Mexico instead of Warehouse 13. Even though it was a fairly small scene, it gave the reader time to develop the Indy/Mac relationship in their imagination before his betrayal. Just a few pages of story that would have been no more than 10 minutes of screen time could have made a big difference. But I read somewhere Rollins developed that part of the story on his own to flesh out the relationship a bit more, so it was probably an original idea that was never in the script to begin with.

I thought the alien in the warehouse opening was tied to the central story of the movie too much to be the mini-movie we got the beginning of the first three anyway. Maybe I should edit my list to "Seven things that would have made Indy IV better..." ;-) Add the Mexico dig as the mini movie, re-edit the warehouse scene and trim a little time off, making it a little more like the first big adventure scene from LC (Venice).
 

Paden

Member
Matt deMille said:
As much as I love Kingdom, there's definitely a good list of my own that would make this movie better (well, to me anyway):

1) Paramount Mountain dissolves into something else. Not sure what, but not a prairie-dog mound.
George Lucas wearing a dunce cap. ;)
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Matt deMille said:
As much as I love Kingdom, there's definitely a good list of my own that would make this movie better (well, to me anyway):

1) Paramount Mountain dissolves into something else. Not sure what, but not a prairie-dog mound.

While I was searching for a way to obtain the Nathanson draft I read some where (I forgot where and I'll probably never find it again so I don't have a link to prove any of this) that Nathanson's opening dissolved from the Paramount Logo to an ant hill. I know man eating ants have been in the picture since the Stuart draft so I found it amusing that Nathanson would open with it.
Maybe Keopp liked the idea but translated it to prarie dogs.
 

Matt deMille

New member
I think that was one of the bigger problems of Kingdom that few have realized: The opening shot, the Paramount Dissolve, really sets the tone. In Raiders, it was unexpected, clever, and told us we were in for can-you-keep-up? sort of adventure. In Temple, with the gong and heavy music, we knew this was going to be INTENSE. And Crusade's Dissolve showed us we're back in familiar territory, sort of bookending a trilogy.

But Kingdom . . . whether it was a prairie-dog hole or anthill, our first impression is one of either "puny", "silly", "couldn't-they-think-of-anything-better?" or anything else to justify the post-StarWars-prequel-worries we all had. The first shot of a film, like the first line of a book, must GRAB you, but Kingdom's Dissolve seemed to just push us away a little bit, almost like Lucas and co. were saying "It's our movie, our way, like it or leave it". Not good.

Following that, people were inclined to be negative rather than enjoying the film. I believe this is where a lot of its (undo) criticism came from. Imagine if you can, forgetting all about Kingdom, and picturing a powerful Dissolve like the original three movies had, then play Kingdom out in your head. It'd feel different, wouldn't it?

But the fault is still Spielberg's. As director, he needs to remember the basics of showmanship, and joking with your audience to begin is not the best way to convince them of the drama and dangers to follow. Spielberg, with the prairie-dog hole, cast too light-hearted an atmosphere into this Indy film. Sure, there are thousands of different things one can nit-pick, but the first and last shots of movies are more important as they are your first impression and (supposedly) your lasting impression.

Maybe the Kingdom Dissolve could have been some unknown American ruins, something legendary to the Indians (and hinting at ancient civilizations having unknown--possibly alien--creators), where he and Mack were "digging in the dirt", then have the Reds show up, moving the Area 51 scene to after-the-teaser, superimposed over something else (like the Marshall College chase).
 

Major Eaton

New member
Matt deMille said:
But Kingdom . . . whether it was a prairie-dog hole or anthill, our first impression is one of either "puny", "silly", "couldn't-they-think-of-anything-better?" or anything else to justify the post-StarWars-prequel-worries we all had. The first shot of a film, like the first line of a book, must GRAB you, but Kingdom's Dissolve seemed to just push us away a little bit, almost like Lucas and co. were saying "It's our movie, our way, like it or leave it". Not good.

Precisely. The dissolve here was not mysterious or gripping in any way. It was too silly and we all took it that way. We really didn't have a choice. I really wanted to be mystified and I wanted it darker in tone. Heck, even the gong break in from Temple of Doom was ions above this. And another thing, I love "Hounddog" but it did nothing but help solidify the silly undertones that were to follow within the opening. They could have done much better. They should have stayed true to either the mysterious jungle music from Raiders, or the epic opening score from Last Crusade. Something in that realm. Of course, they would also have to take out the hotrodding teenagers too.:eek:

Matt deMille said:
Following that, people were inclined to be negative rather than enjoying the film. I believe this is where a lot of its (undo) criticism came from. Imagine if you can, forgetting all about Kingdom, and picturing a powerful Dissolve like the original three movies had, then play Kingdom out in your head. It'd feel different, wouldn't it?

Heck yeah, Matt. A better break in or dissolve scene could have helped with the tone for sure. It's fun imagining sequences other than "The mound" sequence.:D Your last paragraph has some great idea's for a much more effective dissolve, no question.

Matt deMille said:
But the fault is still Spielberg's. As director, he needs to remember the basics of showmanship, and joking with your audience to begin is not the best way to convince them of the drama and dangers to follow. Spielberg, with the prairie-dog hole, cast too light-hearted an atmosphere into this Indy film. Sure, there are thousands of different things one can nit-pick, but the first and last shots of movies are more important as they are your first impression and (supposedly) your lasting impression.

As mush as I hate to admit, I was angry at Spielberg initially before anyone else right off the bat as I watched these things unfold onscreen. I remember thinking to myself, "Couldn't he have shown this particular instance better, yada, yada, yada".

Matt deMille said:
Maybe the Kingdom Dissolve could have been some unknown American ruins, something legendary to the Indians (and hinting at ancient civilizations having unknown--possibly alien--creators), where he and Mack were "digging in the dirt", then have the Reds show up, moving the Area 51 scene to after-the-teaser, superimposed over something else (like the Marshall College chase).

The many better possibilities are there. Great stuff as always, Matt.:D
 

Darth Vile

New member
Matt deMille said:
I think that was one of the bigger problems of Kingdom that few have realized: The opening shot, the Paramount Dissolve, really sets the tone. In Raiders, it was unexpected, clever, and told us we were in for can-you-keep-up? sort of adventure. In Temple, with the gong and heavy music, we knew this was going to be INTENSE. And Crusade's Dissolve showed us we're back in familiar territory, sort of bookending a trilogy.

But Kingdom . . . whether it was a prairie-dog hole or anthill, our first impression is one of either "puny", "silly", "couldn't-they-think-of-anything-better?" or anything else to justify the post-StarWars-prequel-worries we all had. The first shot of a film, like the first line of a book, must GRAB you, but Kingdom's Dissolve seemed to just push us away a little bit, almost like Lucas and co. were saying "It's our movie, our way, like it or leave it". Not good.

Following that, people were inclined to be negative rather than enjoying the film. I believe this is where a lot of its (undo) criticism came from. Imagine if you can, forgetting all about Kingdom, and picturing a powerful Dissolve like the original three movies had, then play Kingdom out in your head. It'd feel different, wouldn't it?

But the fault is still Spielberg's. As director, he needs to remember the basics of showmanship, and joking with your audience to begin is not the best way to convince them of the drama and dangers to follow. Spielberg, with the prairie-dog hole, cast too light-hearted an atmosphere into this Indy film. Sure, there are thousands of different things one can nit-pick, but the first and last shots of movies are more important as they are your first impression and (supposedly) your lasting impression.

Maybe the Kingdom Dissolve could have been some unknown American ruins, something legendary to the Indians (and hinting at ancient civilizations having unknown--possibly alien--creators), where he and Mack were "digging in the dirt", then have the Reds show up, moving the Area 51 scene to after-the-teaser, superimposed over something else (like the Marshall College chase).

I agree in that I think it was Spielberg's way of saying "don't take this too seriously" and "it's only a movie" etc... and I would agree with Spielberg's sentiments if that were the case. However, as you state, it is also somewhat indicative of the tonality of the movie i.e. perhaps a little too frivolous. I would add that (IMHO) post mountain dissolve to prairie dog, it's the best credits opening to an Indy movie since Raiders.
 
Last edited:

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
I would add that (IMHO) post mountain dissolve to prairie dog, it's the best credits opening to an Indy movie since Raiders.

Pass me whatever you're smokin' if you think the anemic, bloodless and BORING opening act of KOTCS is better than the rousing, thrilling insanity of "Temple of Doom."

You're out of your skull!

:gun:
 

Major Eaton

New member
Lance Quazar said:
Pass me whatever you're smokin' if you think the anemic, bloodless and BORING opening act of KOTCS is better than the rousing, thrilling insanity of "Temple of Doom."

You're out of your skull!

:gun:

Hahahahahaha.:D

Funny! I second this.:eek:
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Lance Quazar said:
Pass me whatever you're smokin' if you think the anemic, bloodless and BORING opening act of KOTCS is better than the rousing, thrilling insanity of "Temple of Doom."

You're out of your skull!

:gun:

I'm guessing Darth just means the section that actually plays during the credits, rather than the entire opening act. I'm not wild about the use of Hound Dog and hot rods, necessarily, but Spielberg seemed more invested in the material here than anywhere else.

I'm in favor of the sequence despite being somewhat lukewarm about it is that the reveal of Indy being dragged out of a trunk of a car is so damned good, and that is one thing that has remained consistent from film to film, that we never get a good look at Indy until after the "Directed by Steven Spielberg" screen. I think that's a good thing, especially in the film that had us waiting 19 years for that intro.

This is also why I'm not into the idea of a sequence of Indy and Mac in Mexico - story-wise, there's not much point in showing it. (The dubious move in this part was cutting the part where Mac is being held under the tires of the car - that would establish the import of the character to Indy more than seeing them in the field together would.)
 

Matt deMille

New member
Actually, I kind of liked "Hound Dog" (even though, yes, lynch me now, I'm not an Elvis fan) in the beginning of Kingdom. I liked how it played over the more serious undertones, like the teenagers asking "Whatcha got under there?" (indicating Indy -- we all knew he was there from the trailers which, like it or not, are part of the film these days, like a prelude chapter in a novel).

I believe "Hound Dog" would have been okay, but after the prairie-dog mound, it was too much. I'm not opposed to a fun, musical opening, as I believe Kingdom helps balance Temple's "Anything Goes". It's just that Temple had a kick-ass Dissolve, followed by a kick-ass chase. Kingdom had a wimpy Dissolve, and the chase was, while cool, a little too long. I still believe it should have ended with the rocket-sled. Just had Indy wander into the base at that point.

If you take the entire "teaser" (as Lucas calls it), it starts with prairie-dog dissolve and ends with nuking-the-fridge. Way too much silliness. Now, if this movie was more like Temple, just a roller-coaster Indy film, that would have been fine. But Spielberg is asking us to take seriously the family drama in here, with Mutt, Marion and Oxley. After opening with prairie-dogs and nuking-the-fridge, sorry Steve, the movie can't go into much drama. It is a movie that becomes tonally confused.

That said, I still like this movie. Saw it five times in the theater and, as most know, I'm a big supporter of the ancient-alien hypothesis. Maybe I'm biased because of that. But I think Kingdom has a lot going for it. It's just too bad that a lot of the good stuff isn't seen as easily because we're distracted by the "skyrockets" of prairie-dogs, fridges and family drama.
 

Major Eaton

New member
Yeah. I've grown into a fan of the movie but it's fun to pick apart from time to time. It's become a very entertaining movie to watch at home. Sometimes I wish maybe, just maybe, it would have turned out differently in some area's.:D
 
Steven Spielberg

Matt deMille said:
If you take the entire "teaser" (as Lucas calls it), it starts with prairie-dog dissolve and ends with nuking-the-fridge. Way too much silliness. Now, if this movie was more like Temple, just a roller-coaster Indy film, that would have been fine. But Spielberg is asking us to take seriously the family drama in here, with Mutt, Marion and Oxley. After opening with prairie-dogs and nuking-the-fridge, sorry Steve, the movie can't go into much drama. It is a movie that becomes tonally confused.

The fault with the movie is pretty much SSs. His directing felt lazy throughout. I got the feeling he really didn't want to make this movie. He just did it to appease George. I really do not think his heart was in it.
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
punisher5150 said:
The fault with the movie is pretty much SSs. His directing felt lazy throughout. I got the feeling he really didn't want to make this movie. He just did it to appease George. I really do not think his heart was in it.

I had the same feeling. So much of it feels like going through the motions.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
I'm guessing Darth just means the section that actually plays during the credits, rather than the entire opening act. I'm not wild about the use of Hound Dog and hot rods, necessarily, but Spielberg seemed more invested in the material here than anywhere else.

Too much American Graffiti (even though that was set in 1962). Too much Lucas. Too much "hello, welcome to the 1950s".

Attila the Professor said:
I'm in favor of the sequence despite being somewhat lukewarm about it is that the reveal of Indy being dragged out of a trunk of a car is so damned good, and that is one thing that has remained consistent from film to film, that we never get a good look at Indy until after the "Directed by Steven Spielberg" screen. I think that's a good thing, especially in the film that had us waiting 19 years for that intro.

It was such a shocking and degrading reveal that it was perfect for Indy's return after a long absence. Also, continuing the American Graffiti, "hello 1950s" line, it was pointed that in the 1950s era of youths and and their hot rods, Indy was consigned merely to the trunk of a 1950s staff car. Sort of symbolic of him literally being left behind by modern culture.

So, what I'm saying is that the 1950s don't appeal to me. KOTCS was all about creating a world that would be alien to Indy - and that's a necessary evil that goes with having Indy return.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Lance Quazar said:
Pass me whatever you're smokin' if you think the anemic, bloodless and BORING opening act of KOTCS is better than the rousing, thrilling insanity of "Temple of Doom."

You're out of your skull!

:gun:

You honestly think 'Anything Goes' sung by Kate Capshaw in a faux Busby Berkeley routine is 'rousing' and 'thrilling' ? WTF have you been smokin'?
 
Top