TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-17-2007, 04:00 PM   #1
torao
Moderator Emeritus
 
torao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 998
Koepp Script

Damn...I don't get those Filmstew newsletters anymore. Luckily, someone posted a link to this on the hfweb forum. I'm halfway through the interview and am that excited that I thought I should share it immediately. Of course he isn't spilling big things, but who'd want that:

http://www.filmstew.com/showArticle....ontentID=15358


gotta read the rest now.

Uhh...this is just one site.

And it's on comingsoon.net too, now.

Last edited by torao : 01-17-2007 at 04:16 PM.
torao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 04:16 PM   #2
Skipper
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 165
Re:

Koepp implied that Indy 4 takes place in 1961.

In reference to Raiders of the Lost Ark, he said that nobody remembers exactly what they said 25 years ago.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it....
Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 05:34 PM   #3
DarthLowBudget
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 256
Nice interview. 'Course he could just be guestimating on that years thing. It would be interesting if it took place in '61 though.
DarthLowBudget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 05:53 PM   #4
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Unless he was referring to Last Crusade, which would then place the film in 1963. Either way, it's probably in the 20-25 year range.
Raiders= 1936
So now we have a window of time which the film could take place in, anywhere from 1955 to 1963.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 06:07 PM   #5
Garrett
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 175
I think he was talking about Raiders coming out in 1980.
Garrett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 06:07 PM   #6
Last Crusader
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 12
1981-2006: 25 years

He is probably referring to the time between the making of the first movie and this movie, since it's a little bit over 25 years since Raiders. I doubt that the "external" time that has elapsed will concretely correspond to the "internal" chronology in the Indiana Jones universe. It wasn's so with the previous movies (Temple of Doom happens a year before Raiders, for instance).
Last Crusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 06:19 PM   #7
DarthLowBudget
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 256
Your probably right about that.
DarthLowBudget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 06:37 PM   #8
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,652
Quote:
“I’m going to get my *ss handed to me on some level, even by my fellow filmmakers or the audience,” Koepp continues.

I'll say this: there's something decidely noirish about a man that knows that he's in for a beating -- which doesn't mean that I have much faith in the man.
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 07:32 PM   #9
Skipper
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 165
Re:

Quote:
He is probably referring to the time between the making of the first movie and this movie, since it's a little bit over 25 years since Raiders.
I think he was pretty clearly referring to the character, not the movie. Of course, it was probably just an offhand remark, but I take this as pretty solid evidence that the movie will take place in at least the late 1950s, if not later.
Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 07:49 PM   #10
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Brody
I'll say this: there's something decidely noirish about a man that knows that he's in for a beating -- which doesn't mean that I have much faith in the man.

But what he was saying is definately true. Even if the film is the absolute BEST, someone will still criticize it due to Ford's age and the time elapsed. He's just being honest.

''The first thing is that you realize this is a beloved character, probably one of the most in film history, and a lot of people are going to be angry no matter what I do.”

“The worst thing to do would be to have him make reference to things he said in the first movie, like to pun on lines of dialogue,” he argues. “That’s tempting, because you’ve seen the movie a hundred times and you know all the dialogue, but no human being remembers exactly what they said 25 years ago word for word, much less make reference to it. So you try to put aside the other movies and yet be in the spirit of them.”

That quote inspires me. At least there won't be any cheesy lookbacks at previous entries in the series. He's right--no one remembers exactly what they said years ago--and to have him punning dialogue from past films would be just cheesy.
Another thing that inspires me is that he's a fan. He obviously has a lot of love and memories of his own attached to the series and a lot of respect for it, and that helps. Having someone with no connection to the character would result in a poorly written movie. I think the last writer who had any connection or feeling for the series and character was Kasdan.

Last edited by Raiders112390 : 01-17-2007 at 07:56 PM.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 08:04 PM   #11
Grizzlor
IndyFan
 
Grizzlor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Indiana, NJ
Posts: 691
I didn't read any reference to the time period of the film at all. He only mentioned he was 18 when Raiders came out, and referred to it being 25 years old.
Grizzlor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 08:58 PM   #12
Skipper
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzlor
I didn't read any reference to the time period of the film at all. He only mentioned he was 18 when Raiders came out, and referred to it being 25 years old.
“The worst thing to do would be to have him make reference to things he said in the first movie, like to pun on lines of dialogue,” he argues. “That’s tempting, because you’ve seen the movie a hundred times and you know all the dialogue, but no human being remembers exactly what they said 25 years ago word for word, much less make reference to it.”
Skipper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 09:07 PM   #13
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper
“The worst thing to do would be to have him make reference to things he said in the first movie, like to pun on lines of dialogue,” he argues. “That’s tempting, because you’ve seen the movie a hundred times and you know all the dialogue, but no human being remembers exactly what they said 25 years ago word for word, much less make reference to it.”

That sounds more like a referrence to 25 years in movie time, not in real time, which, as someone else said, would put the film in the early 60's.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 09:12 PM   #14
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper
Koepp implied that Indy 4 takes place in 1961.

In reference to Raiders of the Lost Ark, he said that nobody remembers exactly what they said 25 years ago.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it....

Well, maybe, it's a homage in reverse. Bond is widely known to have been an influence on the creation of Indy, and indeed, it was partly Spielberg's desire to make a Bond film that led to Indy. Perhaps having Indy's last adventure take place during the beginning of the era of Bond was done on purpose. The early 60's marked the end of Indy's era--the end of the rugged, handsome, gritty, debonair leading man with the hat and heralded the beginning of the era of the polite, charming, graceful hero with the tux.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2007, 10:15 PM   #15
quigonkyle
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
your all crazy look back at all the indy four rumors they all say it will take place around 1950 twenty five years is since raiders came out . THe idea of having indy go on a adventure in his mid sixties is ridiculous, the character will be in his fifties so get a hold of yourselves .

TO QUOTE HARRISON

take that "BIOTCH"
quigonkyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 09:47 PM   #16
Violet
Moderator Emeritus
 
Violet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Host City of the 2018 Commonwealth Games, Australia
Posts: 3,196
Well, I'm still saying 1956 for Indy IV. Twenty years after Raiders. It makes more sense than 61.
Violet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2007, 11:35 PM   #17
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,652
One thing strikes me as I read this interview: how can a professional writer -- a creative -- give such a deathly boring interview? Maybe I expect too much -- but for some reason while I don't expect someone like Will Ferrell to be funny in person on command, I expert more from a writer whose list of credits runs as long as Keopp's. I understand the guy can't tell us anything about the story -- but you think he'd at least be able to slip in a tantalizing adjective.

So Mr. Koepp tell us something about the Indy IV writing experience?

Quote:
“I spent about a year on it, first doing drafts with Steven and then doing drafts with Steven and George,” he explains. “It was a lot of fun."

Fun? Most informative. And how about working with Lucas and Spielberg?

Quote:
"They’re big guys with big opinions. . ."

[...] And talk about saying nothing:

Quote:
"But with set pieces, sometimes it’s common sense and sometimes it’s a bad idea.”

[Let me get back to this last one.]

So why the long rant? Sour grapes you say? Koepp's the incredibly successful writer and I'm nobody. So O.K. -- I can admit to some sour grapes -- but there's more to it than that. My fear about Koepp writing the script is my suspicion that he's not an artist but merely a technician. When it was announced that he had been brought onto the project as the new writer -- I was impressed by the number of big films he had written. Then, I realized that I've never purchased a single one of said films. Sure, I've watched Spiderman a couple of times -- but Dunst is the only thing there that stirs me. Same for Panic Room -- Jodie Foster rocks.

Looking at his filmography, I can only ask: where's the human spark in his films? Where's the true interaction and spontaneity between characters? Watch the opening sequence of Mission Impossible where Tom Cruise and the rest of the MI team 'good-naturedly' rib the Jon Voight character. It's painful -- there's some dialogue about bad coffee and the need for a new machine. Now watch an opening to a film that works, an opening that's entirely different -- something that truly draws in the audience and seems entirely real. Watch the same amount of screentime from the opening of Close Encounters. What film draws you in more? Which film has more 'real' human interaction?

'No problem' you say -- we've got Spielberg on hand to insure that Indy IV will have the necessary human element. Surely, we can count on Spielberg to come up with the human 'story' angle, not to mention witty lines ("Don't you mean extinct?"). I'm not so sure. Watch War of the Worlds and what do we get? Tom Cruise -- the disenfranchised father -- wears a Yankee hat. And the alienated son? A Red Sox hat. That there is quality writing. Given Koepp's work product to date, can we reasonably expect Indy IV to have a scene like the Sallah terrace scene in Raiders?

Enough b*tching. The good news? Koepps [mercifully] as much as promised us that we're going to be spared the "It's the years not the mileage" line.

And the 'set piece' quote is more than mildly provocative. The Indiana Jones formula demands the opening set piece -- yet Koepp's quote raises a doubt. Just when is an opening set piece a 'bad idea'? When you've got an old star, and you've got to conserve his physical screen moments for the final sprint at the end of the film? Wait a sec -- wasn't that already done in Last Crusade? So what are the alternatives? I wouldn't be surprised with a minor break from the formula with something like the opening to Close Encounters -- something that keeps us waiting for Indy yet has raging elements, an up-tempo and action.

Last edited by Joe Brody : 01-19-2007 at 11:48 PM.
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2007, 09:55 AM   #18
DarthLowBudget
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 256
Okay, so you never bought Jurassic Park. Ok. And you're complaining because the language in the interview is bland. Did it ever occur to you that some people don't interview well? (which has nothing to do with writing ability).

I dunno, the guys onviously no *insert famous screenwriter you really like here* but he can create solid entertaining movies, which in the end is all that the Indy series has every really been.

And why the dig on the hats in War of the Worlds? That's so inconsequential to the film as a whole that I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out, and I certainly don't care about it. Kinda reaching on that one eh?

*end brief rant*

Can we wait til we see some more info on the movie before we try tearing it to shreds please? I really don't want to be involved in another PT style gusher/basher web war, not for a little while more anyways.
DarthLowBudget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-20-2007, 04:47 PM   #19
Ste2652
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 77
I think at least part of the reason for it could be that Koepp is pretty scared about giving too much detail away and therefore is very careful (too careful?). I mean, this is a movie which has spent a lot of time in limbo and is very highly anticipated... if he slipped up in the interview and gave away something big, I doubt Lucas, Spielberg and Ford would be very happy with him considering how long they've waited to do this.

So, yeah, I think he's worried about leaking anything, especially this early (around six months before filming starts).
Ste2652 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 12:35 AM   #20
misnomer
IndyFan
 
misnomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 163
I think Joe Brody has a point....

Koepp isn't fantastic...but he's not terrible either. Brody puts it perfectly "a technician" or as Spielberg described "he's my closer." IMO Koepp has only ever written one bad movie (secret window) ; the rest have been either okay or good, dependant on direction and acting....but what you're guaranteed NEVER to get from Koepp is amazing.

On hearing that "none of darabonts script has made it in" I couldnt help but feel that Indy 4 had taken a down turn. I mean c'mon this is the guy that adapted "shawshank redemption" for christ sakes.

That said, Koepp's been under scrutiny from the beards this time around,
and the "idea" isn't necessarily his...so, if the macguffin is "the best one yet" maybe we will get a great picture after all.

Ford/Connery seem to be good at ad-libbing too...

SO my point is this....whilst I agree with Brody, I dont think it's time to discount Indy 4 off as mediocrity just yet. Who knows?, maybe this will be koepps greatest screenplay....and credit where credits due, he's the only writer to have satisfied both george, lucas and ford - he succeeded where darabont failed.

I hope I do get to see a darabont indy 5 one day....or at least read the script.
misnomer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 10:34 AM   #21
Normy17
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1
I'm glad he won't be referencing old dialogue, but you can be willing to bet that at some point during the movie, Indy will say, "I've got a bad feeling about this."
Normy17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 11:23 AM   #22
DarthLowBudget
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 256
The Star Wars thing?

HAsi t been uttered before in any Indy movie?
DarthLowBudget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 08:00 PM   #23
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLowBudget
Okay, so you never bought Jurassic Park. Ok. And you're complaining because the language in the interview is bland. Did it ever occur to you that some people don't interview well? (which has nothing to do with writing ability).

Understood -- but I'm holding the guy to an admittedly somewhat subjective standard here. Two things: (1) his career requires him know how to communicate effectively. So even if he is a poor interview, I think the guy should be able to manage better descriptors than 'fun' and 'big'. (2) Koepp acknowledges the magnitude of the job and notes that he's been there before (Spiderman). As a result, he knows how much this film means to so many people. So bottom line, #(1) & #(2) says to me that he should know if he can't say anything even marginally of worth, he's better off not saying anything at all. The article is a near total waste of ink.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLowBudget
I dunno, the guys o[b]viously no *insert famous screenwriter you really like here* but he can create solid entertaining movies, which in the end is all that the Indy series has every really been.

If you had been around this joint for a longer period of time, you'd know the question of whether the three films are all 'solid entertaining movies' is open to debate. My view is that Raiders is a classic and perfect film. Temple is pretty much an embarassment. And Last Crusade is a more than adequate film that makes some notable contributions to the Indy character. Misnomer is exactly right when he notes: "but what you're guaranteed NEVER to get from Koepp is amazing" -- that's my exact concern. With Koepp at the helm -- my fear is that the best that we can expect in Indy IV is a film on par with Last Crusade's lighter content.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthLowBudget
And why the dig on the hats in War of the Worlds? That's so inconsequential to the film as a whole that I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out, and I certainly don't care about it. Kinda reaching on that one eh?

Not reaching at all. I was offering the Yankee/Red Sox point to show just how threadbare Koepp's attempts at characterization can be. In the coming days I'm going to kick off a thread in the film section -- 'The Koepp Critique' -- to start assessing his films in detail. I respect the guy's films -- I just don't think he's had success in the past in coming up with those great character details that make a movies truly special. I'm not trying to bash Koepp or Indy IV in advance -- I just want to spend some time over the next year or so trying to anticipate what we can expect in the next installment. I for one would rather spend my time here at the Raven discussing Koepp's past films rather than pondering tired issues like Ford's age or whether Ford will ever play grand-pa Han Solo. . . .
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 08:23 PM   #24
DarthLowBudget
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 256
Fair enough. I'd love to participate in a discussion and analysis of Koepp's films.

Btw, what did you think of Spiderman, his other "big expectations from the fans" movie?
DarthLowBudget is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2007, 09:45 PM   #25
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,038
What We're Forgetting

I see a lot of people here, and on other forums and message boards, prematurely criticizing the film and expressing dissapointment due to the fact that the script was written by David Koepp. We mustn't judge Koepp by his past work as a Jurassic Park script is quite a different matter than an Indiana Jones script, and by his own admission, he's a big Indy fan. In his own words, ''Raiders'' was the film that inspired him to become a script writer. Secondly, isn't he just making editing the script written by Jeff Nathanson? Third, look at the great cinematic accomplishments of Jeffrey Boam, the writer of ''LC.'' Very few and far between, his best work besides ''LC'' was arguably Lethal Weapon II & III, and those aren't cinematic masterpieces.
Raiders112390 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:35 AM.