Just thought I might try and get the pulse for the overall Indy community on this movie. I think it's already been determined that most Indy fans were very dissapointed at the finished product. The CGI Monkeys, the CGI ants, lack of a decent plot, etc, etc, etc.
So, vote on the poll and give your feedback here ladies and gents.
Just thought I might try and get the pulse for the overall Indy community on this movie. I think it's already been determined that most Indy fans were very dissapointed at the finished product. The CGI Monkeys, the CGI ants, lack of a decent plot, etc, etc, etc.
So, vote on the poll and give your feedback here ladies and gents.
I blame a small section of the cinema going public, who like to watch their old movies through rose coloured spectacles… and then claim they have their finger on the pulse of the nation.
While I usually have no issue resting blame on Lucas, to solely blame him for KOTCS is unbalanced in my opinion. All of the big guns are to blame and that includes Ford, who could have very well balked at the script if he wanted to! Those who I wouldn't lay blame on are the newcomers like LaBeouf, Blanchett, Winstone, etc., because they were all just jumping at the chance to be a part of the Indy series!
At the end of the day all involved made a ridiculous amount of money for a subpar Indy film, and sadly it's the fans who got screwed in the deal! I don't like being lead on, and that's exactly how I feel! Everything from Marshall's reassurance about the apparent lack of CGI,to Spielberg's "We're making it for the fans!" has all left a bad taste in my mouth!
I personally feel that they all tried to make a film as good as the other Indiana Jones films but ultimately didn't quite live up to what they set out to do.
Who's to blame? Who knows. It's too easy to just blame Lucas. Maybe Spielberg's heart wasn't in it? Maybe blame the writers. I don't know.
I can't say I blame just one of them in particular. Nor do I think that they are all to blame. I think Lucas has a bigger hand it than Ford or Spielberg do, given it was his story, but they did agree to go along with it. Part of the problem is the script. It's dull. So Koepp should be on there too.
I don't know if it's appropriate for this thread to act like Indy4's "failure" was a fact, but the buck stops at the director, especially in a case like this where studio interference was nonexistent. Whether you loved or hated the movie, Steven Spielberg is the man responsible. It's his name on the credits, and he was the man who approved every creative decision. It is his movie.
I can't say I blame just one of them in particular. Nor do I think that they are all to blame. I think Lucas has a bigger hand it than Ford or Spielberg do, given it was his story, but they did agree to go along with it. Part of the problem is the script. It's dull. So Koepp should be on there too.
I think that really is it's biggest problem. The script is dull. This is probably why they took so long to make it. They really had nothing new to really do for the character that was interesting enough to merit another film. They eventually made it anyway.
I don't think shifting blame among certain individuals* is really all that interesting. And I have no idea what will happen to this thread in the future.
I just tried to adjust the poll a bit more to the opinions voiced on the boards.
It seems more interesting to me to ask: what circumstances (instead of who) made it so disappointing?! ...
And as far as Koepp is concerned: He clearly wasn't able to come up with some juicy cliffhanger material (and other stuff) but it's Spielberg's and Lucas' ...and Ford's responsibility to go with a script or leave it unfilmed. (That responsibility is clearly demonstrated by Lucas' rejection of the D-draft and the neverending talk about finding the perfect *cough* script...)
I say the fans. But only cause the film has just come out so we're all prone to extreme beliefs and everything of how it should've been and what it is now as opposed to a couple of years down the road where the film will find its eternal place in film history.
I blame the 20 years there were between KotCS and LC.
C'mon, people. You should really take the film for what it is instead of pointing your finger at it and saying it should have been something it never could be.
Let's get real. I sincerely think that Kingdom is absolutely the best they were able to muster together given the advanced time. Sure, people will look at films like The Dark Knight and say KotCS tanked. But why compare it with TDK as they're two wholly different type of films. Compare it with the other recent adventure pieces like The Mummy or Tomb Raider and notice that it isn't such baloney after all. Heck, the only recently made adventure flick that can be generally considered better than KotCS is the first Pirates of the Caribbean. I don't think that coming in 2nd is a bad achievement. And if we're to compare the whole series, Indy sweeps the floor with Jack Sparrow hands down.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a very unique movie. It offers us very unmatched settings and some of the most inspirative imagery we've seen since, well, the Last Crusade. I see each and every adventure movie that came after RotLA or it sequels draw some inspiration from them. KotCS is the first one that truly doesn't (and ironically - it's the one that's got every right), but stands on its own. And while that could be considered its biggest weakness, it's also its greatest strength.
I blame the 20 years there were between KotCS and LC.
C'mon, people. You should really take the film for what it is instead of pointing your finger at it and saying it should have been something it never could be.
Let's get real. I sincerely think that Kingdom is absolutely the best they were able to muster together given the advanced time. Sure, people will look at films like The Dark Knight and say KotCS tanked. But why compare it with TDK as they're two wholly different type of films. Compare it with the other recent adventure pieces like The Mummy or Tomb Raider and notice that it isn't such baloney after all. Heck, the only recently made adventure flick that can be generally considered better than KotCS is the first Pirates of the Caribbean. I don't think that coming in 2nd is a bad achievement. And if we're to compare the whole series, Indy sweeps the floor with Jack Sparrow hands down.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a very unique movie. It offers us very unmatched settings and some of the most inspirative imagery we've seen since, well, the Last Crusade. I see each and every adventure movie that came after RotLA or it sequels draw some inspiration from them. KotCS is the first one that truly doesn't (and ironically - it's the one that's got every right), but stands on its own. And while that could be considered its biggest weakness, it's also its greatest strength.
[quote=Finn]I blame the 20 years there were between KotCS and LC.
C'mon, people. You should really take the film for what it is instead of pointing your finger at it and saying it should have been something it never could be.
Let's get real. I sincerely think that Kingdom is absolutely the best they were able to muster together given the advanced time. Sure, people will look at films like The Dark Knight and say KotCS tanked. But why compare it with TDK as they're two wholly different type of films.
Before they were released TDK and KOTCS were very comparable. Big event movies. Obviously since they've been released there is no comparison in quality.
Before they were released TDK and KOTCS were very comparable. Big event movies. Obviously since they've been released there is no comparison in quality.
KOTCS can only be compared with Batman & Robin.
Sure, we can make a general quality comparison between KotCS and TDK. We can crosscheck the tabs to see which one made more money. And we can look at IMDb, Metacritic and such to see that yes, TDK is viewed as more favorable by both professional critics and grand audience alike. These are all pretty irrefutable facts. But the thing is, once they are stated, there's no need to state them again.
They are not, however, genre comparable. If I went into movies now at August for example, and was in mood for a superhero flick, I might have had the choice between TDK and Iron Man. But if I went in wanting to see a grand adventure, it would have been either The Mummy 3 or KotCS. Both picks are no-brainers (though Iron Man wasn't bad, but if we're to presume I wanted to see the generally better genre representative).
Yet, somehow when I traverse this corner of the forum, I see people making genre comparison arguments between two movies that don't fall into same genre. Can you spell "oxymoron"?
I didn't by any means call KotCS a masterpiece. I simply called it what it is - the best genre representative in roughly five years. The fact that adventure flicks in the 21st century have been placed in the range of "lousy" and "lukewarm". So if KotCS performs a little better than those, there truly are some decent reasons to call it a rather good adventure film. And that's all there is.
So... what shall we compare next to make our lives even happier? Iron Man with Pirates II: Stagnetti's Revenge? (The latter is a Digital Playgrounds adult feature for those who are ignorant.)
Its as good a film as Temple of Doom and Last Crusade, I think. It just hasn't been rewatched countless times like those over many years, and so it hasn't grown and developed in people's heads yet. These things happen subconsciously.
I don't think shifting blame among certain individuals* is really all that interesting. And I have no idea what will happen to this thread in the future.
I just tried to adjust the poll a bit more to the opinions voiced on the boards.
It seems more interesting to me to ask: what circumstances (instead of who) made it so disappointing?! ...
And as far as Koepp is concerned: He clearly wasn't able to come up with some juicy cliffhanger material (and other stuff) but it's Spielberg's and Lucas' ...and Ford's responsibility to go with a script or leave it unfilmed. (That responsibility is clearly demonstrated by Lucas' rejection of the D-draft and the neverending talk about finding the perfect *cough* script...)
While I understand that looking at the circumstances that led to KOTCS being disappointing for certain viewers might be more productive, it's hard to not want to lay some blame at the feet of those responsible! Finn made a good point that the 20 year wait was a big part of the issue, and the ridiculously high expectations that naturally followed. For me it was several factors that led to the film being ultimately unsatisfying:
The weak screenplay(Thanks Koepp!)
The so-so acting (Karen Allen/John Hurt)
The overuse of CGI(Gophers/Monkeys)
The recycled score
The overall look of the film/cinematography(Kaminski)
The neutering of our main hero in order to appeal to families(What happened to the Indy of ROTLA, TOD, and LC?)
The placing of Ford as more of a secondary character once LaBeouf was introduced
The lack of any real substantial danger to our main characters
In my opinion KOTCS was not nearly as horrible as some have made it out to be, but it was a subpar Indy film that could have been light-years better! There were some genuinely great moments in the film like the bike chase through the campus, and the soda shop scene, but overall for me there was a hollow feeling about the rest of the film. Still at the end of the day it is what it is, and this is the 4th film in the series and might very well be the last. I'm just grateful to have had the original three films!
The neutering of our main hero in order to appeal to families(What happened to the Indy of ROTLA, TOD, and LC?)
Really? In what sense?
In the sense that Indy's hardcore edge from the first 3 films seemed to be missing in KOTCS! In Raiders he shot the Cairo swordsman without even blinking an eye, gleefully drove Nazis off the cliff as well as running over them, in TOD he didn't even hesitate to throw a flaming skewer through the chest of one of Lao Che's sons, and shot with reckless abandon in the pusuit through Shanghai, and in LC he took out several Nazis in Henry Sr.'s room with a machine gun at point blank range, as well as more Nazis with his single Luger shot! The Indy of KOTCS pulled his gun once and didn't use it, and redirected a dart from a blowgun back into the cemetary guard's mouth, but that was it! Where was the gritty shoot first ask questions later Dirty Harry/Indy from the earlier films? Instead we got an Indy who talked a ton, threw a few punches, and for the most part seemed to avoid confrontation!
