I've been waiting to address this point for a while. Why does everyone seem to hate David Koepp? Was his Indy script that bad that he sits under George as the most hated person on the Indy 4 team? If you know me you'll no that I thought the script was better than most of the crappy scripts going around today. Does anyone else think David and his script have been treated poorly or am I going to have to defend yet another aspect of KotCS by myself?
While David Koepp is certainly not one of the best writers in Hollywood, he certainly isn't one of the worst. Why I always see so much hate on his IMDB message board is a complete mystery to me. Even though I was less than impressed with his script for The Lost World, I greatly enjoyed his script and I enjoyed Lucas' homage to 50's b films. I read that the script for Saucer Men From Mars would have been a flat out Earth vs Flying Saucer film, that would have been wrong. Crystal Skull managed to be a 50's b film while still keeping in tradition with the Indy films.
Location: The Host City of the 2018 Commonwealth Games, Australia
Posts: 3,158
I don't hate Koepp. The fact is with KOTCS, to me, it wasn't all just the script. This realisation comes with what was written in the novel. The novel indicated some rather good ideas and moments which were I felt needed in the film for a better transformation of characters' development (ie Indy's whole "what happens when I'm gone, who will they say I was" kind of thing).
Koepp has written decent scripts IMHO and as a kid, I absolutely loved "The Shadow". I thought and still think it's a good and entertaining film. "Spiderman" was really awesome too. Maybe he was given more opportunities and more to play with in both as "The Shadow" was a one off and "Spiderman" was the first in the series, so maybe it's when he has to deal with already established series (like JP), such screenplays may not be his strong point as a writer.
Fact is all writers have got some brilliant pieces and some real turkeys. Sometimes I feel that people at the moment, just want to focus on the turkey (I know I do at Christmas! ).
The other fact is (and a lot of people in the public forget this) that a movie is the work of many, many people, not of a sole artist (or director). Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but in general a film is the artistic responsibility of many makers (financial and success rate responsibilities fall on the few, and usually powerful). So if a film sucks, then frankly, I dare say, that you cannot just blame it on one person.
What some people need to realize is that in order for a script or a screenwriter for that matter to be "good" it doesn't NEED drama or character development. With KotCS it was meant to feel like a B-Movie with just a bunch of wacky action, and the script portrayed that beautifully. So for those who thought it was "bad" because it was too silly, well I guess b-movies aren't for you. It's not that Koepp's script wasn't well made, it's just different. So show some respect for the guy.
What some people need to realize is that in order for a script or a screenwriter for that matter to be "good" it doesn't NEED drama or character development. With KotCS it was meant to feel like a B-Movie with just a bunch of wacky action, and the script portrayed that beautifully. So for those who thought it was "bad" because it was too silly, well I guess b-movies aren't for you. It's not that Koepp's script wasn't well made, it's just different. So show some respect for the guy.
Yeah, but that's totally ignoring what Violet just pointed out, all the elements that were clearly in the script (and we know this because we've actually seen the script) that were clearly trying to say something). A simple B-movie isn't going to contain lines like "You know when you're young you spend all your time thinking, 'Who will I be?' And then you're busy shouting to the world, 'This is who I am!' But lately, I've been wondering - after I'm gone, 'Who will they say I was?'" There's also the whole communism subtext with the crystal skulls, and what they were apparently trying to say about Cold War allegiances with Mac. And then there's the whole business about field work vs. textbook archaeology...
Some of this stuff wasn't that great - but it was in the script, in some form.
Boy o boy, If you didn't like Mr. Koepp's script it's because you don't like B-movies. Simple as that. The reason I say the script is good is because it was the only version that had a true B-movie feel without going totally overboard. By overboard I mean it didn't have a aliens v.s. humans showdown or something.David Koepp is a GREAT writer,heck he wrote Jurassic Park, War of the Worlds, and of course, KotCS. that's 3 of my favorite movies. So i love him!
Location: The sun is shining a little stronger. Time to hit the road and drift southbound.
Posts: 3,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Jones
Boy o boy, If you didn't like Mr. Koepp's script it's because you don't like B-movies. Simple as that. The reason I say the script is good is because it was the only version that had a true B-movie feel without going totally overboard. By overboard I mean it didn't have a aliens v.s. humans showdown or something.David Koepp is a GREAT writer,heck he wrote Jurassic Park, War of the Worlds, and of course, KotCS. that's 3 of my favorite movies. So i love him!
He did not write Jurassic Park; Michael Crichton did. And, he didn't write War of the Worlds; H. G. Wells did.
He just wrote the screenplays for movies that were far inferior to the novels.
He did not write Jurassic Park; Michael Crichton did. And, he didn't write War of the Worlds; H. G. Wells did.
He just wrote the screenplays for movies that were far inferior to the novels.
Well I like those movies, and I think david Koepp is a great screenwriter. Obviously no one agrees with me and that's fine. I've become used to it.
I think 'Jurassic Park' and 'War of the Worlds' were excellent adaptations.
Koepp provided a wealth of witty lines for 'Crystal Skull.' It seems as though many of the ideas were already there before he even wrote the thing - but the way in which it was weaved together worked for me and the result was very entertaining.
Beyond his work with Spielberg, Koepp has had a hand in many other great films including Carlito's Way, Mission Impossible, Stir of Echoes, Panic Room, Spiderman, and Secret Window. He's even directed a few of those. That's a nice a career right there.
Beyond his work with Spielberg, Koepp has had a hand in many other great films including Carlito's Way, Mission Impossible, Stir of Echoes, Panic Room, Spiderman, and Secret Window. He's even directed a few of those. That's a nice a career right there.
...if your standards are low...
And you can't seriously be defending Secret Window? I mean, King's story was an abomination to begin with, but Koepp did nothing but distill it into The Shining Part 2...
He did not write Jurassic Park; Michael Crichton did. And, he didn't write War of the Worlds; H. G. Wells did.
He just wrote the screenplays for movies that were far inferior to the novels.
I think if you're saying that Jurassic Park is a bad film you're going out of your way somewhat to argue your case that everything this man does is awful. Let's have a little perspective here.
With Crystal Skull it's hard to say how much he's even responsible for, what with so many story aspects already being in place when he arrived. The opening is certainly tighter than in Darabont's draft, but then I'd say that a lot of the dialogue wasn't as sparkling as you may hope for from Indy: with the exception of the two big Marion scenes; however I understand someone else may have helped out with those..? I'm not sure. I certainly don't think he's all bad, but he may not be all good.
Location: The sun is shining a little stronger. Time to hit the road and drift southbound.
Posts: 3,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by emtiem
I think if you're saying that Jurassic Park is a bad film you're going out of your way somewhat to argue your case that everything this man does is awful. Let's have a little perspective here.
I never said Jurassic Park is a bad film. I enjoy the movie, and have the small boxset of them all on DVD.
What I am saying is that the screenplay as well as the movie is inferior to the novel it's based from.
Also it irked me when JP Jones said that David Koepp wrote Jurassic Park, when he should have said that David Koepp wrote the screenplay for Jurassic Park.
Location: The Host City of the 2018 Commonwealth Games, Australia
Posts: 3,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Jones
What some people need to realize is that in order for a script or a screenwriter for that matter to be "good" it doesn't NEED drama or character development. With KotCS it was meant to feel like a B-Movie with just a bunch of wacky action, and the script portrayed that beautifully. So for those who thought it was "bad" because it was too silly, well I guess b-movies aren't for you. It's not that Koepp's script wasn't well made, it's just different. So show some respect for the guy.
This may come as a shock for you, but actually I love B movies from the 50s. It could be argued that a lot of the sci fi B movies of the 50s, had connotations of the threat/fear of communism and of the Soviet Union being more powerful than the US ("The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a great example), so in which case, B movies aren't completely wacky and pointless action filled movies. "Them!" had the idea of the unknown power of nuclear testing in it's story, again a connotation of the Cold War, heck even "Godzilla" had a similar backstory. So in some sense and to an extent, some drama in reference to time period was essential to the B movie. Truth is a story cannot exist without drama, without conflict, without high stakes. Otherwise, you've got no story.
And I should hope that you noted in my previous post I did in fact state, that "I don't hate Koepp." I even mentioned I liked and enjoyed a couple of his films.
Also, the Indy films have always been homages, never an exact reflection of what ever it is dedicated to: the films are homages to B movies with A movie quality in all aspects. KOTCS had great ideas that I felt fell flat in execution. It could have been better but also it could have been far far worse. I don't really like any of the other drafts anyway, so I guess I have to go with Koepp's interpretation that ended up on the screen. Of course, I know that what I'm saying will probably not satisfy those who believe that KOTCS is fantastic and feel compelled to defend it till death. That's the opinion I've settled on and would just like to point out I am not a hater.
And you can't seriously be defending Secret Window? I mean, King's story was an abomination to begin with, but Koepp did nothing but distill it into The Shining Part 2...
I think it's an entertaining thriller, and Depp and all his quirkiness was a particularly good casting choice.
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 6,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Jones
With KotCS it was meant to feel like a B-Movie with just a bunch of wacky action, and the script portrayed that beautifully. So for those who thought it was "bad" because it was too silly, well I guess b-movies aren't for you. It's not that Koepp's script wasn't well made, it's just different. So show some respect for the guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Jones
Boy o boy, If you didn't like Mr. Koepp's script it's because you don't like B-movies. Simple as that. The reason I say the script is good is because it was the only version that had a true B-movie feel without going totally overboard.
You're taking the term "B-movie" much too literally. Violet took the words right out of my mouth so I've reposted them below. If you're yearning for some kindly Koepp-lovin', see this (short) thread: The Koepp Critique
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viloet Indy
Also, the Indy films have always been homages, never an exact reflection of what ever it is dedicated to: the films are homages to B movies with A movie quality in all aspects.
Precisely. I only hope JP comes to understand this.
Here's the thing, the series as a whole is meant to pay tribute to the various forms of escapist entertainments from the past, with each film carrying different tones and feelings while basically maintaining the same basic story-line. Raiders is a Saturday Matinee Serial, Temple is a violent piece of pulp fiction, Last Crusade is a 1930's Hollywood adventure film, and Kingdom is a 50's b film.
I'm going to have to defend myself yet again. David Koepp's screenplay is WELL-MADE. That's that. If you have a problem with the basic story, don't blame it on koepp. On the other hand, if you have a problem with the dialouge or the character development, I don't know what to tell you. I thought it was very good.
Violet & Stoo, I wish you guys would listen before bashing my opinions. KotCS was meant to be a B-movie (I mean "honor" B-movies). Every other version didn't honor them. Frank Darabont's oh-so-loved script felt more like a romantic novel with action than a B-movie. The "Saucer Men" script was B-moviepaloosa. So logically one would concur that David's script is the best. The reason it's so hated IMO is because it's 2009 and B-movies were popular in the 50s.
Can't we all just respect the guy?
And I think this shows us a key problem with this thread...you're taking a non-personal matter personally. Mount a defense of Koepp, sure, but not of yourself.
And if you'd actually read what I said...although what Violet Indy says in her longer, more recent post serves as something as a rebuttal to it...you'd see that I was actually complimenting some elements in the script that were not B-movie in nature.
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 6,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff
Here's the thing, the series as a whole is meant to pay tribute to the various forms of escapist entertainments from the past, with each film carrying different tones and feelings while basically maintaining the same basic story-line. Raiders is a Saturday Matinee Serial, Temple is a violent piece of pulp fiction, Last Crusade is a 1930's Hollywood adventure film, and Kingdom is a 50's b film.
Saturday matinee serials = "pulp fiction" and Hollywood made adventure B-flicks, too. While I do understand what you're trying to distinguish, there are traces of all 4 of those elements in every Indy film. Point being, Indiana Jones movies are NOT Bs! They are made from top-notch talent in EVERY area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Jones
Violet & Stoo, I wish you guys would listen before bashing my opinions. KotCS was meant to be a B-movie (I mean "honor" B-movies). Every other version didn't honor them. Frank Darabont's oh-so-loved script felt more like a romantic novel with action than a B-movie. The "Saucer Men" script was B-moviepaloosa. So logically one would concur that David's script is the best.
Well, please re-read because in no way was I bashing your opinion. Merely bringing attention to the distinction between Indy flicks vs. B-flicks. "Skull" had splashy premieres in Cannes, New York and L.A. in complete contrast to a B which was the OTHER movie at a double feature. (The last double feature I remember was at the drive-in and do you know what the B roll was?..."Gremlins"!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JP Jones
The reason it's so hated IMO is because it's 2009 and B-movies were popular in the 50s.
Can't we all just respect the guy?
Again, it appears you don't fully understand the definition of a B-movie and don't take what I'm saying as disrespect to Koepp because I've never bashed him and, quite frankly, don't give a toss WHO wrote the final script!
Saturday matinee serials = "pulp fiction" and Hollywood made adventure B-flicks, too. While I do understand what you're trying to distinguish, there are traces of all 4 of those elements in every Indy film. Point being, Indiana Jones movies are NOT Bs! They are made from top-notch talent in EVERY area.
Well, please re-read because in no way was I bashing your opinion. Merely bringing attention to the distinction between Indy flicks vs. B-flicks. "Skull" had splashy premieres in Cannes, New York and L.A. in complete contrast to a B which was the OTHER movie at a double feature. (The last double feature I remember was at the drive-in and do you know what the B roll was?..."Gremlins"!)
Again, it appears you don't fully understand the definition of a B-movie and don't take what I'm saying as disrespect to Koepp because I've never bashed him and, quite frankly, don't give a toss WHO wrote the final script!
You're right, the Indy films are not essentially b movies themselves, but they are tributes to past escapist entertainment. And let me explain what I meant when I described each film. While a saturday matinee serial can certainly be linked to pulp fiction, I meant to say the Raiders definitely felt more like a cliffhanger serial rather than something out a comic book while Temple of Doom is certainly more like a violent pulp fiction comic book. I mean, I don't think anybody can deny that the violence in Raiders is certainly more realistic and gritty than the violence found in Temple of Doom. When I said that Last Crusade was more like a Hollywood adventure film, I didn't mean to imply that Hollywood didn't create b films, but that Last Crusade feels less like a serial or pulp fiction and instead resembles films more like some of the more big budget adventure films that Warner Brothers produced, I think this is mostly due to the fact that Last Crusade had a far more deeper story-line and less emphasis on violence. Also Last Crusade feels more like a Hollywood epic, mostly due to a stronger feeling of majesty than the other three films. Let me conclude by saying that Raiders feels like it was produced by Republic Serials, Temple of Doom feels like a violent comic book, Last Crusade feels like it was directed by John Huston, and Kingdom feels like it was directed by George Pál.
Last edited by avidfilmbuff : 11-01-2009 at 12:02 AM.
Location: Neuchâtel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 6,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff
Also Last Crusade feels more like a Hollywood epic, mostly due to a stronger feeling of majesty than the other three films. Let me conclude by saying that Raiders feels like it was produced by Republic Serials, Temple of Doom feels like a violent comic book, Last Crusade feels like it was directed by John Huston, and Kingdom feels like it was directed by George Pál.
Hmmm...This is getting waaaay off-topic but I'll have to disagree with you on "Doom" and "Crusade". ToD is Indy-meets-Gunga Din, which was a big-budget, well-made, Hollwood production starring 3 MAJOR actors (and based on a Kipling poem) with NUMEROUS nods to Republic serials. On the same hand, "Crusade" was a re-hash of "Raiders" with several scenes inspired by Republic, etc. (Many examples can be used to back up that claim.)
Hmmm...This is getting waaaay off-topic but I'll have to disagree with you on "Doom" and "Crusade". ToD is Indy-meets-Gunga Din, which was a big-budget, well-made, Hollwood production starring 3 MAJOR actors (and based on a Kipling poem) with NUMEROUS nods to Republic serials. On the same hand, "Crusade" was a re-hash of "Raiders" with several scenes inspired by Republic, etc. (Many examples can be used to back up that claim.)
You're right, I forgot about Gunga Din. It's true, the story of that film is inspired by a big budget Hollywood film, but I still feel that the tone of Temple of Doom is not really like a big budget Hollywood film, even though the script may have inspired by one. I must strongly disagree with you on Last Crusade. Although I will admit that each Indy film contains elements of another Indy film, the face melting scene was definitely pulp-like, the zeppelin turning around does feel like a cliffhanger serial, and the elephant trek feels like something out of a David Lean film. But I stand by my previous statements.
). 
)
