An individual, If it's his work, if he's the decision-maker? I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging the flaws. It's an insight into the creative process that I consider valuable and interesting. It also shows humility.
Sometimes it can also be unfair to the fans, their co-workers, and can be seen as unprofessional.
Sometimes it can also be unfair to the fans, their co-workers, and can be seen as unprofessional.
Plus I think it's kinda unprofessional to throw a well respected actor under the bus too.
When Shia mentioned Harrison it was kind of like; "Err...don't yell at me! *Points* He thought it sucked too!!"
There's a difference between acknowledging flaws and berating the entire product. Shia still is an actor that has to pursue work. And as an employer, would you want to hire an employee who has a history of publicly bad mouthing their former boss and company?
I can guarantee you, you wouldn't.
Personally, I believe Shia was sincere in some part but was more-so trying to gain more respect from internet fanboys with those comments. I know he reads the internet and IMDb, so he probably would think Indy IV was one of the worst received sequels ever made even if it wasn't.
I think if you were a director and had a direct hand in the OVERALL product, you may critique your work, then that's fine. Because the criticism falls on you and you wouldn't have a boss being pissed to worry about. Film distributors only worry about money, and if you pull in the big bucks, you're wanted no matter if you're selling a polished sculpture of bovine feces or Casablanca.
But as an actor berating the overall product of which he had no affect on is un-ethical. He has to worry about the higher boss. He has to worry about getting work. And what he said about his performance was fine, but he went on to throw Harrison under the bus and then critique the overall product based on Spielberg's direction. That was un-professional. A conversation like that should've stayed behind closed doors.
Really, though, who cares what South Park says, or if people take its opinions as justification for their own. It's nice to see one's self as part of a community of believers, whether it's religious or regional or artistic or whatever, but there's usually something to be said for those who don't belong. Try to see the reasons and impulses behind something like South Park's view point, but if you just can't make that leap, consider leaving it aside. Looks like you'd be a lot happier.
...
And I don't see anything wrong with critiquing the film, or wishing elements of it were otherwise than they are, while still liking it overall. Honestly, I see a lot right with it.
Here at The Raven whenever somebody says they "hate" KOTCS there are a number of opponents who take offence.
Why take offence?
Another's "hate" shouldn't detract from one's "love", especially when the object in question is a pulp movie.
Those who "love" the movie will claim that "haters" shouldn't "bash" it.
It's like the movie is a religious artifact that cannot be questioned. There's nothing wrong with critiquing a movie, as long as the critique actually has some substance and reasoning behind it.
As Attila wrote, "there's usually something to be said for those who don't belong". I see that as standing on the outside looking in, seeing both sides, and not blinded to a single path. In KOTCS there are some things I love and some things I hate. The total of love/hate = like.
Like most movies KOTCS is a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. The perfect film is a rarity, even an impossible Holy Grail. Somebody's bound to hate it.
Film critics often have an agenda. They like to grab headlines, and appear to try and create or match popular trends. A powerful critic can second-guess public reaction and make that reaction seem to be the generally accepted one. Shows like South Park also do the same. They go for shock, and it's easier to get a laugh from making fun of something than it is from worshipping it.
I'm not a fan of South Park. My cartoon preferences lie with Family Guy, who approach these subjects a little differently. For example, Seth MacFarlane is constantly making fun of Star Wars. Yet he is also a big Star Wars fan. His comedy is a form of honouring the iconic status of the Star Wars series.
Likewise, actors in movies are free to express their feelings about the movies they appear in. If that wasn't the case all we're left with is denial and the brick wall of supreme confidence dictated by marketing concerns. That is, all that bull that actors say to the press when their films are just about to come out. The proof of the pudding only emerges when an individual goes to see it, and makes their own judgement, regardless of the judgement of others, lest we all drift around like sheep in search of the greenest grass.
Sometimes it can also be unfair to the fans, their co-workers, and can be seen as unprofessional.
To the fans? Now that I just don't see. Because they're saying that they don't like something that the audience does? They're all allowed to retain their own aesthetic judgment, but, again, the view of those involved is in many respects more interesting, if not necessarily more valid, than that of a general observer. Do i want to hear where Spielberg sees these films fitting into his body of work, why Temple of Doom is something he's not proud of? Yes. Even if I disagree, it's illuminating information. I don't need him to agree with me.
But I'm really not talking about the Shia case, other than to say that buck-passing is not something that I'd advocate for. I'm not defending him anymore than you are. (I think, as you suggest, that there's something to be said for his words about his own fault in the matter.) And was it fair for him to drag Harrison Ford into it? Obviously not. That's up for him to say. But does Shia get to say, "yeah, I wish I had sold some of my performance a bit better?" I see no reason why not.
And this is worth hearing twice:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
Likewise, actors in movies are free to express their feelings about the movies they appear in. If that wasn't the case all we're left with is denial and the brick wall of supreme confidence dictated by marketing concerns. That is, all that bull that actors say to the press when their films are just about to come out. The proof of the pudding only emerges when an individual goes to see it, and makes their own judgement, regardless of the judgement of others, lest we all drift around like sheep in search of the greenest grass.
Here at The Raven whenever somebody says they "hate" KOTCS there are a number of opponents who take offence.
Why take offence?
Another's "hate" shouldn't detract from one's "love", especially when the object in question is a pulp movie.
Those who "love" the movie will claim that "haters" shouldn't "bash" it.
It's like the movie is a religious artifact that cannot be questioned. There's nothing wrong with critiquing a movie, as long as the critique actually has some substance and reasoning behind it.
As Attila wrote, "there's usually something to be said for those who don't belong". I see that as standing on the outside looking in, seeing both sides, and not blinded to a single path. In KOTCS there are some things I love and some things I hate. The total of love/hate = like.
Like most movies KOTCS is a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. The perfect film is a rarity, even an impossible Holy Grail. Somebody's bound to hate it.
Film critics often have an agenda. They like to grab headlines, and appear to try and create or match popular trends. A powerful critic can second-guess public reaction and make that reaction seem to be the generally accepted one. Shows like South Park also do the same. They go for shock, and it's easier to get a laugh from making fun of something than it is from worshipping it.
I'm not a fan of South Park. My cartoon preferences lie with Family Guy, who approach these subjects a little differently. For example, Seth MacFarlane is constantly making fun of Star Wars. Yet he is also a big Star Wars fan. His comedy is a form of honouring the iconic status of the Star Wars series.
Likewise, actors in movies are free to express their feelings about the movies they appear in. If that wasn't the case all we're left with is denial and the brick wall of supreme confidence dictated by marketing concerns. That is, all that bull that actors say to the press when their films are just about to come out. The proof of the pudding only emerges when an individual goes to see it, and makes their own judgement, regardless of the judgement of others, lest we all drift around like sheep in search of the greenest grass.
Good post Montana... I don't think it's all cut & dried/black and white as "lovers" and "haters", but I agree with your sentiments.
Do i want to hear where Spielberg sees these films fitting into his body of work, why Temple of Doom is something he's not proud of? Yes. Even if I disagree, it's illuminating information. I don't need him to agree with me.
Yes. If it's a film I'm really interested in, I want to hear everything there is by those involved in making it. I do want to hear the good, the bad, and the ugly (and you may guess from my second use of those words today, I'm currently really getting stoked by Sergio Leone's stylish movies). I like to listen intently to film-makers commentaries on DVDs, I want to know what they really feel about their work, not just listen to them praising themselves. I like it when an director says a certain actor was hell to work with, rather than listen to them say "he was a darling man". With honesty comes respect, and artists of all kinds rarely feel they've achieved perfection.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
And this is worth hearing twice:
Thanks, Attila.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Good post Montana... I don't think it's all cut & dried/black and white as "lovers" and "haters", but I agree with your sentiments.
Thanks, Darth.
That's why I find myself sitting in the middle in the "like" category.
Here at The Raven whenever somebody says they "hate" KOTCS there are a number of opponents who take offence.
Why take offence?
Another's "hate" shouldn't detract from one's "love", especially when the object in question is a pulp movie.
Those who "love" the movie will claim that "haters" shouldn't "bash" it.
To echo the others, fine post. But the answer is quite simple. Crystal Skull has introduced Indiana Jones to a new generation of fans and they define Indy on terms of a superhero, so as they become members of the Raven they are destined to lock horns with the old timers with a blind passion of a young heart AND mind, in the case of the inexperienced and the young understanding will come in time and more likely after a few bumps and bruises.
With that said, Crystal Skull was huge disappointment.
To echo the others, fine post. But the answer is quite simple. Crystal Skull has introduced Indiana Jones to a new generation of fans and they define Indy on terms of a superhero, so as they become members of the Raven they are destined to lock horns with the old timers with a blind passion of a young heart AND mind, in the case of the inexperienced and the young understanding will come in time and more likely after a few bumps and bruises.
With that said, Crystal Skull was huge disappointment.
Yes, there would have been a weight of expectation when news first broke that Indy IV was going into production. Back then I wasn't bothered about seeing Indy come back. However, I got around to seeing KOTCS, and it wasn't as terrible as I'd expected it would be. Nowhere near perfect, yet not as bad as it could have been. Now I'm feeling the weight of expectation for Indy V, because the potential for something better is there.
The media, which thrives on division and controversy, will drive in a wedge anywhere they can find a crack in popular culture, and they'll attempt to pry it open until it becomes fair game for mockery. It's not necessarily their true opinion, or the opinion of a majority, but it's what they do. So for those that love the movie, they shouldn't take it as a personal attack. Nobody should be really able to take away how you actually feel about a film, a book, a piece of art, or a piece of music.
Indiana Jones has entered the collective consciousness, and we all have different ideas about what he means, and with each successive movie there is more opportunity for the character to grow further away from our own expectations.
To the fans? Now that I just don't see. Because they're saying that they don't like something that the audience does? They're all allowed to retain their own aesthetic judgment, but, again, the view of those involved is in many respects more interesting, if not necessarily more valid, than that of a general observer. Do i want to hear where Spielberg sees these films fitting into his body of work, why Temple of Doom is something he's not proud of? Yes. Even if I disagree, it's illuminating information. I don't need him to agree with me.
But I'm really not talking about the Shia case, other than to say that buck-passing is not something that I'd advocate for. I'm not defending him anymore than you are. (I think, as you suggest, that there's something to be said for his words about his own fault in the matter.) And was it fair for him to drag Harrison Ford into it? Obviously not. That's up for him to say. But does Shia get to say, "yeah, I wish I had sold some of my performance a bit better?" I see no reason why not.
And this is worth hearing twice:
I think directors, actors, whoever can still provide interesting and unique insight without bashing their own movie.
Why I think it can be disrespectful to the fans? You pay money to see it, and if you like it, you have something of an emotional investment in it.
I'm not saying it should change your opinion of the film.........but it can be disheartening when a filmmaker/actor tries to "disown" their work. It kinda cheapens it. Hence, unfair to the fans. You know? You sign on to do it, you do your best - stand by it.
Besides, artists aren't always the best judges of their own work - they should just leave that to others.
I think we could at least agree they should eloquently choose their words. Not EVERY situation is the same either.
I think directors, actors, whoever can still provide interesting and unique insight without bashing their own movie.
You and I agree. I just think that we might have different standards for what constitutes bashing.
I've got this friend. She's worked with me on a number of the plays I've directed and been in. She is incapable of allowing me to engage in any sort of self-critique, be it artistic or otherwise. I can't stand this tendency. Call me a navel-gazer, but I think self-critique is one of the most valuable things we have. To quote Last Crusade script doctor Tom Stoppard, "if knowledge isn't self-knowledge, it isn't doing much, mate."
I'm not positing this as a hard and fast rule, largely because there are gradations of validity and thoughtfulness that come into any such judgments. Have you ever spent some time reading interviews with writers, actors, or directors? I'm talking real interviews, not just "what are you working on now and what funny things have happened to you lately?" kinds of things (which I enjoy, but aren't that informative). Just a simple assessment as "I think I was more successful with this work than that one" or "the critics weren't wild about this, but I think it's one of the films I stand by most" can speak volumes. Woody Allen can't stand Manhattan, which is pretty universally regarded as one of his best, and I agree with that consensus. He hasn't quite said why, but it's a fascinating question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Why I think it can be disrespectful to the fans? You pay money to see it, and if you like it, you have something of an emotional investment in it.
I'm not saying it should change your opinion of the film.........but it can be disheartening when a filmmaker/actor tries to "disown" their work. It kinda cheapens it.
Maybe you and I have different approaches to this sort of thing, then. Be disheartened if you like, but I take it as an opportunity for insight and reflection on a work that I regard highly, and try to get a grasp for its nuances and some of its implications that I might not have spent any time on. It's like that book that classifies Raiders and the rest of the 1980s Indy movies as Reaganite entertainment, ultimately violent and jingoistic. On the whole, I think it's wrong, but there's truth in that - certain facets of Temple of Doom spring to mind. And that's just if I'm in a thoughtful mood; I'm also perfectly willing to just say, "hey, I think it's entertaining. It's not great art, and it doesn't have to be. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of it in the least."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Besides, artists aren't always the best judges of their own work - they should just leave that to others.
No single group has a monopoly on aesthetic judgment, neither artists nor critics nor the man in the street. I definitely want the artists included in the conversation though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
I think we could at least agree they should eloquently choose their words.
Sure, though coupled with the recognition that things can come off quite differently in print than they might have been intended verbally, and that we say many things when put on the spot that might not have as much thought going into them as we'd like.
To echo the others, fine post. But the answer is quite simple. Crystal Skull has introduced Indiana Jones to a new generation of fans and they define Indy on terms of a superhero, so as they become members of the Raven they are destined to lock horns with the old timers with a blind passion of a young heart AND mind, in the case of the inexperienced and the young understanding will come in time and more likely after a few bumps and bruises.
With that said, Crystal Skull was huge disappointment.
I don't think anybody is defining Indy as a superhero.
It's not like the younger generation who saw the film was not familiar with Indiana Jones......I'm sure the vast majority was already familiar with the first 3 films. 'Crystal Skull' was simply the first opportunity to see a brand new Indy film in the theater, which is what makes it particularly special to me.
So I don't think there's some generational battle going on. I have to laugh at people who saw the films released in the 80's and think their opinion is somehow more entitled and that they know the character better.
You and I agree. I just think that we might have different standards for what constitutes bashing.
I've got this friend. She's worked with me on a number of the plays I've directed and been in. She is incapable of allowing me to engage in any sort of self-critique, be it artistic or otherwise. I can't stand this tendency. Call me a navel-gazer, but I think self-critique is one of the most valuable things we have. To quote Last Crusade script doctor Tom Stoppard, "if knowledge isn't self-knowledge, it isn't doing much, mate."
I'm not positing this as a hard and fast rule, largely because there are gradations of validity and thoughtfulness that come into any such judgments. Have you ever spent some time reading interviews with writers, actors, or directors? I'm talking real interviews, not just "what are you working on now and what funny things have happened to you lately?" kinds of things (which I enjoy, but aren't that informative). Just a simple assessment as "I think I was more successful with this work than that one" or "the critics weren't wild about this, but I think it's one of the films I stand by most" can speak volumes. Woody Allen can't stand Manhattan, which is pretty universally regarded as one of his best, and I agree with that consensus. He hasn't quite said why, but it's a fascinating question.
Maybe you and I have different approaches to this sort of thing, then. Be disheartened if you like, but I take it as an opportunity for insight and reflection on a work that I regard highly, and try to get a grasp for its nuances and some of its implications that I might not have spent any time on. It's like that book that classifies Raiders and the rest of the 1980s Indy movies as Reaganite entertainment, ultimately violent and jingoistic. On the whole, I think it's wrong, but there's truth in that - certain facets of Temple of Doom spring to mind. And that's just if I'm in a thoughtful mood; I'm also perfectly willing to just say, "hey, I think it's entertaining. It's not great art, and it doesn't have to be. This doesn't affect my enjoyment of it in the least."
No single group has a monopoly on aesthetic judgment, neither artists nor critics nor the man in the street. I definitely want the artists included in the conversation though.
Sure, though coupled with the recognition that things can come off quite differently in print than they might have been intended verbally, and that we say many things when put on the spot that might not have as much thought going into them as we'd like.
Indeed.
I think self-critique is a must - not just for art, but all facets of life.
But if you try your hardest at something and you believe in what you're doing.......you can critique it in some sense, but I think you should still be behind it. It's more noble to stand behind it, rather than try to disown it when opinion turns (eh hem, Shia and Raimi).
Multi-million dollar movies in the public eye are a very unique and different kind of animal.
When asked what he thought of the movie, Harrison Ford said he's got two heads or something - and one knows when to shut up. Probably because he knows his comments are going to be dissected, analyzed, exaggerated and any critique is gonna headline every major media outlet. Kind of like the Shia thing.
I don't think anybody is defining Indy as a superhero.
It's not like the younger generation who saw the film was not familiar with Indiana Jones......I'm sure the vast majority was already familiar with the first 3 films. 'Crystal Skull' was simply the first opportunity to see a brand new Indy film in the theater, which is what makes it particularly special to me.
So I don't think there's some generational battle going on. I have to laugh at people who saw the films released in the 80's and think their opinion is somehow more entitled and that they know the character better.
Not better or worse, just different.
Indy HAS become a Super Hero. Like it or not the generation who saw the originals in the theater had a different experience to those who have just seen Crystal Skull. Time doesn't Necessarily equal a better understanding, but I'm sure for those old timers who spend time here at The Raven, it does.
I laugh when a headstrong newcomer can't handle contrary opinions.
Indy HAS become a Super Hero. Like it or not the generation who saw the originals in the theater had a different experience to those who have just seen Crystal Skull. Time doesn't Necessarily equal a better understanding, but I'm sure for those old timers who spend time here at The Raven, it does.
I laugh when a headstrong newcomer can't handle contrary opinions.
I don't think there's some generational battle going on. I have to laugh at people who saw the films released in the 80's and think their opinion is somehow more entitled and that they know the character better.
I don't think there's a generational battle going on, but I do think there are fundamental differences between older fans and younger fans. Those differences may sometimes come across as a battle.
I saw the films in their theatrical releases. While I don't know the character better than newer fans, I certainly have a much different insight into the character & the passage of time he struggles with in the film. When I saw Kingdom, I felt a different kind of connection and appreciation for the character.
There are quite a few younger fans here who - no matter how much they want to imagine it - simply cannot possibly understand aging to the extent that our hero has. When I saw him struggling with things or reacting differently, I understood it. I don't want the same character that I saw when I was sitting in the theater in 1981 - because I'm not the kid I was back then.
Many of the younger fans around here, who grew up with a video 3-pack, saw Kingdom and reacted with "he's slower, he didn't shoot anyone", etc. My reaction was - yeah, the years have been brutal and life is starting to take things away. My criticisms of the film have nothing to do with the character - they nailed it. My criticisms are minor things that I would have done differently (Tarzan, showing ship fully, etc). They have nothing to do with me having been on board since the beginning.
My life experiences are much different than yours Cole, that's why I don't "have to laugh at people who" don't view the character the way I do. They'll get where I am one day - and things will make much more sense to them.
.
.
.
Last edited by StoneTriple : 07-09-2010 at 05:00 PM.
I don't think there's a generational battle going on, but I do think there are fundamental differences between older fans and younger fans. Those differences may sometimes come across as a battle.
I saw the films in their theatrical releases. While I don't know the character better than newer fans, I certainly have a much different insight into the character & the passage of time he struggles with in the film. When I saw Kingdom, I felt a different kind of connection and appreciation for the character.
There are quite a few younger fans here who - no matter how much they want to imagine it - simply cannot possibly understand aging to the extent that our hero has. When I saw him struggling with things or reacting differently, I understood it. I don't want the same character that I saw when I was sitting in the theater in 1981 - because I'm not the kid I was back then.
Many of the younger fans around here, who grew up with a video 3-pack, saw Kingdom and reacted with "he's slower, he didn't shoot anyone", etc. My reaction was - yeah, the years have been brutal and life is starting to take things away. My criticisms of the film have nothing to do with the character - they nailed it. My criticisms are minor things that I would have done differently (Tarzan, showing ship fully, etc). They have nothing to do with me having been on board since the beginning.
My life experiences are much different than yours Cole, that's why I don't "have to laugh at people who" don't view the character the way I do. They'll get where I am one day - and things will make much more sense to them.
.
.
.
Well-said......I still appreciated those aspects. I think they work particularly well because Indy always has been a distinctly human character (not a superhero). And humans age and loved ones die - it's part of life. So I did appreciate that angle, even if not everyone did.
And yet you're the one that has his panties in a bunch over the fact that not everyone likes your ****ty beloved movie?
I've never really had you say anything to me, but do you ever try to be somewhat diplomatic/nice or at least agreeable? To me it seems like you just try to piss people off. I'm actually surprised you're not banned or at least suspended yet.
He may have his panties in a bunch for something unreasonable, but discussing the public perception of this film is important to us fans of the entire series. I don't think Cole saying you guys sound like old men was in good taste, but you really look like a jerk by responding with profanity and snarkiness. You shouldn't feel he's worth replying to, so next time simply "Let it go..."
I really am surprised that you haven't been banned or suspended for your attitude towards other posters. I hardly believe I, Cole or Montanna could get away with half the crap you do and say. The Mods/Bouncers would've thrown us out of the Raven like a couple of drunks playing quarters.
You have to remember you are on the section for Indy IV, and this board contains the most whiners on here; whether it be haters who cry about the movie or people who cry that the film wasn't recieved in the manner they'd have liked. So if this isn't what you want to hear then don't let the door hit ya.
I've never really had you say anything to me, but do you ever try to be somewhat diplomatic/nice or at least agreeable? To me it seems like you just try to piss people off. I'm actually surprised you're not banned or at least suspended yet.
He may have his panties in a bunch for something unreasonable, but discussing the public perception of this film is important to us fans of the entire series. I don't think Cole saying you guys sound like old men was in good taste, but you really look like a jerk by responding with profanity and snarkiness. You shouldn't feel he's worth replying to, so next time simply "Let it go..."
I really am surprised that you haven't been banned or suspended for your attitude towards other posters. I hardly believe I, Cole or Montanna could get away with half the crap you do and say. The Mods/Bouncers would've thrown us out of the Raven like a couple of drunks playing quarters.
You have to remember you are on the section for Indy IV, and this board contains the most whiners on here; whether it be haters who cry about the movie or people who cry that the film wasn't recieved in the manner they'd have liked. So if this isn't what you want to hear then don't let the door hit ya.
I can't believe you haven't been banned. I can't believe you haven't been banned. I can't believe you haven't been banned. I can't believe you haven't been banned.
Uhm... congratulations?
I implore you to put me on your ignore list if you find my own brand of wit and bile so distasteful. Though I really don't care how you perceive me or how flabbergasted you are by my presence here.
I have nothing more to say on the matter, so I'll leave you to your indignation.
ResidentAlien has been suspended before. He's gotten plenty of attention from the upkeep, don't you worry.
But as you say, Dr. Jonesy (nice name, by the way - big fan of Winstone's performance here), this is the Indy IV table. So let's not discuss the membership, but rather the movie.
***
I think StoneTriple is quite right that original viewing plays a role in how we respond to the films. My earliest memory of Indy is the tank chase in Last Crusade. I more or less saw the original 3 all at once, and never saw any in theaters prior to Crystal Skull. Now, I had read the novelization and played the graphic adventure for Last Crusade, so I naturally knew it somewhat better than the other two. I've only in the past year or so come around to the belief that Raiders is the superior film, even though there's a lot of depth in Last Crusade that I appreciate.
So I grew up with Indy. I don't view them as perfect films, but they are a part of my childhood. However, when Crystal Skull came out, I was past the point of them being my favorite films - I watch them once or twice a year, if that, even with the time I spend at the Raven. I'm just not an action movie guy, by and large.
There's a very particular world that's been created in that trilogy, one that varies from film to film and that certainly departs from our own, but is rooted enough in it to have all the points of contextual contact to make it interesting to me. (Hence why I've never gotten in Star Wars or any other science fiction or fantasy all that much.) I also feel like I've come to understand a fair amount about film and storytelling in general in that time, as that's more or less what I spend my time doing and thinking about.
So I agree with StoneTriple - even though I haven't lived through seeing the films in the 1980s, which is to say, even though I haven't lived a life even approaching the length of Indy's, the character changes did resonate with me. I do think that Sharkey has a point, that he has become less physically vulnerable over time, and has had an entire superhero-like mythology added onto him as time has worn on, but the characterization was pretty on.
And then there's the stuff that doesn't fit in, that probably ought to have been done differently. I have no interest in recuts of any kind, but knowing things that were originally planned (the Soviets threatening to run Mac over with a jeep, Mutt falling through the floor in the burial chamber) or character development that was originally going to be fuller (a lot of stuff with Mac, that killer line of dialogue that was to be in the scene between Indy and Stanforth) or thinking of things that appear to me to be missed opportunities (a better snake gag using the skull, perhaps, or fuller usage of the jungle cutter) or just bizarre inclusions (monkeys, prairie dogs) or performances/dialogue that I was left unimpressed with (the return of Marion) are all interesting elements to leave on the table of things to discuss. It's not so much monday morning quarterbacking as it is assessment of the work by considering alternate forms in which it might have existed.
All of which is to say - we all come at these things differently. By this I mean fans of various ages and background experiences, critics of various proclivities, and, of course, artists themselves. The question of validity is entirely apart from the question of presentation. Some perspectives probably do matter more than others, or are at least more worth consideration. Let's not let the way things are said by those in the public sphere affect too much what we think of what they're saying. Even if Shia or Raimi were just trying to cover their own asses, it's not as though stubbornness is an unknown commodity in Hollywood, or as though that immediately discounts a world in which their words can be taken at face value as sincere. The hot new thing isn't going to stand up to Steven Spielberg that much, but might regret it later. The comic book franchise director probably is going to run into a maddening level of studio interference. There are many ways folks find to act ignobly, and if Shia and Raimi really wanted to stand by their works, they surely could have found other means.
...the character changes did resonate with me. I do think that Sharkey has a point, that he has become less physically vulnerable over time, and has had an entire superhero-like mythology added onto him as time has worn on, but the characterization was pretty on.
I never thought of Indy as a superhero, and even resisted the temptation to assign that trait to him in KOTCS. I like the idea that across the four films he is a constant (though naturally evolving) character.
My solution to the issue of Indy's virtual invulnerability in KOTCS is simply to view his life as protected by supernatural good luck, which has been the protector of pulp heroes since they emerged into our culture.
It's necessary that the hero (or anti-hero) survives, despite huge odds. They always evade the fatal hail of bullets, occasionally taking a hit to a non-vital area. They bleed, they bruise, they suffer, but they always have to survive. It's in the very essence of the cliffhanger and the serial hero.
In ROTLA there are numerous occasions where luck plays a most important role in his survival - even luck more than his own skill in combat. Luck combined with precognitive intuition has been the saviour of many a pulp protagonist.
KOTCS threatens to stretch the formula by making the cliffhangers even greater, more deadly, and therefore requiring a sequence of luck elements. The fridge in Doomtown presupposes that Indy finds it in time, it's lead-lined and very strong, the blast carries it clear of the danger area, Indy is packed so tightly inside that he fridge absorbs the impact on his behalf when it lands.
That's a lot of "ifs". Primarily it's a moment of pure fun, of playing with the cliffhanger genre and '50s culture. Each event in isolation is possible, though unlikely. Each event in sequence is possible, though extremely unlikely. Only a pulp hero could manage to call on that much luck.
Not only that but we also have to believe that the tree lowers the DUKW safely down to the water, and that it and it's passengers survive every waterfall.
It's all in the realm of possibility in Indy's world. He's survived these kinds of dangers before, but not on this scale.
It's then the scale of the cliffhangers which is stretching our imagination, not, as I see it, any change in Indy's character, which is the very thing that carries the movie.
In ROTLA we accept that Indy is dragged over rough terrain behind a truck without serious injury or damage to his clothes. In KOTCS we have to accept the same unlikelihood, but just on a bigger scale.
Personally, I can accept the cliffhangers in KOTCS, but I would rather they weren't quite so extreme. Just as there are the little inclusions of the monkeys, the snake and the sandpit, and the underuse of some of the more interesting characters.
KOTCS missed the mark, but there's still too much good in it to allow me to hate it. There are some great moments, great visuals, great music, and even some subtle touches. Yet, they sit uncomfortably with some of the pumped-up cliffhangers, and some of the more child-like, revisionist sensibilities that have crept into Lucas' work.
In ROTLA we accept that Indy is dragged over rough terrain behind a truck without serious injury or damage to his clothes. In KOTCS we have to accept the same unlikelihood, but just on a bigger scale.
Scale is the key word. Skull was off the charts. I can enjoy the film in a certain manner, but I have to agree, they made Indy into some superhero. Sorry to say, there was no tension in the film. You can go into a haunted house at a fair or a carnival knowing full well things will pop out at you and still be scared. Crystal Skull achieved no equal. It was full of promise and developed SOME themes but delivered on none.
Indy was invulnerable, sad to say. The Dovecheko fight(s) were the only time you felt he was challenged and even they couldn't carry the film.
Good stuff Montana. I do have a slightly different view of your points, however.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
My solution to the issue of Indy's virtual invulnerability in KOTCS is simply to view his life as protected by supernatural good luck...
... Each event in isolation is possible, though unlikely. Each event in sequence is possible, though extremely unlikely. Only a pulp hero could manage to call on that much luck.
But hasn't that always been the case with Indy? He's been a pulp hero from the very beginning. A much more believable pulp hero early on, but still a pulp hero none the less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
It's all in the realm of possibility in Indy's world. He's survived these kinds of dangers before, but not on this scale.
In ROTLA we accept that Indy is dragged over rough terrain behind a truck without serious injury or damage to his clothes. In KOTCS we have to accept the same unlikelihood, but just on a bigger scale.
I think the scale has always been the same. The presentation in Raiders was less over-the-top, but being strapped to the periscope of a sub for about 500 miles is every bit as silly, it's just not in your face roller coaster silly. As far as "on a bigger scale", we were treated to that almost as soon as Temple got up to speed. Crusade had it's share as well, they just came across as silly, more than preposterous.
That supernatural good luck has been Indy's companion since 1981. I would agree, however, that they leaned on it a bit more in Kingdom.
