A theory to the problem with KOTCS

[JediJones]

I don't think this is petty criticism at all. It's a basic rule of drama that it's better for your main character to be taking action rather than just reacting to it or being carried along by it. The Indy in KotCS feels more like he's along for the ride than undertaking a quest on his own,

Reluctance has been a defining aspect of the Indiana Jones character from the beginning. It became more prominent in the Last Crusade though and went even further in Skull. In Raiders we see the reluctant action hero creep up in the fights with the Swordsman and German Mechanic. We see him not revel in victory over his battles, but suffer wearily in pain after them. This was something that helped humanize the Indy character and made people love the movie more than the usual action flick.

My favorite characterization of Indy is that seen in the opening of Raiders and almost all throughout Temple of Doom. He is a real go-getter in most of these scenes, pursuing treasure, fortune and glory of his own free will. In Temple of Doom, he rises to the level of a true hero, going back into the temple to rescue children he doesn't even know, and giving up the treasure he was pursuing at the end to help a poor village. I don't think this film really is as "dark" as people often say, even though it is the most violent Indiana Jones film. It has a very uplifting, positive message and portrays Indiana Jones at his most noble, selfless and heroic.

In Crusade, we see real reluctance began to seep in. After the young Indy intro, he's almost never really interested in searching for anything, not even the grail. He is simply pulled into the quest because he wants to save his father. Even at the end, the only reason he retrieves the Grail is because the Nazis have him kidnapped and force him to. This all seems to be a far cry from the treasure-hunting Indy we knew before. However the father-son relationship does work, and provides decent enough story momentum even though the grail quest just comes off as rehashed Raiders lite.

Skull simply takes this to the next level. Indy is constantly on the defensive. He spends at least half the movie being kidnapped and rekidnapped by the Russians. He's constantly running away from things rather than moving towards something. Like in Crusade, he only finds the skull because of clues that have been calculated by someone else and left for him. He seems to find the temple of Akator completely by accident. The only reason he wants to return the skull and find the aliens in the end is because someone "told him to." You would think this basic lack of character motivation would've raised some red flags with someone at the screenplay level. I agree it is a drain on the movie's storytelling momentum and gives you that feeling when it's over that you didn't get to watch Indy do very much at all, even though he's pretty much onscreen continuously. Unfortunately this lack of character action does make Indy seem older in this film, even though I think Harrison would've had the ability to successfully play him even younger than he was supposed to be here.

 

[Agent Z]

That sword fight on the back of the jeep, with the music...I couldn't stop smiling. It was so awesome, even saying it out loud is fun: Swordfights on the back of speeding jeeps. That alone was better than any scene in Temple.

I love the swordfight, but it's a really silly scene since the choreography is so obvious. The jeeps have to stay at the same speed, never brake, stay the same distance, and the terrain must stay constant as well....just to make it work. I think they stayed with it long enough to sell the absurd....which I loved in the end anyway.

 

[OmegaSeamaster]

You know, KOTCS is not the best Indy movie I"ve seen. And I can think of a few things that were off about it . . . just as I can do the same about the other Indy films.

But so far, I have yet to come across any criticism that doesn't strike me as revelant. Only petty complaints from wannabe critics and petulant fans who want something that doesn't exist . . . perfection.

If you're going to criticize the movie, you can do a hell of a lot better than this.

Well, the last three were as close to perfection as it gets. That's why KOTCS sucked so bad...it was so unlike the other 3 in tone, character and story (thin).

That...and the saucer men from mars.

 

[Legendary Times]

When did I say I had a problem with filmaking? What planet are you on? You're obviously not a true fan if you have no concern for the direction of Indiana Jones. For cryin' out loud! I grew up watching and worshiping Indi films and I'm not about to let this go on like this

You grew up "worshipping Indi films"?

Sure. So how come you don't know how to spell Indy?

Seriously. I mean, c'mon.

 

[FordFan]

For anyone criticizing the alien angle, I challenge you to re-examine the Sankara Stones. They are the weakest artifact in the Indy series, but that movie was so entertaining, it didn't even matter. And many people laugh at the dialogue in KOTCS, re-watch "Temple of Doom". "You betrayed Shiva"? The scene between Willie and Indy where they discuss nocturnal activities? It's silly, but it is damn near sacred to me because I grew up with it.
KOTCS is not as good as the other three, but how many movies are???

 

[Agent Spalko]

I'll take magic rocks over spacemen any day.

 

[MaxPhactor23]

Sounds like petty issues to me. Sorry, but I'm not impressed by the criticism on this board.

We've got an intelligent one here. Character depth? Pssh! Who wants that? A crock of bull! What a waste of time!

*cough*

 

[MaxPhactor23]

I'll take magic rocks over spacemen any day.

Add me to that list. I'd rather a bit more Indiana Jones in my Indiana Jones movies. I'll have occultism, mythology, folklore, the supernatural, legend, and archeology in my Indy. Screw space men!

 

[Silentrascal]

I'll take magic rocks over spacemen any day.

Exactly. We want Indy searching for (which takes up most of the film) the ancient religious artifacts with mysterious powers and fighting off his enemies to get to it. We don't need stupid little green men involved with interdimensional portals and spaceships.

 

[Jones_Happens]

Exactly. We want Indy searching for (which takes up most of the film) the ancient religious artifacts with mysterious powers and fighting off his enemies to get to it. We don't need stupid little green men involved with interdimensional portals and spaceships.

You better be careful before you seriously offend the actor who played the alien. I hear he's being talked about for Golden Globe consideration.

On a more serious note, for some people aliens are religion. There are definitely people who believe (as was suggested in KOTCS) that aliens helped the ancient civilizations to do what they did. I really really did not feel like the alien thing was such a huge detraction from the kinds of things Indy should be looking for.

 

[Goodsport]

Because of Harrison Ford's current age, George Lucas' and Steven Spielberg's long absence from working on an Indiana Jones film and other such factors, any Indy film released in 2008 was likely to turn out the way KotCS did.

The real problem, one that saddens me, is that they waited too long to make the fourth film in this series. So much time had passed in-story (as well as in real life, obviously) between LC and KotCS that we missed out on a large chunk of Indy's on-screen adventuring life - this became painfully obvious when Indy was being grilled by the FBI and during his subsequent reminiscing at home of what eventually happened to his father and to Marcus Brody.

Honestly, I'm actually glad that the fourth film wasn't released amidst the militant political correctness of the early 1990's, particularly in 1991 and especially in 1992, that quite frankly would've diluted the movie (just as I'm also glad that no James Bond film was released during that time). However, the fourth film ideally should've hit theaters around 1994 or 1995 and been set in the late 1930's or early 1940's, with perhaps a fifth one around 1998 or 1999 and been set sometime in the late 1940s or early 1950's.

That way, once the next Indy film after that which would've been hit theaters in 2005-2008 (after Lucas had finished with the Star Wars prequels 1999-2005) wouldn't have felt so estranged from the rest of the series.


-G

 

[deckard24]

Reluctance has been a defining aspect of the Indiana Jones character from the beginning. It became more prominent in the Last Crusade though and went even further in Skull. In Raiders we see the reluctant action hero creep up in the fights with the Swordsman and German Mechanic. We see him not revel in victory over his battles, but suffer wearily in pain after them. This was something that helped humanize the Indy character and made people love the movie more than the usual action flick.

My favorite characterization of Indy is that seen in the opening of Raiders and almost all throughout Temple of Doom. He is a real go-getter in most of these scenes, pursuing treasure, fortune and glory of his own free will. In Temple of Doom, he rises to the level of a true hero, going back into the temple to rescue children he doesn't even know, and giving up the treasure he was pursuing at the end to help a poor village. I don't think this film really is as "dark" as people often say, even though it is the most violent Indiana Jones film. It has a very uplifting, positive message and portrays Indiana Jones at his most noble, selfless and heroic.

In Crusade, we see real reluctance began to seep in. After the young Indy intro, he's almost never really interested in searching for anything, not even the grail. He is simply pulled into the quest because he wants to save his father. Even at the end, the only reason he retrieves the Grail is because the Nazis have him kidnapped and force him to. This all seems to be a far cry from the treasure-hunting Indy we knew before. However the father-son relationship does work, and provides decent enough story momentum even though the grail quest just comes off as rehashed Raiders lite.

Skull simply takes this to the next level. Indy is constantly on the defensive. He spends at least half the movie being kidnapped and rekidnapped by the Russians. He's constantly running away from things rather than moving towards something. Like in Crusade, he only finds the skull because of clues that have been calculated by someone else and left for him. He seems to find the temple of Akator completely by accident. The only reason he wants to return the skull and find the aliens in the end is because someone "told him to." You would think this basic lack of character motivation would've raised some red flags with someone at the screenplay level. I agree it is a drain on the movie's storytelling momentum and gives you that feeling when it's over that you didn't get to watch Indy do very much at all, even though he's pretty much onscreen continuously. Unfortunately this lack of character action does make Indy seem older in this film, even though I think Harrison would've had the ability to successfully play him even younger than he was supposed to be here.

Great post!!

I really enjoyed the film upon repeat viewings, but that doesn't mean I'm blind to its flaws. JediJones really nailed the issue that links both LC and KOTCS together, and that's Indy is not the go-getter he was in Raiders and TOD. I know a lot of people have gripes about TOD, but in my opinion the movies became less adventure serials and more dramatic family and /father/son comedy adventures starting with LC. I don't see the series ever going back to the Casablanca and Treasure of the Sierra Madre feel of Raiders and TOD(even though that film started the trend in a new direction, it still was original unlike LC). If they do continue the series, I'd expect more of the same.


I got a quick question for those who oppose the alien angle: if we didn't actually see the alien or spaceship in KOTCS, would the inference alone of extra-terrestials be okay or would that still be out of realm of Indy?

I personally think if we didn't see the actual CLose Encounters alien or its ship, but instead they disappeared into that swirling vortex, more people would be okay with the alien angle!

 

[torao]

Skull simply takes this to the next level. Indy is constantly on the defensive. He spends at least half the movie being kidnapped and rekidnapped by the Russians.

He's constantly running away from things rather than moving towards something. Like in Crusade, he only finds the skull because of clues that have been calculated by someone else and left for him. He seems to find the temple of Akator completely by accident.

The only reason he wants to return the skull and find the aliens in the end is because someone "told him to." You would think this basic lack of character motivation would've raised some red flags with someone at the screenplay level.

I agree it is a drain on the movie's storytelling momentum and gives you that feeling when it's over that you didn't get to watch Indy do very much at all, even though he's pretty much onscreen continuously. Unfortunately this lack of character action does make Indy seem older in this film, even though I think Harrison would've had the ability to successfully play him even younger than he was supposed to be here.

That's exactly the way I see it. Let me second deckard's statement: Great post!
Your point about how it is somewhat shocking that the lack of anything significant Indy does in the last third wouldn't raise some red flags among those responsible is what bugs me as well.

I mean ...even if you have that concept of a slowly retiring Indy in your mind, I'd imagine that you'd execute that idea with a certain momens illustrating that arc. Like an especially demanding situation Indy would find himself in, maybe one in which he comes closer to death than ever before. Or you'd deal with Indy's and Marion's passionate relationship. ...And thousands of far better ideas.
But in Crystal Skull...there's just nothing happening at all. The last twenty minutes is just manoeuvring five people through set pieces.

If there's one thing I'd hope for in "IndyV" it would be Indy waking up next to the waterfall and the audience realizing with him that the whole third part of Crystal Skull was a bad dream.

 

[lancetoris]

^Um...what? Then what is relevant criticism then? I guess character development and pacing is "petty issues".

Sounds like petty issues to me. Sorry, but I'm not impressed by the criticism on this board.

I agree with Crusade>Raiders on this one...

One of the most disheartening things for me was the lack of character development. It would have been nice to have ONE scene with Indy and Marion alone. Something to help make the wedding sequence work better. Much of it seemed rushed and forced, which I think is a symptom of a pretty disjointed script.

 

[FordFan]

I'll take magic rocks over spacemen any day.

Really? Reaaally?

 

[Darth Vile]

The movies have clearly evolved over the years. The Indiana Jones character of Raiders is perceivably different from that of LC and TOD. This reflects both the change in period and (more fundamentally I think) the change in Ford, Spielberg and Lucas as they have grown older. Moviemaking can?t exist in a vacuum and that?s why KOTCS could never be the same movie as Raiders.

Ultimately - Does this evolution make for a better movie? No, not necessarily. Does it make it an inferior movie? Definitely not. Whilst the concept has grown (or stretched depending on how you look at it), it still adheres to the basic template established in Raiders... and I think it's hard for anyone to demonstrate (apart from pure subjective opinion) with qualitative data what makes TOD/LC any better than KOTCS.