StoneTriple
New member
Udvarnoky said:
For those who really didn't like it...
- Thread starter fedoraboy
- Start date
DocWhiskey
Well-known member
KOTCS is decent. I don't understand how people say it's one of the worst movies ever made. Seriously? One of the worst movies ever? Please. You had high hopes and it let you down. That doesn't make it the worst movie ever made.
If this movie ruined the previous Indiana Jones films for you then you're one sad little individual.
Seriously. Get laid.
If this movie ruined the previous Indiana Jones films for you then you're one sad little individual.
Seriously. Get laid.
The Stranger
Member
It's not the fact that it "ruined" the first three... absolutely... they STILL ARE among the best action adventure movies EVER, and possibly some of the best entertainment movies of all time. But...
... I sadly can't deny that NOW, after the disaster that "Kingdom" was (because it WAS. Sure, not the worst movie in history, but DEFINITELY the worst I've gone to the theater for in a long time. And by far the most disappointing.), I can't help but see the first three with slightly different eyes.
And that's because now, whenever I think about Indiana Jones in general, I am suddenly reminded of how bad that fourth film was, and how deeply I felt "offended" right after having seen it.
Maybe it's just me, yes, but I've sincerely started to lose my interests towards the Indy franchise thanks to "Crystal Skull".
Well, I've never been one of those real-hardcore-fan maniacs, to tell the truth. I don't own any Indy books, haven't got a leather jacket and a fedora hat in my wardrobe, I don't have a collection of Indy-related toys and I don't freakin' know by memory everything regarding the Indy universe.
But undoubtly I have been a fan of the films. A great fan of those films.
I really thought they constituted the best film saga of all time, before the advent of that soul-less commercial blockbuster garbage that "Kingdom" was.
Before "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", there was no "Star Wars", no "Back to the Future", no "James Bond 007", no "Lord of the Rings", no "Die Hard", no "Rambo", NOTHING, there was nothing that could merely stand in comparison to the Indy film trilogy, because those three films, globally, were FAR better. Every other film saga had big low points. The Indiana Jones saga, instead, was almost the synthesis of perfection. It didn't have any weakness, 'cause to me all of the first three films were absolutely GREAT.
But now, very simply, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" came to mine that perfection, and whenever I happen to think about that I sort of get nervous because I am a fan. That's the true pain in the a*s. The fact that it altered my perceptions.
P.S.
And, sorry for those who can't really see it, but, wake up... the "Star Wars" prequels were far better than "Indiana Jones 4". All of them. REALLY. At least they had a story, you know...
... I sadly can't deny that NOW, after the disaster that "Kingdom" was (because it WAS. Sure, not the worst movie in history, but DEFINITELY the worst I've gone to the theater for in a long time. And by far the most disappointing.), I can't help but see the first three with slightly different eyes.
And that's because now, whenever I think about Indiana Jones in general, I am suddenly reminded of how bad that fourth film was, and how deeply I felt "offended" right after having seen it.
Maybe it's just me, yes, but I've sincerely started to lose my interests towards the Indy franchise thanks to "Crystal Skull".
Well, I've never been one of those real-hardcore-fan maniacs, to tell the truth. I don't own any Indy books, haven't got a leather jacket and a fedora hat in my wardrobe, I don't have a collection of Indy-related toys and I don't freakin' know by memory everything regarding the Indy universe.
But undoubtly I have been a fan of the films. A great fan of those films.
I really thought they constituted the best film saga of all time, before the advent of that soul-less commercial blockbuster garbage that "Kingdom" was.
Before "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", there was no "Star Wars", no "Back to the Future", no "James Bond 007", no "Lord of the Rings", no "Die Hard", no "Rambo", NOTHING, there was nothing that could merely stand in comparison to the Indy film trilogy, because those three films, globally, were FAR better. Every other film saga had big low points. The Indiana Jones saga, instead, was almost the synthesis of perfection. It didn't have any weakness, 'cause to me all of the first three films were absolutely GREAT.
But now, very simply, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" came to mine that perfection, and whenever I happen to think about that I sort of get nervous because I am a fan. That's the true pain in the a*s. The fact that it altered my perceptions.
P.S.
And, sorry for those who can't really see it, but, wake up... the "Star Wars" prequels were far better than "Indiana Jones 4". All of them. REALLY. At least they had a story, you know...
Dr.Jonesy
Well-known member
Ok Stranger,
You take it too far and act as if your opinion is fact and that fans who think Indy 4 is great and better than the SW prequels need to "Wake up".
Wake up?
Maybe you need to wake up and see that your opinion is not a fact and that people who like KOTCS aren't asleep or delusional.
You take it too far and act as if your opinion is fact and that fans who think Indy 4 is great and better than the SW prequels need to "Wake up".
Wake up?
Maybe you need to wake up and see that your opinion is not a fact and that people who like KOTCS aren't asleep or delusional.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
The Stranger said:
I understand your feelings, I had similar thoughts, but after I fould myself smiling at the clever bits, and shrugging off the crap. I would say I wasn't offended, merely dissappointed by some aspects of the story...I never thought of ToD and LC as flawless either and although great fun, never perfect! It's true that CS tends to alter perceptions, it's out there it always will be, but none of them had the same impact as Raiders. When a movie takes itself seriously it's more immersive. Batman begins was a saving grace for all that franchise had become. Batman and Robin make it difficult for me to entertain the thought of even the Tim Burton stuff. I find it very easy to ignore them.
Revenge of the Sith was pretty good, but theother prequels were long winded and weak. Crystal Skull, even though I love her so started to get weak when Marion arrived, (not because of her).
I hear ya though...
Lance Quazar
Well-known member
The Stranger said:It's not the fact that it "ruined" the first three... absolutely... they STILL ARE among the best action adventure movies EVER, and possibly some of the best entertainment movies of all time. But...
... I sadly can't deny that NOW, after the disaster that "Kingdom" was (because it WAS. Sure, not the worst movie in history, but DEFINITELY the worst I've gone to the theater for in a long time. And by far the most disappointing.), I can't help but see the first three with slightly different eyes.
And that's because now, whenever I think about Indiana Jones in general, I am suddenly reminded of how bad that fourth film was, and how deeply I felt "offended" right after having seen it.
Maybe it's just me, yes, but I've sincerely started to lose my interests towards the Indy franchise thanks to "Crystal Skull".
Well, I've never been one of those real-hardcore-fan maniacs, to tell the truth. I don't own any Indy books, haven't got a leather jacket and a fedora hat in my wardrobe, I don't have a collection of Indy-related toys and I don't freakin' know by memory everything regarding the Indy universe.
But undoubtly I have been a fan of the films. A great fan of those films.
I really thought they constituted the best film saga of all time, before the advent of that soul-less commercial blockbuster garbage that "Kingdom" was.
Before "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", there was no "Star Wars", no "Back to the Future", no "James Bond 007", no "Lord of the Rings", no "Die Hard", no "Rambo", NOTHING, there was nothing that could merely stand in comparison to the Indy film trilogy, because those three films, globally, were FAR better. Every other film saga had big low points. The Indiana Jones saga, instead, was almost the synthesis of perfection. It didn't have any weakness, 'cause to me all of the first three films were absolutely GREAT.
But now, very simply, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" came to mine that perfection, and whenever I happen to think about that I sort of get nervous because I am a fan. That's the true pain in the a*s. The fact that it altered my perceptions.
It really is amazing how every great franchise eventually screws things up.
Star Wars had Phantom Menace.
Spider-Man 3 was atrocious.
Matrix sequels blew.
Pirates of the Caribbean sequels blew.
Schumacher obliterated the original Batman franchise.
Superman III and IV were embarrassments.
Bond has had many highs and lows over the years.
Die Hard IV was weak.
Harry Potter films started out badly, but have gotten better.
While I think the Temple of Doom and Crusade each have some flaws, the Indy franchise definitely was the most consistent and entertaining - a cut above all of the above compromised franchises that managed to hold onto its dignity and integrity and keep us entertained...
...until now.
Sigh.
Dr. Gonzo
New member
That has always been the danger with sequels. They are expected to live up to the original. There are too many of them nowadays. Just do us all a favor you major studios and lets stop being the decade of sequels and prequels and start cranking out some good old fashioned originals.
Darth Vile
New member
I have trouble with anyone using such emotive language, as interpretation should be contextualized.
Anybody who believes that KOTCS was a "disaster? or believes Raiders, TOD and TLC to be "perfect" cinema, really needs to get out and see more movies. Indiana Jones movies are the bubblegum of cinema? great production, great fun? but ultimately designed to be consumed and disposed of (albeit with some enjoyment in the middle). As much as I enjoy them, and as much as I enjoy discussing their individual merits, I would never try and pass off an Indy movie as being more important than it actually is i.e. populist, well crafted mass entertainment.
Within context, trying to argue the higher artistic morale ground between one Indy movie and another, is like trying to argue an artistic case for a picture post card from Blackpool being better than one from Brighton. Indeed, to take it to the next level, many serious exponents of cinema/art, may feel that if one has a predilection for Indiana Jones movies (and that genre), then that should/would exclude one from the artistic debate entirely.
Anybody who believes that KOTCS was a "disaster? or believes Raiders, TOD and TLC to be "perfect" cinema, really needs to get out and see more movies. Indiana Jones movies are the bubblegum of cinema? great production, great fun? but ultimately designed to be consumed and disposed of (albeit with some enjoyment in the middle). As much as I enjoy them, and as much as I enjoy discussing their individual merits, I would never try and pass off an Indy movie as being more important than it actually is i.e. populist, well crafted mass entertainment.
Within context, trying to argue the higher artistic morale ground between one Indy movie and another, is like trying to argue an artistic case for a picture post card from Blackpool being better than one from Brighton. Indeed, to take it to the next level, many serious exponents of cinema/art, may feel that if one has a predilection for Indiana Jones movies (and that genre), then that should/would exclude one from the artistic debate entirely.
So in a nutshell you're saying the artistic qualities between films of the same genre cannot be debated, and that anyone who would dare to do so while admitting a predilection for Indiana Jones movies (a mortal sin that is thankfully rare among us bipartisan scholars of art) should not be taken seriously.
Kind of an elitist post, really.
Kind of an elitist post, really.
StoneTriple
New member
Darth Vile said:
That's what's most amusing to me with all the serious "this Indiana Jones film is real, this Indiana Jones film isn't" discussions. They're all made by the same team, same actors, have reoccurring themes, several reoccurring characters, a few reoccurring locations, same musical themes, all have comedy, seriousness, realism, fantasy, impossibility, etc. All four films are two hours of comic book escapism. All four are one continuing story.
However, to hear some people discuss Raiders, Temple, Crusade, & Kingdom, you'd think they were comparing Citizen Kane, The Ten Commandments, Midnight Cowboy, and Cool Hand Luke. They're seeing differences that just aren't there.
I'd be willing to bet that Lucas & Spielberg would be first among those serious exponents. I very much doubt they see the four Indiana Jones films as anything other than what they created them to be - fun adventure escapism. They’re not even remotely as dark as THX 1138 or as serious as Saving Private Ryan – two films worthy of lengthy cerebral discussions.
Oh, and for the record – Blackpool is a better postcard.
WrathofGod
New member
Yes, it would be wrong to compare them, they're tonally identical.
brookystreet
New member
Darth Vile said:
The first one
But about 4 or 5 months later, the second one
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
StoneTriple said:
I believe the TWO BIG detractors to ToD LC KotCS, (and I must say ToD, LC and KotCS had great moments) is the absence of Norman Reynolds and Lawrence Kazdan.
For me their contributions were just as important as Ford, Williams, or Speilberg.
Without his art direction, without the humanity and character development of his snappy scripts they leave almost as much to be desired as Ralph McQuarrie's absence on the prequels.
StoneTriple
New member
QFTRocket Surgeon said:
Misquoted by our latest troll.
StoneTriple said:
And that is ultimately how the films will end up being judged. They will be no different from Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes series (14 films!), Powell and Loy's Thin Man, or Weissmuller's Tarzan. Each have their ups and downs, but still maintain the reputation of a quality franchise.
But it's silly to pretend that the Indy trilogy was always considered the best. Anyone who grew up in the 80s or 90s knows that to be untrue, since TOD and LC always had their critics. You can just as easily find those who regard Back To The Future or Mad Max as the "perfect" 80s trilogy- despite each having a divisive entry (ie. BTTF 2; Beyond Thunderdome).
In recent years, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Jason Bourne have all featured in quality franchises. Other action heroes that spring to mind are The Man With No Name, John Shaft, and Dirty Harry. Even John McClane maintains a pretty impressive streak. Live Free or Die Hard may have split the fanboys, but it was still as critically and commercially successful as the previous entries.
Dr.Jonesy
Well-known member
StoneTriple said:
Just ignore him for now, StoneTriple. It'll only get worse if you don't.
He's got the mods on his ass for now, anyway
And seriously, I hope the hate goes away. I'm sick of defending this film. Indiana Jones films are kinda like Bic Razors; made for mass consumption and eventually disposable. And some people just don't get that, sometimes.
There is no real or fake Indy film. If some put LC or TOD under the same microscope they do with KOTCS, you'd see that there isn't much difference in content.
Let's just hope that time is good to our film.
Darth Vile
New member
Udvarnoky said:
Elitist? Strange comment from someone who seems so convinced that others with contrary views are wrong.
I play the game... and I take part in discussions like this because (9 times out of 10), they are fun and enjoyable (and revolve around a fictional character I have an emotional connection to)... but I would never take seriously some of the arguments had around Indiana Jones. I’d certainly have my tongue firmly planted in my cheek when articulating what makes TLC so “great”. I hope for your sanity you do too.
Please believe me when I say that, IMHO, it's impossible to take seriously a debate around whether or not Mola Ram has more “edge” than Spalko… or whether Sankara Stones are more believable than Crystal Skulls. Fun? yes. Serious? Nope. When you take a step back, it’s quite ridiculous really i.e. adults arguing the artistic merits of Indiana Jones…
The bottom line is that I have a predilection for Indiana Jones movies because, along with Luke Skywalker, he was my childhood fictional hero. Do I think the movies are great? For personal reasons, yes I do. Do I like talking about them with like-minded folk? Sad as it may be - yes I do. Do I really believe the movies are cinematically/historically significant? Not really no. I probably see a dozen movies a year that I think are better artistic achievements/better constructed than Raiders. Is that wrong of me? Should Indiana Jones be everyone's barometer of cinematic quality???
So for me, when I see people trying to argue the supposed gulf in quality between Indy movies e.g. dialogue or characterization/character development, I can't help but be reminded of drunken friends who try and argue why belching should be an Olympic event. So ultimately, one should have fun with the debates/discussions, but one should never take them seriously.
StoneTriple
New member
The above post from DV should be the Mission Statement for this board.
Well put, sir.
Well put, sir.