I still like it!

[Rocket Surgeon]

I still like animal crackers too, but if I choose the cookie I want to eat it's a homemade Oatmeal Chocolate Chip cookie.

Oh yeah, and Raiders is the really good cookie, and Skull is the vanilla cracker toothless babies gnaw on to ease their pain.

Bam! With the criticisms of Skull dying down and the babies still whining, it was about time for a good smack to snap you out of your self pity!

 

[Darth Vile]

No, no, no. Just no, man. You are citing a little (and VERY fascinating if you ask me) incongruence as if it was an actual letdown for the plot credibility. BUT IT IS NOT. There are similar details in all of the first three films, and in almost all adventure films in general for what I know, but that IS part of the charm. After all, it is still highly speculated that ancient civilizations may have obtained levels of technology that are so much superior, so enormously different from our consolidated knowledge to be almost impossible for us to understand.
Obviousely, it's clear that a booby trap so advanced as to sense light variations IS a little too much. But that DOES NOT constitute a plot hole. That DOES NOT cause a film to sink down. And in any case there is a big difference between chosing some logical/factual plot-holes to DRIVE the story of a film, and using some little and forgivable incongruences just to create some atmosphere.

As often happens, you are comparing things that simply doesn't stand in the same category just for the sake of defending the un-defendable. And you perfectly know it, also, since you are not stupid at all.

To conclude. Has it occured to you that the problem does not lie in fact that the staircase defies belief, but moreso in the fact that the staircase itself should have been already activated, and so no more functional, at the moment of Indy's arrival??

Hmmm... I'll have to disagree. I think you are so caught up in your own enjoyment/respect of one movie, that it's distorted your view and your perspective has been massively compromised.

The retracting staircase may very well be the least well executed booby trap in the Indy franchise (IMHO - Raiders was the only movie that got it spot on)... but I don't believe there are any plot holes in the retracting staircase scene per se, or any impossible requirement of "willing suspense of disbelief", that doesn't/can't be applied to the other three movies. The retracting staircase scene falls a little flat not because of an ill-conceived premise or flawed logic, but simply because... 1) Booby traps are all a bit passé/old hat now. 2) Spielberg clearly doesn't give the scene any real sense of momentum. It's treated more as an aside, and therefore, feels largely redundant.

I could pick holes in TOD and TLC all day. Believe me, when I saw TOD for the fist time I was massively disappointed too. But with a bit of perspective and emotional growth, I now see little purpose (apart from the fun of it on boards such as this) in constantly questioning/challenging the logic of those who put the "on" switch to the spike room on the INSIDE of the trap. Your argument is bordering on the "my dad's better than your dad" routine.

 

[James]

the logic of those who put the "on" switch to the spike room on the INSIDE of the trap.

LOL...good point.

I'm not sure why Orellana's acquisition of the skull was such an issue. Is it really that much of a stretch to assume he encountered the alien outside the pyramid? The art department created elaborate Ugha paintings which suggested as much.

Of course, in the tradition of the Indy series, these were inexplicably left on the cutting room floor. It's not unlike Indy's periscope ride, Imam's warnings about the Ark, or Shorty learning the secret of the black sleep of Kali.

 

[Hatayster]

As for me, I can't help but liking it. I'm always seeing all the negative fan thoughts about the film on the net but their words doesn't sway my opinion, I still very much enjoy KOTCS.

Of course parts of it are a tad more "cartoonish" than the earlier three films in the series, but still; it's a fun film with lots of action and humor and the "cartoonish" moments doesn't bother me or extracts points from the movie in my opinion.

 

[Cole]

Hmmm... I'll have to disagree. I think you are so caught up in your own enjoyment/respect of one movie, that it's distorted your view and your perspective has been massively compromised.

The retracting staircase may very well be the least well executed booby trap in the Indy franchise (IMHO - Raiders was the only movie that got it spot on)... but I don't believe there are any plot holes in the retracting staircase scene per se, or any impossible requirement of "willing suspense of disbelief", that doesn't/can't be applied to the other three movies. The retracting staircase scene falls a little flat not because of an ill-conceived premise or flawed logic, but simply because... 1) Booby traps are all a bit passé/old hat now. 2) Spielberg clearly doesn't give the scene any real sense of momentum. It's treated more as an aside, and therefore, feels largely redundant.

I could pick holes in TOD and TLC all day. Believe me, when I saw TOD for the fist time I was massively disappointed too. But with a bit of perspective and emotional growth, I now see little purpose (apart from the fun of it on boards such as this) in constantly questioning/challenging the logic of those who put the "on" switch to the spike room on the INSIDE of the trap. Your argument is bordering on the "my dad's better than your dad" routine.

Ah, the retracting staircase.

The idea itself is cool. If there is a "problem" with it per se........it's probably how do you end it in a satisfying fashion? Indy finding a way to stop the mechanism? Ehhh, we've been there done that before.

Personally I think it's a cool idea, it provides for an exciting little moment and that's what it's meant to do.

Also, lets think outside the box and think of its function. Is it meant to kill? I don't think so - they WANT whoever has the skull to return it. Perhaps it just allows for one or a few people to pass into the temple, and that's it.

I'm certainly not saying it's one of the greatest Indy moments or something - and I think that's maybe what people are expecting? I don't know. It seems to be judged very harshly instead of enjoying it for what it is. Just my opinon.

 

[IndyJr]

After a year I have watched KOTCS several times, about ten. I have read may of the posts here and elsewhere. I have tried to understand the perspective of those who don't like it. That said, I still can't not like KOTCS. I still see a fun IJ adventure. I have tried but just can't find the flaws that so many others claim to have seen, or at the very least let the flaws bring the whole movie down as other have. If that were the case I'd have to break down the other IJ films and maybe they wouldn't seem as good as I like to remember.

I agree!
I believe that other fans who disliked it, expected too much from it.

 

[The Drifter]

I agree!
I believe that other fans who disliked it, expected too much from it.

Oh, good Lord!
Please, don't start this again!

 

[avidfilmbuff]

I don't believe that people despised the film because they expected too much from it, I believe they merely misunderstood it. Many people forget that the core basis of the Indy films is that they pay tribute to the escapist entertainments of the past. For example, Raiders is a Saturday Matinee Serial, Temple is pulp fiction, and Crusade is a 1930's Hollywood blockbuster. I don't believe anybody expected for an Indy film to pay homage to 50's b films. So when people saw the b movies homages in Crystal Skull they either went, "hmm, this is weird." Or they had an extremely violent reaction to it. In fact, a lot of people, both who disliked and liked it, didn't even notice the homages. Look at the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, they either say, "this is a disappointing film," or "this is a very fun movie." No mention of the 50's b movie homages whatsoever. So, in my opinion, it wasn't high expectations that ruined Crystal Skull for most people, people just didn't understand it.

 

[IndyJr]

I don't believe that people despised the film because they expected too much from it, I believe they merely misunderstood it. Many people forget that the core basis of the Indy films is that they pay tribute to the escapist entertainments of the past. For example, Raiders is a Saturday Matinee Serial, Temple is pulp fiction, and Crusade is a 1930's Hollywood blockbuster. I don't believe anybody expected for an Indy film to pay homage to 50's b films. So when people saw the b movies homages in Crystal Skull they either went, "hmm, this is weird." Or they had an extremely violent reaction to it. In fact, a lot of people, both who disliked and liked it, didn't even notice the homages. Look at the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, they either say, "this is a disappointing film," or "this is a very fun movie." No mention of the 50's b movie homages whatsoever. So, in my opinion, it wasn't high expectations that ruined Crystal Skull for most people, people just didn't understand it.

You have a fair point there.

 

[DocWhiskey]

Bingo, avid.

You hit the nail on the head, at least in the way I see it.