Indy 4 - Who's most at blame?

[AtomicAge]

I too agree with the first part. However to play Devils Advocate Doug and Darth, are films and for that matter albums truly subjective.

For example, I'm not over keen on The Lord of the Rings, but it is highly regarded. I cant therefore say I think its rubbish, I understand that its a classic trilogy but its not for me. Beatles Revolver is a classic but I dont want to listen to it.

Also if fims are just subjective, what is the point of the Oscars. By definition they are rewardeing excellent work, but if its just subjective and not based in fact whats the point? They should have the winner for the most subjective film!

I would say religion is subjective, your favourite football team is subjective, but would I say the quality of a film or music album is quite as subjective?? Clearly you can like what you want but that doesnt mean what you like is necessary quality.....my football team for example.

I think that is partly the point we are making. I don't particularly enjoy the films of Oliver Stone, but to say that they are rubbish would not only be wrong, it would be the height of egotism. Just because something isn't my cup of tea, doesn't mean that it is bad film and doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't enjoy it.

I'm not particularly a fan of the Oscars because they are mostly about politics rather than what is actually a good film. For instance if you go back and look at the Best Picture winners over the years, a fairly large percentage of them are forgotten films. For example 1933, the year that King Kong was released the best picture winner was a film called Cavalcade. You've probably never heard of it nor seen it.

Also there is a difference between a film that isn't your cup of tea, and just a really bad movie such as Manos: The Hands of Fate.

Doug

 

[Kingsley]

When I try to look on the original three films in an objective light, without the heightening effect nostalgia has, and look on Crystal Skull in an objective light, without the lessening effect 19 years of expectation brings, I think Crystal Skull is the weakest, but only by a margin.

If Raiders is a 9.5/10, Temple and Crusade are each 8/10, then Crystal Skull is 7.5/10.

I partially agree, nostalgia helps the older ones to stand up against Kotcs... but I'm not so sure time will help Kotcs in a similar way.

It's is the weakest of the series, by a larger margin... maybe a 6.5/10 against an 8/10 from TOD (the third in my list).

Surely it's entertainig, and technically (some CGI's aside) outstanding. But it isn't as clever as the other ones... it's plain and dilluted and lacks those wonderful and imaginative details... specially the second half of the movie.

Can I blame someone? No. It's not my movie, I'm only an Indy fan. But I still have a feeling they missed a chance.

 

[Stoo]

For instance if you go back and look at the Best Picture winners over the years, a fairly large percentage of them are forgotten films. For example 1933, the year that King Kong was released the best picture winner was a film called Cavalcade. You've probably never heard of it nor seen it.

Forgotten by most but not all. I actually have "Cavalcade", if only for the fact that there are scenes featuring the C.I.V.
(City of London Imperial Volunteers) embarking/returning from the Boer War. Very good film but, as you say, forgotten and unknown.
Being the Kong freak that I am (and anyone else for that matter), it's easy to see the shortcomings of "King Kong" and appreciate
it's greatness at the same time. So you make a notable point about the legacy of a B flick-turned-classic/cultural phenomenon
vs. Best Picture-Oscar-winner.

Who's to blame, the question is? Can you imagine the whining if the internet existed when of "Son of Kong" was released?
In the case of Indy IV, why bother finger-pointing for a scapegoat? There is no one guilty person/party to single out.
If you didn't like it, you didn't like it but remember this: "Son of Kong" has always been readily available on home video
but "Cavalcade" was the opposite and very difficult to track down (pre-internet).

 

[AtomicAge]

Forgotten by most but not all. I actually have "Cavalcade", if only for the fact that there are scenes featuring the C.I.V.
(City of London Imperial Volunteers) embarking/returning from the Boer War. Very good film but, as you say, forgotten and unknown.
Being the Kong freak that I am (and anyone else for that matter), it's easy to see the shortcomings of "King Kong" and appreciate
it's greatness at the same time. So you make a notable point about the legacy of a B flick-turned-classic/cultural phenomenon
vs. Best Picture-Oscar-winner.

Who's to blame, the question is? Can you imagine the whining if the internet existed when of "Son of Kong" was released?
In the case of Indy IV, why bother finger-pointing for a scapegoat? There is no one guilty person/party to single out.
If you didn't like it, you didn't like it but remember this: "Son of Kong" has always been readily available on home video
but "Cavalcade" was the opposite and very difficult to track down (pre-internet).

Touche.

However I wasn't attempting to evaluate the merits of the film, or any film having won Best Picture. However I think if I were to go down the list of Best Picture winners, more than half of them would be films the most people had never heard of. Even the winners from the last 20 years or so.

I'm not suggesting that the oscars should be a popularity contest, however when for instance in 1983 when Gandhi won for Best Cinematography, and Blade Runner isn't even nominated. Now Gandhi is a beautiful film, but Blade Runner was pushing the limits of the art, and to not even be nominated is a crime.

Admittedly my problems with the academy are a result of having worked in the industry and see the political nonsense first hand.

Doug

 

[deckard24]

The problem with this argument is that if most people really didn't like the movie, it would likely have topped out at around $200 million world wide. The fact that it has made almost $800 million means that people were going to back to see it a second and third time. People don't go back to see movies they don't like, the low box office of the late 80s Bond films is a testament to that.

Doug

Doug, there had to be a good deal of repeat viewings for KOTCS to hit $317 million domestic and $783 million worldwide, but nowhere near as many as say POTC: DMC or The Dark Knight had! A huge portion of KOTCS's gross was made in the very early days of the release, with it staying fairly steady then dropping consistently. If you look at this chart, KOTCS made it's bulk($300 million domestic) in the first 6 weeks, then only made $17 million more over the next 14 weeks! In my opinion those first 3-4 weeks were the big opening crowds and families, and the next 2 weeks after that were the older crowds who skipped out on the initial insanity. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=indianajones4.htm

Do people go back to see movies they don't like, not usually, but they do go back to movies that are so-so ie. POTC: DMC! Pirates 2 received terrible word of mouth and lousy reviews, but it still entertained when it needed to, and was part of a popular film series like KOTCS. That alone was enough for repeat viewings. The Dark Knight on the other hand received amazing reviews and word of mouth, and just look at the monster box office haul for that film, $526 million domestic and $980 million worldwide! All-in-all audience reaction seems to have moderate impact if a big hit series or nostalgia is concerned!

 

[emtiem]

I partially agree, nostalgia helps the older ones to stand up against Kotcs... but I'm not so sure time will help Kotcs in a similar way.

It's is the weakest of the series, by a larger margin... maybe a 6.5/10 against an 8/10 from TOD (the third in my list).

Surely it's entertainig, and technically (some CGI's aside) outstanding. But it isn't as clever as the other ones... it's plain and dilluted and lacks those wonderful and imaginative details... specially the second half of the movie.

Can I blame someone? No. It's not my movie, I'm only an Indy fan. But I still have a feeling they missed a chance.

Completely agree with everything you've said there; but it didn't stop me enjoying it. It could have been better, but I still found it enjoyable.

Do people go back to see movies they don't like, not usually, but they do go back to movies that are so-so ie. POTC: DMC! Pirates 2 received terrible word of mouth and lousy reviews, but it still entertained when it needed to, and was part of a popular film series like KOTCS. That alone was enough for repeat viewings. The Dark Knight on the other hand received amazing reviews and word of mouth, and just look at the monster box office haul for that film, $526 million domestic and $980 million worldwide! All-in-all audience reaction seems to have moderate impact if a big hit series or nostalgia is concerned!

He wasn't talking about the quality of the film; whether it was 'so-so' or not- just that people enjoyed it. People enjoyed POTC2 too.
And Batman is part of a hit series and has a lot of nostalgia attached, so isn't really the ideal film to pitch against Indy there to prove that it's all nostalgia and not quality.

Personally I'd much rather see Skull again than Dark Knight: Indy's fun, bright and the right length and Bats is tortuous, overlong and repetative.

 

[Darth Vile]

Completely agree with everything you've said there; but it didn't stop me enjoying it. It could have been better, but I still found it enjoyable.



He wasn't talking about the quality of the film; whether it was 'so-so' or not- just that people enjoyed it. People enjoyed POTC2 too.
And Batman is part of a hit series and has a lot of nostalgia attached, so isn't really the ideal film to pitch against Indy there to prove that it's all nostalgia and not quality.

Personally I'd much rather see Skull again than Dark Knight: Indy's fun, bright and the right length and Bats is tortuous, overlong and repetative.

I agree with that alright...

 

[deckard24]

He wasn't talking about the quality of the film; whether it was 'so-so' or not- just that people enjoyed it. People enjoyed POTC2 too.
And Batman is part of a hit series and has a lot of nostalgia attached, so isn't really the ideal film to pitch against Indy there to prove that it's all nostalgia and not quality.

Personally I'd much rather see Skull again than Dark Knight: Indy's fun, bright and the right length and Bats is tortuous, overlong and repetative.

Yeah I got that! That's why I said people returned again and again to see it, because it was entertaining, even if it was a so-so movie like POTC: DMC!

As for films like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Superman, and Batman there is definitely an element of nostalgia involved as well as popularity in pop culture! Whereas films like the Pirates series, Spiderman, Shrek, Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings, etc... all have a huge following due predominantly to their pop cultural prominence! With the exception of one or two of the films from each of these series, the rest of the films are so-so in quality! For every Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Empire Strikes Back, The Fellowship of the Ring, and The Dark Knight, you have a Spiderman 3, Shrek 3, Batman and Robin, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men's Chest, Superman IV: the Quest for Peace, and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull! Even so, people will return to the theaters due to the popularity of the film series and or nostalgia! Not to mention, some of these films have a to-be-continued motif that is sure to bring back viewers!

Nostalgia, word of mouth, to-be-continued film series, popular characters or films from pop culture, as well as quality, can all play a role in a film's success in one way shape or form!

As for seeing KOTCS again instead of The Dark Knight, I can understand why! Its lighter tone, faster pace, and mindless entertainment factor makes it much easier for repeat viewings, as opposed to an epic, bleak, morality tale/crime drama!

 

[The Man]

Personally I'd much rather see Skull again than Dark Knight: Indy's fun, bright and the right length and Bats is tortuous, overlong and repetetive.

I agree with that alright...

"Why don't you gimme a call when you wanna start taking things a little...more...seriously..?"

 

[IndyJess]

Here's what Harrison Ford thought of Crystal Skull:
I take offense that this movie blows. Sure, I am old and can't act to save my life, but I got paid , and isn't that what it is all about. Show me the money?..
Karen Allen was never hot even in her prime, but so what. she was almost hot in Animal House about 20 years ago.
The kid that played my son was dynamite in Transformers, my movie would have been better if Megan Fox had been in it?.
Oh well?.
Maybe Han Solo can come back as a senile warrior in another Star Wars remake to make up for the dud in this movie?.
Yes, you can survive a nuclear bomb in a refrigerator, just ask all those deformed survivors from Hiroshima?..
Anyone can sword fight between 2 moving cars???
You just need training??
Tons of people have survived 3 waterfalls, yet still managed to hold on to the steering wheel with no visible injuries?..

 

[deckard24]

Here's what Harrison Ford thought of Crystal Skull:
I take offense that this movie blows. Sure, I am old and can't act to save my life, but I got paid , and isn't that what it is all about. Show me the money?..
Karen Allen was never hot even in her prime, but so what. she was almost hot in Animal House about 20 years ago.
The kid that played my son was dynamite in Transformers, my movie would have been better if Megan Fox had been in it?.
Oh well?.
Maybe Han Solo can come back as a senile warrior in another Star Wars remake to make up for the dud in this movie?.
Yes, you can survive a nuclear bomb in a refrigerator, just ask all those deformed survivors from Hiroshima?..
Anyone can sword fight between 2 moving cars???
You just need training??
Tons of people have survived 3 waterfalls, yet still managed to hold on to the steering wheel with no visible injuries?..

LOL!!

 

[IndyJess]

What did others think of the 40 year age difference between Indy and his son Mutt?

 

[AtomicAge]

Doug, there had to be a good deal of repeat viewings for KOTCS to hit $317 million domestic and $783 million worldwide, but nowhere near as many as say POTC: DMC or The Dark Knight had! A huge portion of KOTCS's gross was made in the very early days of the release, with it staying fairly steady then dropping consistently. If you look at this chart, KOTCS made it's bulk($300 million domestic) in the first 6 weeks, then only made $17 million more over the next 14 weeks! In my opinion those first 3-4 weeks were the big opening crowds and families, and the next 2 weeks after that were the older crowds who skipped out on the initial insanity. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=indianajones4.htm

Do people go back to see movies they don't like, not usually, but they do go back to movies that are so-so ie. POTC: DMC! Pirates 2 received terrible word of mouth and lousy reviews, but it still entertained when it needed to, and was part of a popular film series like KOTCS. That alone was enough for repeat viewings. The Dark Knight on the other hand received amazing reviews and word of mouth, and just look at the monster box office haul for that film, $526 million domestic and $980 million worldwide! All-in-all audience reaction seems to have moderate impact if a big hit series or nostalgia is concerned!

So what you are saying is that actually far more people saw Indy 4 than saw The Dark Knight, as that film was just the same people seeing the film over and over again. Considering that The Dark Knight only made about $200 million more than Indy 4.

I have no doubt that The Dark Knight had much more repeat viewing, as that is the kind of film, and the kind of fan base that draws that kind of thing.

If Dark Knights box office haul is "monster in a box", then Indy having made only $200 million less must at least be a "monster" hit.

I don't know if its nostalgia or not. Couldn't it simply be that they liked the movie? Just because you didn't doesn't mean that others couldn't have. Most of the people I know who took their families to see it loved the film. And many of those went back to see it again at least once.

I think the people who went back to see Pirates over and over again, particularly the ones that I saw who were dressed in costume, would debate your characterizing those films as so-so.

Doug

 

[Sankara]

@Darth Vile
Fact is:

MOST (not every) reviews of "Raiders" 1981 were "Great!"

MOST reviews (not every) of "Temple" in 1984 were "Not as good as Raiders - but very good!"

MOSTreviews (noz every) of "Crusade" in 1989 were "Great movie! not as good as Raiders. Better than Temple. Very Good!!!"


I hope you got it now...

 

[Major West]

@Darth Vile
Fact is:

MOST (not every) reviews of "Raiders" 1981 were "Great!"

MOST reviews (not every) of "Temple" in 1984 were "Not as good as Raiders - but very good!"

MOSTreviews (noz every) of "Crusade" in 1989 were "Great movie! not as good as Raiders. Better than Temple. Very Good!!!"


I hope you got it now...

And don't forget:

MOST reviews (not every) of "Skull" in 2008 were "Great movie! not as good as Raiders. Better than Temple. Very Good!!!

I hope you got it now...

 

[deckard24]

So what you are saying is that actually far more people saw Indy 4 than saw The Dark Knight, as that film was just the same people seeing the film over and over again. Considering that The Dark Knight only made about $200 million more than Indy 4.

I have no doubt that The Dark Knight had much more repeat viewing, as that is the kind of film, and the kind of fan base that draws that kind of thing.

If Dark Knights box office haul is "monster in a box", then Indy having made only $200 million less must at least be a "monster" hit.

I don't know if its nostalgia or not. Couldn't it simply be that they liked the movie? Just because you didn't doesn't mean that others couldn't have. Most of the people I know who took their families to see it loved the film. And many of those went back to see it again at least once.

I think the people who went back to see Pirates over and over again, particularly the ones that I saw who were dressed in costume, would debate your characterizing those films as so-so.

Doug

Doug

I didn't love KOTCS nor did I hate it, I just felt it was a so-so subpar Indy sequel, and to be honest disappointing! I felt the same about POTCS: DMC, and the exception is The Dark Knight which I thought was terriffic and so did the critics! I don't doubt people liked KOTCS, and I've never said otherwise! If you re-read my post, I said that it was entertaining and that was one of the reasons behind repeat viewings! People like what they like, end of story! That's why moviegoers will pour out in droves to see a film like Wild Hogs, and even if I think it's a crap movie(which it is! ) that doesn't mean other people might not like it!

At the end of the day people will pay to see movies that are critically dubbed subpar or so-so, and that's about it! KOTCS received an overall 77% on Rotten Tomatoes.com, and that is a pretty average grade! When they broke it down and gave the average from the Top Critics, it got a 61%! TOD got a 50% for comparison sake, and LC got a 71% from the top critics, but overall both scored higher with their total averages 84% and 89%. This goes to show the series is not perfect by any means, and all the sequels most definitely have their flaws!

As for how many people saw TDK, I'd say more people saw it then KOTCS, and then there's also the repeat viewers to add to the mix! I don't believe all of TDK's extra $200 million worldwide gross was strictly from repeat viewings, but on an average I'm sure it had more then KOTCS. Also, I wouldn't say TDK's fan base is any different then KOTCS's fan base regarding repeat viewings! In my opinion Indy fans, Star Wars fans, Harry Potter fans, Batman fans, etc.. are all very similar! Some a bit younger, and some a bit more rabid!

 

[Sankara]

@Major West
No, most reviews were "Okay- but not as "Raiders", "Temple" and "Crusade". Crusade was the the much better ending."

Got it? I hope so... you can check out some reviews on imdb.com or rotten tomatoes. According to these pages "Skull" is the worst of the Indy-Movies...

 

[Major West]

@Major West
No, most reviews were "Okay- but not as "Raiders", "Temple" and "Crusade". Crusade was the the much better ending."

Got it? I hope so... you can check out some reviews on imdb.com or rotten tomatoes. According to these pages "Skull" is the worst of the Indy-Movies...

Sorry, I have to strongly disagree with you.

 

[Sankara]

@Major West
In this case: Check out rottentomatoes or imdb.com. Most people think that Skull is the worst Indy Movie.

 

[AtomicAge]

Doug

I didn't love KOTCS nor did I hate it, I just felt it was a so-so subpar Indy sequel, and to be honest disappointing! I felt the same about POTCS: DMC, and the exception is The Dark Knight which I thought was terriffic and so did the critics! I don't doubt people liked KOTCS, and I've never said otherwise! If you re-read my post, I said that it was entertaining and that was one of the reasons behind repeat viewings! People like what they like, end of story! That's why moviegoers will pour out in droves to see a film like Wild Hogs, and even if I think it's a crap movie(which it is! ) that doesn't mean other people might not like it!

At the end of the day people will pay to see movies that are critically dubbed subpar or so-so, and that's about it! KOTCS received an overall 77% on Rotten Tomatoes.com, and that is a pretty average grade! When they broke it down and gave the average from the Top Critics, it got a 61%! TOD got a 50% for comparison sake, and LC got a 71% from the top critics, but overall both scored higher with their total averages 84% and 89%. This goes to show the series is not perfect by any means, and all the sequels most definitely have their flaws!

As for how many people saw TDK, I'd say more people saw it then KOTCS, and then there's also the repeat viewers to add to the mix! I don't believe all of TDK's extra $200 million worldwide gross was strictly from repeat viewings, but on an average I'm sure it had more then KOTCS. Also, I wouldn't say TDK's fan base is any different then KOTCS's fan base regarding repeat viewings! In my opinion Indy fans, Star Wars fans, Harry Potter fans, Batman fans, etc.. are all very similar! Some a bit younger, and some a bit more rabid!

Critic's don't particularly interest me. Most of them are people who would LIKE to be filmmakers, but don't have the talent.

Doug