Spielberg Interview = Less Violence In KCS

[weyhoops]

Whether you love the movie or hate it, do you really believe that people could not have the opposite opinion...and that it is worth your time to convince them that their opinion is entirely invalid?

People who hate it: there are lots of people who love it and will still love it in a year and 20 years. This is true.

People who love it: there are lots of people who hate it and will still hate in in a year and 20 years. This is true.

There are a minority of people whose views will soften or even change one way or another.

 

[Peacock's-Eye]

Whether you love the movie or hate it, do you really believe that people could not have the opposite opinion...and that it is worth your time to convince them that their opinion is entirely invalid?

People who hate it: there are lots of people who love it and will still love it in a year and 20 years. This is true.

People who love it: there are lots of people who hate it and will still hate in in a year and 20 years. This is true.

There are a minority of people whose views will soften or even change one way or another.

Can't we all just get along?!??!

Ok, I've said everything I have to say about this movie. Time to move on to other forums. I just got Vol. II of YIJ so I guess I'll be hanging out at the YIJ Forum - and the Literature Forum since I'm working my way through all the books & comics. Have fun, guys!

 

[vf wing]

I have to say i completely agree with Spielberg's take on Jaws, and often wish i hadn't seen it at age 5. Maybe i'm aging in reverse, as i have significantly less aversion to graphic violence now than i did as a youngster. But i still can't watch that shot in the pond where the shark eats that guy. The film had a huge impact on me to say the least and i still regard it as one of the scariest (and greatest) movies of all time.

Few of us can justifiably claim to see things from Spielberg's perspective. My impression is that he is taking more responsibility for what he puts on the screen as time goes by. He hasn't stopped making hard R pictures or anything, and in fact, i think it makes sense from a creative standpoint that as he now has other, more adult projects as an outlet for that sort of thing, he can step back a little on something that, by comparison to a Saving Private Ryan, comes up looking pretty kid-friendly.

That "softening" did seem to extend to Indy himself. But it just made for a nice character beat when Ford delivered the berated look to Shia IMO, one that brings him full circle with his own father.

But, yeah, the softer violence of the latter two films is humorous when viewed from a ratings perspective, as the original two flicks are much harder edged and rated PG.

 

[Darth Vile]

You see, my friend, it is difficult to argue matters of sanity when the other person is so utterly, pathologically deluded towards a movie. Essentially, you believe that Indy 4 is well-plotted, well-constructed, handsomely-designed, finely-written (!!!), witty of humour up: ), consistently entertaining. Have you no gleaning of just how hilarious that is or how such an opinion can utterly kaboom any credibility you may strive to convey? Your clearly no fool, so your individual stance on this is all the more bewildering. There is a limit to the defence of 'personal opinion', beyond which we must work with facts, common sense.

Some advice: a while back, somebody in this forum posted a link to a critical piece over on C.H.U.D. I suggest you seek it out. Three reviewers perform a post-mortem on Crystal Skull. The highest rating it received was 6.5, the lowest 3.0 (oh, don't panic - that's out of ten, not one hundred). Closing this article, one of them writes that anybody who's given this film a good review will regret it in a year. That's the most sensible statement I've read throughout this entire farrago.

Crystal Skull is a turkey right now - all that's being delayed is the plucking.

Let us try and we will change you...

I think you need to re-examine your own posts. I would posit that you are much closer to being pathologically deluded than I. For what it's worth - I think KOTCS is a fine action adventure movie. It's not better than Raiders and is not even the best Indy sequel, but I believe it sits alongside the other sequels quite comfortably. I think that is a very moderate and measured view to take. Wouldn’t you agree? Whereas, your dislike of KOTCS and your general response to the movie seems completely disproportionate. It’s almost like you feel that Spielberg and co have done you a personal disservice in someway and that there is some conspiracy afoot to tarnish the earlier movies… and I just don’t see it.

KOTCS a turkey? All the facts and figures suggest otherwise (no matter how hard you try to deny it)

 

[Peacock's-Eye]

It can't be helped that some of us are non-Americans. Hey, maybe you could add that classification to 'troll', 'hater' and 'gay homosexual'.

I wasn't criticizing you & I also apologized if I offended, please see the above post. I'm also not sure what you are talking about, I have never made disparaging remarks about anyone's presumed sexuality, nor have I actually pinpointed any individuals as Trolls, merely pointed out that they are among us. Hope that helps.

 

[Quickening]

KOTCS a turkey? All the facts and figures suggest otherwise (no matter how hard you try to deny it)

An Indiana Jones film was always going to do well. That proves nothing.

 

[Darth Vile]

An Indiana Jones film was always going to do well. That proves nothing.

So how would you define a turkey then?

By the way... Whilst good box office and positive popular media reviews are ammunition for stating a case, I agree that they do not in themselves define a good movie.

 

[sandiegojones]

An Indiana Jones film was always going to do well. That proves nothing.

That statement is absurd!

Indy films do well for a reason, they're good.

I'm tired if these boards becoming pissing contests! It appears nobody has a big enough d!ck to win so just give up. You either like or don't.

The critical response is good. The box office is solid (both domestic and overseas). The audience response has been very positive. The only ones who are attacking this film are people who's expectations were ridiculously high. Who cares if a couple of douchebags on one little website hate it and feel the need to tear me down. All they're trying to do is rile us up because we enjoyed it. They're trying to suck the fun out of us because it makes them feel better.

I won't let them. This IS a good movie. I love it as much as TOD and LC and there isn't a thing I'd change. I don't let silly things like a friggin movie get my panties in a bunch. KOTCS is fun, has humor, good action and cool sets and yes, CGI. It's how films are made today. Deal with it. If you don't like it, good. Some of you haters a being such A-holes that I'm glad it dissappointed you.

 

[Quickening]

That statement is absurd!

Eh... no. Indiana Jones 4 was one of the most anticipated films of all time. It was always going to be a money maker.

The fact that you get so upset when someone just points out the fact that it was obviously a money-spinner shows that maybe deep down you didn't like the film as much as you want to believe. I mean, I don't care. But if you aren't "getting your panties in a bunch" then Im a Chinaman.

The critical response is good. The box office is solid (both domestic and overseas). The audience response has been very positive. The only ones who are attacking this film are people who's expectations were ridiculously high. Who cares if a couple of douchebags on one little website hate it and feel the need to tear me down. All they're trying to do is rile us up because we enjoyed it. They're trying to suck the fun out of us because it makes them feel better.

Haha! Hate to break this to you, but a hell of a lot of people didn't like this film. I think that even the people who liked it would agree that it has divided the fanbase.

 

[Agent Spalko]

Spucas really have pussed out since they became family men. Phantom Menace felt like a punch to the gut but KOTCS feels like a kick in the balls.

 

[Raider S]

Horse crap to it all! Don't you all realize they dumb down and "kid down" these movies so they can sell all the stupid toys?

That interview is pure hog wash! The guy is 100% about making a buck and the way to do that these days is to sell anything even remotely related to the movie. If you make a film like Raiders today you'd have to town it down so all the soccer moms feel ok buying little Jimmy Indy cereal or the Indy sound fx whip or the Indy toilet paper. Wal Mart is full of Indy trash aimed directly at kids 12 and under.

If the guys who make these films are soooooo concerned about kids being "damaged" by violent images, why the hell aren't they upset forcing mindless consumerism on the impressionable minds?

Riddle me that!

 

[Agent Spalko]

Speaking of consumerism... Lucas' brilliant THX-1138 is a cautionary tale about consumerism with its "Buy more. Buy more now." Orwellian overtones. It's ironic how Spucas have become everything they rebelled against but then so did all of the hypocrite hippies.

 

[MaxPhactor23]

I think you need to re-examine your own posts. I would posit that you are much closer to being pathologically deluded than I. For what it's worth - I think KOTCS is a fine action adventure movie. It's not better than Raiders and is not even the best Indy sequel, but I believe it sits alongside the other sequels quite comfortably. I think that is a very moderate and measured view to take. Wouldn’t you agree? Whereas, your dislike of KOTCS and your general response to the movie seems completely disproportionate. It’s almost like you feel that Spielberg and co have done you a personal disservice in someway and that there is some conspiracy afoot to tarnish the earlier movies… and I just don’t see it.

KOTCS a turkey? All the facts and figures suggest otherwise (no matter how hard you try to deny it)

Hahaha! And many opinions of the film (what really matters) are sub par to downright poor. You’re delusional if you truly feel that how much money this thing made directly displays how they felt about it. Can’t you differentiate between a financial success and a critical success? Crystal Skull was far from unanimously praised. Newsflash: You pay for a movie...to see it. You formulate your opinion after you’ve shelled out the cash. Money has little relevance here. Besides…aren’t you the guy that calls the Star Wars prequel trilogy brilliant? That really puts your mindset into perspective. Hah! You have no room to bash someone else’s film likes and dislikes when claiming the prequels, arguably the most criticized film trilogy in decades, were brilliant. No one should take a fraction of what you have to say seriously. That little Darth Vile factoid especially makes anything you have to say invalid to begin with. So do us a favor and please stop talking. You're not going to change any minds. If you don't want to use yours when viewing a movie then that's your right...but let us use ours.

nor have I actually pinpointed any individuals as Trolls.

Yah that's not accurate at all.

 

[CasualJeff]

So somebody's opinions are automatically invalid because they liked some movies that you didn't? Wow, good job. You are such a cool guy.

Here's the thing: The Star Wars prequel trilogy is debatable. They were big money-makers, but received poor reviews. I loved them, personally(except for Attack of the Clones), but I can see how haters have a legitimate case for calling them "turkeys".

But KotCS? You have NO case, other than the fact that YOU didn't like it. It's made a ton of money, and the critical reception is mostly positive. Not gushing, but positive.

It was NOT the most anticipated film of all time, contrary to some peoples' beliefs. Seriously, compare KotCS hype to The Phantom Menace or Harry Potter or Fellowship of the Ring. The hype level was nowhere even close. There was no guarantee that this movie would make as much money as it has.

Again, your entire case is that YOU don't like it. So you cherrypick reviews("some guy I've never heard of from CHUD says people will regret liking the movie! That's proof that it was a failure!") and pat each other on the back. Weak, man.

 

[Quickening]

It was NOT the most anticipated film of all time, contrary to some peoples' beliefs. Seriously, compare KotCS hype to The Phantom Menace or Harry Potter or Fellowship of the Ring. The hype level was nowhere even close. There was no guarantee that this movie would make as much money as it has.

I never said it was THE most anticipated film of all time but "one of the most" which is true. And of course it was going to make money. It's Indiana Jones the original trilogy are legendary. Financially, it could never fail.

Oh yeah and the people who didn't like the film have a case. Just because some people don't mind a patchy script, weak dialogue, poor CGI and a toned down feel, doesn't mean everyone doesn't.

 

[MolaRam2]

I have to say i completely agree with Spielberg's take on Jaws, and often wish i hadn't seen it at age 5. Maybe i'm aging in reverse, as i have significantly less aversion to graphic violence now than i did as a youngster. But i still can't watch that shot in the pond where the shark eats that guy. The film had a huge impact on me to say the least and i still regard it as one of the scariest (and greatest) movies of all time.

Few of us can justifiably claim to see things from Spielberg's perspective. My impression is that he is taking more responsibility for what he puts on the screen as time goes by. He hasn't stopped making hard R pictures or anything, and in fact, i think it makes sense from a creative standpoint that as he now has other, more adult projects as an outlet for that sort of thing, he can step back a little on something that, by comparison to a Saving Private Ryan, comes up looking pretty kid-friendly.

That "softening" did seem to extend to Indy himself. But it just made for a nice character beat when Ford delivered the berated look to Shia IMO, one that brings him full circle with his own father.

But, yeah, the softer violence of the latter two films is humorous when viewed from a ratings perspective, as the original two flicks are much harder edged and rated PG.

Making hard R pictures like Saving Private Ryan, doesn't compensate for KOTCS being so soft. Indy movies are suppose to be rough, tough, and gritty kind of movies. LC was tame compared to the first two, but it wasn't a freaking Veggietales movie like KOTCS was either. Indy is suppose to be a bad ass, he is the guy that shoots the Cairo Swordman, because he doesn't have time to fight him. Indy movies are suppose to have horrific moments, look at the Ark opening.

As long as this movie got a PG-13, they would still be selling all that merchandise. The Pirates of the Caribbean films were much, much more violent than KOTCS and they sell a lot of merchandise to little kids. At World's End had a heart ripped out, man suffocated by one of Davy Jones' tentacles, a guy getting cut in half, and at least one head shot.

Anyway, most kids are going to watch the OT after seeing KOTCS, so who does Spielberg think he is protecting?

 

[CasualJeff]

I never said it was THE most anticipated film of all time but "one of the most" which is true. And of course it was going to make money. It's Indiana Jones the original trilogy are legendary. Financially, it could never fail.

"one of the" is one heck of a qualifier. So when you say "one of the most" anticipated films, do you mean in the top three? The top five? Maybe top 10? Even that is pushing things a slight bit.

Yes, it was anticipated. There was definitely hype. Maybe I just don't have my pulse on the finger of the american movie-going public like I used to, but I didn't feel like casual audiences were hyped up for KotCS any more than the usual summer blockbuster sequel like Spiderman 3 or Pirates of the Carribean. Nothing anywhere near the level of most other "big" fantasy franchises like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter. (Heck, with those franchises right there you already have easily 10 of the most anticipated movies of all time.)

You're right that it was guaranteed to make money, but it certainly wasn't guaranteed to make 600 million within three weeks(or however long it took). It's still making solid money, too, and has a perfectly good shot at being the number one grosser of the year. Stuff like that is rarely guaranteed.

Oh yeah and the people who didn't like the film have a case. Just because some people don't mind a patchy script, weak dialogue, poor CGI and a toned down feel, doesn't mean everyone doesn't.

Again, your "case" is that you didn't like it. You didn't like it, so you want to paint it as a huge failure. But most people liked it. Most critics liked it. It's successful financially. How many more things does it really need going for it before you will admit it wasn't a failure in every aspect imaginable? How long do people have to like the movie before haters will admit that maybe people actually LIKED it? (Instead of clinging to this ridiculous argument that we're deluding ourselves and somehow will come to regret it within a month/year/decade's time.)

 

[TheMutt92]

Funny. I know Spielberg probably didn't have too much creative control on this, but didn't he produce Transformers? Isn't that a 'kids' movie? And isn't it waaay more violent than Indy 4? I mean personally, I think seeing scorponok sneak up on a guy and jab him in the back and then drag him down is more 'damaging' to children than say Spalko getting her eyes burned out or the commies on fire.

A litte weird if I say so.

 

[Quickening]

Again, your "case" is that you didn't like it. You didn't like it, so you want to paint it as a huge failure. But most people liked it. Most critics liked it. It's successful financially. How many more things does it really need going for it before you will admit it wasn't a failure in every aspect imaginable? How long do people have to like the movie before haters will admit that maybe people actually LIKED it? (Instead of clinging to this ridiculous argument that we're deluding ourselves and somehow will come to regret it within a month/year/decade's time.)

I know people liked it. But can you say that the script wasn't patchy or that the dialogue wasn't terrible or that it hadn't been toned down? If not then they alone are valid reasons to be less than delighted with the film.

 

[weyhoops]

As a point of advice for both sides of this silly debate, using anecdotal evidence (i.e. "everyone I've talked to likes/hates it") to project a sweeping statement about how this movie was received by critics and (especially) fans leads inevitably to specious, erroneous arguing.

Now, you can debate about what a 77% fresh rating at rottentomatoes means: well-received? mixed? something else? For starters, I'd say that this wasn't a movie designed to drum up Oscar talk in the winter. And compared to other similar genre movies, this is an overall positive critical response with a considerable but significantly lesser amount of negative reviews.

And you can debate about what the box office numbers mean. However, it is probably good to do some box office research first. The opening numbers reflect anticipation. So they are unsurprising given the movie at hand. After that, word of mouth and reviews start affecting numbers more and more heavily (reviews more heavily at first, word of mouth more heavily after the flick has been out for awhile). That said, KOTCS has had very respectable drops each weekend at the box office. This is not opinion, but based on modern-day projected drop-off data that you can look up for yourself. To deny that there is predominantly good word of mouth on this movie is to ignore these data. Now, you may go ahead and ignore the context of what the numbers imply, but you are simply deceiving yourself. The movie was/is a hit, and if you thought it was going to make a lot more money than it did, it simply means that you had exaggerated box office expectations.