2519 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

I completely agree.

Well said.

[Matt_13]

Very very well said GS. I'll be genuinely surprised if we get another Indy film. If we do, I sincerely hope it doesn't totally suck.

[Loomis]

I'm pleased to see some of the people who committed INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL skull owning up to what a pitiful piece of work it is, but LaBeouf actually has nothing to apologise for. He wasn't the worst thing about the film (even though a lot of fanboys feared he would be), or even among the worst things about it. He probably wouldn't even make a list of the top hundred ways in which INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL drops the ball.

Agreed. However, don't be surprised if the brakes on Mr. LaBeouf's car are found to have been mysteriously cut.

I just happened to have watched 'Last Crusade' last night and it was better in just about every way possible than 'Crystal Skull', with the exception of a few bad pieces of f/x work.

More proof that as long as George Lucas is alive, or in any way able to make or affect creative decisions on properties he owns or co-owns, we'll never get decent films again. He held up the 4th Indiana Jones movie...and to what end? 19 years and *THAT* was the best that they could come up with? 16 years between Star Wars films and *THAT* was the best he could come up with?

Lucas has said in interviews that the expectation levels for the SW prequels and the 4th Indiana movie were so high that no one could ever have satisfied the fans, but I disagree. I think that that is just a shallow argument coming from a man who #1 has no idea what the fans want because he doesn't care what the fans want and #2 is so lazy and artistically bankrupt that he can't be bothered to elevate his game.

Unfortunately for Steven Spielberg, he's sort of joined at the hip with Lucas on Indiana Jones, and is basically being pulled back and pulled under by Lucas, who is the less talented of the two. I can't believe that the Steven Spielberg of JAWS and 'Raiders' is the same Steven Spielberg who gives us Indiana Jones walking out of a refrigerator that was blown a mile up into the sky and several miles away from a nuclear blast without so much as a scratch, a broken bone, radiation poisoning, or head trauma. At least with most of the stunts in the first three films, you could make a reasonable case that they were *possible* if not probable. 'Skull' doesn't seem to want to be bothered by keeping the story within the realm of plausibility. It seems Lucas' attitude is: 'you're either with us or against us'.

When you put a rusty object next to a clean object the clean object doesn't rub off on the rusty object. The rusty object rubs off on the clean object, eventually corroding it, degrading it, and destroying it. Same for Spielberg and Lucas. Steven's been around Lucas too long to the point where Lucas' has begun to degrade and corrode Steven.

And it wasn't enough for Lucas to all over the 4th Indiana Jones movie and the Star Wars prequels....nooooooooo, he then has to go and digitally alter and fundamentally change key aspects of the first 3 SW films and E.T. as well (well, both him and Spielberg). Which is why I say that he clearly doesn't care what the fans want, because no one was asking for Han Solo to shoot Greedo *AFTER* Greedo shot first...or to put radios in the FBI's hands instead of gun in E.T. Steven and George just do what they want, audiences be damned.

Lucas and Spielberg ought to have taken a leaf out of Sylvester Stallone's book. If only INDIANA JONES 4 had been like ROCKY BALBOA and RAMBO, bringing real dramatic weight and pathos to the return of the elderly action hero.

The main problem, perhaps, with INDY 4 is that one simply doesn't give a flying about any of the characters, Indy included. (And why does no one call him "Indy" in this one? Here, he's referred to mostly as "Henry", although John Hurt insists on calling him "Henry Jones Junior", while Ray Winstone - probably the most irritating character in a Lucasfilm production since Jar Jar Binks - makes me want to reach into the screen and punch him every time he calls our hero "Jonesey" in that dreadful Cockney whinge.)

I reckon a ROCKYBALBOAfication of Indiana Jones, coupled with terrific action scenes, would have resulted in a proper INDY 4. See, when Sly brought back Rocky and Rambo, his masterstroke lay in delving into those characters' self-loathing and sense of failure - not in a needy, showy way, but just enough to humanise them and make us root for them. Let's consider how Ford, Lucas and Spielberg might have approached Indy in his sixties: would the character feel some bitterness? Yes, probably - his gorgeous female students no longer write "I love you" on their eyelids, but instead ignore him as just another tweedy, dessicated old windbag professor. Does he regret that he has spent most of his life chasing relics and haunting libraries and museums? What has such an existence left him with? Where is his success in terms of lasting human relationships? Does he hate the fact that, in some ways, he's become his father?

Well, some of that is hinted at in the movie: there's that line about life no longer giving but instead just taking away, although it's a throwaway, box-ticking thing and carries no emotional weight whatsoever. There's also Indy's alleged friendship with Jim Broadbent, but we've no idea who this faggy limey is and consequently we don't give a stuff about him or Indy's relationship with him.

There's simply no substance. By "substance", I don't mean "profundity" - no one's looking for that here. I mean that there isn't the slightest human connection, which is eminently possible in a popcorn franchise blockbuster (see not only the recent ROCKY and RAMBO, but also the BOURNEs, THE DARK KNIGHT and, of course, CASINO ROYALE). The filmmakers evidently had no desire whatsoever to make an Indiana Jones outing that engages on any kind of adult level. And, no, deadening dialogue that references the McCarthy witch hunts is not, in itself, enough to lend the movie a grown-up aspect, any more than all that guff about trade disputes and treaties made PHANTOM MENACE a more intelligent flick.

I think Lucas and Spielberg misjudged the core audience for INDY 4 - the people who were rooting for them to make the movie and knock it outta the park were thirty- and forty-somethings, people who appreciate a bit of sophistication and bittersweetness and dark, adult wit. Instead, Lucas and Spielberg seemed to gear the whole thing towards twelve-year-olds seeking dumb thrills. It's as though they hadn't even seen RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, let alone made it.

[Harmsway]

I can't believe that the Steven Spielberg of JAWS and 'Raiders' is the same Steven Spielberg who gives us Indiana Jones walking out of a refrigerator that was blown a mile up into the sky and several miles away from a nuclear blast without so much as a scratch, a broken bone, radiation poisoning, or head trauma.

Well, believe it. The "nuke the fridge" moment was Spielberg's baby, not Lucas' (though I actually think the Doomtown sequence is the only sequence in the film where the fun, old school Indiana Jones spirit really shows up).

Shocking though it may seem, Lucas wasn't the problem here. Lucas' ideas were among the more interesting elements of KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. No, it was Spielberg who was responsible for KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL's lackluster results, for the lamebrained humor, for the less-than-exhilarating action sequences, for the overly talky script.

[marktmurphy]

I'm pleased to see some of the people who committed INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL skull owning up to what a pitiful piece of work it is, but LaBeouf actually has nothing to apologise for. He wasn't the worst thing about the film (even though a lot of fanboys feared he would be), or even among the worst things about it. He probably wouldn't even make a list of the top hundred ways in which INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL drops the ball.

I do agree; I suppose it's a sort of kind thing to say that it's your own fault, but if people are going to be upset by a scene where you swing on vines with CGi monkeys, there's not much else you can do. I though LeBeouf did fine: he was no Connery game-changer, but he wasn't as annoying as many thought 'the kid' would be. He was inoffensive, which was fairly impressive in a way, because so many fans were out for blood and 'the kid' is an easy target. Similar to the guy in Die Hard 4.

I wonder if this might lead to beards publicly recognising the faults with KOTCS...? Maybe leading to a 5? Hopefully.

More proof that as long as George Lucas is alive, or in any way able to make or affect creative decisions on properties he owns or co-owns, we'll never get decent films again. He held up the 4th Indiana Jones movie...and to what end? 19 years and *THAT* was the best that they could come up with? 16 years between Star Wars films and *THAT* was the best he could come up with?

Well, that's kind of disingenuous in a way: they didn't work on it for 14 years solidly.

Unfortunately for Steven Spielberg, he's sort of joined at the hip with Lucas on Indiana Jones, and is basically being pulled back and pulled under by Lucas, who is the less talented of the two. I can't believe that the Steven Spielberg of JAWS and 'Raiders' is the same Steven Spielberg who gives us Indiana Jones walking out of a refrigerator that was blown a mile up into the sky and several miles away from a nuclear blast without so much as a scratch, a broken bone, radiation poisoning, or head trauma. At least with most of the stunts in the first three films, you could make a reasonable case that they were *possible* if not probable. 'Skull' doesn't seem to want to be bothered by keeping the story within the realm of plausibility. It seems Lucas' attitude is: 'you're either with us or against us'.

Agree with the Spielberg thing: his heart isn't in it or he's lost it; not sure which. Maybe JJ Abrams should take over? He seems pretty keen on being Spielberg (see Super 8) and Star Trek showed he has the right frame of mind, if not quite the same wit, yet.
Don't care about the plausabilty, however: there have been plenty of plausability arguments- I don't even buy that anything after the Raiders credits was plausible. It's the lack of peril that's the problem; it's not that it's not plausible: it's that we're not swept up in the moment enough to not be worried that it's not plausible.

Lucas and Spielberg ought to have taken a leaf out of Sylvester Stallone's book. If only INDIANA JONES 4 had been like ROCKY BALBOA and RAMBO, bringing real dramatic weight and pathos to the return of the elderly action hero.

The main problem, perhaps, with INDY 4 is that one simply doesn't give a flying about any of the characters, Indy included. (And why does no one call him "Indy" in this one? Here, he's referred to mostly as "Henry", although John Hurt insists on calling him "Henry Jones Junior", while Ray Winstone - probably the most irritating character in a Lucasfilm production since Jar Jar Binks - makes me want to reach into the screen and punch him every time he calls our hero "Jonesey" in that dreadful Cockney whinge.)

I reckon a ROCKYBALBOAfication of Indiana Jones, coupled with terrific action scenes, would have resulted in a proper INDY 4. See, when Sly brought back Rocky and Rambo, his masterstroke lay in delving into those characters' self-loathing and sense of failure - not in a needy, showy way, but just enough to humanise them and make us root for them. Let's consider how Ford, Lucas and Spielberg might have approached Indy in his sixties: would the character feel some bitterness? Yes, probably - his gorgeous female students no longer write "I love you" on their eyelids, but instead ignore him as just another tweedy, dessicated old windbag professor. Does he regret that he has spent most of his life chasing relics and haunting libraries and museums? What has such an existence left him with? Where is his success in terms of lasting human relationships? Does he hate the fact that, in some ways, he's become his father?

Well, some of that is hinted at in the movie: there's that line about life no longer giving but instead just taking away, although it's a throwaway, box-ticking thing and carries no emotional weight whatsoever. There's also Indy's alleged friendship with Jim Broadbent, but we've no idea who this faggy limey is and consequently we don't give a stuff about him or Indy's relationship with him.

Nah: no-one wants a 'deep' Indy: I don't want any navel-gazing. That's one thing I think they got refreshingly right: there's no scene where he dusts off the fedora; looks lovingly at a photo of his dead wife, stops chopping wood in the forest etc. He's simply 'Indiana Jones: Action Hero' and he never stopped being that. That's what I want from Indy: he's not a real guy- he's a brand name that promises adventure. 'If Adventure Had a Name..' etc. I really liked that about the film, in fact.
They did get it a bit wrong, yes; but they didn't need to show him being too old for this ; they just needed to make it tenser and more dangerous-feeling. They got the tone wrong, but they didn't need to do anything particularly new (as LeBeouf says, oddly). The 'old' feel was, in fact, strangely refreshing in these days of Dark Knights and Bonds beginning.
And I still say that the aliens thing was spot-on: it's exactly right for Indy the way they did it, and it fits the period spot-on. If I were making the film again, I'd do it. When you're making a new sequel you've got to do something the fanfic guys wouldn't.

[Loomis]

And I still say that the aliens thing was spot-on

Agreed. And I wish that the film had made more of them.

I don't hate any of things that one is "meant" to hate about CRYSTAL SKULL. I like the aliens, I like the prairie dogs, I like the fridge-nuking and I even like Shia. I don't just mean I put up with them - I mean I actively like them. For me, they're the highlights of the movie.

[Matt_13]

I honestly cannot wrap my head around the nuking of the fridge, though the doomsday town idea was quite good. I think the scene had more potential, though looking back at it now I can't imagine any other way to get Indy out of that situation, which would defeat the purpose of having it in the film. As I've mentioned before, the aliens make perfect sense in the Indy universe, but again it was handled atrociously, with the only awe-inspiring moment of the film being the pyramid crumbling, giving way to a space craft that had laid dormant beneath it for ages; a moment that was genuinely "classic Indiana Jones." I think the biggest dillemma with KOTCS is the lack of urgency, and the overall feeling of just...age with all of it. Harrison Ford's punches in that ant hill fight were embarrassing, and even the bike chase through the university campus didn't have any particular element of imminent danger or adrenaline at the very least. Plus, the cinematography was bland and cheap looking, regardless of it's artistic intent. Overall, the ideas were most certainly in place, but something during the creative process of filming went terribly, terribly wrong, and the result...well, we've all seen it. A foul tip into the catcher's mit on a full count, I suppose. Either way, I was crushed and have only seen it once as a result.

[jaguar007]

I find is easily the worst of the Indy series and agree that it rather dull in comparison to the early films. However it does have its moments and I do enjoy watching the film. I find the worst part being the truck chase. Bad greenscreen. Why they did not do if for real like in Raiders and TLC is beyond me. The movie has the feel that it was filmed entirely in a studio with no location shoot. I find some enjoyment in watching it for no other reason to see Indiana Jones once again. Similar reason that I enjoy even the worst Bond movies.

[marktmurphy]

Yeah it's a shame: a lot of the jungle chase was actually shot on location- they even did the fight between Blanchett and LeBeouf for real (stuntmen standing on two jeeps swordfighting), but sadly the CGI sticks in one's mind more.
For some reason even that big explosion as Indy drives through the wall of boxes in the warehouse scene looks fake, but it's actually real.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

I'm guessing a lot more of it is 'real' than you might think. The filter on the lens and cinematography it what makes much of the movie seem artificial and fake looking.

I'm kind of over any Indy IV discussion. Shia can say what he likes, but he is either lying now or was lying in 2008, and I don't particularly care which. It seems he is trying to align himself with 'popular internet opinion' more than anything else.

I'd be more interested in Indy V discussions, but the major players have gone quiet for the last few months, so I'm pretty sure it is not progressing.

[SecretAgentFan]

Frankly, I don´t know why the nuked fridge is such a problem with some. It´s funny and over-the-top - but so are many scenes in the Indy-films.

Is it more believable to hang on to the periscope of a submarine and travel to a far off island?

Is it more believable to drink cursed blood and turn evil and be turned back to the good side after having been hit with a torch?

Is it more believable to land an airplane without knowing how to steer one and with the wings being shot off?

The problems I had with Indy IV were more due to the exposition dialogue which went on too long, especially in the South America scenes. Also the finale lacked the required tension.

[Safari Suit]

Shia can say what he likes, but he is either lying now or was lying in 2008, and I don't particularly care which. It seems he is trying to align himself with 'popular internet opinion' more than anything else.

With this and his recent pledge to "bring back "the heart" of the first film" in the Transformers series ("heart?" WTF?!?) it is pretty hard not to get that impression, fairly or not. It will be interesting to see if Wall Street 2 is received well, and what his response will be if it's isn't...

Frankly, I don´t know why the nuked fridge is such a problem with some. It´s funny and over-the-top - but so are many scenes in the Indy-films.

If Chuck Norris had done the same thing in some 80s film, you just know all those hipsters who tried to turn "nuke the fridge" into a "jump the shark" esque meme/trope/whatever designating lameness would have loved it. Oh, sure they'd have loved it "ironically", but they'd have still loved it. And by 2008 we were well past being able to tell when we are and aren't being ironic.

The thing is, I do genuinely think Indy IV stinks, but, because I'm an awkward, grumpy bastard, I'm annoyed by how so many people think the problems stem almost entirely from it being "unrealistic" or "over the top" or "silly". Yeah, the "tarzan" bit is embarassing, but the problems run much deeper than that. Thankfully, posters here seem to get that.

[Harmsway]

He was great as Indiana Jones, but it's not a character that can't be played by someone else...or a movie series that can't be directed by somebody else.

Whether or not Spielberg is in the director's chair doesn't bother me much, but I daresay that Ford does have a definite hold on the role. If Ford's not doing it, they might as well not bother.

[Judo chop]

He was great as Indiana Jones, but it's not a character that can't be played by someone else...or a movie series that can't be directed by somebody else.

Whether or not Spielberg is in the director's chair doesn't bother me much, but I daresay that Ford does have a definite hold on the role. If Ford's not doing it, they might as well not bother.

I’m sure you see this coming, but no doubt there were critics who said the same of Connery as Bond.

But, in their defenses, the critics did turn out to be right at least a couple of times, so...

Personally, I can't see it either, anyone other than Ford as Jones.

[elizabeth]

I agree. Harrison owns the role, no matter how old he gets.

[DamnCoffee]

An alleged plot description for the next Indiana Jones movie has been revealed.

The untitled adventure film will reportedly be Harrison Ford's last in the series and also see Shia LaBeouf return as the archaeologist's son Mutt Williams.

An insider allegedly told New Zealand website Stuff that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have been "working on a script and it's almost there" for Indiana Jones V. The story is said to involve the Bermuda Triangle, a location over the North Atlantic Ocean where aircraft have vanished under mysterious circumstances.

The source said: "Harrison is on stand-by for filming next year. This looks like being an emotional and exciting conclusion to the franchise, with Indy facing his biggest challenge yet.

"Shia LaBeouf has a central role again as Indy's son but this will be a blockbuster made in the old fashioned way rather than the CGI efforts of the last movie."

2008's Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull grossed more than $780 million at the worldwide box office, but received mixed reviews from critics and fans of the series.

[Harmsway]

And this is from where?

Anyway, it's probably bollocks. Not that I would mind an Indy film featuring the Bermuda triangle.

[DamnCoffee]

Article is here

http://www.digitalsp...s-revealed.html

[marktmurphy]

Yeah; I could do Bermuda Triangle too. It kind of rings true, that bit.
I don't entirely buy it, but you never know: sometimes 'insiders' really are just that.

[jaguar007]

I just think how many times we got "press reports" on the 4th Indy movie between 1989 - 2008.

[JimmyBond]

The Bermuda triangle is actually something that I would love for Indy to delve into.

Though I'm not sure I believe the statement about it being made without all the CGI that plagued the last film. After all Spielberg said the same thing about Skull

[bondrules]

I have mentioned this before, but Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie of all time. I'm a huge fan of the Indiana Jones character.

Having said that, and having seen Indy 4, I have absolutely no faith in Lucas & Spielberg anymore. They are now fat lazy cats. They gave us a D- entry with Indy 4, and we rewarded them with 700MM in BO rev. I expect more of the same.

[Zorin Industries]

Yeah; I could do Bermuda Triangle too. It kind of rings true, that bit.
I don't entirely buy it, but you never know: sometimes 'insiders' really are just that.

Yes, but "insiders" tend to have a name and a reported source.

I don't mind any JONES rumour as I think there is scope for a fifth film. I am not so sure the very nature of the Bermuda Triangle myth would lend itself to a film though. As intriguing as it is to everyone, a zone where boats and plans disappear doesn't sound like very visually friendly to me nor does it suggest great archeological pursuits... not for a two hour film....

...unless of course, The Bermuda Triangle is actually a by-product / defence mechanism of Atlantis (which feels to me like somewhere INDIANA JONES could go).

[Harmsway]

...unless of course, The Bermuda Triangle is actually a by-product / defence mechanism of Atlantis (which feels to me like somewhere INDIANA JONES could go).

He's already done it, of course, in the classic LucasArts game INDIANA JONES AND THE FATE OF ATLANTIS. That's not to say the bigwigs wouldn't tread there again, but it was done rather well before, so they'd have to do an extra fine job of it.

[Skudor]

Another Indy film would need to be very well received before I hand over my dosh for tickets.

[Trident]

I avoided KOTCS so I think I'll keep away from a fifth too; just haven't got a good feeling about taking Indy beyond The Last Crusade.

[Judo chop]

If an inside source were to report that Spielberg had been given a Clockwork Orange type of reconditioning, in which he was forced to watch and rewatch RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK for months on end prior to filming, I’d get in line for a new Indy.

Lucas is who he is, but a Spielberg on his Indy-game should have no problem overcoming such an obstacle. Problem is, Spielberg hasn’t been on his Indy-game since ’81. I’m not sure he can find it again even if he wanted to, which I’m not sure he does.

[marktmurphy]

Yes, but "insiders" tend to have a name and a reported source.

Well, not if they want to keep their jobs/girlfriends etc.!

I don't mind any JONES rumour as I think there is scope for a fifth film. I am not so sure the very nature of the Bermuda Triangle myth would lend itself to a film though. As intriguing as it is to everyone, a zone where boats and plans disappear doesn't sound like very visually friendly to me nor does it suggest great archeological pursuits... not for a two hour film....

...unless of course, The Bermuda Triangle is actually a by-product / defence mechanism of Atlantis (which feels to me like somewhere INDIANA JONES could go).

Yeah; the triangle would just be part of it, I'm sure. There's got to be a cause for it, for one thing. A boaty/islandy Jones -maybe a bit undersea- would be rather nice, though.

As someone pointed elsewhere, a Bermuda-y setting does mean there might be scope for... VOODOO!

Lucas is who he is, but a Spielberg on his Indy-game should have no problem overcoming such an obstacle. Problem is, Spielberg hasn’t been on his Indy-game since ’81. I’m not sure he can find it again even if he wanted to, which I’m not sure he does.

Yes; I can't pretend to have any deep insight into the man, but Indy doesn't really strike me as something he's hugely interested in any more, and he did go on about KOTCS being a 'gift to the fans' in a way that sort of suggested to me that he wanted everyone to stop bugging him about another one after this. But then, he is doing Tintin...

[Judo chop]

It’s not so much I fear he’s disinterested in Indy (which is certainly still possible and just as likely to result in poo) but that Spielberg doesn’t really see Indy in the same light as I do. In my mind, RAIDERS is pitch-perfect, and quite possibly one of the 10, 5 even 3 most pitch-perfect films of all time, and the later films, though they have their strengths, don’t even come close to the original achievement. I’m not sure Spielberg agrees with that. His track record suggests that he’s been tinkering with Indy all-along, film by film, softening him up, as if that pitch-perfect Indy in his head is yet to be realized. He’s been consistently moving away from tonal perfection, once step at a time. (I think CRUSADE is a better story and better film than TEMPLE, but tonally TEMPLE is closer to RAIDERS.)

I’m unhopeful that Spielberg will ever fix the problem because I don’t think he sees that there is a problem. How he can’t after KOTCS is beyond me, but like someone said above… the numbers at the BO don’t exactly support the case.

[marktmurphy]

I'd agree that Raiders is one of the most perfect films of all time, but I wouldn't expect any other Indy to reach those heights again. I don't mind if it doesn't, either. I regard the other two to be pretty much the best of their genre, although not quite up to Raiders of course; but I don't think he was necessarily unhappy with Raiders: it's just that there's no point in doing the same thing over and over. Temple is a great sequel because it refuses to do any of the same stuff and uses a different formula but has the right spirit.