2519 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

I find Crusade to be the best of the lot. Followed by Temple, Raiders, and Skull.

[marktmurphy]

Utterly apropos of nothing, but I had a go at making a Struzan-style pic in photoshop last night using a new method I'm trying out; I'm rather pleased with it: what do you reckon of it?



Do you think it looks convincingly painted?

[DamnCoffee]

That really amazing! It really does remind me of the old style Indy posters. Brilliant work.

[Safari Suit]

It looks pretty good. If I didn't know it wasn't painted, I think I would assume it was.

[SecretAgentFan]

Wow! Great stuff!

[elizabeth]

I love it!

[Harmsway]

INDIANA JONES V is apparently actually coming together. Shia LaBeouf talked to Showbiz Spy, and here's what he had to say:

“They’re script writing right now,” says Shia. “I got called into Steven’s office and he pitched a little bit to me and it sounds crazy, it sounds really cool.”

[Loomis]

Well, geekdom won't be burned again, so INDY V had better be damn, damn good, because the knives will be out for this one as soon as it's officially announced. There's no fan goodwill any more.*

*If, that is, I'm permitted to speak on behalf of all Indy Jones fans (and I'm not even one myself). Seriously, though, I really don't imagine an easy ride for this one on the messageboards over the next coupla years (not that that'll prevent it being a box office smash, of course).

[Harmsway]

Well, geekdom won't be burned again, so INDY V had better be damn, damn good, because the knives will be out for this one as soon as it's officially announced. There's no fan goodwill any more.*

*If, that is, I'm permitted to speak on behalf of all Indy Jones fans (and I'm not even one myself). Seriously, though, I really don't imagine an easy ride for this one on the messageboards over the next coupla years (not that that'll prevent it being a box office smash, of course).

Well, fanboy-friendly site CHUD.com posted the news with a headline reading "CRUEL GOD ALLOWS INDIANA JONES 5 TO KEEP MOVING ALONG," so I'd say you're right.

[terminus]

I think there's enough macguffins out there to run the series for a dozen more movies - if they can write good scripts, a la the original trilogy. I've pitched around a few 'what if's' with friends in discussions about what we'd do with a fifth movie if we were put in charge - with Indiana Jones & The Spear of Destiny, Indiana Jones & The Once and Future King, Indiana Jones & The Garden of Eden and Indiana Jones & The Eighth Continent being our favourites. With TOaFK and TGoE being my personal favourite macguffins.

[marktmurphy]

INDIANA JONES V is apparently actually coming together. Shia LaBeouf talked to Showbiz Spy, and here's what he had to say:

“They’re script writing right now,” says Shia. “I got called into Steven’s office and he pitched a little bit to me and it sounds crazy, it sounds really cool.”

Ooh; Spielberg's actually talking about it? Well I'd have thought he'd have been the stumbling block so if the story's true... well it sounds like it could well be happening.

[DamnCoffee]

As much as I loathed the last one. I can't help but be excited for this. I just hope Spielberg and Lucas have learnt from their mistakes. Lucas, especially. It seems doubtful though, considering the mess he made of The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones.

[DamnCoffee]

Personally, I think Ford looked great in SKULL, and is probably the only thing that made it watchable for me. I would actually go as far to say that his older, wiser look is a lot better than his look in the original trilogy. I'm fine with Ford being Indy. The franchise I feel, should be buried when he is. Lets face it, Harrison Ford IS Indiana Jones. No doubt about it.

Also, slightly off topic, but isn't it weird how Professor Indy, and Traveler Indy look like entirely different people.

[Mike00spy]

Well, geekdom won't be burned again, so INDY V had better be damn, damn good, because the knives will be out for this one as soon as it's officially announced. There's no fan goodwill any more.*

*If, that is, I'm permitted to speak on behalf of all Indy Jones fans (and I'm not even one myself). Seriously, though, I really don't imagine an easy ride for this one on the messageboards over the next coupla years (not that that'll prevent it being a box office smash, of course).

Well, fanboy-friendly site CHUD.com posted the news with a headline reading "CRUEL GOD ALLOWS INDIANA JONES 5 TO KEEP MOVING ALONG," so I'd say you're right.

Good god, I'm so tired of this type of hyperbole. I would have thought that Indy 4 was in IMDB's bottom 100 on par with Gigli or something. It's really tiresome.

I'm not directing this at anyone here really. But quotes like CHUD's (besides, who made them some sort of movie experts anyway?) are just way too typical of today's internet fanboys. They just take too much delight at being snarky and critical, as if being negative on something somehow made your opinion better. Movies are meant to be freaking entertainment, yet they feel like they are owed something.

[Matt_13]

I was not at all entertained by anything in KOTCS. It felt too cheap for me to appreciate any aspect of it.

I'll wait and see on a fifth installment. My heart was shattered with the last one so it'll take some convincing to get me back in the saddle.

[Safari Suit]

Well, geekdom won't be burned again, so INDY V had better be damn, damn good, because the knives will be out for this one as soon as it's officially announced. There's no fan goodwill any more.*

*If, that is, I'm permitted to speak on behalf of all Indy Jones fans (and I'm not even one myself). Seriously, though, I really don't imagine an easy ride for this one on the messageboards over the next coupla years (not that that'll prevent it being a box office smash, of course).

Well, fanboy-friendly site CHUD.com posted the news with a headline reading "CRUEL GOD ALLOWS INDIANA JONES 5 TO KEEP MOVING ALONG," so I'd say you're right.

Good god, I'm so tired of this type of hyperbole. I would have thought that Indy 4 was in IMDB's bottom 100 on par with Gigli or something. It's really tiresome.

I'm not directing this at anyone here really. But quotes like CHUD's (besides, who made them some sort of movie experts anyway?) are just way too typical of today's internet fanboys. They just take too much delight at being snarky and critical, as if being negative on something somehow made your opinion better. Movies are meant to be freaking entertainment, yet they feel like they are owed something.

"Geek" critics seem to get far too emotionally attached to a movie before it's released, with their precious "set visits" and interviews and what not, so a disappointing movie like Indy IV or Spider-Man 3 is honestly on par with murder or rape to these guys, and a reasonable little popcorn movie like Kick- (and I'll take a wild guess and say Scott Pilgrim) is a "transient masterpiece that will stand for all time" with a functional ultraviolet action scene that apparantly becomes "an electrifying homage to the power of cinema". I hated Indy IV but the rape etc. stuff is tedious.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

That's what gets me most, comparing disappointing films to rape, etc. It's untasteful and not even clever or original and it gets used on this forum too often, let alone 'professional' film sites.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 21 August 2010 - 08:53 AM.

[marktmurphy]

Also, slightly off topic, but isn't it weird how Professor Indy, and Traveler Indy look like entirely different people.

I've often thought it'd be nice to see him taking the kids on a field trip and collide the two looks! Leather jacket and hat with bow tie and glasses; something like that!
Dr Who's nicked his professor look now anyway

Good god, I'm so tired of this type of hyperbole. I would have thought that Indy 4 was in IMDB's bottom 100 on par with Gigli or something. It's really tiresome.

I'm not directing this at anyone here really. But quotes like CHUD's (besides, who made them some sort of movie experts anyway?) are just way too typical of today's internet fanboys. They just take too much delight at being snarky and critical, as if being negative on something somehow made your opinion better. Movies are meant to be freaking entertainment, yet they feel like they are owed something.

Too true; it depresses me that there's a chance that this stuff actually filters to filmmakers. Heaven knows what classics would have been vilified over the years. Go onto an Indy messageboard and you'll discover that Temple of Doom was a load of rubbish too: news to me.

[Harmsway]

Hmmm...well, Temple of Doom *was* excoriated back in 1984 before there was the Internet as we know it today. Secondly, I think Lucas and Spielberg *NEED* to hear some of this criticism, including watching the episode of South Park where the kids equate watching 'Crystal Skull' with seeing a childhood hero raped and sodomized.

I think most people misunderstand that SOUTH PARK episode. The episode serves to point out the absurdity of the "rape" metaphor, not agree with it.

[jaguar007]

Personally, I think Ford looked great in SKULL, and is probably the only thing that made it watchable for me.

I agree, I can still buy Ford as an older Indiana Jones, he is still in great shape. Just because KOTKS was a big letdown, does not mean the next on will be. Most movie series have their dogs Even (especially) Bond. The Star Trek movie series is known for only the even numbered films being any good. I just hope that they realize they let the fans down with KOTKS and want to make amends with Indy 5.

[Loomis]

Good god, I'm so tired of this type of hyperbole. I would have thought that Indy 4 was in IMDB's bottom 100 on par with Gigli or something.

You mean it isn't? That surprises me.

I'm not directing this at anyone here really. But quotes like CHUD's (besides, who made them some sort of movie experts anyway?) are just way too typical of today's internet fanboys. They just take too much delight at being snarky and critical, as if being negative on something somehow made your opinion better. Movies are meant to be freaking entertainment, yet they feel like they are owed something.

Well, I've done my share of bashing INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, but I'd far rather that Lucas, Spielberg and Ford had given me a film to delight in. And I much prefer praising films I like than slamming ones I don't. Personally, I take no "delight at being snarky and critical", but occasionally it's called for. Perhaps a great many people have spewed vitriol at CRYSTAL SKULL not because they enjoy being nasty and negative but because they genuinely find it an awful film?

[Harmsway]

If the primary theme of the episode was to mock how sensitive some of the fan boys were to equate the movie with the rape metaphor, I don't think Parker and Stone would've included references to three other movies that had rape in it.

I fail to comprehend your reasoning. The fact that they reference famous rape scenes drives the absurdity of the metaphor home.

The over-arching theme was to mercilessly mock Spielberg and Lucas.

Nah. The over-arching comedy comes not, really, from the send-up of Lucas and Spielberg (though, in its own way, that's funny, but only as absurd exaggeration), but from everyone's ludicrous reaction to KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. It's the fact that everyone has these dramatic flashbacks to the "horror" of watching it that's hilarious. And the lampooning of fan reaction is driven home at the last moment, where Butters, in contrast to everyone else, comments that he thought the movie was "pretty good."

You mean it isn't? That surprises me.

Really? The truth is, Loomster, that for many people, KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL went over better than the prequels. And for all its considerable failures, I still would rather watch it than THE PHANTOM MENACE, ATTACK OF THE CLONES, or REVENGE OF THE SITH, which are inept and lifeless on a level that KINGDOM doesn't approach.

FWIW, KINGDOM sits with a rather mediocre, but not damning, 6.6/10 on IMDB.

[Loomis]

The truth is, Loomster, that for many people, KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL went over better than the prequels. And for all its considerable failures, I still would rather watch it than THE PHANTOM MENACE, ATTACK OF THE CLONES, or REVENGE OF THE SITH, which are inept and lifeless on a level that KINGDOM doesn't approach.

I'm no more a STAR WARS fan than I am an Indy Jones fan (frankly, I find both franchises pretty tedious), but I'd far, far rather sit through ATTACK OF THE CLONES or REVENGE OF THE SITH than CRYSTAL SKULL. Now, CRYSTAL SKULL arguably takes down THE PHANTOM MENACE (which I find significantly inferior to its two successors), but even then MENACE has a couple of decent visual moments and a pretty cool baddie in the shape of Darth Maul.

And CRYSTAL SKULL makes THE EXPENDABLES look like Aoyama's EUREKA.

[jaguar007]

I'm with Harmsway, I would much rather sit through Indy 4 than any of the SW prequels. At least Ford is engaging enough as Indiana Jones as opposed to everyone in the SW prequels who seemed to phone in their performance and act like wooden robots. Heck, they didn't even phone in their performance, they just e-mailed it in.

[Harmsway]

Yeah. KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL has more humanity than the STAR WARS prequels. Of course, that claim says more about the direness of the prequels than it does the merits of CRYSTAL SKULL.

[Mike00spy]

And Lucas' disdain for the fans has never been more apparent. The fans have made him a billionaire with no creative controls in place, and instead of embracing the people who made him a success, he has nothing but scorn and ridicule for them. Fortunately, I'm not one of the professional Lucas-haters (I didn't start to realize exactly what people were talking about when slagging off on Lucas until the late 90's, with the changes he made to the original films, plus the horrendous PHANTOM MENACE), so his derision doesn't bother me. I'm not one of the chumps who hates Lucas but buys everything he puts out anyway, including the Blu-rays of Star Wars next year.

Well, this is really part of point. Why does Lucas have "disdain" for fans? Because he made inferior movies? Do you really think he intended to have the prequel trilogy be the most derisive and criticized trilogy of all time? As for his changes to the original movies, I do believe him when he simply wanted to make those changes due to not being happy with said scenes. They are his movies after all. It's not hard to believe that he wants to give them a new paint job now and then.

I read John Lennons 1980 Playboy interview and he was asked about his time with The Beatles and he said something that surprised me. "I'm dissatisfied with every record the Beatles ever ing made. There ain't one of them I wouldn't remake -- including all the Beatles records and all my individual ones. . . You play me those tracks today and I want to remake every damn one of them. There's not a single one.... I heard Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds on the radio last night. It's abysmal, you know. The track is just terrible. I mean, it's great, but it wasn't made right, know what I mean? But that's the artistic trip, isn't it? That's why you keep going."

The truth is, Loomster, that for many people, KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL went over better than the prequels. And for all its considerable failures, I still would rather watch it than THE PHANTOM MENACE, ATTACK OF THE CLONES, or REVENGE OF THE SITH, which are inept and lifeless on a level that KINGDOM doesn't approach.

I'm no more a STAR WARS fan than I am an Indy Jones fan (frankly, I find both franchises pretty tedious), but I'd far, far rather sit through ATTACK OF THE CLONES or REVENGE OF THE SITH than CRYSTAL SKULL. Now, CRYSTAL SKULL arguably takes down THE PHANTOM MENACE (which I find significantly inferior to its two successors), but even then MENACE has a couple of decent visual moments and a pretty cool baddie in the shape of Darth Maul.

And CRYSTAL SKULL makes THE EXPENDABLES look like Aoyama's EUREKA.

Well, I think having a love for the character goes a long way. If you don't like the series in general, than an inferior sequel like Skull is bound to be less tolerable for you than Indy fans. I mean, I'll watch Moonraker and Diamonds Are Forever once in a while, being a die hard Bond fan. Now, I could find someone who's not a big Bond fan who has the same exact opinion of those movies as I do. Except, that person would never bother with those films a second, third, or tenth time like me.

[marktmurphy]

Too true; it depresses me that there's a chance that this stuff actually filters to filmmakers. Heaven knows what classics would have been vilified over the years. Go onto an Indy messageboard and you'll discover that Temple of Doom was a load of rubbish too: news to me.

Hmmm...well, Temple of Doom *was* excoriated back in 1984 before there was the Internet as we know it today. Secondly, I think Lucas and Spielberg *NEED* to hear some of this criticism, including watching the episode of South Park where the kids equate watching 'Crystal Skull' with seeing a childhood hero raped and sodomized. I know that's a bit blunt and harsh, but I don't think South Park could have even gone there and did what they did if Lucas hadn't done such a ty job with the prequels and added unnecessary elements (not all of them) back into the original three Star Wars movies, not to mention Spielberg making politically correct changes to ET THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL.

That doesn't actually make it a bad film, though. If you enjoyed it; that's fine. If you compare to the others, no it's not as good. But it's a decent entertainment. could have been better, yeah; but if it's a choice between this and Mummy 3, well it's Indy for me every time. And it's way in advance of the Star Wars prequels: it actually functions as a film which is a major step up.
Temple of Doom was painted as a load of rubbish yes, but if you read the original reviews of Raiders even that was said to be crap as well. Reminds me of an interview I heard with Ade Edmondson the other day: he said that the reviews of the first series of (classic BBC sitcom) The Young Ones said it was all crap. The reviews of series 2 said it wasn't as great as the first series.

I think my signature, taken from Sheldon Cooper of THE BIG BANG THEORY, says everything one needs to know about George Lucas at this stage of his personal and creative life.

See, this smells a bit fan-ish to me.

Well, I've done my share of bashing INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, but I'd far rather that Lucas, Spielberg and Ford had given me a film to delight in. And I much prefer praising films I like than slamming ones I don't. Personally, I take no "delight at being snarky and critical", but occasionally it's called for. Perhaps a great many people have spewed vitriol at CRYSTAL SKULL not because they enjoy being nasty and negative but because they genuinely find it an awful film?

Honestly? No. I struggle to see that simply because it isn't awful. Their expectations may have made it more awful than they thought it was, but objectively (as objective as anyone could be anyway) it's just not that awful. It's not great; it's way below the others in terms of quality, but I watched King Solomon's Mines the other day- and it's way better than that. I's decent and has the occasional spark of something new. If I was eight years old I doubt I'd notice a drop in quality between that and Last Crusade.

[jaguar007]

but if you read the original reviews of Raiders even that was said to be crap as well.

I certainly don't recall many bad reviews in 1981. Raiders was the buzz, had great word of mouth and was nominated 8 Oscars including Best Picture.

[marktmurphy]

I'm no more a STAR WARS fan than I am an Indy Jones fan (frankly, I find both franchises pretty tedious), but I'd far, far rather sit through ATTACK OF THE CLONES or REVENGE OF THE SITH than CRYSTAL SKULL. Now, CRYSTAL SKULL arguably takes down THE PHANTOM MENACE (which I find significantly inferior to its two successors), but even then MENACE has a couple of decent visual moments and a pretty cool baddie in the shape of Darth Maul.

Honestly you baffle me. I'm not a massive SW fan (although I enjoy all of the original three) but the new ones simply don't work as films for me. They fail to engage on any level for me; there are no engaging performances, no exciting scenes- nothing. Crystal Skull is a weaker film made by an expert filmmaker I'd say: it's not great but it works as a film, which is more than I could say for the SW prequels.

Yeah. KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL has more humanity than the STAR WARS prequels. Of course, that claim says more about the direness of the prequels than it does the merits of CRYSTAL SKULL.

Yes; probably true. They're simply appalling: I'm not even disappointed from the point of view of having enjoyed the previous films: they simply don't square with any kind of filmmaking I'm familiar with. They're cold and just sort of wash over the viewer. Indy 4 functions: you like Indy; you boo the villains. It may not get your pulse racing as much as it should, but at the very least the doomtown teaser does actually create tension- I can't think of a similar sequence in any of the SW prequels.
If the Shia quote is true hopefully Spielberg has felt that he needs to step up the game a bit and end on a high note; maybe Tintin is going well enough to make him think he could do a better job.

[Safari Suit]

And the lampooning of fan reaction is driven home at the last moment, where Butters, in contrast to everyone else, comments that he thought the movie was "pretty good."

But Butters is meant to be the ultimate "dork". That's the joke, that Butters is the kind of guy who would like KOTCS.

I do think they were trying to make fun of the hyperbole of comparing a bad Indy film to rape, but they did also hate KOTCS and probably have pretty similar views on Lucas and Spielberg as many fanboys.