2519 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

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

Butters has been used in different ways in different episodes. He's the simpleton of SOUTH PARK but in this instance, I suspect he's stand-in for the "general audience," many of whom went to KINGDOM and enjoyed it.

It may be quite true that SOUTH PARK's creators hate KINGDOM (in fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't), but the episode doesn't really serve to lampoon KINGDOM directly.

[Harmsway]

For example, a lot of the stunt work in the previous three films was possible, even if not probable. Somewhere that axiom got lost on Spielberg and Lucas

And it was during shooting, actually. Spielberg did intend to do KINGDOM mostly for real. But the truth is that the action sequences were, by and large, improvised (KINGDOM was nowhere near as meticulously planned like the original Indy flicks), and as such, Spielberg turned to CGI to compensate for his changing vision (see, for example, the giant pyramid set, where Indy and co. are chased down the steps; they built a real set for that, but Spielberg then made an on-set decision to have the steps be much longer than they were built, and so CGI augmentation was necessary).

Please, please, please defend those scenes.

I'll only defend Doomtown, which, for my money, was the best section of KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. It's outrageous on a MOONRAKER-esque level, but there's some genuine creativity there, the spark of the old school, fun-loving Spielberg0. Doomtown providees an interesting setting, with a fairly suspenseful set-up. Sure, it leads to an outrageous kind of punchline, and overall is a bit too CGI-heavy when it could have been more practical, but then it gets it back for the sheer coolness of an image of Indy staring up at a mushroom cloud. I'm not opposed to silliness provided it's inventive enough. I do think the sequence could have been better-handled (earlier scripted versions of it had different details which made the sequence play better). The problem with CRYSTAL SKULL wasn't really its outlandishness, it was its lack of imagination and laziness.

I could go back and look at just about every bad decision made in regards to the Indy series and you'd see where Spielberg originally objected, but then relented after being pressured from Lucas.

Really? Either I have a more thorough knowledge of the creative history of the INDY flicks or you and I disagree on what the "bad decisions" regarding the INDY franchise are. Lucas was never, even on INDY IV, Jones' boogeyman.

[marktmurphy]

I have no problem with him adding more creatures and f/x to the Mos Eisley Cantina scenes. I have no problem with him expanding the background of Cloud City in EMPIRE, or adding bigger fireballs and detail to the explosion of The Death Star. But I have major, major problems with him re-working the Greedo/Han scene, and I find it an absolute travesty that he replace Sebastian Shaw at the end of ROTJ with Hayden Christensen....why do that and then leave Alec Guinness in at the end of ROTJ instead of Ewan McGregor?

Well, after the prequels we know that Anakin never looked like the Shaw ghost, so it sort of didn't make any sense to leave him like that. Why would a ghost look like a person that never existed? I think having Christensen there makes sense and ties the trilogies together a bit. I understand people don't like films to be changed, but I'm not that precious and I can see the logic in that particular change.

My biggest, biggest problems with KOTCS were, and are: over reliance on CGI and pushing the edge of what was possible/probable for a movie action hero. For example, a lot of the stunt work in the previous three films was possible, even if not probable. Somewhere that axiom got lost on Spielberg and Lucas, because we went from getting Indy fighting a Nazi in, under, on top of, and around a plane about to explode to getting Indy being hurtled a mile into the sky, and a few miles away from, a nuclear blast, falling to earth, and just walking out of the refrigerator he was in without a scratch.

Well, he also rides both a massive statue through a wall and a U Boat across an ocean in Raiders. No, not as hard to swallow, I agree, but pretty outrageous. He takes on an entire platoon of soldiers in Raiders and beats them; in Skull it's only a duck full of them! It's like Dr No and Moonraker being in the same series of films: one's bigger and crazier than the other, but the first didn't exactly start out as a kitchen sink drama and from this distance everyone's happy about them being in the same series.

Instead of the terrific tank/horse chase scene from LAST CRUSADE, we get a duck boat/tree cutter chase scene that, while filmed in Hawaii, ended up using far too many CGI elements, and is topped off with one implausible scenario after another; namely, Mutt swinging from tree-to-tree like a monkey to make up 2-3 miles worth of distance (conservatively speaking) to catch back up to the other people, and then going over three waterfalls without a single person drowning or even falling out of the boats. Please, please, please defend those scenes. I would really love to hear an intelligent, rationale explanation from someone, anyone, as to why those scenes are somehow as good, or better, than anything that came before it in the first three Indy films.

Those scenes aren't as good as they should be, no. I actually find the bendy tree a bit more annoying than those as it seems much more improbably than surviving a waterfall or swinging from a vine (and Mutt cuts the corner off; that's how he catches them up). But they're not superb sequences, no.
Doomtown is fab, however, and is the only time in the film that Spielberg manages real tension. And it's a very original scene. I have a fond spot for the Ants fight as well.

Like I've said, I'm not a professional Lucas hater, any more than I'm a professional Michael Bay hater. I only even became vaguely aware of the hatred for Lucas and ROTJ back in 1997 or 1998. Maybe later than that. But I just look at the all resources at this man's disposal, and look at the great stuff that came out from 77-83 with Star Wars, and the interesting collaboration on the Indy films from '81 to '89, and wonder: what the hell happened?

My gut instinct tells me that Spielberg carried the man for a long time until not only could Spielberg no longer carry Lucas, but Spielberg became weighed down under the burden of having been around such a hack director for so long. Lucas was the technical guy who could come up with some great ideas and new techniques, but Spielberg was the guy who could really tell the story and direct the actors. And then, as is often the case, the person weighing and pulling the other one down ends up destroying the better half. I could go back and look at just about every bad decision made in regards to the Indy series and you'd see where Spielberg originally objected, but then relented after being pressured from Lucas.

I just don't see any bad ideas in the Indy series (and I don't count the TV series!). I think it's the best thing Lucas ever did and, yes, working with Spielberg surely made that true. And Indy was Lucas' idea. It's hard to say he's bad at what he does because, well, people love the things he made.
Even the bad things in Crystal Skull I can see looked good on the page; a lot of it was just let down in the execution. Mutt may have looked a bad idea perhaps, but in execution wasn't bad at all. Not great, but not bad.

I'll only defend Doomtown, which, for my money, was the best section of KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL. It's outrageous on a MOONRAKER-esque level, but there's some genuine creativity there, the spark of the old school, fun-loving Spielberg0. Doomtown providees an interesting setting, with a fairly suspenseful set-up. Sure, it leads to an outrageous kind of punchline, and overall is a bit too CGI-heavy when it could have been more practical, but then it gets it back for the sheer coolness of an image of Indy staring up at a mushroom cloud. I'm not opposed to silliness provided it's inventive enough. I do think the sequence could have been better-handled (earlier scripted versions of it had different details which made the sequence play better). The problem with CRYSTAL SKULL wasn't really its outlandishness, it was its lack of imagination and laziness.

I'v eonly read the City of the Gods version, and I actually prefer the film version to that. It's snappier; although I suppose the bit where Indy is running with the soldiers and then changes direction is neat. It's pretty much the only thing in the film that's snappier than the City script, but I think it is.

[Loomis]

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.

Well, just as you can defend CRYSTAL SKULL by comparing it to KING SOLOMON'S MINES or other examples of bottom-of-the-barrel fare, I'm sure I could find plenty of low budget or DTV howlers in the sci-fi genre to defend the STAR WARS prequels against charges that they're "simply appalling".

[Mike00spy]

He's the auteur, they're the sexless wankers who wouldn't know great cinema if it came and punched them in the face (is his attitude).

A bit of an exaggeration there.

What I do believe is that he never intended to make great films with the prequels

I don't buy that.

Lucas is dismissive of the fans to the point where he has refused to allow the original three films to be released on DVD, and presumably that will hold true for the Blu-Ray editions as well.

The originals are on DVD.

But these are all just extra things thrown on top of just one issue: the failure of the prequels. Because Lucas failed in that respect, fans are bitter and the just bitch and moan like kids. They are worse than scorned lovers. The problem was that they loved the originals way too much. So instead of being disappointed and shrugging it off and moving on with their lives, they sit there and bash him for all eternity.

To say that they are "his movies after all" may be technically, legally true, but it completely misses the point about serving your customers and keeping up good relations. Just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should. He has ignored the vast, overwhelming opinion of his fans on the matters of the original films. Unfortunately, he doesn't just stop there. He made one of the worst films of all time (PHANTOM MENACE), and instead of admitting his mistake and humbly letting someone else direct the next two, went on to make films that served to be only slightly better. He took very good actors and turned them into total -sandwiches. He disregarded major plots and points of the first three films in order to ret-con and shoe-horn a storyline for the prequels that he made up 16 years after the last film, ROTJ.

He also dismisses legitimate, reasonable criticism of the prequels and KOTCS as coming from people who were 'never going to be satisfied' and raises the bar unrealistically high on himself in order to give himself an excuse for not turning in a good film.

It all comes down to his opinion of his work vs others people's opinion. At the end of the day, he's the artist who stands by his work. We can call him wrong all we want, but its his choice. But, I wouldn't call it disdain. Stubborn, perhaps. Do we really expect him to say, "I'm going to go on IMDB's message boards and write down notes and change Episodes 1-3 based on those suggestions. My new prequels will be out in theaters in 2013." Eventhough I think he's made many mistakes, I wouldn't want him to do that. I think fans (due to the internet) feel like they are bigger than what they are.

[marktmurphy]

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.

Well, just as you can defend CRYSTAL SKULL by comparing it to KING SOLOMON'S MINES or other examples of bottom-of-the-barrel fare, I'm sure I could find plenty of low budget or DTV howlers in the sci-fi genre to defend the STAR WARS prequels against charges that they're "simply appalling".

Solomon's is a terrible Indy ripoff with not even half of the imagination and wit of the Indy films, but it does function as a movie: the characters are recognisable and you feel at least the slightest connection. There are peaks and troughs. Unlike the prequels, which just wash over the viewer and at worst are simply laughably poor (Anakin and whatshername's courting, his wanky 'dreams', 'I killed them all' 'I love you, Anakin', Obi wan riding a lizard). Solomon's is a two star film, I struggle to recognise the prequels as films.

[Harmsway]

Well, personally, I don't mind any of that stuff in TEMPLE. I wish Indy would get that dark again. And, truthfully speaking, TEMPLE is no more violent than RAIDERS. Darker in tone, perhaps (though there are great portions of TEMPLE where TEMPLE is significantly lighter in tone than RAIDERS), but not in terms of the actual violent acts.

[marktmurphy]

Temple of Doom is an excellent film; no real way around that. The heart-ripping scene is a little too much in its original US form -I think the UK edited version is actually better- but as a kid at the time it was something I always enjoyed: kids love gruesome stuff; just look at Young Bond. If it was all Lucas' idea, well done him.

[Harmsway]

Temple of Doom is an excellent film; no real way around that.

I really dig TEMPLE, but I'd have to say it has plenty of problems.

The heart-ripping scene is a little too much in its original US form -I think the UK edited version is actually better- but as a kid at the time it was something I always enjoyed: kids love gruesome stuff; just look at Young Bond.

What's the difference between the US and UK cuts?

[Safari Suit]

Solomon's is a terrible Indy ripoff with not even half of the imagination and wit of the Indy films, but it does function as a movie: the characters are recognisable and you feel at least the slightest connection. There are peaks and troughs. Unlike the prequels, which just wash over the viewer and at worst are simply laughably poor (Anakin and whatshername's courting, his wanky 'dreams', 'I killed them all' 'I love you, Anakin', Obi wan riding a lizard). Solomon's is a two star film, I struggle to recognise the prequels as films.

Not that it really matters I suppose, but are you talking about the Richard Chamberlin/Sharon Stone Mines or the more recent Patrick Stewart/Alison Doody one? (I assume we're not talking about any of the earlier, better ones, if we're talking about Indy wannabes)

[Loomis]

What's the difference between the US and UK cuts?

As far as I know, nothing, except that the scene in which Mola Ram rips the sacrificial victim's heart out was trimmed by a few seconds in Britain to make it less graphic. The British Board of Film Classification also insisted on the removal of a headbutt from ATTACK OF THE CLONES, believe it or not.

Such cutting is fairly standard over here. British prints of THE EXPENDABLES have been cut by a couple of seconds to excise a shot of Lundgren snapping someone's neck, or something like that.

[Harmsway]

I can't recall, offhand, any acts of explicit brutality against innocents and civilians in RAIDERS. Heads melt and explode, but it all happens to the bad guys.

Perhaps so, and that lends a slightly darker tone to the proceedings of TEMPLE. Nevertheless, the actual violent act of a heart being ripped out of a man's chest isn't any more violent than the actual act of a man melting to death.

Conversely, DOOM forces Indiana to drink blood

They call it the "Blood of Kali," but I always assumed it was just a potion that resembled blood, not actual blood.

Secondly, thirdly, and fourth-most, the acts of explicit violence towards the end of RAIDERS came not from other men, but from God.

So? Violence is violence.

But it's interesting how and why Lucas chooses which films to retro-fit and which ones he chooses to leave alone. Why not a slightly edited version of DOOM that takes out the most hardcore elements of the film? He'll manipulate films like A NEW HOPE with changes that no one asked for, but he'll leave DOOM alone, even though many people were offended by it and an entirely new rating was put into place because of it.

Because Lucas acknowledges that the films are Spielberg's, not his own, and he's not about to go mess about with Steven's work. He doesn't have ownership of them like he does STAR WARS. Lucas and Spielberg both acknowledge that Lucas' primary role for the Indy films is a kind of "concept" or "story" guy, and that the films are really Spielberg's baby. Lucas steps away from the films once they begin shooting.

Spielberg even said prior to KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL that, at the end of the day, KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL was his film, not Lucas'.

[The Shark]

I can't recall, offhand, any acts of explicit brutality against innocents and civilians in RAIDERS. Heads melt and explode, but it all happens to the bad guys.

Perhaps so, and that lends a slightly darker tone to the proceedings of TEMPLE. Nevertheless, the actual violent act of a heart being ripped out of a man's chest isn't any more violent than the actual act of a man melting to death.

In concept I'd agree, but not in execution. In RAIDER's the 'Ark Opened' scene has a more campy, B-movie-esque tone to it than the heart ablation scene, with the special effects and gore being considerably less convincing.

[marktmurphy]

Temple of Doom is an excellent film; no real way around that.

I really dig TEMPLE, but I'd have to say it has plenty of problems.

I really don't think it does. You can find issues if you look close enough, you can do with most films, but it works as brilliant entertainment.

The heart-ripping scene is a little too much in its original US form -I think the UK edited version is actually better- but as a kid at the time it was something I always enjoyed: kids love gruesome stuff; just look at Young Bond.

What's the difference between the US and UK cuts?

I only saw the US version for the first time recently: none of the (rubbish and unsympathetic to Spielberg's direction) sfx shots where you see the hand go into the chest are in the UK version (which means that there's a bit of an issue as to why the guy doesn't have a hole in his chest, but the sfx are so poor and jarring I actually think it works better without them), you don't see many shots of the heart beating in Mola Ram's hand (which I don't really mind either way), but a lot of the victim's screaming and then bursting into flame is removed: the US version goes too far for my liking here as his suffering is way too much. I think gruesome bloody stuff is fine; kids don't really mind that- but someone in prolonged pain and fear is a bit too disturbing. I think Spielberg has gone on record and said he actually thinks the UK version is the better one.
Otherwise I think stuff like some of the whips to Indy, or maybe Short Round, are gone in the later scene: I haven't checked out my copy yet.

Not that it really matters I suppose, but are you talking about the Richard Chamberlin/Sharon Stone Mines or the more recent Patrick Stewart/Alison Doody one? (I assume we're not talking about any of the earlier, better ones, if we're talking about Indy wannabes)

Chamberlain; yeah. Mostly because it's a shocking Raiders rip-off: chase through a busy market, the hero gets pulled along behind a moving vehicle etc.
The Swayze one is even worse! Cheap and slow: the Chamberlain one at least is a proper film with a decent budget.

But it's interesting how and why Lucas chooses which films to retro-fit and which ones he chooses to leave alone. Why not a slightly edited version of DOOM that takes out the most hardcore elements of the film? He'll manipulate films like A NEW HOPE with changes that no one asked for, but he'll leave DOOM alone, even though many people were offended by it and an entirely new rating was put into place because of it.

Because Lucas acknowledges that the films are Spielberg's, not his own, and he's not about to go mess about with Steven's work. He doesn't have ownership of them like he does STAR WARS. Lucas and Spielberg both acknowledge that Lucas' primary role for the Indy films is a kind of "concept" or "story" guy, and that the films are really Spielberg's baby. Lucas steps away from the films once they begin shooting.

Spielberg even said prior to KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL that, at the end of the day, KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL was his film, not Lucas'.

Yes; didn't they have a slight spat when Lucas tried to rename it 'Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark'? I got the impression that Spielberg let him change the name on the video cover but not on the actual film opening titles themselves.
Makes me wonder how that CGI cliff face got into the recent HD broadcast of Raiders, though. That's a Lucas-sized change (although, again: it's something that doesn't really upset me. I can't see why they'd do it, but I don't lose sleep over it).

I can't recall, offhand, any acts of explicit brutality against innocents and civilians in RAIDERS. Heads melt and explode, but it all happens to the bad guys.

Perhaps so, and that lends a slightly darker tone to the proceedings of TEMPLE. Nevertheless, the actual violent act of a heart being ripped out of a man's chest isn't any more violent than the actual act of a man melting to death.

In concept I'd agree, but not in execution. In RAIDER's the 'Ark Opened' scene has a more campy, B-movie-esque tone to it than the heart ablation scene, with the special effects and gore being considerably less convincing.

A mate of mine went to a wedding about two weeks ago where Wolf Kahler (Col. Dietrich; the guy whose head melts) was one of the guests. I was so hoping that he'd say that he 'wasn't comfortable with this Jewish ceremony'
Apparently he didn't though and is very nice. Boo.

[Harmsway]

I really don't think it does. You can find issues if you look close enough, you can do with most films, but it works as brilliant entertainment.

TEMPLE's story is shoddily constructed in a way that the story for RAIDERS is not.

[terminus]

I'd agree that Raiders is better than Temple, but I'll throw a spanner into the works and admit that my preference is Crusade over Raiders (but Raiders over Kingdom). I saw Crusade at the cinema as a kid so it holds a special place in my memory - and the trials once they reach the tomb are a personal cinematic favourite scene of mine.

[elizabeth]

Temple was terrific, but the heart-pulling scene freaks me out, and I look away when it comes on. I'm a wimp.

[marktmurphy]

This seems sort of fun; it's Indy meeting Star Wars, in the presence of Lucas.

[DamnCoffee]

Harrison Ford is trying to convince Sean Connery to return as his dad in Indiana Jones 5.
The Bond legend has said he will not make any more films.
However, Harrison is confident he can tempt the 80-year-old to appear as Henry Jones Sr, a role he played in 1989's The Last Crusade.
Apparently, Harrison, 68 is trying his best to persuade Connery by sending him gifts.
"I hear Harrison has been sending over gifts to try to convince him," the Daily Star quoted a film source as saying.

http://www.dnaindia....jones-5_1438353

[DamnCoffee]

Raiders of the Lost Ark is coming to iMAX at the end of this month, in order to celebrate the release of the the Blu Ray Collection. Definitely going to see this one. The Raiders March in surround sound will be the best thing. Odeon are taking bookings now.

[S K Y F A L L]

Recent news on the Indiana Jones 5 rumors is that it is NOT happening. I think its to bad, I really would have liked to seen another one.

[DamnCoffee]

The only reason I want Indiana Jones 5 is that I want to give them a chance to redeem themselves. I loathe CrystalSkull and it was one of the most disappointing films I've seen. If not one of the most disappointing films of all time. I don't want the Series to end on such a whimper. I try to ignore Crystal Skull as much as possible. If we got a strong 5th film, i might just forgive it.

[SecretAgentFan]

The only Indy 5 I would like them to produce would be one in which he is the sole hero. No son, no suddenly discovered daughter, heck, even no Marion. And bringing back Connery would not be necessary either.

Just a "normal" Indy-adventure... but I guess that would not be financed anymore in these days. They just have to appeal to the youth market.

On the other hand, it would be impossible to have Harrison Ford do a "prequel" to "Skull" - so it would have to be set in the 60´s now. And somehow Indy is too much rooted in earlier times where everything was simpler, more exotic, more... magical for the lack of a better word.

Which leaves only one conclusion: Indiana Jones as we know him has come to an end.

But I would be open for a re-boot. Getting a new Indiana Jones, a younger one who can actually have adventures set in the 30´s and 40´s.

Why not? Bond was recast after Connery and nobody thought it would be possible. But the character itself is the star. And nowadays, Harrison Ford is not the big draw for the young mass audience anyway. Getting the right actor to take over this legendary role, and you have a good chance to revive that series.

Edited by SecretAgentFan, 06 September 2012 - 05:02 PM.

[S K Y F A L L]

I wonder how long it will stay on the IMDb.

[Matt_13]

IMAX trailer for Raiders



I'd rather they not do a new one. The only way I can see myself genuinely interested in another installment is if they make a point of underscoring Indy's age, moreso than the jokey nonsense in Crystal Skull. The adventurer spirit should still be present, but the body can't be able to keep up. I think that'd be far more interesting than anything we saw in #4.

[Royal Dalton]

Thanks, Matt.

Slightly annoying that they're only releasing Raiders of the Lost Ark in IMAX cinemas, since I don't live anywhere near one!

[JimmyBond]

I'm going to see Raiders in theaters this Saturday! It's so cool I can say that.

So seeing Last Crusade as a child, and Krystal Skull two years ago, I can now say (at least after Saturday) that I've seen all but one of the films in theaters. Ironic that it's my favorite of the four, oh well, someday I'll see Temple in theaters...

[DamnCoffee]

I think I'm seeing Raiders when it's released over here. Infact, I AM seeing Raiders! I too hope to see Temple and Crusade. Maybe if Raiders is a complete success, they might release the others. Then I could've seen all four... errmm, all THREE movies in the cinema!

Edited by DamnCoffee, 07 September 2012 - 04:50 AM.

[thecasinoroyale]

Well I never knew this thread existed..brilliant.

I hope they show 'Raiders' in other cinemas, not just IMAX - but they would defy the IMAX release I guess, so I'll have to wait for a re-release sometime maybe.

All cracking films in their own right, and I can't wait for the deserved Blu Ray transition and boxset due in the next couple of months!

[SecretAgentFan]

This month, if I´m correct!