Indiana Jones & The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull Discussion Thread (Spoilers)

[King Darkness]

It must be a picture then. What is it a picture of? I am at work and blinded. It is a conspiracy I tell you.

Its a picture proving that giants once ruled the earth, and in the far off background you can see a government official putting fluoride in the water supply.

 

[BadMoon]

Its a picture proving that giants once ruled the earth, and in the far off background you can see a government official putting fluoride in the water supply.

 

[Darth Caedus]

There was so little good...that is the problem.

I was REALLY hoping it would get better after the nuke scene but it never did.

I wanted to just fast forward through so many scenes…..I also thought about walking out more than once.

Glad I didn’t though. I would have missed:

-funny gophers

-three waterfalls

-swinging monkeys

-fistfight in the middle of ants

-Shai getting racked 10 times in a row

-Kate holding a sword, trying to look scary

-crazy guy holding a shiny skull for hours

-lead fridge

-Brody’s smiling head falling off

-snake rope

-Marion pretending to drive, just holding a steering wheel

-Marion coaching the sword fight between the cars

-Marion driving off a cliff

-tree branch killing most of the Russians

-the phasing mothership

-jumping martial arts guys, trying to be scary

-and of course, the ALIEN with knowledge

Oh man...what a disaster.

The Indy "magic" was not there at all with this one.

 

[miles]

That right there is a very good example of the type of hyperbole-riddled stupidity I've been referring to.

Exactly Irish!! I hope you guys did not take my post the wrong way, I absolutely LOVE this movie!! I thought that little graphic was funny..

 

[aussieinnyc]

Just saw this and wanted to add my two-cents. Apart from some really obvious flaws - Karen Allen being so happy to be working on a major film again that she can't stop smiling, too much use of CGI for backgrounds and "silly" stuff like the Tarzan sequence, and a case of too many sidekicks, etc, it was a good movie. I just don't think it was a good Indy movie.

In another thread someone said something in reply to the comment "so it's a 50's B-move first and and Indy movie second" with along the lines of "why can't it be an Indy move AND a 50's B-movie?" Part of what made Indy films what they are is the 30s serial style that they were shot in. Change that style and you take away something that makes Indy, "Indy".

I'm not sure what the solution should have been to bringing Indy back after 20 years. Would a 30's serial approach have worked in a film set in the 50's? Possibly, but they would have needed a solution other than "the aliens did it" (which frankly I would have preferred - I much prefer earth-bound/originating objects with a mystical, unexplained power than "it came from outer-space") or maybe the best solution would have been to leave Indy at three great films instead of trying to translate Indy into a whole new genre.

 

[Agent0028]

To me having the movie made in the 30's style betrays the reason it is made in the 30's style. It doesn't feel as much like an Indy movie with the 50's style, but that better keeps in line with Spielberg's and Lucas' intentions for the first three.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Okay, I think some people aren't aware how to use this smiley properly. It seems it's being adopted by some to show support for a statement, and by others in the correct form as a sarcastic comment on being lectured at.

Perhaps we need a smiley modifier for this one, such as to indicate saracasm and to show support...

 

[Eli26]

Okay, I think some people aren't aware how to use this smiley properly. It seems it's being adopted by some to show support for a statement, and by others in the correct form as a sarcastic comment on being lectured at.

Perhaps we need a smiley modifier for this one, such as to indicate saracasm and to show support...

 

[Isabel Skyfire]

I really like the movie ... there were some things that they could have done with out but i think it was really great ... A real 'Indiana Jones' movie. the whole son thing and the fact that they used the same girl from the fist movie just made it even better. Shia was good in the movie but no one could take the spot light from Ford. His the 'MAN'!!!

 

[KrisSolo]

Now there's the problem - some here can't eben interpret an emoyicon correctly, let alone a film...

Saw it for the third time last night and honestly enjoyed it more than ever. I agree there's some overly slow exposition at places in the first half, but once they hit the jungle baby, it's just a ride and a half!

 

[aussieinnyc]

Except the parts where they graduate from slow exposition to Indy saying "What is, Ox?" a hundred times followed by an interpretation. I was half expecting tp learn that Timmy had fallen down a well...

 

[Rumsfield]

You know, I've seen the new Indy twice now and overall I think it's a fine entry in the series. I still like the films in the order they have been released so far and nothing will ever top "Raiders" for sheer fun at the movies. I really didn't like "Skull" the first time I saw it but the second time I noticed a few new things and I was prepared for the things that I didn't like. Swinging Shia being one of them...

What I still don't like is the "interdimensional beings" explanation and the "space between spaces." Whatever. I feel like George wanted to do the '50s "paranoia/it came from outer space" era film but Steven knew it wasn't truly "Indy." So, to get a bit of the previous film's mysticism back they finally agreed on the lame other dimension explanation. They just added it to the already established crystal skull mythology instead of just calling it "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars."

It was entertaining enough to me though and in the end I guess that's all it has to do. There are more important things to worry about these days.

 

[KrisSolo]

...like beaver hats, apparently...

 

[Agent0028]

Okay, I think some people aren't aware how to use this smiley properly. It seems it's being adopted by some to show support for a statement, and by others in the correct form as a sarcastic comment on being lectured at.

Perhaps we need a smiley modifier for this one, such as to indicate saracasm and to show support...

I know! I never know if people are agreeing with me or making fun of me. It's so confusing, just like high school.

 

[tomandshell]

I know! I never know if people are agreeing with me or making fun of me. It's so confusing, just like high school.

 

[Agent0028]

 

[The Mike]

 

[Jen]

Well I'm not going to post too much on this, but just wanted to add that I went in with no expectations.....read no spoilers, reviews, etc.... and well I was entertained. Was it the greatest thing since sliced bread....no....but it was a good Indy flick. The only Indy flick I really loved was Raiders...and even that had some cringe worthy moments for me....I hate female characters that scream like sissies and need to rescued....it really gets to me. Which is why I really didn't care that much for Temple of Doom....Kate Capshaw's character was like nails on a chalkboard for me. I liked The Last Crusade...no annoying females and this last one would be on par with that one. So considering that I've enjoyed the Indy franchise (but didn't LOVE it) I was not disappointed with this movie. I loved the scene with the ants - ants freak me out. I do like that the previoius movies had more religious artifacts - I find that kind of stuff really fascinating...the crystal skull was good...but it just didn't grab me like the others... and some of the plot left me scratching my head...And some of the lighting was pure awful. Especially in the jungle scene....one minute everything looks so vibrant and lush and green and then everything changed and looked washed out like it was shot on some crappy camcorder. That was disappointing and it totally took me away from the action for a moment while I was wondering what the hell just happened. But I went in hoping to be entertained, nothing more, and I was. Will I see it again.....yeah...but not until it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray. As far as ratings go - I would give Raiders an 8.5, Temple a 7, Last Crusade a 7.5 and this one a 7.5.

 

[icruise]

Okay, I think some people aren't aware how to use this smiley properly. It seems it's being adopted by some to show support for a statement, and by others in the correct form as a sarcastic comment on being lectured at.

Perhaps we need a smiley modifier for this one, such as to indicate saracasm and to show support...

Of course it wouldn't be a problem if people would follow your own advice and not reply using just a smiley. Just sayin'.

 

[jedibear]

Well, 80 pages in and I see the ripping-to-shreds continues. How sad.

I guess since folks who work at Sideshow hated this so much, our chances of getting any figures from this film are diminished. And if that's so, that's too bad.
Would've liked to see Sideshow produce a Spalko figure, a Dovchenko figure, a Mutt Williams figure and yes, an older version of Indiana himself. But I certainly don't want to see them bother if one of the key artists here think the movie is crap. As an artist myself, it would be difficult to produce something for a property I despised and not have that feeling reflected in the piece, so best to not bother.

I really like this movie...a lot. I've seen it a couple more times and I like it better each time....but this isn't the place for that kind of discussion I guess. Sometimes when I go to the different boards and see what people are saying I have to wonder...did I see the same movie? Get the same figure? Read the same book? It just seems like the knifes come out more fast and furious for everything from movies to figures and more these days...

Ah well....guess it's back to lurking til "The Dark Knight" comes out. Then I can come here and read countless posts of how Adam West and Ceaser Romero did it better...