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

[sladesuperagent]

Winstone was just passing time but Ford put in his best performance in literally more than a decade. Blanchett was hilarious.



Can you remind me again how Indy makes it to the seaplane in Raiders?



Do you understand how the modern box office works? The film has had a pretty remarkable drop pattern for the past few weeks, which indicates incredible word of mouth (in other words normal people are enjoying it much more than a few loudmouths on the Internet). It's certain to pass $300 million and the only other film this year on track to do that so far is Iron Man.

I will never understand the "Mutt swung on a vine so the entire movie raped my childhood" thing.

Yes, I understand how the box office works--and I was incorrect--it was third this weekend.

I never said my childhood was "raped" b/c of this movie and I actually find that quote rather offense--rape is kinda a serious thing and it makes you sound like a douche, especially 13 posts in...

Blancett was hilariously bad and a completely unnecessary character--another, ho hum, soft female villain.

I'll give Ford a little credit though, I thought he got back in the saddle well and the Mutt character wasn't as horrid as I thought he might be.

 

[Blackhole]

I loved the film...

Last Crusade is still my favourite but Raiders is the best...

And I loved the Ark in the warehouse...

And it's not surprising that Indy and Star Wars share some of the same sound effects, because Skywalker Sound does both...

Noise of the plane starting in Raiders = AT-AT's gun noise...

Etc, etc...

 

[Khev]

Actually, he did. Twice. Once in ANH (during the garbage smasher scene), and once in ROTJ, when they were tied up by the Ewoks. That's why I liked that nod so well.

D'oh, forgot about those. That's awesome. Especially since he's gone on record so many times saying he'll never play Solo again that's really cool that they still worked in a little nod to his old character.

And don't forget the Wilhelm Scream.

Or Indy just barely preventing his hat from being lost forever. Loved that scene where the ants tried to take it.

 

[Wor-Gar]

You know another thing I loved? I know it may seem silly, but I loved that they used the exact same "punch" Foley sound effects in the fight sequences that the previous movies used. When you get punched by Indy, you've really been punched.

One of the great things about Indy! Those nose-cracking punches cranked to 11.

 

[IrishJedi]

Que Irish in 5-4-3-2-1.........

Nah. I can't even get mad at hyperbolic crap like that anymore.

 

[6Series]

I saw it for the 3rd time yesterday. Even though I liked it a lot the first time I saw it, I like it even more now.

And Indy standing in front of the mushroom cloud has definitely become one of my favorite images from any movie.

Oh I second that!!! I hope there will be a poster of that particular shot. Its very cool!

I love this movie a lot and its very Saturday Matinee. Ford's still fantastic as Indiana Jones and love watchin him in action again.

I hope I am not the only one wanting more Indy movies. Ford still very fit at this age, fantastic!!!

 

[6Series]

I loved the film...

Last Crusade is still my favourite but Raiders is the best...

And I loved the Ark in the warehouse...

And it's not surprising that Indy and Star Wars share some of the same sound effects, because Skywalker Sound does both...

Noise of the plane starting in Raiders = AT-AT's gun noise...

Etc, etc...

That too!

And the sounds were created by Ben Burtt for both films.

 

[Wanderer]

Sad thing is if they push for a film 5, Ford will be touching 70 by the time its made...

 

[6Series]

Unless they get a script ASAP and start filming next year.

 

[RoboDad]

Well, with almost $600M in box office receipts world wide (so far!), there should be plenty of incentive for them to make #5. George has now been appeased with his "alien" demands, so just get a new script ready, film it asap, and give us more Indy!

 

[barbelith]

Yes, I understand how the box office works--and I was incorrect--it was third this weekend.

The reason I ask is because you're using that chart placement to bash the film when in fact it shows precisely how well the movie is performing. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has posted weekly declines as all films do in modern times but the industry commentary is about how unexpectedly small those drops are compared to expectations. In other words the movie is actually performing better than most people expected and features impressive weekly drop percentages. This indicates general audiences like the movie and are giving it good word of mouth. All of which suggests that, no, you don't actually understand how the box office works.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is a winner in terms of box office, in terms of critical reception and in terms of audience reaction. And of course everyone could have predicted a sad collection of joyless nerds would bash it on the Internet because, hey, that sort of thing used to be cool a few years ago so it should still be cool now, right? Heaven knows it can't be that the movie just didn't press my personal buttons - it has to be absolutely wretched across the board and a waste of celluloid! Who cares if every complaint is hilariously undermined by identical examples in the previous three films. What, we're supposed to actually watch those with our eyes open before bleating? Say it ain't so!

I never said my childhood was "raped" b/c of this movie and I actually find that quote rather offense--rape is kinda a serious thing and it makes you sound like a douche, especially 13 posts in...

"George Lucas raped my childhood" is an Internet meme that's now nine years old and is often used to describe vacuous hyperbolic posts such as your previous installment. These posts - as your was - are frequently short of actual criticism but rarely short of hypocrisy. I for one hope Spielberg edits the Tarzan swing and comedy monkey out of Raiders of the Lost Ark as we all know those 10 seconds ruin the entire film.

Blancett was hilariously bad and a completely unnecessary character--another, ho hum, soft female villain.

She was great fun. I know that "fun" in an Indiana Jones movie seems completely unnecessary to some, but bear with me. Shall we really run through the list of truly unnecessary characters in the first three films? You'd be surprised who's on there - including a much loved little German with a wounded hand and every single person in The Last Crusade who doesn't have the surname Jones...

 

[aussieinnyc]

I find it kind of funny that some of the people criticising those for disliking the film and engaging in hyperbole are responding with equally ridiculous exaggeration. I also hated Mutt's Tarzan sequence, and have no problem with Indy's swing in Raiders. And somehow I still manage to exist without dissolving into a swirling paradox. It could have something to do with Mutt's sequence looking ridiculously full of CGI, it could be that the sequence lasted a minute or so whereas Indy's swing was all of two or three seconds, it could be that the two, in my mind, are completely different.

Raiders, in my opinion, is a much more enjoyable film. It has, for me, a better basic concept, I prefer the genre more, and the storyline and characters are, on the whole better. And I say this even while knowing that is is VERY hard to find a single scene in Raiders that does not either have embarrassingly bad continuity between shots, or a plot hole big enough to drive a dynamite-laden truck through.

I should be allowed to forgive, or overlook, some of those things in Raiders because of its overall more favourable impact on me, and still be annoyed by similar instances in Crystal Skull because the overall impact it had on me was less enjoyable. You can't accuse people of hypocrisy for liking Raiders and not Crystal Skull unless everything about the two films are the same.

 

[barbelith]

I find it kind of funny that some of the people criticising those for disliking the film and engaging in hyperbole are responding with equally ridiculous exaggeration. I also hated Mutt's Tarzan sequence, and have no problem with Indy's swing in Raiders. And somehow I still manage to exist without dissolving into a swirling paradox. It could have something to do with Mutt's sequence looking ridiculously full of CGI, it could be that the sequence lasted a minute or so whereas Indy's swing was all of two or three seconds, it could be that the two, in my mind, are completely different.

Do you see what you did there? You offered up a reasoned critique rather than engaging in mindless bashing. And that makes all the difference.

I should be allowed to forgive, or overlook, some of those things in Raiders because of its overall more favourable impact on me, and still be annoyed by similar instances in Crystal Skull because the overall impact it had on me was less enjoyable.

I agree. And yet I also think the way we think of Raiders is so closely intertwined with extraneous factors (our childhoods and so forth) that it becomes nigh impossible to look at it with a truly objective eye. We take in the entire experience whereas with contemporary film we miss the forest for the trees. This is more evident with the other two sequels, which suffer from almost all of the same "flaws" as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull whereas most of us would agree Raiders is just a stone cold classic.

Nobody looks at the first three films and holds up one or two scenes as destroying the entire movie. Yet people happily do the same for anything new. Do you think this phenomenon says more about the films or the people pounding away at their keyboards?

 

[aussieinnyc]

Nobody looks at the first three films and holds up one or two scenes as destroying the entire movie. Yet people happily do the same for anything new. Do you think this phenomenon says more about the films or the people pounding away at their keyboards?

Well, I actually edited out a comment before posting about feeling like the scenes in Temple of the kids fleeing the palace and their arrival back in the village (inexplicably, after Indy came back, even though they left the palace long before him - although it does seem like most of them stopped along the way to put on a turban, perhaps that explains it) as saying that came close to making the film unwatchable, but decided that I was rambling and incoherrent enough as it was and it really had no place in what I was saying. Either that or the five years I spent as a teacher so embittered me against children that I just would have preferred to see them stay locked up (those of you who are pro-children should not worry, I have safely escaped teaching into the corporate world where I can pretend the little horrors don't exist...I know there are a few other teachers on this board - you have my eternal admiration for sticking with an under-paid, under-acknowledged profession. Now just extend your working day so I don't have to come into contact with those little things as much).

But again I ramble - the point is that people are critiquing the new film in this thread because, well, this is the Crystal Skull thread. Start one about any of the other three, especially Temple or Last Crusade and you will probably get almost as much vitriole. You can't expect Crystal Skull to be treated with classic-movie reverence because it hasn't been around long enough to earn it. The way this movie will prove itself to die-hard fans is not through immediate box-office receipts, but through repeated viewings over the years and its ability (if it has it) to weather the criticisms and still be an enjoyable, watchable movie to the general public.

 

[barbelith]

But again I ramble - the point is that people are critiquing the new film in this thread because, well, this is the Crystal Skull thread.

It would be great if people critiqued the film. Few are. Emotional venting is not the same thing. "Temple of Doom sucks! What a waste of celluloid! Spielberg should be embarrassed!" is not a critique. It's a juvenile explosion.

 

[Viking28]

I agree. And yet I also think the way we think of Raiders is so closely intertwined with extraneous factors (our childhoods and so forth) that it becomes nigh impossible to look at it with a truly objective eye. We take in the entire experience whereas with contemporary film we miss the forest for the trees. This is more evident with the other two sequels, which suffer from almost all of the same "flaws" as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull whereas most of us would agree Raiders is just a stone cold classic.

Why is it that if you think that KOTCS is just ok or just didn't like its because the other 3 are intertwined with our childhood?
There are a lot of movies I loved as a kid, now I see and I'm like OMG that is bad. But I loved it as a kid, but not now.
But why is it important that the movie be universally loved if its not the other three can't either?

 

[barbelith]

But why is it important that the movie be universally loved if its not the other three can't either?

It's not important at all and I don't think anybody expects that. But do you honestly believe that if The Last Crusade had come out last month the Internet wouldn't have utterly destroyed it instead of (as is usually the case) holding it in nostalgic regard? There is of course room for all manner of opinions but I think there's a particular cultural pathology that's borne out of the intersection of two things:

• Adults returning to new installments of beloved childhood worlds
• The Internet

So much of the "criticism" is really just junior high micturating. I have absolutely no problem with a negative critique presented in the vein of Ebert or Kael. Indeed I welcome it!

But if you're going to complain about Tarzan swings, you need to look at Raiders. If you're going to complain about comedy animals, you need to look at Raiders and Doom. If you're going to complain about the fridge, you need to look at the context of the Spielberg "button" and Raiders and Doom and Crusade. I fully agree we can excuse elements in one film and find them grating in another, but a coherent critique is going to discuss why. And it's certainly going to be intelligent enough to separate out "it wasn't what I wanted" and "it was a waste of celluloid."

 

[Khev]

Great posts barbelith! I definitely see two factors at work here, autopilot Lucas/SW PT-style bashing and the fact that KOTCS did give people a bit of ammunition with some of its over the top sequences. I think most people who reacted favorably to KOTCS can understand not loving a couple sequences from the movie (I can't say I would have included Mutt and the vines myself) but it'd be nice if there's going to be a flurry of negative posts that they at least have some reasoned thought behind them.

You can't win 'em all so I wouldn't expect this movie to be everyone's cup of tea. I wouldn't even expect Raiders to be everyone's cup of tea.

As I said before the great thing about KOTCS is that it actually stands up to the criticism. That's cool. This really could have been a huge embarrassment and blemish on the series but they pulled it off quite wonderfully. I'd love it if they did one more "Dark Knight Returns" Indy in the next couple of years. Old Indy rocks, bring it on!

 

[barbelith]

I think most people who reacted favorably to KOTCS can understand not loving a couple sequences from the movie (I can't say I would have included Mutt and the vines myself)

I also could have done without the vine sequence. We're all editors now and there's nothing really wrong with that as long as we can maintain perspective. That scene was actually poorly assembled but in concept it's not any more ludicrous than the timing of the giant ball in Raiders (or the fact there's a giant ball at all). Sometimes you just have to shrug and roll with it. There was so much right in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that I can forgive it a few slips. There seems to be something about fans on the Internet where anything short of perfection is eviscerated. I find that dull and tiring.

As I said before the great thing about KOTCS is that it actually stands up to the criticism.

I completely agree. It's the most consistent and cohesive Indiana Jones film since Raiders. By coincidence I was reading the capsule reviews in the LA Times this afternoon and the notice for KOTCS basically says "it could have been a disaster or it could have been great; fortunately it's one of the better Indiana Jones movies" (paraphrasing). Roger Ebert gave it four stars. It stands up.

 

[IrishJedi]

So much of the "criticism" is really just junior high micturating. I have absolutely no problem with a negative critique presented in the vein of Ebert or Kael. Indeed I welcome it!

...And it's certainly going to be intelligent enough to separate out "it wasn't what I wanted" and "it was a waste of celluloid."

Okay, barbelith gets the Award for "Best Board Newbie Ever".

Seriously, dude... you need to stick around.

(P.S. You've also earned an Official IrishJedi Pretentious Elixir™ for the use of "micturating". )