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

[jungle jom]

Sorry most of you took my post the wrong way, I really AM glad you loved this film. I just wanted to say I didn't. I didn't want to go into the minutia of individual elements that made me dislike it, I just wanted to make generalizations why I disliked it.

I just feel, Indy or not, if this film featured a different character and had the same plot, acting and production values... I still would have thought it was one of the worst films I've seen in years. That's my opinion.

I respect the opinions of others who loved this film.

 

[barbelith]

I just feel, Indy or not, if this film featured a different character and had the same plot, acting and production values... I still would have thought it was one of the worst films I've seen in years. That's my opinion.

The only thing that carries The Last Crusade is that it's an Indiana Jones movie. I don't think sequels should be interchangeable cogs. It's probably worth noting The Last Crusade doesn't work at all if it featured a different character. I think you're right that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't, either. Neither does Return of the King or The Empire Strikes Back. Series and serials by their nature should not be interchangeable cogs. You won't get anything out of The Deathly Hallows as a standalone book. You're not supposed to.

 

[Shropt]

The only thing that carries The Last Crusade is that it's an Indiana Jones movie. I don't think sequels should be interchangeable cogs. It's probably worth noting The Last Crusade doesn't work at all if it featured a different character. I think you're right that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull doesn't, either. Neither does Return of the King or The Empire Strikes Back. Series and serials by their nature should not be interchangeable cogs. You won't get anything out of The Deathly Hallows as a standalone book. You're not supposed to.

This kind of thinking doesn't apply to all serials. Almost all of the Vampire novels by Anne Rice can be read on their own and make perfect sense. Its easier for hollywood to make yet another sequel and spend no time developing characters than to make a good movie.

 

[Lord Vicious]

Due to circumstances I only got to see the movie yesterday for the first time. Got to say I was a bit disappointed, as a lot of people seem to be.
It felt like an entertaining adventure movie, but not really an Indiana Jones movie. It was more like an adventure movie that happened to have Indy in it. I mean he didn't seem to belong there, or drive the plot forward. He just was there...

Some things were great, like the nuclear explosion and mushroom cloud and the campus motorcycle chase, but most things... not so much.
A missed oppurtinity.

Just my two cents...

 

[barbelith]

Its easier for hollywood to make yet another sequel and spend no time developing characters than to make a good movie.

Yep. Which is what makes it all the more remarkable when sequels provide a platform for character growth. It's not a case of one or the other. Aliens works without Alien but The Empire Strikes Back doesn't work at all without Star Wars. I'm pretty sure most people think both of those sequels are great movies even though they take very different approaches their role as sequels.

And while everyone is entitled to their own opinions of any given film, anyone who claims Kingdom of the Crystal Skull "spends no time developing characters" gets an instant fail.

 

[Shropt]

And while everyone is entitled to their own opinions of any given film, anyone who claims Kingdom of the Crystal Skull "spends no time developing characters" gets an instant fail.

I think KOTC has character development, it's just not original character development.

Indy likes the kid, finds out he's his son, suddenly tension arises and by the end they work together and love each other as father and son.

Dat ain't development, dat's schtick.

 

[BadMoon]

Die thread die!

"The power of Christ compels you!"

 

[IrishJedi]

I think KOTC has character development, it's just not original character development.

Indy likes the kid, finds out he's his son, suddenly tension arises and by the end they work together and love each other as father and son.

Dat ain't development, dat's schtick.

I don't think there was every any real tension between the two at all.

 

[barbelith]

I think KOTC has character development, it's just not original character development.

It's also not the bit you summarized, which at the risk of beating a dead horse makes me wonder why people who dislike films often seem to be the same people who can't actually tell you what they were "really" about.

I'm curious what character development you noticed in Raiders or Doom. I've been watching those movies for 20 years and still haven't found it.

 

[Shropt]

And while everyone is entitled to their own opinions of any given film, anyone who claims Kingdom of the Crystal Skull "spends no time developing characters" gets an instant fail.

I'm curious what character development you noticed in Raiders or Doom. I've been watching those movies for 20 years and still haven't found it.

Logic circle?

 

[barbelith]

Logic circle?

Nope. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has character development for Indiana Jones. He finishes the story at a different place than he started it in terms of characterization and personal growth. The same isn't true for Raiders or Temple of Doom, where Indy doesn't grow or change at all.

It's not a question of taste. You can still believe the character development in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is poorly done (although you might want to take another stab at identifying what it was). And you can still believe Raiders is the better action movie despite lacking character development. But its presence or absence is an objective point. Any lit student should be able to point it out in a snap.

 

[jungle jom]

Any Film Student could tell you that the film did not work on many, many levels. It is a fatally flawed motion picture. The film will not stand up to repeat viewings for the general public, just die hard Indy fans.

Films that can stand many repeat viewings in my opinion are:

The First Three Indy films
Original Star Wars Trilogy
First Two Back to the Future Films
First Two Planet of The Apes Films
Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein
Clockwork Orange
Half of the James Bond Films
Wizard of Oz
Jaws
Die Hard
Murder He Said (Very Obscure Fred McMurray Comedy)
The Party
A Shot in The Dark

I could go on... but you get the idea.

 

[Wor-Gar]

The same isn't true for Raiders or Temple of Doom, where Indy doesn't grow or change at all.

I have to chime in here because I believe this is true. Raiders has no real character arc so to speak.

However, unlike Luke or Neo or Will Turner (and many other "everyman" types that enter a new world), Indy is not a character that we need to see grow. He falls more in the "Bond" category of hero: an expert in his world.

I don't need to see Bond grow, nor do I care to see Indy grow. I enjoy their exploits and adventures; I have no interest in their parental background or their 'learning a lesson' like a He-Man cartoon. It's a different kind of heroic storytelling than the "novice who becomes the king" storyline that requires growth.

But hey, that's just me. I see Indy that way, for me. I believe it was the way he was originally conceived -- to be a serial action hero. Later, much later, Lucas decided to add heart and depth to Indiana. It is my principle dislike of Crusade and Skull.

Sometimes a great character needs no "development."

 

[barbelith]

Any Film Student could tell you that the film did not work on many, many levels. It is a fatally flawed motion picture.

Can you provide any examples whatsoever? Not things you personally didn't like, but things that didn't work as cinema and point to a fatally flawed production. Because you're wrong, and this should be very amusing.

 

[Khev]

Nope. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has character development for Indiana Jones. He finishes the story at a different place than he started it in terms of characterization and personal growth. The same isn't true for Raiders or Temple of Doom, where Indy doesn't grow or change at all.

Hey barbelith, I've agreed with every post you've made in this thread but just wanted to chime in about Indy's character not developing in Temple of Doom. He does. Remember that at the beginning he uses an innocent person (Willy) and a child to save his own skin but at the end he risks his life to save many innocent children. He also initially seeks the Shankara Stone for selfish "fortune and glory" but has a change of heart when he realizes the benefit that it provides the villagers.

Nevertheless keep up the great posts man!

 

[IrishJedi]

Any Film Student could tell you that the film did not work on many, many levels. It is a fatally flawed motion picture. The film will not stand up to repeat viewings for the general public, just die hard Indy fans.

There are so many absolute statements in there that I don't even know where to begin.

 

[RoboDad]

Any Film Student could tell you that the film did not work on many, many levels. It is a fatally flawed motion picture. The film will not stand up to repeat viewings for the general public, just die hard Indy fans.

See, you're doing it again. There is no need to toss around off-hand derogatory comments like this.

 

[IrishJedi]

Not to mention he said "Any Film Student could tell you that the film did not work on many, many levels". Well, this Film School Graduate says it does work on many, many levels. So there goes that theory. But, then, I haven't been a student for some 14 years.

 

[kl241]

Anybody from film school could tell you that none of the Indy movies would ever be allowed, my professors would have flunked you, if you even brought them up, and seeing that we held some classes in the Spielberg theater, you could say it was a little bit ironic. However, we did study editing in Road Warrior, which means if RW was allowed, Raiders should have been. I remember a student said his favorite directors were Michael Mann and James Cameron, my professor and class never let him hear the end of it. So suffice to say, the title "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystall Skull" would never have even have been brought up, let alone studied. And that is a good thing.

 

[CelticPredator]

That sounds like the worst film class ever.