I don't hold Raiders or TOD or LC near and dear to my heart - but they are simply better movies than crystal skull. You can ask professionals and they will tell you the same thing. The writing in Raiders compared to KOTCS is like holding See Spot Run against Arthur Clark. Raiders moves and shakes and doesn't bend at any point into a jelly filled family movie because they wanted EVERYONE to get in the car and go see it. Indy was a bad ass - Tell me one scene in KOTCS that matches when indy pounded the crap out of that German mechanic's face....
Harrison and Shia go on record: The last Indy movie DID suck!
- Thread starter Funky
- Start date
I don't hold Raiders or TOD or LC near and dear to my heart - but they are simply better movies than crystal skull. You can ask professionals and they will tell you the same thing. The writing in Raiders compared to KOTCS is like holding See Spot Run against Arthur Clark. Raiders moves and shakes and doesn't bend at any point into a jelly filled family movie because they wanted EVERYONE to get in the car and go see it. Indy was a bad ass - Tell me one scene in KOTCS that matches when indy pounded the crap out of that German mechanic's face....
From Spielberg's own mouth:
YouTube - Steven Spielberg admits he didn't want to do Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
YouTube - Steven Spielberg admits he didn't want to do Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
darthchiro
Well-Known Member
thats gives Shia some credit,, like george clooney admitting he killed batman at least they own it.
Putting Shia in any movie is a good way to kill it. he and megan fox aren't going to be getting work in infomercials soon with their attitudes. I think what got most folks was the nuke and refrigerator more than the aliens. I mean aliens are part of the crystal skull lore after all.
outlander
Sr Member
Mic, I cannot believe you're still on about that. I'm starting to believe you are one of those athiests who cannot rest, cannot sleep at night, until "In God We Trust" is removed from American currency and "under God" is removed from the pledge of alliegance.
The whole premise of Raiders is that the AotC exists. That the biblical artifact from the Old Testament is still in existance. And that the power mad EVIL dictator from hisory wants this RELIC because he believes it has supernatural powers that will aid him in conquest of the world. We don't have to work too hard to accept this plot, because as any reasonably competant history buff can tell you, Hitler WAS an occultist, Hitler did devote resources from the 3rd Reich to seek out religious artifacts such as the Spear of Longinus, which is still missing to this day, although it can historically be proven to have been in a museum up until the time Nazis conquered the territory it was in.
Raiders asks the viewer: WHAT IF? What if the Arc really existed? What if it were found, and fell into the hands of an entire mechanized division of the most feared bad guys in modern history? What if it really did have supernatural powers?
What kind of supernatural powers would it have, Mic? What would power it? Mitachlorians? [sp] Dilithium crystals? What would an OLD TESTAMENT religious artifact be powered by? Coppertops?
Most movies call for some degree of "suspension of disbelief". Raiders asks us to believe that the Arc of the Covenant exists. It has supernatural powers. Good men will die to protect it. Evil Men will kill to possess it.
Any problem with that so far, Mic? If so, you should have never wedged your butt into the theater seat in the first place.
Raiders doesn't ask you to believe that O.T. God could out arm wrestle Buddha. It doesnt tell you that God hates Vegan Wiccans. Raiders DOES say "If you're with us this far, if you accept this story's premise up to now, we are going to end things with one hell of a Deus Ex Machina.
[ LEAVE THE THEATER, MIC! ]
Old Testament God is going to smite the unbelievers. The same God who turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for looking backwards is going to melt the faces off these evil S.O.B.s. Dr. Henry Jones II, who is a knowledgable man, tells Marian to join him in an act of obedience to God and avert their eyes. And thus they survive.
I do not consider myself a particularly religious man. But even I know the drill. I understand YOU would have preferred it if Indy and Marion were saved by a band of time jumping little men and emotionless, pointy eared aliens armed with cans of shark repellant.
But that is not the movie that they made, once upon a time. A simpler time. That is not the movie millions and millions of us fell in love with.
There are probably five threads on the board right now where you are chiding others about their inner child. And yet, you STILL have a problem with this ending.
Please explain to us why.
Egon Spengler
Master Member
phez
Sr Member
I think the movie was fun :lol. It certainly was no ROTLA but I think it did sort of hit on the major buzz issues of the 50's cold war mindset. Lets face it, that was sort of the height of the alien invaders hysteria. The fridge scene was completely silly but I think they were trying to exaggerate the "you are safe from fallout if you are surrounded by lead" thing (never mind the explosion that incinerates everything in it path, as long as you have some lead with you, it's all good :lol).
Solo4114
Master Member
Also, there's a big difference between magical/religious/mythological deus-ex-machina unbelievable solutions and beating science by having a "hero shield."
The reason why "don't look at it" works? Because God didn't want to kill Indy and Marion. That's it. That's all you need. As long as, as outlander points out, you buy the REST of the premise (IE: that the Ark really does exist, and that it's a true religiously powerful relic), you don't need any further explanation on how "not looking at the light" keeps you safe.
Beating a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined fridge, though? That takes willing suspension of disbelief to entirely new levels without offering any explanation other than "Hey, it's Indy. Woulda been a short film if we killed him right there, no?"
The reason why "don't look at it" works? Because God didn't want to kill Indy and Marion. That's it. That's all you need. As long as, as outlander points out, you buy the REST of the premise (IE: that the Ark really does exist, and that it's a true religiously powerful relic), you don't need any further explanation on how "not looking at the light" keeps you safe.
Beating a nuclear blast by hiding in a lead-lined fridge, though? That takes willing suspension of disbelief to entirely new levels without offering any explanation other than "Hey, it's Indy. Woulda been a short film if we killed him right there, no?"
Well there are 3 different Casino Royales.
The first one was made for TV, in B&w, back in like the 50s, or maybe the 6Os, I forget. (I saw it recently, and I kind of liked it.) The made "James Bond" a US agent. (C.I.A. I think.)
Then about a decade later they did a weird comedy called Casino Royale. (If your an Austin Powers fan you have to see this movie, because I think it has a very similar feel to it.) It has a number of guys named James Bond.
Then there was the Bond movie from a few years ago. (Loosely bast on the James Bond, book from like the 50's)
Some like the early Bond films best, but I liked the once from the 90s best. (so far, I haven't seen all the Bonds) For what they are. (eye candy, and gadgets.)
Sorry, didn't mean to deal rail things, I'm just saying, to say that indy needs the "Casino Royale" treatment could mean make it more hard core (like the last one), or to make it a comedy (witch it kind of is now.
) Or to make it for TV, and change the nationality of the character. (witch I would be down with that.)
Yes, I liked KOTCS, and yes, there were parts of it I didn't care for. I can almost accept the fact that the lead lined fridge protected him. What I can't get past is when it landed, it should have shattered every bone in his body. No matter how you try and suspend disbelief there's no fooling gravity.
Solo4114
Master Member
No. Because, at least as I understand it, there's no clear indication that God favors Indy. That's a cop out, and you know it.
Put simply, I think you just dismiss most people's fond recollections of prior works (as well as their attempts to show how later films are clearly inferior) out of hand. I get that in your mind, there's no difference between the two.
I guess I can sort of get that, if either: (A) you find it difficult to EVER suspend your disbelief, so all of these films come across as equally ludicrous, or (B) you find it easy to ALWAYS suspend your disbelief, so all of these films come across as equally plausible or at least inoffensive.
Most folks, however, I think have varying degrees of ability to suspend their disbelief, and much of that requires context and the film doing certain things to create said context. Raiders clearly establishes in no uncertain terms that the hand of the supernatural is at work, at least by the finale. While Indy does some pretty ridiculous things (IE: lashing himself to the periscope of the u-boat, merely still being standing after the beatings he's taken, etc.), they are, by degrees, considerably less remarkable than SURVIVING A NUCLEAR BLAST BY HIDING IN A LEAD-LINED REFRIGERATOR.
Some you can dismiss as just being a tough action hero (especially since it's made clear later on that Indy DOES suffer some after-effects from the action), and others you can conveniently disregard because you aren't really given time to stop and marvel at the sheer implausibility of the act (Indy's caught the U-boat, and then he's hiding in the U-boat base and beating up another Nazi).
But NOBODY survives a friggin' nuke, certainly not by hiding in a refrigerator. The shockwave, the heat, the impact, etc. It's just too much to buy. Frankly, I think TOD suffers from the same thing with the "boat from a plane" moment, though. I always cringe when I see that part.
Put simply, I think you just dismiss most people's fond recollections of prior works (as well as their attempts to show how later films are clearly inferior) out of hand. I get that in your mind, there's no difference between the two.
I guess I can sort of get that, if either: (A) you find it difficult to EVER suspend your disbelief, so all of these films come across as equally ludicrous, or (B) you find it easy to ALWAYS suspend your disbelief, so all of these films come across as equally plausible or at least inoffensive.
Most folks, however, I think have varying degrees of ability to suspend their disbelief, and much of that requires context and the film doing certain things to create said context. Raiders clearly establishes in no uncertain terms that the hand of the supernatural is at work, at least by the finale. While Indy does some pretty ridiculous things (IE: lashing himself to the periscope of the u-boat, merely still being standing after the beatings he's taken, etc.), they are, by degrees, considerably less remarkable than SURVIVING A NUCLEAR BLAST BY HIDING IN A LEAD-LINED REFRIGERATOR.
Some you can dismiss as just being a tough action hero (especially since it's made clear later on that Indy DOES suffer some after-effects from the action), and others you can conveniently disregard because you aren't really given time to stop and marvel at the sheer implausibility of the act (Indy's caught the U-boat, and then he's hiding in the U-boat base and beating up another Nazi).
But NOBODY survives a friggin' nuke, certainly not by hiding in a refrigerator. The shockwave, the heat, the impact, etc. It's just too much to buy. Frankly, I think TOD suffers from the same thing with the "boat from a plane" moment, though. I always cringe when I see that part.
Who says it has to be "god" doing anything with the ark.
Just could have been a box of pissed off ghosts. LOL
Just could have been a box of pissed off ghosts. LOL
Who says it has to be anything. But you guys write endless diatribes about it.
OVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVER
Jeesus enough.
You're not one lick smarter because you over analyze a simple movie.
We get it you didn't like them. Move on.
And you insult every person that works on them with your silly tirades.
Brings down the whole vibe of this board.
OVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVEROVER and OVER
Jeesus enough.
You're not one lick smarter because you over analyze a simple movie.
We get it you didn't like them. Move on.
And you insult every person that works on them with your silly tirades.
Brings down the whole vibe of this board.
outlander
Sr Member
We're just trying to figure you out, Mic. A fascinating mystery, wrapped within an enigma.
Or something like that.:lol
Last edited:
You don't insult everyone who worked on a film by criticizing the final product.
Most are payed to do a job. They have their checks and payed the bills.
The CG monkey and giant ant guy is not losing sleep over this thread.
Neither is Lucas, Spielberg, Ford, Allen, or the double agent not a double agent guy.
Why be critical?
It's fun to analyze the hell out of films with other obsessed fans.
I don't think that brings down the vibe of a board full of obsessed film fans.
One benefit and yes this is dubious, but maybe, just maybe, future films will avoid make the same mistakes.
Some folks here are writers and involved in the industy, so you never know.
We payed our money to look or own these films afterall and they are in our heads for life.
That translates to griping rights for life and it's just the way fandom is.
It's not going to change as new film fans are always being created and discovering that they also find the same faults.
Most are payed to do a job. They have their checks and payed the bills.
The CG monkey and giant ant guy is not losing sleep over this thread.
Neither is Lucas, Spielberg, Ford, Allen, or the double agent not a double agent guy.
Why be critical?
It's fun to analyze the hell out of films with other obsessed fans.
I don't think that brings down the vibe of a board full of obsessed film fans.
One benefit and yes this is dubious, but maybe, just maybe, future films will avoid make the same mistakes.
Some folks here are writers and involved in the industy, so you never know.
We payed our money to look or own these films afterall and they are in our heads for life.
That translates to griping rights for life and it's just the way fandom is.
It's not going to change as new film fans are always being created and discovering that they also find the same faults.
Cheeseburger, wrapped in bacon, maybe?
"Just trying to keep the conversation lively"--Nick (William Hurt), The Big Chill
Incidentally, The Big Chill is easily top 2 in Movies with me. No explosions, nothing but characters and dialogue (of which I have all memorized).
So no more lectures on what is and isn't good. I would bet real money that I have seen more diverse and different films than most of you. And enjoyed 90% for what they are on there own. Not compared to something else, or need to be something because my childhood memories say what is should be.
Not to mention seen more movies than most would consider sane.
KOTCS is a fun, exciting romp that is homage to 50's SciFi/Bmovies NOT 30's adventure films like Raiders, so don't ask it to be.
And I think it was damn stright of Lucas and Spielberg to take it another direction instead of shoe horning Harrison into the same role. Letting him be older Indy.
Similar threads
