Harrison and Shia go on record: The last Indy movie DID suck!

[Westies14]

It's kind of forthcoming and it's kind of BS posturing. He doesn't really feel he did a bad job selling it, he just wants to make sure people knows he knows it was bad. As someone put it in the AICN talkback about this, "I think he did about as well as you can do playing a 50's greaser swinging across the jungle with monkeys."

 

[Solo4114]

I think Harrison Ford sucks for letting it go forward, then complain about it three years later.

Well, technically, he complained in confidence to a fellow actor, who flapped his gums about it.

1.) He can still shoulder the blame for not voicing his concerns and putting his foot down. You would think that if he had problems with it, he would've had them at the level of the screenplay. Or is he saying "This movie sucked because we overlit that one scene"? I rather doubt that, but hey, I could be wrong.

2.) Re: Shia blabbing about it...is it unprofessional? Yeah, in one sense. In others, no. I do think he could've kept Ford out of it and simply expressed his OWN concerns, but I don't think he's tactful enough to do that. That said, I respect him for coming out and saying "That movie was weak."

Shi also went on record recently and apologized for Transformers 2 sucking and promised the next one will be better.

I also respect him for this.

HOWEVER...

As with Ford, if he thinks these movies suck, and only complains about it well AFTER the fact, why SHOULD anyone trust him when he's shilling for the movie? For that matter, why does he keep taking these roles?

I think a better, savvier move would simply be to not take those comments public, but save them for the creative team. I mean, if he talks to Spielberg as much as he says he does, couldn't he have raised these issues with him? How does this help him in his career? How does this NOT hurt him? This seems like the kind of thing that could get you labeled "Difficult to work with" (translation: uncastable).

Alternatively, just turn down movies you don't want to be involved in, and only pick stuff you think is genuinely good quality.

While I respect him owning up to it, I don't think it'd change my mind on my ability to trust him when he says "Nonononononono this new movie is, like, AWESOME!!!" while he's promoting his next film. I mean, clearly, he has, at least THREE times now, lied to fans to get them into the seats.

Yes, lied.

If he really thinks the movie is a stinker, but he goes on all the talk shows and does his duty by promoting it, then it's not like the next time around will be any different. What's to stop him from starring in, say, Eagle Eye 2, promoting the hell out of it, and then years later saying "Wow. What a crapfest. Sorry, folks, but I had to be honest...right after I cashed my check."

 

[foxbatkllr]

I can't blame Speilberg, Ford or LeBouf for KOTC. I think they did a great job...for what they had to work with. My problem was the story and we know where that blame lies.

Oh give me a break. Anytime Lucas does something good, its the people around him that get credit. Anytime Lucas does something bad its all his fault. I call bull.

Why so quick to relieve Spielberg of any blame? Spielberg messed up AI. Spielberg ruined TOD with his wife's terrible acting and annoying character.

Heck, Spielberg heartily endorsed all of the prequels, including TPM. Lucas frequently sought Spielberg's advice and input on the prequels (which I love but realize you probably don't).

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Funny...I read it as he is apologizing for his horrible acting...in every "blockbuster" he was in.

 

[Solo4114]

That too, actually. He does admit that he couldn't pull it off. Although he also puts the blame on other parties.

 

[Larry Young]

<I put on 2001 every time I have insomnia! Puts me out every time!>

Ah, yes. Just as the zombie is the dreaded foe of the ninja, so, too, is the historic and epic enmity of the pirate and the spaceman.











:lol

 

[R2B9]

It sucked worldwide to the tune of $786,636,033. Hardly a flop. I liked it. It was fun. It isn't supposed to be Shakespeare, ya know.

Shia is doing a Lohan on his career with talk like this.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Raiders sure felt like the Shakespeare of action movies though.

 

[DarkHelmet]

It sucked worldwide to the tune of $786,636,033. Hardly a flop. I liked it. It was fun. It isn't supposed to be Shakespeare, ya know.

Don't equate box office numbers with success.

Hollywood banks only on the opening weekend these days. They hype the movie, even when they know it's bad in hopes of getting everyone into the theater opening weekend to recoup their money.

By the time the word gets out that it's a flop (by the second weekend), they've already made their money.

 

[sycor]

I liked Indy 4 up until the end. That stupid, stupid ending.

 

[micdavis]

And again.......

If KOTCS have been completely different.

There would simply be a different group of people bitching about the movie.

You can't please everyone. Especially those blinded by their childhood fantasies.

 

[micdavis]

Don't equate box office numbers with success.

Hollywood banks only on the opening weekend these days. They hype the movie, even when they know it's bad in hopes of getting everyone into the theater opening weekend to recoup their money.

By the time the word gets out that it's a flop (by the second weekend), they've already made their money.

You couldn't be more wrong. It's all about the money 95% of the time.

It not art 95% of the time.

It's a business.

 

[Solo4114]

Perhaps a more apt phrasing of "Don't equate box office numbers with quality." With which I heartily agree.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

After watching Transformers 2 and knowing how much bank it made...I agree.

 

[Westies14]

I find it hard to believe that without the other three movies as a lead-in, that this movie would have made any more than the Losers did over the last couple weeks or other crummy action movies make.

I also find it really hard to believe that it's just childhood Raiders nostalgia blinding most detractors of this movie. Sitting down today to watch each film for the first time, there are differences in the dialogue, the plots, the aesthetic, the performances, the pacing, the cuts, and the overall execution that are worlds apart. There are some weak miniatures and stop-motion animation from time to time in the first three Indy movies, but they didn't comprise entire sequences and the movie didn't exist solely for the sake of those set pieces. The CG in the new film is even more distracting and they go out of their way to feature it.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

I find it hard to believe that without the other three movies as a lead-in, that this movie would have made any more than the Losers did over the last couple weeks or other crummy action movies make.

I also find it really hard to believe that it's just childhood Raiders nostalgia blinding most detractors of this movie. Sitting down today to watch each film for the first time, there are differences in the dialogue, the plots, the aesthetic, the performances, the pacing, the cuts, and the overall execution that are worlds apart. There are some weak miniatures and stop-motion animation from time to time in the first three Indy movies, but they didn't comprise entire sequences and the movie didn't exist solely for the sake of those set pieces. The CG in the new film is even more distracting and they go out of their way to feature it.

I don't find it hard to believe at all. Come on now, of the four movies, ToD was the worst.

 

[DarkHelmet]

Perhaps a more apt phrasing of "Don't equate box office numbers with quality." With which I heartily agree.

Yes...

 

[Westies14]

I don't find it hard to believe at all. Come on now, of the four movies, ToD was the worst.

Not even close (for me), and I don't like TOD all that much. I can't even sit through Crystal Skull, and I wanted to like it so badly that I made three attempts.

 

[Westies14]

Even given that ToD is inferior (and I think it speaks volumes that we have to compare to the worst - by far - of the original trilogy to even have this discussion), how does that say that KotCS would have done nearly as well without being an "Indiana Jones movie," borrowing the equity from a successful franchise?

Most (not all) big Indy fans would agree that ToD was a low point, so I don't think it's cynical or childhood fan goggles still, saying that this new one doesn't measure up. Why aim for the low bar (and miss, if you ask me)?

 

[Noeland]

Speaking as someone who walked out of Crystal Skull disgusted and angry, I have to agree with Shia.