Indiana Jones KOTCS Question

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Yes, I realize I'm opening a can o'worms here, but I just HAVE to ask the question.

Now, let me first say, there are MANY things about the film I didn't like, in fact I wish they hadn't made it. But they did, so there it is.

The one complaint I hear all of the time that I just can't wrap my mind around is the "Aliens" thing. How, exactly, is that anything but par for the course in an IJ film? I just don't get it.


Think this can be addressed w/out descending into the usual Lucas haters/lovers brawl? :lol
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

robn1

Master Member
I had no problem with the alien thing at all. If you can accept voodoo, curses and the Wrath of God, what's so bad about aliens?

It had it's stupid moments, mainly the gopher, monkeys, and too much CGI, but I liked it for the most part. But I liked TOD too, so there you go :behave
 
I had no problem with the alien thing at all. If you can accept voodoo, curses and the Wrath of God, what's so bad about aliens?

It had it's stupid moments, mainly the gopher, monkeys, and too much CGI, but I liked it for the most part. But I liked TOD too, so there you go :behave
Exactly how I saw it. I'll add Shia Lewhat-evah to the list of unfortunate aspects, but other than that, you nailed it.

And I ALSO enjoy Temple of Doom. :thumbsup

Maybe we're just freaks? :lol
 

The Keeper

Active Member
My only problem with it was a little long and too much Shia. I didnt mind the aliens, what else could he go up against Scientologists?
 

The Rock-a-who

Well-Known Member
Okay, so not to derail the original poster, but since we're discussing this...

So okay, in the beginning of the film, the Reds steal a crystal skull.

Then later, Indy discovers another skull in the gravesite. So now we have two skulls - Reds 1, Indy 1.

Then for the rest of the movie there's only one. What happened to the other one? (Whichever one that was lost/forgotten)
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

The Rock-a-who

Well-Known Member
Yes, I realize I'm opening a can o'worms here, but I just HAVE to ask the question.

Now, let me first say, there are MANY things about the film I didn't like, in fact I wish they hadn't made it. But they did, so there it is.

The one complaint I hear all of the time that I just can't wrap my mind around is the "Aliens" thing. How, exactly, is that anything but par for the course in an IJ film? I just don't get it.


Think this can be addressed w/out descending into the usual Lucas haters/lovers brawl? :lol
I enjoy KOTCS. I felt it fell apart with the saucer lifting up and flying away, and it had it's not so grand moments, but I don't hate it.
 
Okay, so not to derail the original poster, but since we're discussing this...

So okay, in the beginning of the film, the Reds steal a crystal skull.

Then later, Indy discovers another skull in the gravesite. So now we have two skulls - Reds 1, Indy 1.

Then for the rest of the movie there's only one. What happened to the other one? (Whichever one that was lost/forgotten)
Hardly a derail, more of an 'expansion' on the topic.

I thought that they had gotten an entire corpse? I'll have to watch it again.

But that doesn't change your VERY valid question. :lol
 

Idaho Jones

Well-Known Member
I had no problem with the alien thing at all. If you can accept voodoo, curses and the Wrath of God, what's so bad about aliens?

It had it's stupid moments, mainly the gopher, monkeys, and too much CGI, but I liked it for the most part. But I liked TOD too, so there you go :behave
+1 I love TOD some great Indy moments there, And I like Willie to..

Indy found the missing skull from akator, the reds had a seperate skeleton.
 

firesprite

Master Member
+1 for having no issue with the alien aspect. I think that the haters of the alien storyline feel it's a break from the 'mystical' elements of the previous films.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Solo4114

Master Member
Ok, I haven't seen the film, so take what I say with a gram of salt. I have, however, seen a LOT of people TALK about the film and from observing what they've said my take on the "Aliens are just wrong" bit is that it boils down to the following:

"Aliens" while fantastical, and still a topic of serial adventures from the 1930s and on (See also, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, etc.), had never been part of the Indy canon. Indy's stuff was rooted more in Republic jungle serials and Doc Samson type stuff. As such, it's decidedly "supernatural" rather than "science fiction." Voodoo and biblical relics all fit within the realm of the supernatural. If you watched the YIJC, you even get vampires thrown in. So, you've got supernatural story after supernatural story.

And then you get space aliens.

It's a bit jarring because now you're asking people to accept an in-universe thing that is different from the established formula. It'd be like the National Treasure franchise doing a third film about, say, biblical relics with mystical powers. You've already established your "feel", and then you change horses mid-stream so to speak.


Now, logically, I think that you can easily argue "WTF? They're both equally fantastical. Why's it matter if one comes from space/another dimension, and another comes from God?" All I can say is that, from what I saw, fans felt that it was just "different." It didn't "fit."



Personally, I suspect another problem was the 1950s setting and the introduction of Commies as badguys. While in real life anyone who studies history will tell you that the Commies of the 1950s were NOT "good guys" by any stretch of the imagination, and that Stalinist Russia was every bit as scary as Nazi Germany, "Commies" as badguys, while historically accurate, just don't have the emotional oomph that Nazis do.

Nazis are synonymous with "evil" in modern culture. Show a guy in a Wermacht (or Gestapo or SS) uniform and give him a faux German accent, and he's AUTOMATICALLY a badguy by default. Commies, on the other hand....well...it's complicated. They were our allies during WWII. Stalinist Russia is distinguishable in many ways from, say, Kruschev's Russia and so on. Personally, I think there's a "kitsch" element to how the public views Communists-as-badguys nowadays. "Oh, that's so 1950s/1980s." Never mind the fact that life at that time was really genuinely scary. I think there's also more ambiguity about "our" side, too -- yes, the Commies were bad, but we were also toppling duly elected governments like Mossadegh's in Iran and Allende's in Chile, and we backed plenty of tinpot dictators across the globe...so are we really the good guys? And, of course, there's the cultural fallout from Vietnam.


By contrast, WWII is a simple black-and-white, we're-the-goodguys-they're-the-badguys cultural moment at its simplest level. So, you throw in Nazis and that's that. They're automatically evil badguys. Anything they want is de facto bad for the world. Commies, though? Not "bad" enough by comparison, I think because of all of the ambiguity associated with the Cold War. Now, as I said, none of this has anything to do with history when you get an understanding. We weren't saints, but the Commies were plenty bad, especially under Stalin. But my point is that the cultural resonance of communism is not as universally experienced as "bad" or "evil" as Nazis are. End result: the commies seem like poor-man's-Nazis, and the film lacks that visceral, automatic "the stakes are high" sense that you had in Raiders and LC. And they weren't practicing human sacrifice like ToD, either.


Anyway, just my observations based on what I've read here and there. More of an outsider's perspective of people's reactions.
 

The Rock-a-who

Well-Known Member
Hardly a derail, more of an 'expansion' on the topic.

I thought that they had gotten an entire corpse? I'll have to watch it again.

But that doesn't change your VERY valid question. :lol
Okay, yes I do believe that got the entire corpse at the beginning. But it still confuses me that they had two skulls (one with a corpse) but only added one skull in themain chamber at the end.

It's almost as if they needed to have a macguffin to explain the story/plot then it just goes away to never be spoken of again :)
 

The Rock-a-who

Well-Known Member
Ok, I haven't seen the film, so take what I say with a gram of salt. I have, however, seen a LOT of people TALK about the film and from observing what they've said my take on the "Aliens are just wrong" bit is that it boils down to the following:

"Aliens" while fantastical, and still a topic of serial adventures from the 1930s and on (See also, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, etc.), had never been part of the Indy canon. Indy's stuff was rooted more in Republic jungle serials and Doc Samson type stuff. As such, it's decidedly "supernatural" rather than "science fiction." Voodoo and biblical relics all fit within the realm of the supernatural. If you watched the YIJC, you even get vampires thrown in. So, you've got supernatural story after supernatural story.

And then you get space aliens.
I felt the reason for aliens was the shift to the 50s. Science fiction became more prevelant during that time with the birth of the atomic age, kids in their rocket-cars and make-shift space helmets, but again, I didn't have a problem with aliens being in this.

Now, logically, I think that you can easily argue "WTF? They're both equally fantastical. Why's it matter if one comes from space/another dimension, and another comes from God?" All I can say is that, from what I saw, fans felt that it was just "different." It didn't "fit."
Aliens are still a (pardon the pun) alien concept for the mainstream movie-goers. Many felt if The Green Lantern movie stayed mostly on Earth, it would have fared better in the theaters.

I agree it didn't 'fit' with the other trilogy, (and this could be argued with TOD as well) when the macguffin (sp?) isn't Christian-centered, it also alienates a number of movie-goers.



Personally, I suspect another problem was the 1950s setting and the introduction of Commies as badguys. While in real life anyone who studies history will tell you that the Commies of the 1950s were NOT "good guys" by any stretch of the imagination, and that Stalinist Russia was every bit as scary as Nazi Germany, "Commies" as badguys, while historically accurate, just don't have the emotional oomph that Nazis do.

Nazis are synonymous with "evil" in modern culture. Show a guy in a Wermacht (or Gestapo or SS) uniform and give him a faux German accent, and he's AUTOMATICALLY a badguy by default. Commies, on the other hand....well...it's complicated. They were our allies during WWII. Stalinist Russia is distinguishable in many ways from, say, Kruschev's Russia and so on. Personally, I think there's a "kitsch" element to how the public views Communists-as-badguys nowadays. "Oh, that's so 1950s/1980s." Never mind the fact that life at that time was really genuinely scary. I think there's also more ambiguity about "our" side, too -- yes, the Commies were bad, but we were also toppling duly elected governments like Mossadegh's in Iran and Allende's in Chile, and we backed plenty of tinpot dictators across the globe...so are we really the good guys? And, of course, there's the cultural fallout from Vietnam.


By contrast, WWII is a simple black-and-white, we're-the-goodguys-they're-the-badguys cultural moment at its simplest level. So, you throw in Nazis and that's that. They're automatically evil badguys. Anything they want is de facto bad for the world. Commies, though? Not "bad" enough by comparison, I think because of all of the ambiguity associated with the Cold War. Now, as I said, none of this has anything to do with history when you get an understanding. We weren't saints, but the Commies were plenty bad, especially under Stalin. But my point is that the cultural resonance of communism is not as universally experienced as "bad" or "evil" as Nazis are. End result: the commies seem like poor-man's-Nazis, and the film lacks that visceral, automatic "the stakes are high" sense that you had in Raiders and LC. And they weren't practicing human sacrifice like ToD, either.


Anyway, just my observations based on what I've read here and there. More of an outsider's perspective of people's reactions.
Agree with the B&W/Insta-bad guy: Just add swastika assessment. While it's easy to think of Russians as the enemy, with Nazi's - it's easy to dehumanize them as monsters and the epitemy of evil. With the Communists, yes they can be the enemy, but we also felt like they're still people. So, just showing up saying "Hey, we're Communist Russia" and expect the audience to automatically go "Ooo...bad guys." was a bit of a stretch. Granted, I felt to have them as the bad guys, they tried as best they can to make sure we knew they're the bad guys. (Shooting US soldiers, taking over a military base, kidnapping, etc, etc.)
 
Ok, I haven't seen the film, so take what I say with a gram of salt. I have, however, seen a LOT of people TALK about the film and from observing what they've said my take on the "Aliens are just wrong" bit is that it boils down to the following:

"Aliens" while fantastical, and still a topic of serial adventures from the 1930s and on (See also, Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, etc.), had never been part of the Indy canon. Indy's stuff was rooted more in Republic jungle serials and Doc Samson type stuff. As such, it's decidedly "supernatural" rather than "science fiction." Voodoo and biblical relics all fit within the realm of the supernatural. If you watched the YIJC, you even get vampires thrown in. So, you've got supernatural story after supernatural story.

And then you get space aliens.

It's a bit jarring because now you're asking people to accept an in-universe thing that is different from the established formula. It'd be like the National Treasure franchise doing a third film about, say, biblical relics with mystical powers. You've already established your "feel", and then you change horses mid-stream so to speak.


Now, logically, I think that you can easily argue "WTF? They're both equally fantastical. Why's it matter if one comes from space/another dimension, and another comes from God?" All I can say is that, from what I saw, fans felt that it was just "different." It didn't "fit."



Personally, I suspect another problem was the 1950s setting and the introduction of Commies as badguys. While in real life anyone who studies history will tell you that the Commies of the 1950s were NOT "good guys" by any stretch of the imagination, and that Stalinist Russia was every bit as scary as Nazi Germany, "Commies" as badguys, while historically accurate, just don't have the emotional oomph that Nazis do.

Nazis are synonymous with "evil" in modern culture. Show a guy in a Wermacht (or Gestapo or SS) uniform and give him a faux German accent, and he's AUTOMATICALLY a badguy by default. Commies, on the other hand....well...it's complicated. They were our allies during WWII. Stalinist Russia is distinguishable in many ways from, say, Kruschev's Russia and so on. Personally, I think there's a "kitsch" element to how the public views Communists-as-badguys nowadays. "Oh, that's so 1950s/1980s." Never mind the fact that life at that time was really genuinely scary. I think there's also more ambiguity about "our" side, too -- yes, the Commies were bad, but we were also toppling duly elected governments like Mossadegh's in Iran and Allende's in Chile, and we backed plenty of tinpot dictators across the globe...so are we really the good guys? And, of course, there's the cultural fallout from Vietnam.


By contrast, WWII is a simple black-and-white, we're-the-goodguys-they're-the-badguys cultural moment at its simplest level. So, you throw in Nazis and that's that. They're automatically evil badguys. Anything they want is de facto bad for the world. Commies, though? Not "bad" enough by comparison, I think because of all of the ambiguity associated with the Cold War. Now, as I said, none of this has anything to do with history when you get an understanding. We weren't saints, but the Commies were plenty bad, especially under Stalin. But my point is that the cultural resonance of communism is not as universally experienced as "bad" or "evil" as Nazis are. End result: the commies seem like poor-man's-Nazis, and the film lacks that visceral, automatic "the stakes are high" sense that you had in Raiders and LC. And they weren't practicing human sacrifice like ToD, either.


Anyway, just my observations based on what I've read here and there. More of an outsider's perspective of people's reactions.
First, let me say that you should see the film if you've enjoyed Indy's other adventures, it really isn't a 'bad' film.

Now, to the point.

I was honestly hoping you would chime in. Your logic and reasoning on this sort of topic, from what I've seen, is unusually sound. You did not disappoint, as this was exactly the explanation I needed to understand the point of view in question. Thank you.

I guess with me, it comes down to not accepting strict paradigms, especially in regard to entertainment. Whereas most people only associate IJ with more recognizable occult themes, I remain open to the facts that a) Prof. Jones can have adventures beyond what we are accustomed to, and b) extra terrestrial visitation is in fact considered by many to be the dogma of some of Central and South America's ancient peoples, which, in my mind at the very least, seats the subject squarely in the realm of the occult, making it perfect fodder for an Indiana Jones film.

I can't argue one bit about the 'Commies' being lackluster villains when juxtaposed against the Nazis, and Religious zealots of the earlier films however, they really just don't hold the same terror factor.
 

darthgordon

Sr Member
The alien idea doesn't bother me. If you're going to put Indy in the 1950s, up against the Russians, aliens are the natural way to go. The Soviet Union had no interest in religious artifacts. In the 1950s, the fear shifted from those that were around in WWII to fear of the Cold War, the space race and yes, the possibility of invasion from another world.

Hitler was very interested in religious artifacts. Stalin was not a religious man, but was very interested in aliens and UFOs.

But as to the movie itself... it just didn't make any sense. The ending just left you with a "what just happened" feeling. In fact, much of the movie just left me scratching my head.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

jcoffman99

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
The alien in the warehouse didn't have a crystal skull. It was just remains that the Russians wanted. The skulls were like the "leaders" of the aliens.

I think the biggest problem people had with it was Speilberg and Ford saying no aliens while Georgre said aliens. Then they said oh wait, they're interdimensional beings. That was like a smack to all the people who aren't stupid. :)
 
The alien in the warehouse didn't have a crystal skull. It was just remains that the Russians wanted. The skulls were like the "leaders" of the aliens.

I think the biggest problem people had with it was Speilberg and Ford saying no aliens while Georgre said aliens. Then they said oh wait, they're interdimensional beings. That was like a smack to all the people who aren't stupid. :)
I'm afraid I don't really follow what you're saying, my apologies for that. Are you suggesting that folks would base their opinions of a story concept on the opinions of Spielberg and Ford?

If so, that sort of negates my interest in their opinions because, well, their opinions are not their own and have more to do with respect than the story. I mean I love both of their work too, but I hardly think I'd let them tell me what to think of their work, y'know?
 

Mola Rob

Sr Member
I had no problem with the alien concept it's the execution of the whole movie that turned me off.

It also didn't bother me that the macguffin wasn't a Christian-centered object. The Ark was a great macguffin, the search for the Holy Grail on the other hand I always thought was a lame attempt to recapture the feeling of the first movie. I don't mind different as long as it's well made.
 

Java

Sr Member
Come on...we might not give a crap about "Man in Restaurant #2"'s opinion regarding the story, but Ford and Spielberg?

Um..yes.

They were part of the collaboration process and it was said that during development they weren't interested in making the 4th if the plot involved aliens.

When they caved the integrity of the film came into question (for me anyway).

I read Ford's interview in Entertainment Weekly about Cowboys and Aliens, where he commented on the script saying that he was having trouble connecting with the aliens or something - reading between the lines he seemed to be saying "I don't get it, aliens?"

And it was like he needed somebody to explain it to him in a way that wasn't somehow silly in his mind.

It was weird.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top