Something Sexy
Super Freak
No love for the River Phoenix prequel? I really enjoyed that part.
Shia Trashes Indy IV
- Thread starter Mad Old Lu
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
No love for the River Phoenix prequel? I really enjoyed that part.
River was actually great at portraying the mannerisms of a young Ford Indy but having every aspect of his personality be the result of one crazy circus train ride was weak.
Like LOTRFan basically said... KOTCS is much the same, only in reverse. The first hour is some good INDY stuff. But then it starts to fall flat once we get to the sequences in Peru. The Area 51 opening and the stuff on/around campus is solid, though.
They're essentially tied at 3rd for my least favorite INDY films, though I don't hate either of them.
Something Sexy
Super Freak
I didn't see it personally as building his whole character right there but just the turning point or the starting point for the Indy we know.
Oh, it was more contrived than just that...
Fear of snakes? Check.
Bullwhip? Check.
Scar on chin? Check.
How he gets the fedora? Check.
Hell, some even wondered if his chubby sidekick was supposed to be a young Sallah
lol )Khev is right. They threw almost all of the origins of the iconic elements of the character in one silly opening sequence.
That pretty much sums it up for me as well.
EDIT: On second thought, TLC would edge out KOTCS a bit on the strength of the chemistry between Connery and Ford and its sensational final act.
Last edited:
Something Sexy
Super Freak
Oh, it was more contrived than just that...
Fear of snakes? Check.
Bullwhip? Check.
Scar on chin? Check.
How he gets the fedora? Check.
Hell, some even wondered if his chubby sidekick was supposed to be a young Sallah
Khev is right. They threw almost all of the origins of the iconic elements of the character in one silly opening sequence.
I have got nothing to respond with except it was still a badass scene regardless of how silly it was. All of the movies are silly.
Frankly, I have no idea why KOTCS was even made. There were originally intended to only be three films, all set in the 30s. We have no idea what discussions transpired between Spielberg and Lucas, but they obviously saw some value in reviving the franchise. But it's the leap in time that makes it disjointed from the rest of the movies. People want to know what Indy was doing for two decades and they want that story told. We got so much of what the character was like in one time period and now moviegoers are being asked to forget about two decades of Indy's life. Just doesn't work for me.
Also, aliens as the subject matter is not the issue. It's how the story is told is the issue. TLC was campy and humorous but the storyline held it all together. I didn't see any cohesiveness there with KOTCS.
The original three were well thought out and well-planned modeled after the 30s serials. Lucas had a vision for Indiana Jones before he even made Star Wars. KOTCS is simply out of place as part of the Indy franchise.
Also, aliens as the subject matter is not the issue. It's how the story is told is the issue. TLC was campy and humorous but the storyline held it all together. I didn't see any cohesiveness there with KOTCS.
The original three were well thought out and well-planned modeled after the 30s serials. Lucas had a vision for Indiana Jones before he even made Star Wars. KOTCS is simply out of place as part of the Indy franchise.
Shatterer of Dreams
Super Freak
ok so let me see if i got this straight. According to this thread if you do not like KOTCS you reasons are invalid no matter how you feel about it.
Last time i checked we were dealing with people's opinions here and if someone doesn't like an alien storyline then they don't like it, i don't see how you can tell people that they are wrong about thesse things.
that being said, i didn't like the movie and i don't think it's a big deal that shia said the movie was weak when it so clearly was. it's ok for people (including actors) to have their own opinions about things.
Last time i checked we were dealing with people's opinions here and if someone doesn't like an alien storyline then they don't like it, i don't see how you can tell people that they are wrong about thesse things.
that being said, i didn't like the movie and i don't think it's a big deal that shia said the movie was weak when it so clearly was. it's ok for people (including actors) to have their own opinions about things.
On the other hand, it actually ties directly into what the film is really about, because it's a symbolic reunion of family (returning the "lost" alien to his brethren is what triggers the saucer and enables the "family" to return home). You're suggesting Indy adopt an "I've got mine, you can suck it" mentality, which would be far more out of character. Indy returns the skull after "winning" because it's the right thing to do.
Obviously - by that point in the film Indy had already realized what the "treasure" was all about. It works on a thematic level, although I can understand why some viewers might have wanted a far more literal climax.
See above. He'd already gotten it right by this point. And in fact Ford plays this out in his acting choices; look at him in the jungle scenes vs the earlier US sequences. Figuring out who Mutt is and getting Marion back really changes him and brings him back to life. It's this knowledge that's the treasure, as exemplified by the reuniting alien "family." There is deliberately no dilemma for Indy at the end of the film, and I'm really surprised anyone thinks there was supposed to be. That's not what the movie was about. There's a reason it ends with a wedding instead of a ride into the sunset!
I can appreciate people who feel Indy took a step back, but to be honest I think Last Crusade was far more damaging to the character, and KOTCS actually restored much of his depth. I agree it's no Raiders, but then nothing ever will be.
Last edited:
Not at all. Even almost all of us who don't hate the movie fully admit that it has issues.
Note that I said "don't hate" for a reason. That's because a lot of the criticisms of the movie is just completely negative and simply read like, "It sucked", "Worst movie ever" and all kinds of other irrational, one-sided hyperbole. And when people post stuff like that (or reference a South Park sketch in their defense) and someone comes back with a rational explanation for why the movie is not a complete and total piece of crap, it looks like this:
I'm not so sure. The first sequel is radically different from the original, and it takes so long for Last Crusade to come along that it already feels quite removed from the series IMO. And of course it comes back as a weak retread of what people "remembered" from Raiders - a massive creative step backwards. TOD is an important film in this sense because not only is it radically different, but it's a prequel to boot, suggesting Lucas/Spielberg never had an interest in making a cohesive trilogy. I can appreciate people who don't want to see Indy in the '50s, but intent doesn't really enter into it.
Was there any way around that? I think it's inevitable with late sequels, and what's more it's part of the charm for me.
Can you be specific? Which parts weren't cohesive?
Obviously opinions aren't invalid, but the underpinning of opinions sometimes are. Many opinions are based on internally inconsistent logic (supernatural genre element A is fine but supernatural genre element B is beyond the pale).
No, the movie has some weird story, pacing, and acting issues throughout. I have no problem with people who dont like it...only those that dont like because of the following
A) Fridge
B)Swinging
D) Aliens
If that's the only reason why you hate the film, you can fudge off.
You can add to the list: ants and #1 the jeep in the tree scene. This was so unbelievably stupid that I laughed out loud in the theater.
Oh yeah. They shouldn't have abused CGI. All of the scenes I had a problem with were made lamer by the CG. Actually the ants would have been cool, but the CG took me right out of the movie.
I loved the jungle scene, but the monkeys saving the day were lame lame lame!
Oh, and I actually didn't mind the fridge scene.
Last edited:
My problem is with the "feast or famine" stance a lot of people seem to take these days. Something is either "totally awesome!" or a "total piece of crap". There is no in-between. Where is the rational thought-process in geek debates now? This is also why Avatards drive me bonkers, too.
LChinoz
Super Freak
Agree about the CG. Laughable...from the opening scene.
I hope you also laughed at the inflatable raft as parachute (TWICE) scene in TOD.
LChinoz
Super Freak
I feel the same way about Star Wars. It was great for the time but it's not the greatest ever IMO.
The ants were awesome - right out of a '50s flick and thus right in line with what Indiana Jones is all about in the first place.
Wouldn't it have been great if the movie was made completely old-school with no CGI at all? I hope the next one is like that.
Absolutely.
I would never call the Star Wars films (any of them) the greatest ever, either. But then, I'm rather sensible like that.
roguebaron
Super Freak
yes, the cg was bad. But for me, the real clinch for bad was the whole save indy with a big rubber snake scene. They lost me completely at this point. I was ready to leave, but my daughter was still enjoying it, so I stayed to the end.
Similar threads
