J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
What a shame the franchise turned into.
Just take the film seriously and get Lucas out of the picture.
Just take the film seriously and get Lucas out of the picture.
Indiana Jones 4
- Thread starter kai
- Start date
karapetkov
Well-known member
Good thing about Raiders, for example is that it's initially a kiddie movie, but it's perfectly watchable by the kiddie's parents. If you can keep the whole family really interested and entertained at the same time - you got a real hit.
And Raiders has a sufficient level of seriousness, cause it makes you think about some things. It's not just stunts and funny *film* moments.
I think that Lucas made Skull just to sell it. And that's ugly.
And Raiders has a sufficient level of seriousness, cause it makes you think about some things. It's not just stunts and funny *film* moments.
I think that Lucas made Skull just to sell it. And that's ugly.
Jason Miller
Veteran
Raiders and Crusade, were both amazing films, Doom, and scull were both meaningless, Doom was just a mean film, as most second parts tend to be, but it got away form the Nazi hunt for the power od God. Indi is a Nazi fighter, that's what makes him amazing and worth watching. in scull, it wasn' t just the Aliens it was the Commies, that except for the name and slight uniform changes acted just like the Nazi's in the 1st and 3rd films. but without a depth. not to mention doom and sculls just be being mad were direct contradictions to Raiders and Crusade. In these two, he fought the nazi's (evil on earth) had God was a known established reality. In Doom, it showed another religion as a reality and there for contradicted the Raiders. With Crusade, they just ignored Doom, pretended like it never happened.
in Sculls I know the time line demanded leaving thee Nazis, but they could have gone after another Christian object, I mean Russians in the Middle east, much more likely than South America at that time.
in Sculls I know the time line demanded leaving thee Nazis, but they could have gone after another Christian object, I mean Russians in the Middle east, much more likely than South America at that time.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Disagree J Man
Raiders was epic beyond epic. One of the true classic adventure films that inpspired and defined a genre
Doom was way worthy. Dark according to critics and p*ssy parents, but nevertheless, still tough. It had some depth and retained quite a bit of the spirit of Indy; I always disagreed with the Short Round kicking Thuggies asses element, but for the most part, Indy is tough and mean. The adventure was there, the seriousness was there (sans Short Round's escapades).
Crusade is where it started falling apart. It became a silly, non serious film with Marcus's character being an idiot, the stamping librarian scene, the "Junior, don't call me junior, BS" and on and on.
The franchise jumped the shark on Crusade. I blame Lucas. : /
-
Skull was just predicatble. My worst fear since I heard about a new one being made came true.
Raiders was epic beyond epic. One of the true classic adventure films that inpspired and defined a genre
Doom was way worthy. Dark according to critics and p*ssy parents, but nevertheless, still tough. It had some depth and retained quite a bit of the spirit of Indy; I always disagreed with the Short Round kicking Thuggies asses element, but for the most part, Indy is tough and mean. The adventure was there, the seriousness was there (sans Short Round's escapades).
Crusade is where it started falling apart. It became a silly, non serious film with Marcus's character being an idiot, the stamping librarian scene, the "Junior, don't call me junior, BS" and on and on.
The franchise jumped the shark on Crusade. I blame Lucas. : /
-
Skull was just predicatble. My worst fear since I heard about a new one being made came true.
Dvader
Well-known member
Disagree J Man
Raiders was epic beyond epic. One of the true classic adventure films that inpspired and defined a genre
Doom was way worthy. Dark according to critics and p*ssy parents, but nevertheless, still tough. It had some depth and retained quite a bit of the spirit of Indy; I always disagreed with the Short Round kicking Thuggies asses element, but for the most part, Indy is tough and mean. The adventure was there, the seriousness was there (sans Short Round's escapades).
Crusade is where it started falling apart. It became a silly, non serious film with Marcus's character being an idiot, the stamping librarian scene, the "Junior, don't call me junior, BS" and on and on.
The franchise jumped the shark on Crusade. I blame Lucas. : /
-
Skull was just predicatble. My worst fear since I heard about a new one being made came true.
Totally agree dude, and btw I liked you're breakdown of Raiders on Cineobscure that was really cool, and even helped me with a paper for my film class :beer:
In Skull I thought a lot of the visual effects were sick and the dude from Sexy Beast was in it, so that was tight just seeing him! But yeah the tarzan sequence, the waterfalls, and sometimes when they were getting shot at it was just like whooaaa now. Besides those parts it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.
On the note of Lucas, coming from a hard, hard, hardcore, life long, forever status Star Wars fan, lay off a little guys! Lol Lucas can do anything in my books and its alllll gravy, he could make eps 7-9 centered around gungans for all I care, I got lightsabers baby! /shoom shoom
Nektonic
Veteran
I completely agree. Doom is not as good as Raiders or Last Crusade in my book, but a lot of fun and much better than Crystal Skull.
I actually enjoyed the first hour of Crystal Skull. Still nowhere near the feel and fun of the first three, but could have worked with a better script. I was ticked that they didn't start with a previous adventure and then move into the main plot, but the action in the warehouse was a lot of fun. Same with the chase through the college campus. Crystal Skull really fell apart at the midpoint. They could have recovered it and given us a slam-bang epic ending, but the ending was so dull and pointless it really brought down the rest of the film.
The South Park clip was funny, but as I watched Crystal Skull, I didn't get the feeling that they were doing it just for the money. Maybe Lucas but not Spielberg. I think that the problem was that they waited toooooooooooo loooooooooong. I mean, nearly 20 years since Last Crusade. It would have worked much better if done within 10 years or less of the third film.
Another thing that seems silly but to me, a trilogy seems proper. Like three sides to a triangle. Three films as a series or like Lord of the Rings, as a continuous narrative work is great. Four films though? With a 20 year difference between the last two? Seems extremely odd unless someone decides to adapt a series of novels that were published in four volumes. For example: let's say Peter Jackson decided to include The Hobbit with the LOTR trilogy as the lead film of the four. A rare case like that is perfectly acceptable.
I do have to say that Harrison Ford didn't miss a beat as Indy. I feel sorry for him that this thing turned out as it did because he did great after not wearing the iconic fedora for nearly two decades.
karapetkov
Well-known member
The "Russians" in Skull were a failure as antagonists.
The Nazis in the previous films were much better built as characters and screen behavior.
Needless to say that these "Russians" neither behaved nor talked like real Russians...
Believe me,.. I know.... hahah.
And I'm not defending them here, it's just that they weren't realistic.
The antagonist makes or breaks a movie, Hitchcock says.
And Cate Blanchett...
It's definitely not good for a movie if I want to have sex with the main antagonist.
Although Basic Instinct comes to mind...
Oh, nevermind.
The Nazis in the previous films were much better built as characters and screen behavior.
Needless to say that these "Russians" neither behaved nor talked like real Russians...
Believe me,.. I know.... hahah.
And I'm not defending them here, it's just that they weren't realistic.
The antagonist makes or breaks a movie, Hitchcock says.
And Cate Blanchett...
It's definitely not good for a movie if I want to have sex with the main antagonist.
Although Basic Instinct comes to mind...
Oh, nevermind.
Doc Bernard
Indie Arms Member
Sorry, Crystal was a major disappointment. Too many holes in the script for my taste. Getting fired for having a communist associate then suddenly some kid on a motorcycle saying here is a quest for you?
No character development, the viewer is forced to accept it will come later in the movie, which it does. That was lazy writing.
The tie-backs to previous movies were relatively non-existent, though you were asked to believe they were there with obscure references. Again, lazy.
The Tarzan scene was sprung on the viewer, as if the kid had magically gained superpowers by looking at the monkeys.
The ant scene had too many inconsistencies. The ants were big as a fist, then small, then big again. WTF?
I know movies are to be a "suspension of disbelief" but I thought he was better than this. It smells of trying to make a quick buck.
No character development, the viewer is forced to accept it will come later in the movie, which it does. That was lazy writing.
The tie-backs to previous movies were relatively non-existent, though you were asked to believe they were there with obscure references. Again, lazy.
The Tarzan scene was sprung on the viewer, as if the kid had magically gained superpowers by looking at the monkeys.
The ant scene had too many inconsistencies. The ants were big as a fist, then small, then big again. WTF?
I know movies are to be a "suspension of disbelief" but I thought he was better than this. It smells of trying to make a quick buck.
