Princess_Tina posted:

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

I don't see how that is all that different from falling out of a plane in an inflatable raft, sledding down the mountain, flying off a cliff and landing in a river for some white-water rafting.

---

Bingo!

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

Sure they stole the Ark from Indy a couple of times, but Irina stole the skull from Indy too. There was a similar vehicular chase to retrieve Indy's stolen treasure.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

The Nazi's kidnapped Indy's father, the Russians kidnapped Indy's love interest. Same difference to me.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

He thinks he's screwed again like with the Raiders Nazi thug, but then he just falls over. I don't know I thought it was amusing.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

There is a nice variety so far, and as I said I personally feel that Irina Spalko is the best yet, simply because she isn't painted as a cold blooded villain. There is a certain sympathy for her that I thought made her a deeper villain than most of the others.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

Are you saying the last half of the script really really really sucks, but the last half of the film was awesome? In that case then I can relate to that part of how you feel about the movie itself.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

I'll give you that Mutt's ability to swing wasn't set up (like his fencing skills) but it's a pitfall kind of movie, so what if someone swings on vines? It's almost obligatory.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

All this talk about how things "fly in the face of the rules setup in the previous films" is going right over my head. Did you get some kind of rule book that I don't have access to? Or are you assuming the rules based on your observation of the previous films? Maybe that's what Princess Tina is getting at when she talks about your "expectations". Sure I guess Mutt wasn't put through the ringer in that he wasn't all scruffed up and used looking by the end of the jungle chase, but I thought Indy was always showing the pain and torture of his heroic acts. One of my favorite bits is at the beginning of the film when the rocket sled stops and Indy weakly pushes the Russian off the sled and falls off the other side. Obviously incoherent from the express ride across the desert, you can see the humanity in every scene with Harrison.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

I can see what you mean about not setting up the tarzan sequence, but I guess I just accepted it as a whimsical moment that to me didn't need more exposition. I mean he get caught in the vines, is lifted up by the monkeys, and the monkeys start swinging on the vines, so Mutt was like monkey see monkey do. To me that's amusing.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

You say the explanation of why they wanted more alien corpses after they had found two wasn't in the film, but then where did I get it from? Sure they didn't have someone look in the camera and spell it all out, but the fact that they had found two, went looking for a third at area 51, then explained that that one wasn't of use either pretty much explained it as far as I was concerned.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

In the end it's up to you how you see things, and if I haven't been able to change your mind then that's just how it goes. There's no right or wrong here.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

When it comes to modern motion pictures, different standards need to apply, in my opinion. To say that a movie is just fine the way it is, does not in my mind signify that it is a flawless picture, it just means it's pretty darn good considering the quality of the average Hollywood picture being made today.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

It's good at what it does. It doesn't try to be a great movie, or have some great social significances.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

I agree, I think the movie is just fantastic. And I also have as much enthusiasm for the latest installment than I do for the other three. Maybe even more enthusiasm for Indy 4, because the other ones I have been able to take for granted for the last 19 years, but Indy 4 was one of those things that kept getting delayed indefinitely and for so many years, you just sort of wondered if it was ever actually going to happen. I certainly wanted it to happen, and I was hoping that if it did get made, it wouldn't be a disappointment for them to have picked up two decades later.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

And I've come to realize I guess after a while that certain kind of movies are just such a perfect example of a certain kind of movie-making at its best that they can be an awful lot of fun, not because you have any kind of expectation that it's supposed to be flawless or something, but because you can sit back and watch it and just have a lot of fun watching it.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

I honestly don't see a huge difference between the Indy movies. They're all equally enjoyable, even if they all have a slightly different tone.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

Suspense of disbelief applies particularly to movies with strong elements of fantasy, fiction, and fantastic adventure like Indy. Obviously all movies require it, but these genres particularly more.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

The point of all the old movies, serials and matinees of the 30's and 50's, the ones that Lucas and Spielberg used for inspiration, weren't really about realism, you know.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

I don't see how that is all that different from falling out of a plane in an inflatable raft, sledding down the mountain, flying off a cliff and landing in a river for some white-water rafting.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

"Pretty darn good considering the quality of the average Hollywood picture" is about as back-handed a compliment as I could ever imagine someone offering any film in my books. It certainly doesn't translate to "excellent" or "almost flawless" or "fantastically crafted". All that potentially means is that "well the movie didn't suck and by that merit alone, we should be thankful and deem it to be a perfect in its own way".

---

NZPoe posted:

---

That's a strange way to judge films.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

I would rate "Jaws" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" to be different, but equal in craftsmanship, to "Citizen Kane" and "Lawrence of Arabia". And I don't see why "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" shouldn't want to aim as high as "Jaws" or "Raiders". Clearly - for me - it didn't make the mark, so this discussion is about WHY it didn't.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

If you want to give certain genres of films a prerequisite level of slack then that's fine and it seems clear that we are arguing at cross-purposes. But I don't cut films that kind of slack. There's no reason why you can't walk out of ANY genre of film with your jaw scraping along the carpet, both your hands clutching your temples, your mouth uttering "ohmygodohmygodohmygod"...and all genres of films should attempt to hit that mark. "Casino Royale" did that for me last year (and I HATE JAMES BOND MOVIES WITH A PASSION), but "Indiana Jones" didn't do it for me this year.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

And THAT, Princess_Tina, is why you will not see eye to eye with some people on here (including myself). There is NO EXCUSE for any film to not to try to be a great movie. And I think KOTSC tries its damned hardest to be a GREAT movie, and it failed in its task. I would never dignify any movie with 2 hours of my life that didn't try to be a great movie in its own unique way.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

The mere idea that A-list, mass-marketed, studio films are being produced that never try to be GREAT movies perhaps goes a long way to explain why Hollywood is more derided by audiences around the world than ever before.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

And that is a sad, sad thing. Especially for Indiana Jones - which were never considered by the mass public as anything less than a trilogy of great films.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

But just because something is effective on a personable level doesn't mean that its effective on a craftsmanship level or that your personable experience translates to other people's experiences.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

The point is that the quality of a film is entirely subjective. Nobody is denying your subjective opinion of the film, but you seem to keen to deny other people's with their opinions. Instead of tackling the problems and discussing it like Go-Mer has, you seem to instead just post "get over it" and end it with a smiley face as if to diffuse the whole situation.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

If you want to defend your standpoint, then defend it. Don't use the "look you're just not getting it, your expectations were all wrong" argument. It doesn't fly anywhere, especially not here. People will not buy that and I will not either.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

Then once again you've touched on a vital point of difference between how you see and enjoy your movies and how other people on here do. "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" is regarded as much of a classic as "Citizen Kane" or "Casablanca" by a wide selection of people from the general public to film critics and people in the industry itself.

For a lot of people there is a big difference in the quality of the various Indy films and we feel that it is interesting and important to discuss these differences, share our opinions and grow as people and film fans as a result.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

I disagree - this is the same line of flawed thinking that studios used for years to suggest that female audiences "did not like science fiction or action films". Even today they use this logic for a whole slew of explanations as to why things flop, when in actual fact the reason why they flop is due to flaws in filmmaking craftsmanship.

Suspension of disbelief is exponentially increased by the amount of work a film and its makers do to meet the audience halfway and to go out of their way to help the audience feel like they're actually there, experiencing the film as if its real. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" does this beautifully - its virtually a textbook on how to broach such a daunting task. "Star Wars: Episode IV" does this too, as does "Jaws", "Alien" and "The Exorcist". As does "Lord of the Rings".

---

NZPoe posted:

---

You don't need intensify your own suspension of disbelief to watch these films because these movies are crafted in such a way that they descend from the screen, take you by the hand and gently (but firmly and insistingly) suck you into their world...and then slam the giant iron bars behind you. This is done by good, solid writing, great directing and a powerful understanding of mass audience psychology.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

It's not about realism - this is what zombie and I are trying to say. It's about DRAMA. Creating convincing, emotionally engaging, drama - the feeling of peril, of danger, of excitement. The horror of watching an alien burst through someone's chest. The heart-stopping adrenaline of feeling like you're plummeting through a mine-shaft. The giddy excitement of watching the Death Star blow up for the first time. That's evocative, powerful DRAMA - creating real emotions in a situation that is totally unreal and defies the laws of realism.

---

JohnWesleyDowney posted:

---

How old was that Knight in Last Crusade? He'd been in the cave how long? How many hundreds of years? I hope he had indoor plumbing.

I loved the raft falling out of the plane in Doom, it seemed soooooooo Indy to me.
And the music cue that accompanies that raft fall, the Raiders theme followed by a great quote of the Short Round theme is one of high adventure and great fun. And it fits with the theme established by the opening "Anything Goes" number.

I take all the Indy films for what they are, on their own terms, fun entertainment. I'm not interested in a physics lesson.

---

Anakin_Skywalker20 posted:

---

Unless its Professor Jones who's teaching the lesson

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

Anakin_Skywalker20 posted:

---

Unless its Professor Jones who's teaching the lesson

---

Well, personally, I wouldn't want to have Professor Jones teaching me anything but Archeology or Anthropology. But I would love just about any excuse to go on a field trip with him!

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

It is not a back-handed compliment, it's just praising a movie for what it is, and the fact that it's about as good as most summer movies can ever hope to be. I am not talking about serious movies that happen to be released in the summer, I'm talking about movies whose primary aim is simply to entertain. I don't say it is a perfect movie, I say it is a good movie, consistent or superior with what I believe to be reasonable expectations for a sequel to one of the most popular movies of the 80's.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

It is not strange at all. I believe it is important to consider the circumstances of any movie... for example, one of the earliest talkies from the late 20's isn't going to be as technically accomplished in the integration of sound and picture as many of the movies Hollywood was making even by the early 30's. The movies to some extent at least reflect technological innovations and the evolving taste and preferences of moviegoers. A movie like the 1929 Rio Rita could have seemed quite astonishing to audiences at the time of its initial release, but would probably seem amateurish in the wake of more sophisticated musicals like 42nd Street. And so what passed for a good musical in the late 20's wouldn't have been very interesting if released at some point after 1933, for example.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

No movie can ever be Raiders again, because it set a new benchmark for popular entertainment. But it is certainly possible to have a sequel that captures the flavor of the earlier entries in the series, and I was extremely happy with KotCS.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

I don't give any genre a "prerequisite level of slack". On the contrary, I would expect more of a filmmaker of Steven Spielberg's experience than I would of a lot of younger Hollywood directors. And I can certainly say that KotCS is still one of the best summer movies I've seen in a very long time.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

No, KotCS did an excellent job of bringing back Indy to the big screen. It was the GREATEST time I've had in the movies for a very long time. I don't think Spielberg set out to make a great movie in the way that he arguably might have when he made Schindler's List or Munich.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

No, I would say it is the other way around. Most commercial filmmaking simply tries to cater to what the majority of moviegoers want. And a lot of "serious" movies are sometimes considered risky investments unless they get a lot of Academy Award nominations.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

They're certainly a great example of popular entertainment - all four of them. It's not like people had mostly stayed away from Indy 4.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

I'm not the only one here who has speculated as to why some people are bringing up some ridiculous criticisms of the movie (I am not referring to your criticisms) or being overall petty with the movie (I am not saying you yourself are being petty).

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

Well, first of all, there is still a bit of a difference between classical Hollywood filmmaking and contemporary movies. I'm not putting down contemporary movies at all, because they're the movies I grew up with. But we still have to accept the fact that it was classical Hollywood filmmaking that inspired George and Steven. Raiders was great at bringing back a certain kind of magic to the movie screen precisely because that's what inspired it. And I'm actually pretty happy with all four movies in the series, even though I realize nothing could have the same impact that the first movie did back in 1981, because it set a new benchmark.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

In my mind, there is no difference between the suspense of disbelief required for enjoying KotCS and the original Raiders. Seriously, in its own way, Raiders was very over-the-top in its time.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

I didn't need to "intensify" my suspension of disbelief to enjoy KotCS, and it did totally capture me the same way all the other Indy movies did.

---

Princess_Tina posted:

---

The second half of KotCS actually gave me a lot more to care for than the first half did, although both parts were equally exciting. I really enjoyed watching the relationship developing between Indy and Mutt, and of course how the chemistry between Indy and Marion had changed once he realized they had a son. It made for a very memorable second half of the movie. So if anything, I'd say the second half of the movie has a little something extra that makes it even better than the first half of the movie.

---

PrincessTina posted:

---

There are a lot of flaws with a lot of the summer movies that have been released so far, and of course that might make for a more interesting discussion, but I am not so sure that it would be appropriate to discuss them in a forum that's specifically for non-SW Lucasfilm projects, including of course Indiana Jones.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

But what you're also saying is that it's a film that's not worth critiquing or discussing its flaws? Because that's what it sounds like you're trying to say and what zombie and I are troubled by your posts. "As good as most summer movies can ever hope to be" does not constitute "perfection" and therefore leaves people free to academically critique the sum of its parts in trying to figure out what worked and what didn't. For some people on here, the "good as most summer movies can hope to be" simply wasn't "good enough" and we're talking about what we think made it that way.

Are you saying that we shouldn't be? Are you saying that we all set our standards too high? Are you saying we are cinematic elitists who don't know good summer entertainment when its dangled in front of us?

It's not that you like the film that we are at odds with, its the fact that you've told us time and again to "let it go" and "stop nitpicking" and "stop being petty".

---

NZPoe posted:

---

So you're saying that rather than enjoy and critique a film for what it is, we should always take onboard the circumstances of that film's creation and release and thus cut it slack because of it? If a classic film doesn't hold then it doesn't hold up - a film that was great back in 1920, but uniformly crap today, means that its beauty and artistic quality is especially powerful in a historic context and not in a modern context.

But at the end of the day simply saying that KOTCS was better than the last "Mummy" movie or "National Treasure" exempts it from criticism or critique is just plain bizarre. I don't quite understand how you can suggest that "it didn't suck as bad as anything else that came out in the summer, so we should all just shut the hell up and enjoy it" is somehow a valid argument when it is clear by people posting on this thread that there are people who don't share your opinion.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

And I'm glad that you're happy with it. But this isn't about Raiders setting a new benchmark, this is about Raiders being a solid film that flows well and has fewer problems than KOTCS for me. "Temple" and even "Last Crusade" had fewer problems for me than "KOTCS". Simple as that.

I don't think any of those movies have "problems". I like them just fine the way they are.

[quote=NZPoe]
That's irrelevant, you're still saying repeatedly in post after post, on this thread, that Indy4 is the best summer blockbuster you've seen and that you're willing to look over its flaws because it did what it was meant to do (for you as a viewer) and so you're happy.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

But for me and for some other people, it did NOT do what we expected. Were our expectations too high? That's subjective in of itself - how can my expectations be too high when the first half of the movie worked BEAUTIFULLY for me?

---

NZPoe posted:

---

What's WRONG with accepting that the previous Indy films delivered something - on some level - to a part of the audience that the current film failed to do so? It's not like we're crazy - everywhere across the internet, there are people who hated the film and people who loved the film who all admit that "something was missing".

---

NZPoe posted:

---

For me, what was missing was some glaring errors on the part of the screenwriter and those glaring errors made that Indiana Jones magic seem lost. Others on here agree with me and we are discussing it in the hopes of figuring out what WAS missing.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

I dunno about you, but when The Ark of the Covenant destroyed the Nazis in Raiders, I was - this was only 7-8 years ago - totally utterly creeped out and in awe. The way that the lights all went out and how all the Nazis were zapped and forced to kneel before the ark through death was just freakishly disturbing. When Indy and Mola Ram were dangling off the edge of the bridge and the Sankara Stones burst into flame...something in me was genuinely moved. When Indy used the Holy Grail to bring his father back from Death's Door...I felt a longing to have that kind of love the eyes of my own father.

But you know what I felt when the aliens came to life, zapped Cate Blanchett into the Nth Dimension and took off in their flying saucer? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact I was mostly wondering what particle engine they used to animated the rocks and about how dull the flying saucer design was.

And I KNOW that its not because i'm 7-8 years older or that i'm more cynical. I've been moved like that many times in the past year. I just know that something is flawed in this film and I know that its something in the script.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

I'm glad that you had the greatest time Princess Tina, but as zombie had already pointed out - that's not empirical discussion material. If you can talk about WHY you had the greatest time and what thrilled you about it, then maybe I'd understand your point. Repeating over and over that you had a great time without saying how or why the film did that will not make me grasp why the film is so good.

And no I don't think Spielberg to set out a movie like "Munich" or "Schindler's List". I think he set out to make KOTCS like "Raiders", "Jaws" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". Films regarded by fans, critics and academics as equally GREAT as "Munich" or "Schindler's List"...even if you may not think so.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

Who said we were talking about serious films? I'm wondering why we can't have more movies like "Casino Royale" or the "Bourne Trilogy" or "Alien"? Straight, blockbuster, popcorn films with craftsmanship that makes them classics instead of crap. Films exactly like what "Raiders" and "Star Wars" has been.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

Maybe that's the thing I guess - that your notion of "serious films" and "great films" are different from mine. As I said before - I don't treat "Raiders" any different from "Schindler's List". They're both movies and they both have objectives and even though their methodology and goals are different...the CRAFTSMANSHIP are easily and equally comperable. I don't have to disengage a part of my brain or my taste or cut some slack or put my brain into a different mode to enjoy "Raiders". I can JUDGE and CRITICIZE "Raiders" in the same vein and by the same checkboxes as I would "Schindler's List" and declare them both masterpieces. And its that same checkbox I apply to everything, including KOTCS.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

Yeah but its not like the everyone is giving it glowing reviews either? Or saying that its the best summer blockbuster, so there's no point in discussing its flaws, are they?

---

NZPoe posted:

---

You're talking about realism and benchmarks again. I've said before - that's not the issue we're getting at. We're talking about drama. We're talking about craftsmanship. We're saying that "RAIDERS" and the other Indy films had a quality of par-excellance that nailed the drama and emotional content home and featured less logic and character problems than KOTCS.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

It sounds like you're assuming we're judging KOTCS with its contemporaries. Not at all, we're judging KOTCS with the other three Indy films and finding it lacking in certain respects. We UNDERSTAND the notion of classical filmmaking and contemporary and your tangent has no validity - the things that made the trilogy - ESPECIALY RAIDERS - so great is that the contemporary aspects of the film were so strongly woven and amazingly executed into the classical structure.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

It had thrills, it had spills, we felt Indy's bruises and scrapes, we believed the story, we felt like we shared an adventure and we felt the awe and power and mystery of the McGuffins...and for some of us that did NOT happen this time around.

And its to do with the craftsmanship of the film.

---

NZPoe posted:

---

Cool, that's great. Then my original point is valid - discussing this is moot as we're at cross-purposes. There's no point in arguing anymore about this, neither of us are talking about the same thing.
And I think that's a good point to stop and we can part our ways. Our opinions are so far apart we cannot discuss the same topic without coming to cross-purposes. This discussion is moot.
Thanks for the discussion.

---

LordNyax113 posted:

---

While I agree for the most part about flaws in recennt summer films, I must say that Iron Man really set the benchmark for entertaining moves this summer; KoTCS is a very close second.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

I don't see how that is all that different from falling out of a plane in an inflatable raft, sledding down the mountain, flying off a cliff and landing in a river for some white-water rafting.

---

Juan-King posted:

---

I thought that scene went too far as well (but the comparable bit in KOTC is even more stupid) , but TOD does recover from it and has some good sequences after that .

In KOTC from the bit with the monkeys it's one stupid thing after another - tarzan nonsense , the skull constantly and awfully conveniently getting them out of scrapes , driving off a cliff , going down 3 waterfalls etc.

the second half just goes down and down and down - kinda like what Oxley was saying

---