Critiquing of the Crystal Skull - What Went Wrong?

Discussion in 'Lucasfilm Ltd. In-Depth Discussion' started by Jango10, Jun 17, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. d_arblay Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2005
    star 4
    Star Wars hasnt been fashionable since 1985 :p if you're into star wars you are considered a nerd by the general populace. and generally nerds are never in fashion.

    to address your point; Iron-Man is comic book, i believe. Spiderman is a comic book. Harry Potter - a book franchise (the most successful of its kind). LOTR - book franchise (no wait, maybe this the most popular). Shrek - a kids movie (not what we're talking about here fundamentally). their box-office success is guaranteed, regardless of style (which is pretty much dictated by the already established franchise). the first spiderman movie was fresh - it was the first spiderman. it doesnt have to be the greatest film ever to achieve acclaim because it is new and therefore exciting. same goes for iron man. the only two you mention that haven't suffered a perceived dip in quality in recent times are LOTR and Harry Potter. but this is because people are going into the films knowing the specific stories and the plot events from the books, which alters expectations. pirates, shrek and spiderman have all had their most recent films criticised - could this be to do with a dip in quality or the fact they are no longer flavour of the month? is the third pirates movie really worse than the first? i didnt think so. is the third spiderman really any worse than the first? i didnt think so. is the third shrek any worse than the first? again, you know my answer. there is a trend and theme to these examples you bring up that backs up my theory. would you expect to find a Jack Sparrow in a 1950's Hollywood Sci-Fi BMovie? a perfect and unfortunately obvious example is Batman. it was getting stale and people needed to see it revamped - to see something they had never seen before with Batman. its how the original film reinvented itself in regard to the much maligned tv series of the 60's. the only way i believe the PT and Indy IV could have been critical successes would have been to go down a similar route and compromise their core principles. had star wars' PT been very dark and almost film-noir in style it undoubtedly would have been given more acclaim (look at the Ep. 1 icon - darth maul, of whom fans think is underused). had Indy IV avoided the supernatural in kingdom of the crystal skull and gone with something more gritty, i've no doubt it would have also been given more acclaim. another example at the opposite end of the scale? superman returns. it didn't compromise the original movie interpretation that richard donner gave it in the 70's - a more romantic style - and therefore, despite its obvious box office success, it was a big miss with the fans.

    Star Wars and Indy no longer stand out because they are taken for granted. they are not fresh because they have stuck to a rigid formula. you tell me that ROTS achieved credibility but i haven't really seen
  2. Dark--Helmet Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2003
    star 2
    SW is always fashionable, it's entrenched in pop culture,us senators think highly of it,the NY Yankees used it for promotion ect etc.

    All those franchises I mentioned aren't gritty or realistic and did great.None of there success is guaranteed,comic movies and movies based on books fail all the time.LOTR and Potter don't have a drop in quality because people thought the LOTR Trilogy was high quality,many people who watched it had never read the books,,Potter doesn't drop in quality because it hasn't,the movies are getting better.

    The 3rd pirates I liked but it isn't as good as the first,I;m no fan of the Spidy movies but 3 is pretty bad clearly the worst,the 3rd Shreik is a horrific move compard to the 1st.This stuff is all pretty easily seen,which is what I'm talking about, movie quality dips as a franchise keeps going.You really think Batman and Robin is a good as Batman 89,Robocop 2 or 3 is as good as 1,Predator2 is as good as 1,Caddyshack 2 as good as 1,2010 as good as 2001,Holloween 2 as good as 1,Ghostbusters 2 as good as 1?I can keep going on and on ,sequels dip in quality there no denying it.

    I'm not sure i understand the Jack Sparror question

    The Batman example helps my case.Batman was restated because the quality/craft of the movie of the original series went down the toilet.It was a joke.They restarted with a new approach with focus on script,casting and acting.Not to mention using the darker Batman which the character was at the very beginning of his creation.It was a success then they make TDK and you know what happend,an even bigger jump in quality.Batman started out strong followed the tread of crappy franchise then saved itself with a refocus on better movie making,just like Harry Potter,Bond and to a lesser extent the SW PT did.

    If the PT would have been better made movies they would have gotten more acclaim,see ROTS.People want more Maul because he's cool like Boba Fett.People also think it's a boring movie so they want more spice in it.And to be fair people also want more Obi,like Maul, because they think he's underused even thinking he should replace QuiGon all together.Im'not sure with Indy as I like Skull and all the indy movies but I could see things wrong with it.Sometimes movies just don't hit maybe in a couple of years it's rep will go up..Superman Returns is a great example.It keeps the same original tone was written in the now and still failed.Why,not because of it not being gritty but because people didn't think it was as good as 1&2.It follows the trend of movie series peaking early but breaks the movie series getting worst and worst trend as it's better then Superman 3&4.So while it wasn't as good as 1 and 2 it wasn't the junk that 3 and 4 was.


    SW and Indy do stick out,there very unique in the cinematic land scape,epically SW.Theirs nothing really like it even the bad ones are fun to watch and interesting.ROTS was seen as bringing SW back,almost universally was said to be better then other PT movies.The most emotional of all 6,as good as the original SW where some of the quotes.It gave SW back some of its mojo and dignity.SW and Empire are the elite classics though,that would be a tall order for any movie.But it's seen as a good movie and looks like it will work it's way up to 3rd best in the Legendary SW series witch is pretty good.Really that's all anybody asks of these series,just be good,but what usually happens is they have one classic then it's down hill.


    This is where opinion will always come in.I do agree that the movies get attacked sometimes for not being the best movies of all time.But it's happened to other movies to and I don't think it has anything to do with different era's or movie fans wanting grittiness.I think most people just don't think they where made as well as they should have been.


  3. d_arblay Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2005
    star 4
    very quickly, as i haven't the time to address all of this just now, you tell me sequels dip in quality - and some do of course. but what i am trying to get to the bottom of is HOW and WHY so many are perceived to. and more i
  4. d_arblay Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 26, 2005
    star 4
  5. HarraidH Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2009
    I agree ROTS was not acclaimed. The Matrix was acclaimed. Only Alfonso Cuaron's Harry Potter was acclaimed (and that's because he increased the level of acting, ). None in PT had been acclaimed.

    I think this way: Johnny Deep is cool. Reeves was cool. Han Solo was cool. General audiences response to great characters only when they see a great actor (this is, great performance or great charisma). The same in character development, and production. It has to be shown up.

    Anakin Skywalker: bad written, worst interpretation. Amidala, same thing. Obi Wan Kenobi. The only character you could save from the fire is Qui Gon Jinn (script + acting). it's obvious: they can't like a movie when its central character rides on a Ball With Legs, fall and begin laughing THAT way -you know what i mean. They can't like a movie when its central character seems to smile because she has her lips super-glued over her ears but no feelings at all. Very very bad interpretations, and poorly developed characters on paper. Somebody could say that he knows someone who saw these films and all his hair went down in less a second. I would believe him. Even R2D2 is bad acting in those films. It's no decent film when you have that.

    Maybe original SW, or Empire, nowadays would not be a boom. But people would like it very very much. And it would be acclaimed. They are decent and good films.

    Godfather III: neither the same quality in production, nor the same Pacino. And of course, there is no Robert Duvall character.

    I think it's more simple than all we can say here, and i truly believe thar PT whit great charisma in central actors would be far more accepted. Even with those poorly written scripts, in last two films.
  6. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    HarraidH, what is your opinion of Indy 4?
  7. Darth-Seldon Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2003
    star 6
    If there is a problem with Indiana Jones 4, it clearly is not with the actors themselves. There is no lack of charisma or charm. The two leads--Indy and Marion were both central to the classic original. Harrison Ford remains at the top of his game. For me Harrison was the most worth-while part of the entire movie. So the problem is not the casting or the acting. It is something entirely different.

    -Seldon
  8. HarraidH Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Aug 4, 2009
    I reply here for both about Indy4:

    I liked the film very much, and I liked the jungle scenes, even the monkeys. I agree there is no lack of charisma in Indy. I think there is bad acting in Marion character, and only a few good moments. I only remember two: the tree-boat affair and Indy's declaration before going out of the truck.

    For me what went wrong with the film was:

    1) the climax at piramyd. Too lineal, but this is not a big problem for me; that is in Raiders too.
    2) Lack of charisma in supporting roles (acting + script) in the "traitor/triple agent" character. If Indy's films have something is brilliant supporting roles.

    On point 1: in Raiders, you always know that opening the ark will not be good; in Crystal, you know the bad guys will arrive just in time and that putting the skull will not be good. Lack of suspense, for me. But not a big problem, because the rest of the film is ok for me. In my list of Indy films, Crystal is the second better after Raiders. I think it's a better film than Crusade, but i miss two things in Crystal: Williams music at his best and lack of humour (i'm not sure if that is the word), surely derived from point 2.

    I don't agree with all the ET's Big Problem because for me is quite funny accepting miracles of grial or lost ark and not accepting ET's (both in fiction). It doesn't make any sense at all, no matter how you look at it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.