David Koepp? Why not Lawrence Kasdan...

I honestly have no problem with David Koepp. He is a mainstream screenwriter who has lended his talent to many Spielberg films like Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds. I'm just wondering why they selected him for the new Indy film.

"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" being written by Koepp is questionable in my opinion. Now, I haven't seen the film so it is extremely premature, but I would have rather seen a writer of Lawrence Kasdan's caliber take the role. "Raiders" is arguably the strongest film and best written in the franchise. Larry Kasdan adds a depth, darkness, and human emotion which is absent from most other Lucasfilm endeavors. It would have been great to see Kasdan take the helm again.

Koepp is this mainstream, box office, studio type. Kasdan is more a creative and intellectual force.

-Seldon

 

Kasdan was probably busy with his own projects. He is also a director himself. I did read today (and I can't remember what website) that Koepp consulted Kasdan about spicing up the dialogue between Indy and Marion.

 

Well, Spielberg Ford & Lucas are not really bothered about the screenwriter, they're bothered about the script. They spent over a decade trying to get the script right, they even turned down scripts from Columbus, Darabont and others. If Koepp brings the goods, Koepp brings the goods.

And on a side-note, I'd personally consider Koepp more of a heavyweight then Kasdan (not to demean Kasdan, who is also a fantastic screenwriter).

 

In the latest issue of CREATIVE SCREENWRITING magazine, David Koepp said when he was having trouble coming up with a line of dialogue for a scene between Indy and Marion in the new movie, he called up Lawrence Kasdan and he just gave him one right off the top of his head!

 

I agree that Koepp is the bigger heavy-weight for blockbuster films. Kasdan is the artist of them.

He carefully crafts dialogue to flesh out the characters and develop an emotional story. Besides his side projects, this is the writer behind "Empire" and "Raiders." Arguably those are the best films in each franchise. Kasdan is the expert on Marion Ravenwood and really seems to be the perfect guy for completing the series.

-Seldon

 

Why not Frank Darabont? He outshines Lawrence Kasdan, in my book. Why? Because David Koepp delivered the script that George, Steven and Harrison all agreed on.

 

After seeing the film, David Koepp failed in his role. The first half was strong, the final act was horrible. Not enough character development or dialogue.

-Seldon

 

I agree that the set up is great but the resolution is muddled.

 

Agreed as well. I think when Mutt straddled the Jeeps, held there, continued swordfighting, got hit in the balls ten times with plants, and then continued swordfighting for ten more seconds whilst spread-eagle, the film never really recovered.

But you know, the screenplay was really rushed. Harrison Ford said if the film wasn't out by 2008 he was giving up. It feels like a script that could have been equal amongst the originals but they ran out of time and couldn't finish the last 1/3. Maybe Kasdan would have had the same problem. But Kasdan had given up writing anyway, he was only directing. Though I think he recently wrote another screenplay.

 

Yeah he wrote something called Clash of the Titans, I think. Not sure what it's about. I obviously agree with the idea that the last third of the script didn't know where to go. I would have liked to see what Kasdan could have done with it.

-matthew

 

Agreed as well. I think when Mutt straddled the Jeeps, held there, continued swordfighting, got hit in the balls ten times with plants, and then continued swordfighting for ten more seconds whilst spread-eagle, the film never really recovered.

The film never really recovered FOR YOU.

I loved that part of the film.

 

Quite opposite to the OP's sentiments, I have a LOT of problems with David Keopp who has always been - for me - a studio-hatchet-man and a writing hack. And given the fact that Indy 4's script is getting the most of the flak for what is - an otherwise - well-recieved film, it's no real wonder.

The scripts for "War of the Worlds" and "Jurassic Park" (which Keopp didn't write from page one, he was brought in to do redrafts and in the case of "WotW" the original screenwriter took exception for not getting a screen credit) were typical Hollywood faire - functional, tight, but lacking in any amount of charm, cleverness, robustness or flamboyancy.

I am sorely disappointed that they hired David Keopp and I hope they never do so again. It was the worst-written Indiana Jones adventure and all of the best bits were the cut-and-pasted elements from other versions of the script penned by far superior screenwriters. Why they didn't go with Shymalan's script or Darabont's I will never know.

 

George Lucas.

 

I don't think it was a bad screenplay at all. It made for an extremely entertaining and fun movie to watch. I couldn't be happier with Indy 4, after having watched it 4 times.

The screenplay did everything it was supposed to do, set up the situations that make the movie so much fun, and does a very good job of bringing things up to speed 19 years after the last film.

I'm glad David Koepp came up with this screenplay, because apparently it was the one that finally cinched the deal. Had he not come up with the screenplay, maybe there wouldn't have been an Indy 4 at all. We'd never have had Indy back, and that would have been a tragedy.

 

Well, yes, but I'd just love to hear or know the reasoning for it. I've not read Shyamalan's script, but apparently it was really good and I HAVE read Darabont's script and its fantastic and quite emotional. I know that Lucas had a problem with the McGuffin's, but...*shrug*

Guess we'll never know.

I wonder if there's an index out there of the total Indy scripts that have been written? I know there's at least 5 unproduced Indy scripts that have totally different adventures and McGuffins...

 

I'm not sure I can really agree with you on that point - there were a lot of things about Indy 4 that I felt were not up to scratch with the films that came before and nearly all of them could be traced back to the script. For me, anyways.

David Keopp was writing to a finite deadline let's not forget - Lucas had rejected two scripts that Ford and Spielberg loved and Spielberg had rejected a script that Lucas loved, and all three had agreed that if it didn't happen in 2007 then it wasn't going to happen at all. Keopp's contribution was the assemble elements from several scripts and combine them into one cohesive story that still had all of the subtextual elements of a good Indiana Jones script. In my eye it failed.

And my own thoughts about Spielberg, Ford and Lucas's response to Keopp's script was that they had a deadline, they wanted to make an Indy movie and it seemed that Keopp's script was the be all and end all. There is no guarantee that they were truly excited about the screenplay and Spielberg's exuberance about the screenplay seemed to die down a lot after Keopp handed it in. Nobody was plugging it as a work of genius the way they were plugging Darabont's script or Jeff Nathanson's.

It's only my interpretation, but given the way things shaped up right before filming it always felt to me to be a case of "well its better than NO script". And as I said, the script is getting the majority of flak for this movie in the reviews that are floating around - even the positive ones are reserved about how disjointed it is and that the finer points like the character arcs, the handling of the sub-plots and the payoffs just don't quite work as well in this film.

But of course this is all strictly opinion

 

I read one rejected Indy script years and years ago, someone said it was written in the 80's for the third film, I don't know if thats true, but it was very interesting and involved giant gorillas in the congo and Indy dying and being resurrected.

 

Personally I prefer to focus on what is, rather than on what might have been. One way or another, there wouldn't have been another Indy movie without a script that Harrison, George and Steve were reasonably happy with. And watching what is on screen, I can't in all honesty say I am unhappy with the result. Quite the opposite, I haven't had this much fun at the cinema at least since college (not counting other Lucasfilm releases).

It has been a very long time since a movie was so much fun that I'd watch it 4 times just in the first week of release. Not since college, for me. And I definitely missed Spielberg doing this kind of stuff, because I still think this is what he's best at. Also, many of the movies Harrison Ford had been in recently had been rather disappointing. So I think it's great fun to see them all back doing what I loved so much in the 80's, and that nobody else has done nearly as well in the last 20 years.

 

Ahh yes, "Indiana Jones & The Monkey King" - Chris Columbus. That wasn't too bad from memory.

I'd love to get my hands on the script that had Indy in the haunted castle!

 

Didn't they mention something about that way back in the 80's? The one that Spielberg turned down because he'd just produced Poltergeist? I am not sure I would have like them doing that. It would feel a bit like a Harry Potter movie, I think.

 

Spielberg and Ford raised the film beyond its flaws - there is no doubt about that. And I do really miss the Spielberg of the 80's as well. It's nice to know he still exists in some form or other.

 

Considering how easy it is for many filmmakers to have burned out creatively by the time they're in their 60's, I think he's done remarkably well; he is still a great storyteller. Having seen every major summer release so far this year, I think he's still better than a lot of younger guys.

 

NZPoe, where did you find the Darabont script? I would love to read it. Please post a link if you know where to find it.

I could have sworn I heard in a Darabont interview that his draft was about crystal skulls as well...am I wrong?

I didn't have any major problems with Koepp's script. I have a feeling that Darabont's script is better, but I'm not going to sit here and moan about how Lucas should never have rejected it. Not until I read it myself, anyway.

I have read Monkey King, which was ridiculous, and just yesterday I read the entire Saucer Men From Mars script...it was interesting. Some of the stuff I could see working(the wedding scene in particular was funny)...but the last third of the script just kind of wanders around. Very boring.

If all Koepp did was rip off scenes from better screenwriters, at least he kept what worked. The A-bomb scene was great.

 

The better screenwriter is the one who seals the deal.

 

Honestly it is tough for something to feel like "Harry Potter" when that character hadn't been invented yet. That was their original plan for "Last Crusade" and they still involved an Austrian Castle--just in a different way.

David Koepp is a very weak writer. The major and unforgivable aspect of this film is that it lacks heart. Kasdan gave "Raiders" such an incredible character, the couple that did "Temple" added a new flavor to that script. All three of the originals had wit, humor, energy, and heart. While there were a few good lines in KOTCS, it was just lacking. It was devoid of something fundamental.

Tina: I don't care who sealed the deal etc. That isn't important to me. What is important is an actual discussion of the writing behind these movies. That is why I made this thread.

-Seldon