Is Indy 4 that bad?

They were both interested in this. Even in his youth, he was interested in this. Indy just stopped once, but the interest did not disappear.

Indiana went to Akator because the thirst for knowledge of the secret could overpower. After all, he is a seeker of antiquities and adventure. He could not leave this secret without disclosure.

 

Well okay, I will concede that as motivation, but it's literally baseline motivation with no further thought put into it.

 

In my opinion it's an ok movie.

 

It's meh. Some really terrible scenes like Shia LaBeouf swinging with CGI apes and the finale with the UFO is unsatisfying. Stargate did ancient aliens better.

 

It was so much fun to go back to the theater for a new adventure with Indy and Marion.

 

I think i saw it 4 times the first weekend. I liked it up until the waterfalls scene.

 

Lmao. you said waterfalls and it reminded me of the Ant scenes which were kinda funny.

 

Three times it drops.

 

*sigh*
I really have very fond memories of that movie...

 

I was a kid when Kingdom of the Crystal Skull came out and LOVED it, although the film has some glaringly obvious issues that went over my head as a kid. I loved the original three films and loved this one just as much, if not more, than The Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade. Retrospectively, I see a lot more of the issues and understand why it might not have been as well-received as its predecessors, but I still feel like it retains so much of the adventure and charm of the originals that a lot of the issues can be overlooked.

Yes, some of the CGI sequences are bad and/or ridiculous, as is the refrigerator bit. The alien thing is a bit far-fetched, although there are certainly supernatural elements present in the other films that have made me more okay with it in recent years. Spalko is easily one of the best Indy villains, and Cate Blanchett did an (unsurprisingly) incredible job with the role. Harrison Ford and Karen Allen are always brilliant, too.

At the time, though, I will say that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull very much felt like a finale, so it’ll be interesting to see how they tackle Indiana Jones 5. I love that the story ended with Indy finally marrying Marion and settling down with a family, and especially with the allusions to Mutt inheriting the hero role at the end of the film, I’m intrigued as to how they continue the narrative. I’m sure they could write Mutt out, but I hope if they do, it’s not at the expense of Marion. Karen Allen was definitely underutilized in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and I really hope to see her back in action in all her glory next time around.

All in all, though, it’s not THAT bad of a film. It has issues, but it’s not like it’s a horrible movie. I still love it and I think the hate for it is a bit much. Even with all its issues, there’s still A LOT to love about it, too.

 

The only glaring finale event that comes to mind would be Indy’s death. Because Indy is a human being and human beings tend to die.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Oh, yeah, without a doubt — there’s definitely room to continue the story as long as Indy is still alive. (Having anyone else — whether it’s continuing the same narrative with Mutt taking on the role or recasting — is simply a bad idea, in my opinion.) I just felt like having the “ride off into the sunset” moment of that film be Indy finally appearing to settle down with Marion and his son really gave off the impression that the intent was to end the story there.

For that reason, I think it’ll be interesting to see how they continue it, especially because up until that point, every Indy film had always sort of operated independently of the previous one. The fifth film will sort of have to derive itself from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull from a continuity standpoint. For example, up until that film, no one ever really questioned Indy’s ever-changing love interests and sidekicks, but now that he’s married Marion — who, for many fans, was always “the one” — and has a son, their roles seem a bit too important to not be explained, whether they’re included in the film or not.

Kingdom of the Crystal Skull very much came across as “Indy’s coming out of retirement for one last adventure” (at least, it did to me) and I feel like the fifth film is basically going to have to do that again because its predecessor ended with the implication that he was finally settling down.

 

I see Indy as the kind of character that doesn’t really believe in retirement . Maybe he’ll be retired from professing, but def not from going on archeological missions! So I see either one of two possibilities: He dies at the end or they set it before KOTCS, like they did with TOD. Considering Ford probably won’t manage looking younger than Crystal Skill Indy very well, my money’s on the former.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Oh, me too — I just think, in terms of wrapping up the story, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull felt like it was trying to end the narrative (at least, as far as future films are concerned). I’m cautiously optimistic about Indy 5, so we’ll see. Harrison Ford never disappoints, so I’m sure I’ll enjoy it, but I’m curious as to where they’ll go with it. You’re right, though, they could easily make the fifth film a prequel to Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but it’s far more likely that it will be a sequel. I really hope he doesn’t die at the end, though. It would be nice if we could just have a happy ending and just end it without feeling the need to continue something until it gets ruined.

 

But it isn't enough. That' sounds like the attitude that the makers of KOTCS had. A "that'll do kind" kind of attitude.

TLC is much more than that and comparing the macguffin in TLC to the macguffin in KOTCS is like comparing apples to oranges. The driving forces behind the first 3 films are clear and much more compelling. Indeed TLC has 2 macguffins, the quest for the grail and Indy reconnecting with his father in his life times work. That film has an emotional heart driving it along.

IMO KOTCS is a muddled mess. What is the point of the skull? What does it do? Why is Indy going after it? Why should we be invested in Ox as he offered nothing to the story? A waste of a character. What did the writers do to really get the audience on board with the plot and characters? The characters are written in such a way that I didn't care about Ox or Mutt or what their motivations were and as a result that means I lost interest in what they were doing. The father, son and Marion angle of the story is handled so clumsily and just played for laughs. Really bad laughs at that. That's just the tip of the iceberg in my issues with the film. Its by far the biggest disappointment I've ever seen. They completely lost sight of what makes a good Indiana Jones film, at the least it should have a plot and characters that you can root for and become invested in. I really hope none of the aspects of KOTCS make it into the 5th film, especially his son and Marion.

 

Should have had Indy realize that Oxley was the father figure for Mutt and also have them all realize that the only way to return Oxleys sanity was to get the skull back to the temple. Indy getting Ox back should have been the driving force of the 3rd act and it would have served as a way for Indy to apologize to Mutt for not being there as his father. Could have had some real heart to it. Instead, everything just kind of plays out.

 

To me Ox was a character that I held no interest in and the fact he was a babbling idiot is even worse because as an audience member how can you get invested in him? Indy knows him and he’s discussed in the exposition scene but he’s not written well enough to care about. Contrast that with Marion in Raiders, she’s discussed in the similar exposition scene between Indy and Marcus, we meet her and she’s well written and the chemistry and history between them comes across so well. The same with Indy’s dad in TLC. Ox is nowhere near written as well as that and in the end I felt Ox was superfluous. I felt nothing for him or Mutt, I genuinely didn’t care about them on the screen one bit.

 

KOTCS suffers from having too many characters. ROTLA had Indy plus 1. TOD had Indy plus 2. TLC had Indy plus 3. So they felt like KOTCS had to have Marion, Mutt, Mac (who I also despise) AND Oxley. And none of them are written very well.

 

I think they originally wanted Connery in the Ox role but he turned it down as he was retired.

 

From what Lucas has said about Connery, his role would've been limited to be present in the opening and ending of the film - maybe instead of Jim Broadbent's character.

Even though I like KOTCS, I do agree with this. Raiders and Temple are perfect in terms of the number of heroes involved. Crusade, towards the end, already feels like there are too many heroes with Indy (maybe it's just because all of them are mature men). But KOTCS, in its second half, has way too many characters, and except for Mutt, none of the others are developed at all.
I've often wondered if it would've been better if Marion and Oxley were combined: they're both captured by the Russians and are introduced at the same spot in the story. If Marion had been involved in the search for the Skull from the beginning, maybe Indy's motivation would've been stronger too.

 

Absolutely, you hit the nail on the head and it’s my biggest gripe with the film. It ended up with me not caring about what was going on with the characters. Way too many vying for screen time and they lost focus massively.

 

Mac, Oxley, and Marion could all be written out easily and it shows.

They should have called the movie RAIDERS OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL and just had Indy's son show up. Then you have Mutt (or whatever you ant to call him, Henry the 3rd?) arrive, keep the Ruskies as villains, and have the kid be super into aliens. Maybe Henry 3rd finds out his estranged father was taken to the Roswell crash site back in the forties and that's why he wants to go and find him, goes to meet him, the diner scene occurs, and then their off on an adventure.

 

I don't really agree with that assessment.

 

On the other hand, having more heroes along with Indy helps to create that "family adventure" feeling that Kingdom is looking after (as opposed to the "solo adventure" that is Raiders). I think giving Indy a proper family was a way of giving closure to the character (something similar happens in Last Crusade, with Indy reuniting with his father and friends, again creating a sort of "family").

 

Oxley felt very much like a placeholder for Henry Jones Sr, the same way Charles Stanforth felt like a placeholder for Marcus Brody, with not much done to make either character distinctive or memorable.

At least Mac and Mutt felt like their own characters and not people who were only there because they couldn't get the original ones back.