Census Which of these films was the most disappointing?

So, unlike my thread from December 2014 in which we decided that the Hobbit films were objectively more terrible than the prequels, the purpose of this thread is not to discuss the level of suck inherent in each of the above.

All three of these choices have beloved trilogies preceding them.

All three of these choices tried and rather spectacularly failed to capture the magic of their predecessors.

All three of these choices act as a convenient barometer, for anyone who defends them is letting you know their opinions don't matter and they don't have any taste.

I considered other entrants, but these are the most obvious choices.

So, which out of the Hobbit Trilogy, the Prequels, or Crystal Skull left you the most disappointed?

I went with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Why, you ask?

Well:

1) It had flashes of old Indy brilliant, such as the opening fight in Area 51 and Indy beating up Soviets in the jungle chase

1a) It ruined the jungle chase moments with Shia LeBoof. ​

2) Unlike Star Wars, which has been incessantly ruined by its tinker-obsessed creator for years now, the Indy films were largely unmolested over time. The most offensive change was renaming Raiders, and frankly the fact it never took off as the title (everyone stills says "Raiders") is reason to have faith in humanity.
3) It was utterly self conscious, which is contrary to what Indy stands for. The flying wing in Raiders was never capable of flight. God's a made up creature, intended to scare adults and children alike - so there was no chance of the Ark having power or the Grail granting eternal life. Nor can a polished stone with a diamond at its core impact on agriculture. That didn't matter, it was so earnest in its deliver you didn't care.
But Crystal Skull, Lucas put the nuked fridge, justified it with all the science to Spielberg, who probably saw how hollow Lucas' life was and gave it to him. We'll take a heart being ripped out and the wound closing instantly, but the fridge was too far.

But mostly, having being burned by the prequels, we hoped Spielberg would save Indy. He didn't. He and Lucas are too cynical to recreate the wide-eyed mysticism of the original films and as for the Hobbit? It's more cynical than the prequels, and that says a lot.

Your thoughts?

 

The Hobbit Trilogy.

A 300-page book SHOULD NOT have been chopped up into three separate three-hour movies!

Am I wrong here?

 

The Star Trek reboot.

 

I thought about that, and Superman Returns (come on, a sequel which drops Superman III and IV?)... the issue, though, is that the list could go on for a while. Hence why it's confined to the above choices, Even.

 

Now, now, let's see what Simon Pegg and Justin Lin come up with before saying anything rash....

 

I haven't yet brought myself to watch Hobbit 2 or 3. So that one.

 

Wow. It's a natural history of your country, and yet...

 

I voted for the Hobbit films. Yes, the prequels and KotCS were bad with all their flaws. But I could still sit in the theater and watch them. The Hobbit committed the cardinal sin of being boring. I wanted to escape the theater. For The Five Armies I wanted to go home in the middle of the movie and play a superior fantasy: Dragon Age Inquisition. Nothing fun happens in those movies. At least Star Wars had cool battles and Indy had a couple of fun characters to follow. I could sit there and make it through. Hobbit was just ugh.

 

I kind of have to agree as a late 80's early 90's Trek fan. It was just too...flashy, without capturing the wonder of TNG, DS9, and the original series.

As a huge Tolkien fan, I have to say that the movie was not strictly based on the book. It included implied things for various appendices, as well as stuff that happened in the Silmarillion and other such works.Looking at it "objectively" I would argue that the Hobbit had superior and more balanced use of special effects, as well as having better acting and a more directional story. It would have worked better as 2 movies, but I still enjoyed them immensely.

 

Basically all of this, yes.

 

Yeah, I went with Crystal Skull. It's not the worst of the choices, but it was the most disappointing. I mean, I kinda went into the Hobbit films with tempered expectations and into the prequels with a sense of impending doom, so when they sucked, it wasn't some big surprise. I can't say they disappointed me really, since I was skeptical from the beginning. Crystal Skull I had hopes for. They were dashed. I was extremely disappointed. Thus, the winner.

 

The Legend of Chun-Li.

 

Yes, I enjoyed how Thorin Oakenshield was rendered mad by the arkenstone, until he turned a page in the script and realised that he was, in fact, quite sane again.

 

Nice, I did also.

 

Crystal Skulls. Just bad really bad.

 

Indy.

I can find redeeming things that I love in both the Hobbit films and the Prequels.

Crystal Skull... no. Just not.

 

Thing is, as much of a farcical let down and exercise in cynical money milking as the Hobbit was, Star Wars I - III already taught us that the purpose of prequel is to crap on the superior original and provide us with a story about a protagonist or protagonists we conclusively know cannot die and therefore give precisely no ****s about.

Indy, though... you get to the bit after Indy escapes from the Russians via rocket sled and think "yeah, alright, sure it has gophers but we can do this, and.... a fridge? Oh **** you."

Then, later, Indy faffs about in a small town and mental asylum, and you think back to Raiders and the scene where they learn that Belloq did not remove one kadam to honour the Hebrew god, etc, and you go "back to form!" and it gets followed up with the tomb raiding stuff and you go "i wish the scorpion killed Shia theBeef but this is great" and you get the Russian camp. And quicksand. And tell me the snake is rope.

But! Indy then escapes and blows up a Russian... thing with an RPG, then jumps into an amphibious car and punches a lot of people in the face and you go "this is more like it!" Only, we have to see Shia LeBoof having his balls thwacked as he fences with Cate Blanchett, and do a tarzan bit and you just wish they all died. But then Indy has a fight with a dude and it's all punchy and vicious and he even does the Harrison Ford point, signifying "just wait a minute", and goes for his hat, and it's Indy! But then ants.

And the rest is crap. And you realise on balance what makes this worse is that whereas the Hobbit and Star Wars Prequels had no soul or depth, Indy actually, in small small moments, captures the spirit and then craps on it. Hence why I agree with Rogue1-and-a-half.

You mean you can lie to yourself?

 

I like a lot of the ideas and characters of the prequels, even if I think they aren't great movies overall. I enjoyed the Hobbit movies even with several issues I've had with them, they are the Star Wars prequels done better.

I really have to go with Indy 4, it's not even the nuke the fridge stuff...its freaking Shia nononononono Lebeouf being the son of freaking Indiana Jones...and aliens. I preferred the supernatural stuff in Indy compared to the stuff that would better fit some sci-Fi adventure. I was so excited for Indy 4, so the disappointment slapped me pretty hard. I haven't actually seen it since 2008.

 

The Star Wars Prequels.

I never cared for Lord of the Rings, I haven't even seen those films. Indiana Jones was great when it was great, but it wasn't as 'sacred' to me as Star Wars once was. Star Wars was a formative influence. When the prequels came along, it was as if The Beatles had reformed with Jack Black instead of John Lennon: it tainted the legacy.

 

More like Justin Bieber in place of John Lennon.

 

Crystal Skull. I can rewatch the others and find some form of entertainment in them, regardless of disappoint. I cannot even bring myself to watch CS even once.

 

I just want to comment that I think it's a tremendous failure of story-telling if the only one can create emotional investment in a story is by threatening the life of the protagonists. You're letting them off much to easy when you do this, Ender. There could be--and are--many profoundly engrossing, excellent stories where the ending is already known. Almost any work of historical fiction is this way, for instance.

The truth is that these movies are terrible because they are terrible. The fact that they are prequels has little to nothing to do with it.

 

But Wocky, people enjoyed the hell out of Batman and James Bond films because there's a sense that, as their on-screen future is unwritten, they could die or be harmed or be changed. If you know what happens to them - that they will die in ANH/ROTJ respectively, you aren't going to believe the stakes are that high.