Spoilers in this thread/Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[davidpw97]

First off...I'm a huge fan of Indy and was really looking forward to this. I purposely didn't look up anything about it and didn't want to know anything about the story or it's plot. I wanted to go in fresh and have everything be a surprise (I would even switch the station if I saw the ad come on).

I went in really excited. I left...really REALLY disappointed.

I was giddy like a little schoolgirl when he picked the hat off of the ground and placed it on his head. Unlike most, I loved the "fridge" scene and the giant mushroom cloud. Then I saw the Mummy scene (Ants)...and I hated the Mummy. Next I saw Tarzan. WHAT??! Lucas/Spielberg...can't you come up with something ORIGINAL??? The swordfight on the Jeeps...LOVED IT. Then I got a crappy ending with a flying saucer. Whuh? Where did THAT come from?

Sorry, I loved all 3 of the originals...and even though this had some great scenes...the movie as a whole felt rushed and unfinished.

I don't know if you saw the first X-files movie but that seems to be where this flying saucer ending comes from. In the end of that movie a long dormant flying saucer comes to life and emerges from underground and flies off just as the heroes of the story have escaped from it. Sound familiar? Only difference is the setting, X-flies was in Antarctica and Indy was the Amazonian jungle.
To me that was part of the problem with this movie. It took parts from lesser movies and tried to piece them together into something new but instead it just seemed somewhat tired. Indiana Jones meets the mummy with a little bit of Apocalypto and X-files thrown in.

 

[WDWFREAK53]

Well.... that pretty much correlates with everything else. I'm not saying you're "wrong" because there's nothing to be wrong about.

I have a friend who's an AVID.... Temple of Doom/Last Crusade.... well, I wouldn't use the word "hater", but he doesn't hold them in high regard... and even HE liked Indy IV.

The thing is, he told me, that he totally vibed with the aliens until they showed them. "And I can see how it was cool and the whole 'broom to the footprints' thing was awesome", he said, "but I just didn't like it. Still loved the movie though"


I think that's what's ticking me and other people who liked the movie off(not what my friend said, but it's opposite). The fact that other people LIKED THE MOVIE TOO.... but for some reason all they seem to do is rattle off a few things that seem to be the concensus on what was "terrible, horrible & wrong" about the movie and then quantify it up to mean that Indy IV sucked.


I just... don't get it. If the majority of the movie vibed with you, (I don't mean you, I sort of mean a general 'you people') why do you hate it?


I don't hear anybody saying anything other than naming the part of the movie.... and that's it. No explanation. Just "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?" or "THAT WAS STUPID!" .

But what baffles me the most (and I'm sorry if the brash, contradicting, non-nice film geek is coming out) is that the things that people say they hate.... ARE PRETTY MUCH ANALOGUES OF THINGS SEEN IN PAST INDY MOVIES.


The ants were pretty much the "creepy crawlies" like the rats and snakes in the other movies. Given the fact that they were in the amazon, that was really cool (read "La Voragine" by Horacio Quiroga, if there's an english translation, there's a really awful account of an army ant attack).


I'm just.... really confused.

I also get ticked off when people suddenly attack Lucas and Spielberg like they know better. Ok. You didn't like it. Fine. But hey... it's their damn story. And I think people suddenly forget EVERYTHING ELSE THOSE TWO HAVE DONE just for the sake of one thing.


Although, I take this all as a symptom. Of two things:

#1. George Lucas, with Star Wars, and along with Spielberg on Indy, have created something that has become such a cultural force, that the public has adopted it as it's son, and is basically reeeeeeeeeling at anything they see as a threat to it, hence all the "Stop making movies!" shouts and such. If I were them, I'd take all the negativity as a compliment.

#2. The audience has grown up(figuratively speaking). And by that I mean they saw these movies a long time ago, and were imprinted by them. Now they see them from a different perspective and fail to consolidate the themes of what they're seeing with their current viewpoints. Of course, they blame the script/cgi/plot/et cetera.


All in all, I guess I'm just confused.... I feel like they fed an audience a delicious chocolate chip cookie once....twice.....three times. And now they're giving us the same cookie, but for some reason suddenly everyone chokes and spits it back up.

Like I said.... wasn't Raiders, so it didn't vibe. They did something different than what people expected, and suddenly the fanboy minutemen are grabbin' the rifles.


Gah... I'm rambling. I'll stop. Scratch everything I said. Replace with "De gustibus no est disputandum", even though I hate to break out a cliche dead language, but I think it fits the topic.



Oh, P.S.:

JCorduroy.... The SNAKE?! You didn't like the snake? I mean... I'm trying to think whether you're talking about any other snake but the one they used to get out of the quicksand.

Are you nuts? That was such an Indy moment..... "Say it's a rope... JUST SAY IT'S A ROPE!"

There were definitely parts of the film I enjoyed...but a few scenes here and there doesn't make a good movie. All in all...the movie wasn't done well. I love popcorn movies as much as the next guy...but coming off of a movie like Ironman...and going to see this...such a huge disappointment. I have a very bad feeling about The Incredible Hulk and I think it'll be better than this installment of Indy. Let's hope they do a 5th and turn it around. I still have faith in Spielberg/Lucas because there were some glimpses of "good ol' Indy" in the movie...it just fell short IMO.

 

[Atta83]

Most of the indy movies have been based upon fact or legends. If you have never heard of the crystal skulls I advise you to read or watch some of the specials about them. its pretty interesting. There was also a special on the hisory channel I think the other night about the indy movies and the objects that were in each of the movies, i found that interesting as well. So while I thought they could of done the alien scene much better it is one of the legends that the skulls are of course not of this world.

I suggest anyone to read the book, im about a quater of the way through and its starting to pick up. It of coruse explains much more than the movie which is kind of sad, would of made some scense I think.

 

[XaiChai]

I think people were just not expecting to see aliens in an Indy movie cause most Indy movies deal with the power of god...wait...I already did this rant! UUUUHGGGG!!!! This was set in the cold war, thats when the whole alien phenomenon was at full force. Everyone was looking into aliens and ESP and anything to get an edge....uhgg...HOW COME YOU CAN SEE SOMEONE GETTING HIS HEART RIPPED OUT OR SOMEONE GETTING THEYRE FACE MELTED OFF BY AN ARK...BUT ALIENS...OH HO HO, thats out of the question! OH and two seconds of monkeys and gophers does not a bad movie make....And even though the ant part did look kinda like The Mummy, have you seen those ants in the amazon? they are vicious. maybe not as exagerrated as in the movie (hello, key word being movie) but they do make little ladders to get to places...they even make rafts out of themselves to cross rivers (go ahead, go to youtube)......okay....whatever....I'm sorry for those that didn't like this movie...everyone is entitled to theyre own opinions

 

[JCorduroy]

Oh, P.S.:

JCorduroy.... The SNAKE?! You didn't like the snake? I mean... I'm trying to think whether you're talking about any other snake but the one they used to get out of the quicksand.

Are you nuts? That was such an Indy moment..... "Say it's a rope... JUST SAY IT'S A ROPE!"

Yeah, probably shoulda clarified that. I LOVED the scene - it was classic Indy and I thoroughly enjoyed the banter between him and Marion, and I liked that Mutt got to be the hero there.

What I didn't like was the snake itself - it looked SO bad...I just couldn't suspend my belief long enough to look past the fact it was essentially a $4 rubber snake from a toy store.

 

[dr_teeth90210]

The term "Jump the Shark" shall forever be replaced with "Nuke the Fridge".

 

[Timmay]

Okay, seriously…was I like the only person to see this movie that paid attention to Ox telling Indy they weren’t aliens?!?

Anyway, this movie was the typical Indiana Jones movie…it was no different than the others. For some reason, people remember the first three as being different than they were, for whatever reason. Was the mine cart ride in Temple of Doom really believable, or any more believable than what was in the 4th film? Of course not! None of the movies were at all believable; the way Indy gets out of trouble, the melting of faces, over the top fight scenes, etc, etc.

But that is what made them great. That is what made this one great. They are all the same. They are an unbelievable adventure that is fun and entertaining. The first three films take place in the 1930’s, which was a time of movies and stories of swashbuckling type heroes that got into situations in which there seemed to be no way out, but in the end there always was. The latest movie takes place in the late 1950’s, a time in which the masses were enthralled with alien invasions and visitors form other worlds, as well as the ever constant threat of communism and nuclear war. The movie fits the times in which it is set, perfectly, even down to Mutt swinging through the trees.

It’s no different than the folks that blast the latest three Star Wars films. People seem to forget, or just flat out ignore, the goofy lines, characters and plots in the first three but love to point them out in the final three. The movies are the same, people! Get over it!!

If people want to gripe about really bad plots and dumb stories, I am more than willing to talk about Knocked Up, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, etc, etc. Now those are movies I would like to punch out the screenwriters and directors of.

 

[InfernalPenguin]

Okay, seriously…was I like the only person to see this movie that paid attention to Ox telling Indy they weren’t aliens?!?

Anyway, this movie was the typical Indian Jones movie…it was no different than the others. For some reason, people remember the first three as being different than they were, for whatever reason. Was the mine cart ride in Temple of Doom really believable, or any more believable than what was in the 4th film? Of course not! None of the movies were at all believable; they way Indy gets out of trouble, the melting of faces, over the top fight scenes, etc, etc.

But that is what made them great. That is what made this one great. They are all the same. They are an unbelievable adventure that is fun and entertaining. The first three films take place in the 1930’s, which was a time of movies and stories of swashbuckling type heroes that got into situations in which there seemed to be no way out, but in the end there always was. The latest movie takes place in the late 1950’s, a time in which the masses were enthralled with alien invasions and visitors form other worlds, as well as the ever constant threat of communism and nuclear war. The movie fits the times in which it is set, perfectly, even down to Mutt swinging through the trees.

It’s no different than the folks that blast the latest three Star Wars films. People seem to forget, or just flat out ignore, the goofy lines, characters and plots in the first three but love to point them out in the final three. The movies are the same, people! Get over it!!

If people want to gripe about really bad plots and dumb stories, I am more than willing to talk about Knocked Up, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, etc, etc. Now those are movies I would like to punch out the screenwriters and directors of.

Kudos to another person that doesn't have a fatwa against George Lucas.....

It's sort of funny though. If you look at the Warsie community, or even just geeks who like Indy or Star Wars in general, the reviews are almost all polar opposites. Half like... the others dislike.

I still remember when the expanded universe was HORRIBLE and if you had even read The Truce at Bakura you were a heretic. Now look, New Jedi Order and still going strong.



Oh, on a side note though... the plot to There Will Be Blood was bad? Jesus, that's an incredible movie. Hell, I'd go so far as to say it deserved the Oscar, and I'm an unabated Cohen Brothers fan.

It evoked so many other great scenes and movies... Citizen Kane.... anything by Kubrik. It was such an impacting film.


But yeah, the thread's about Indy, moving on...

 

[Pongo]

I think people were just not expecting to see aliens in an Indy movie cause most Indy movies deal with the power of god...wait...I already did this rant! UUUUHGGGG!!!! This was set in the cold war, thats when the whole alien phenomenon was at full force. Everyone was looking into aliens and ESP and anything to get an edge....uhgg...HOW COME YOU CAN SEE SOMEONE GETTING HIS HEART RIPPED OUT OR SOMEONE GETTING THEYRE FACE MELTED OFF BY AN ARK...BUT ALIENS...OH HO HO, thats out of the question! OH and two seconds of monkeys and gophers does not a bad movie make....And even though the ant part did look kinda like The Mummy, have you seen those ants in the amazon? they are vicious. maybe not as exagerrated as in the movie (hello, key word being movie) but they do make little ladders to get to places...they even make rafts out of themselves to cross rivers (go ahead, go to youtube)......okay....whatever....I'm sorry for those that didn't like this movie...everyone is entitled to theyre own opinions

Even the fact that it was made into a B-Movie-esque film because it was set in the time period when B-Movies were popular just rubs me the wrong way. That's like art imitating life imitating art, which is out of control.

The feel and tone of the series was GREAT before they went and turned it into what they did. Now it feels tainted and gross.

 

[InfernalPenguin]

I dunno how appropriate this comment is on the forums, but here goes:

"WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?!?!?!?!?!"


There was nothing B-Movie about this movie! It evoked an ERA.... an ERA that happened to have certain sensibilities. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it embodied the style of the times...

...otherwise Raiders of the Lost Ark would have seen Indy dressed like Captain America and reminding the camera that "Loose Lips Sink Ships".


It comes around again, like a vicious cycle. People didn't expect the aliens. Aliens aren't all archeological-like... so all of a sudden "WAAAAAAAAAH, IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE INDY!!!!". Completely IGNORING everything else.

It's like somebody sneezed on the Mona Lisa and suddenly instead of a great work of art it's "A Saliva Speckled Mess that nobody will like that was awful it didn't even FEEL like Davinci anymore I give it -1 Stars"


I TOTALLY agree with Xai. Nobody knows what the hell they're talking about. People are spewing judgements out of their........ mouth.


I'd like a damn LIST... a friggin' LIST.... of what made this un-indy like.... that isn't just a list of the scenes that had cgi in them followed by "THAT WAS STUPID!"

It's ironic that yesterday I read an article (I'm trying to find it now) that talked about how Spielberg even used THE EXACT SAME LENS HE USED ON RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK to shoot the movie with and they tried their best to blend the cgi in so it looked film-like and aged.


Good lord... it's like...like.... like they put twins in a room and people are saying they're from different families. I can't even describe it.

It's just angering me that I hear all this unqualified blathering about how much the movie sucked and nobody backs it up. They sound so unrelenting and strict about their dislike, but they can't back it up.... meanwhile I've heard people who LIKE the movie mention the exact same things but admit that it's just little things that stuck out but that overall the movie was awesome because it FELT LIKE THE ORIGINALS.


For Christ's Sake, I heard someone criticise the fact that it had drag racing teens at the begginign and the whole beatnik fight in the bar.


And I'm not gonna apologize like my counterpart here. No. I think people need to stop whining uncontrolably about things and open their damn minds to the possibility that something made in 2007 will not equal something made almost three decades ago. And that DOESN'T MAKE IT BAD.

Same people made it. Same character. Same actors. Same dialogue. Same quirky action. Same fantastic plot.

.....the only thing that's changed is the audience. Maybe they should've just re-released the originals and then heard everyone complain about how "I wish they would've done something DIFFERENT."


Innovation is not rewarded anymore... and that's why the film industry is dying. And that's why I hear people quoting "Meet the Spartans" and laughing their off.

I'm done. I'm gonna try to ignore this thread so I'm not sent into another angry tirade.

 

[haveyoumetmark]

okay okay. It was a good movie, but nothing to warrant a war like this. I liked it a lot, it had its moments, but such defense is uncalled for. Opinions will be opinions, just because some people think a movie is awesome, does not make it factually awesome. Likewise for the people who thought it sucked. Jeez. No need to run in front of the tanks like a Tiananmen Square protester.

 

[Fun2BFree]

I dunno how appropriate this comment is on the forums, but here goes:

"WHAT ARE YOU SMOKING?!?!?!?!?!"


There was nothing B-Movie about this movie! It evoked an ERA.... an ERA that happened to have certain sensibilities. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean it embodied the style of the times...

...otherwise Raiders of the Lost Ark would have seen Indy dressed like Captain America and reminding the camera that "Loose Lips Sink Ships".


It comes around again, like a vicious cycle. People didn't expect the aliens. Aliens aren't all archeological-like... so all of a sudden "WAAAAAAAAAH, IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE INDY!!!!". Completely IGNORING everything else.

It's like somebody sneezed on the Mona Lisa and suddenly instead of a great work of art it's "A Saliva Speckled Mess that nobody will like that was awful it didn't even FEEL like Davinci anymore I give it -1 Stars"


I TOTALLY agree with Xai. Nobody knows what the hell they're talking about. People are spewing judgements out of their........ mouth.


I'd like a damn LIST... a friggin' LIST.... of what made this un-indy like.... that isn't just a list of the scenes that had cgi in them followed by "THAT WAS STUPID!"

It's ironic that yesterday I read an article (I'm trying to find it now) that talked about how Spielberg even used THE EXACT SAME LENS HE USED ON RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK to shoot the movie with and they tried their best to blend the cgi in so it looked film-like and aged.


Good lord... it's like...like.... like they put twins in a room and people are saying they're from different families. I can't even describe it.

It's just angering me that I hear all this unqualified blathering about how much the movie sucked and nobody backs it up. They sound so unrelenting and strict about their dislike, but they can't back it up.... meanwhile I've heard people who LIKE the movie mention the exact same things but admit that it's just little things that stuck out but that overall the movie was awesome because it FELT LIKE THE ORIGINALS.


For Christ's Sake, I heard someone criticise the fact that it had drag racing teens at the begginign and the whole beatnik fight in the bar.


And I'm not gonna apologize like my counterpart here. No. I think people need to stop whining uncontrolably about things and open their damn minds to the possibility that something made in 2007 will not equal something made almost three decades ago. And that DOESN'T MAKE IT BAD.

Same people made it. Same character. Same actors. Same dialogue. Same quirky action. Same fantastic plot.

.....the only thing that's changed is the audience. Maybe they should've just re-released the originals and then heard everyone complain about how "I wish they would've done something DIFFERENT."


Innovation is not rewarded anymore... and that's why the film industry is dying. And that's why I hear people quoting "Meet the Spartans" and laughing their off.

I'm done. I'm gonna try to ignore this thread so I'm not sent into another angry tirade.

Woah, easy up. Everyone has a different opinion about the film, and no amount of heated argument is going to change anyone's opinion. The movie was fun, but was it perfect? No. Some people have different tastes- as we have seen, some think Temple of Doom the worst IJ movie, and some think it the best. You can't please everyone all the time, and don't get angry that people complain. That's just life. :shrug:

 

[imagineer boy]

Whether or not you liked the aliens, you gotta give Spielberg and Lucas credit, they took a risk and tried somthing new. That's what I think really matters.

 

[Nicole220]

I liked it...it was good. It wasn't great like the other three, but it wasn't terrible. The only thing I didn't like was the whole alien thing. The last 10 minutes or so left me thinking, "?" I can't remember much else...it's been a few days... but I'd go see it again.

 

[Nicole220]

After reading tons of reviews, I had no idea Temple of Doom was the least favorite by far. It's my favorite of the three (well, now four). :shrug:

 

[Pongo]

It comes around again, like a vicious cycle. People didn't expect the aliens. Aliens aren't all archeological-like... so all of a sudden "WAAAAAAAAAH, IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE INDY!!!!". Completely IGNORING everything else.

In my opinion it didn't feel like Indiana Jones, and the feel and spirit of Indiana Jones is one of the things I love about the series. Aliens (or, rather, "interdimensional beings") are not Indiana Jones for me.

It's just angering me that I hear all this unqualified blathering about how much the movie sucked and nobody backs it up.

I think my likes and dislikes qualify my opinion enough. And I've backed myself up enough, I believe.

No. I think people need to stop whining uncontrolably about things and open their damn minds to the possibility that something made in 2007 will not equal something made almost three decades ago. And that DOESN'T MAKE IT BAD.

As a kind, I watched the original films a few times, but didn't really watch them to appreciate them as an adult until just last year. It has nothing to do with when the movie was made or when I watched it.

Innovation is not rewarded anymore... and that's why the film industry is dying. And that's why I hear people quoting "Meet the Spartans" and laughing their off.

Who was it that mentioned all the scenes in Indy that reflected scenes in other movies?

Overall, the story was innovative, but in my mind, not good. Innovation does not always mean improvement, and those are opinions I'm entitled to, just as you are entitled to yours.

.....the only thing that's changed is the audience. Maybe they should've just re-released the originals and then heard everyone complain about how "I wish they would've done something DIFFERENT."

The people who didn't like the movie are clearly not the only ones complaining :wave:

 

[DisneyDellsDude]

I wanted to throw my thoughts in real quickly. I LOVED the movie. It did help that I am into the "paranormal" stuff, so I knew the history of the real crystal skulls a bit. That made the movie much more enjoyable. Only wacky scene was the monkeys for me. Yet I did really like the ant scene.

Just for anyone that doesn't know... there are REAL crystal skulls that have been found in that part of the world. (Some people have already mentioned some of this)
There are no carving marks on the real ones (just like mentioned in the movie). Infact, with today's tech, we can still not create them. (Well maybe now we can, but when the History Channel episode was made we couldn't...)

One rumor is that there is TONS of information encripted in the skulls. We just don't have anything to get the information off with.
And about the Nazca lines, some people believe that the mayans could have built them without an "eye in the sky" (especially how large some are).

So a lot of this stuff has loads of myths/facts behind it. Aliens shouldn't downgrade a "real-life" adventure film (especially Indy). With how big the universe is, I don't know why people believe that we are the only intelligent life out there.

Here's a good information site about the crystal skulls...
http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6_1.htm

 

[WDWFREAK53]

It's like somebody sneezed on the Mona Lisa and suddenly instead of a great work of art it's "A Saliva Speckled Mess that nobody will like that was awful it didn't even FEEL like Davinci anymore I give it -1 Stars"

Actually, it's not like that at all.

It's like somebody sneezed on the Mona Lisa and got saliva on it...they still love the Mona Lisa, they just don't like the saliva that tainted it :wave:

 

[XaiChai]

Even the fact that it was made into a B-Movie-esque film because it was set in the time period when B-Movies were popular just rubs me the wrong way. That's like art imitating life imitating art, which is out of control.

The feel and tone of the series was GREAT before they went and turned it into what they did. Now it feels tainted and gross.

How EXACTLY did the feel and the tone change? How is it different from the other movies...EXACTLY?

 

[Pongo]

How EXACTLY did the feel and the tone change? How is it different from the other movies...EXACTLY?

To quote myself in post #59:

My deal with this new Indy is that they seem to have totally destroyed the character in my eyes. His work is based in archaeology/anthropology. His past adventures (excluding Temple of Doom, for which we all seem to share the same disgust) were ancient artifacts that were recorded in ancient texts that actually exist (the texts, not necessarily the artifacts). The artifacts were human.

By bringing in the aliens, Indiana Jones was no longer an archaeologist or anthropologist, but a cryptozoologist? No. That's not cool. Yes, the Nazca lines are mysterious, but there's no record of them ever being made by aliens. In fact, their connection to the story is almost arbitrary. They could have set the story in Austria and it would have had the same effect.

At least in the past versions, Indy's adventures were human, as they should be.

By "not human" I mean that the Ark and the Holy Grail are in ancient, sacred texts which were written by humans and have prominent place in history. The crystal skulls are not in ancient texts and do not have that "these actually have a story behind them and this might be real" quality to them. The aliens/interdimensional beings thing is just some story made up by people trying to explain it. Nothing's ever been found that says "these skulls are actually ALIEN skulls" like the Bible says "this cup was used by Jesus." It's not human. It's not historical. It's not anthropological. It's crazy science fiction.

To me, Indiana Jones isn't crazy science fiction. It's fiction about science. There's a difference.