Indiana Jones 5 Is ‘Continuation’ Of Crystal Skull Story
- Thread starter JWPlatt
- Start date
I think for me it was really a pacing issue in addition to the things Pingfah mentions.
I will forever consider Cystal Skull (which is classic Indy all the way through, even with the addition of CGI) to be the second-best film in the franchise (running a close second to Temple of Doom), so I'm all for a direct or semi-direct continuation of it. I'd also really like to see Willie and Shorty come back somehow, just to bring things sort of full-circle.
That's like what I was trying to say about all of the movies after Raiders. There are certain moments that are just too much to believe in the grounded action adventure that Raiders is which moves it from a potentially "real" type of adventure to a fantasy adventure. It's not a clear cut line and sometimes it's as simple as how it's presented. For example, one thing that never bothered me but I've heard complaints is how can Indy have ridden the sub from where he got on to the island. It's subtle being in a scene change but it some people find it unbelievable.
Contrast that to some of the other less subtle unbelievable as rocks starting to glow on a verbal command.
Btw, I really like all of the Indy movies, I just feel like Raiders is it's own thing and the other 3 are another thing together, connected but not exactly the same. I feel similarly about a lot of sequels from movies of that era, however. I think back then there was a real effort to make every movie a self contained singular entity as made as well as possible and that's why so many sequels then failed to live up to the original movie. There's just some small attitude shift that goes from the film makers thinking "I hope this film is successful" to "The first one was successful so this should work again this time"
That's also why more recent movies seem to be made not to be self contained, often to their own detriment, just to more easily facilitate those sequels.
Or, say, everything that happens when the Ark is opened.
A minority opinion for sure, but I'm glad someone else shares it as well.
I'm not sure I'd consider Skull second, but I think it's a lot better than it's reputation suggests (though I will admit it's not perfect).I love the Jungle chase sequence, everything about it is fun, classic Indy and I had a grin on my face throughout the entire sequence. I'm also one of the few who likes the fridge sequence, I think it's fun because the lead up to it is one of the few truly suspenseful sequences in the film (imho, of course). Even though I knew how it would end, because I had read the 'Saucer Men from Mars' script, it was still fun. I think where the film suffers is the cave where they return the skull to. It's all pretty easy to get through and there aren't any real traps, even the stair trap is easily manageable to all the characters.
After saying all that, I really do need to give it another watch.
I agree that the film doesn't deserve its poor reputation. I think it certainly has its flaws, but so does both Last Crusade and Temple of Doom. (Raiders is just the perfect film IMO.) I don't find the fridge scene any more ridiculous than jumping out of a plane in a life raft, for example.
My biggest problem with KotCS is that the aliens were from another dimension-- they should have been classic 50s B-Movie space aliens.
And I'm fine with the fridge-- that was a classic James Bond escape. Not many people can quick think their way out of a nuclear explosion. The one stunt in the Indy movies that I really don't like is the raft falling upright. It just looks so wrong.
I do get a little tired of over-the-top (and interminable) action sequences, but that's the nature of contemporary moviemaking. It's all about one-upping your last movie, or the other guy's movie.
And I'm fine with the fridge-- that was a classic James Bond escape. Not many people can quick think their way out of a nuclear explosion. The one stunt in the Indy movies that I really don't like is the raft falling upright. It just looks so wrong.
I do get a little tired of over-the-top (and interminable) action sequences, but that's the nature of contemporary moviemaking. It's all about one-upping your last movie, or the other guy's movie.
Same here, when I point out the movie is enjoyable if not perfect this is one of the points I concede to as well.
Why not just aliens? They had to go and be Interdimensional Beings that live in the spaces between the spaces? What the hell Lucas--just make them little grays and be done with it but no you had to layer in a convoluted explanation for them.
I agree as well. The point of Indy is that the original movies were inspired by Saturday morning adventure serials--so by extension, the KoCS should incorporate a fifties style science fiction element. I've not seen dimension hopping aliens in any of the fifties movies I've watched (but I'm sure someone out there will prove me wrong),
Yeah from what I remember from interviews, Spielberg and Ford were still pretty uncomfortable with the idea of having just your usual space aliens in the movie, so this was their way of softening the blow a bit and making it sound a bit more interesting and unique than that.
For me though it doesn't really make much of a difference, as it still puts Indy into way too much of an overtly scifi world for my taste.
For me though it doesn't really make much of a difference, as it still puts Indy into way too much of an overtly scifi world for my taste.
Still. Interdimensional beings are aliens... from a different point of view. No Shia this time around, and maybe one more adventure with Sallah and his son.
No, you're right and that was exactly my thinking. KotCS should have gone for the 50s vibe, just as RotLA went for the 30s vibe.
So it's not George's fault for a change?
Ha! Cool. I like that one.
