Hm... now there's a thought.
Since the opening felt the most like an Indiana Jones movie, until the nuke. But even the nuke would have been great, it's just that the fridge thing was pretty ridiculous.
Indiana Jones 5 Still Happening With Shia Says Shia...
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
Hm... now there's a thought.
Since the opening felt the most like an Indiana Jones movie, until the nuke. But even the nuke would have been great, it's just that the fridge thing was pretty ridiculous.
I actually liked the fourth movie (well except for those stupid fucking monkeys).
I realize that whole "Nuke the fridge" thing pissed a lot of people off, but I honestly just laugh every time I see it. I thought it was so ridiculously over-the-top that I just couldn't hate it. That whole thing amused the hell out of me and still does.
Bring on a fifth movie, as long as Indy doesn't turn into Mutt's sidekick.
I realize that whole "Nuke the fridge" thing pissed a lot of people off, but I honestly just laugh every time I see it. I thought it was so ridiculously over-the-top that I just couldn't hate it. That whole thing amused the hell out of me and still does.
Bring on a fifth movie, as long as Indy doesn't turn into Mutt's sidekick.
I think I'd be more interested in seeing a Mutt Williams movie at this point.
Since he road off alive, he is forever immortal for me. Just like Han Solo is never going to die for me. He survived the movies, so he is immortal.
Indy drinking from the Grail was simply bonus points.
The last movie's being mediocre had nothing to do with the plot, or the fact that there were aliens. The plots from Raiders, Temple, and Crusade are all just as ridiculous and simplistic. No, the reason Crystal Skull wasn't as good as the original trilogy is because Spielberg isn't the same director anymore. He doesn't have the stomach anymore to direct brutal violence as if it were funny. In the original trilogy, people are getting stabbed, slashed, shot, flattened, chocked, and melted left, right, and centre, and it's brutal, and it's violent, and the whole thing is being done for laughs.
But, post-Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg has clearly changed his opinion about filmic violence - he now feels he must treat the violence seriously, which is why we get seriously violent movies like Munich and War of the Worlds. They're brilliant movies too, but they don't treat death and destruction as a punch line, as the old Indiana Jones movies did. Those older movies are made by a man who thinks he's immortal, and that murder and death can be funny. But he's outgrown that part of himself now. He's realized that life isn't divided into good guys and bad guys, but real people, people with conflicting interests, and feelings, and families. For him to continue to make Indiana Jones movies as he used to, by using Nazis just to be slaughtered in various creative and comical ways, is to pretend that he has a youthful callousness towards violence that he no longer has.
So, in Crystal Skull, Spielberg, as I said, no longer has the stomach to poke fun at violence. He could have therefore taken the violence seriously, I suppose, as in War of the Worlds, but this is Indiana Jones - it's supposed to be light. And how does a man who sees no humour in violence make a funny violent movie? By reducing the level of violence, of course. By making it even LESS realistic. By always, always winking at the audience as if to say, "We're just kidding! Death isn't REALLY funny...this is all just make-believe!!" So, as a result, the death toll in Crystal Skull is lower, the special effects are less convincing, the tone is less intense, the jokiness is at an all-time high, the villain is more misguided than hateful, and the violence is extremely light and cartoony. He basically chickened out. He is too aware that bad guys are people too, and that they have feelings, and that violence against them just isn't funny. And he's right about all that, sure - but it sure makes for a very timid action movie.
What I'm saying is, any new Indiana Jones movie is going to have the same problem. He simply doesn't think death and pain and destruction are funny anymore, as he did back in the 80's. As a result, his Indiana Jones movies will from now on always lack teeth. He's grown squeamish. They'll be jokey and silly and they won't have the guts to be brutal and exciting and violent anymore. Unfortunately for the Indiana Jones movies (but fortunately for movies like Saving Private Ryan and Munich), the man has grown up.
But, post-Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, Spielberg has clearly changed his opinion about filmic violence - he now feels he must treat the violence seriously, which is why we get seriously violent movies like Munich and War of the Worlds. They're brilliant movies too, but they don't treat death and destruction as a punch line, as the old Indiana Jones movies did. Those older movies are made by a man who thinks he's immortal, and that murder and death can be funny. But he's outgrown that part of himself now. He's realized that life isn't divided into good guys and bad guys, but real people, people with conflicting interests, and feelings, and families. For him to continue to make Indiana Jones movies as he used to, by using Nazis just to be slaughtered in various creative and comical ways, is to pretend that he has a youthful callousness towards violence that he no longer has.
So, in Crystal Skull, Spielberg, as I said, no longer has the stomach to poke fun at violence. He could have therefore taken the violence seriously, I suppose, as in War of the Worlds, but this is Indiana Jones - it's supposed to be light. And how does a man who sees no humour in violence make a funny violent movie? By reducing the level of violence, of course. By making it even LESS realistic. By always, always winking at the audience as if to say, "We're just kidding! Death isn't REALLY funny...this is all just make-believe!!" So, as a result, the death toll in Crystal Skull is lower, the special effects are less convincing, the tone is less intense, the jokiness is at an all-time high, the villain is more misguided than hateful, and the violence is extremely light and cartoony. He basically chickened out. He is too aware that bad guys are people too, and that they have feelings, and that violence against them just isn't funny. And he's right about all that, sure - but it sure makes for a very timid action movie.
What I'm saying is, any new Indiana Jones movie is going to have the same problem. He simply doesn't think death and pain and destruction are funny anymore, as he did back in the 80's. As a result, his Indiana Jones movies will from now on always lack teeth. He's grown squeamish. They'll be jokey and silly and they won't have the guts to be brutal and exciting and violent anymore. Unfortunately for the Indiana Jones movies (but fortunately for movies like Saving Private Ryan and Munich), the man has grown up.
Very well said. I agree.
I liked Kingdom, but there was something missing. The Aliens actually made sense to me (as a movie set in the 1950s, and ALL of the Indiana Jones movies sorta paid homage to the era they were set in). But, there was a weird tonal quality to it.
A stiffness, I thought, but, I think you described it better--an uncomfortableness with what Indiana Jones was.
I admire Spielberg greatly, he is willing to develop and change over the years, unlike some (I'm looking at you Tarantino).
Maybe if he made an Indiana Jones movie MORE like the movies he makes now. I know some fans would throw a fit, but, by going in a very different direction, it would get out under the thumb of expectations.
But, then there's Lucas... an artist like Tarantino, forever stuck making the same movie over and over (literally, in his case.)
I'd love to see the aging 30's adventurer having to cope with a more technological Dr. No type adversary.
Your idea is precisely what I had in mind as well - the only way to make a successful Indiana Jones movie today is for Spielberg to allow himself to BE THE DIRECTOR HE IS TODAY. He can't pretend to be the callous youth he used to be. You put it very well - he has developed an uncomfortableness with what Indiana Jones is and always was - a man who mass murders people for a living. How can the man who made Munich then go and shoot a movie in which our hero slaughters people by the hundreds, and it's all supposed to be funny? The only way to make a new movie vital and exciting is to go in that direction that Spielberg instinctively wants to go - to treat Indiana Jones seriously. Unpack what he is. Comment on the life he has lead. THAT would be a far better coda than Crystal Skull, which was clearly made by a man going AGAINST his instincts.
Wow - Ubik just hit that analysis right out of the park. Kudos, good sir!
And the writer linked to in the OP was talking out of his biased arse in calling Mutt "generally loathed". Sure, a vocal faction can't stand him, but many liked him just fine or better. Now, Jar-Jar, OTOH...
And the writer linked to in the OP was talking out of his biased arse in calling Mutt "generally loathed". Sure, a vocal faction can't stand him, but many liked him just fine or better. Now, Jar-Jar, OTOH...
I pretty much agree. Aliens were fine until they started having exposition.
Perhaps a sort of The Spy Who Came in From The Cold movie. Stark. Not for laughs. Brutal. Hm. I know I would be very interested in this.
Though I suspect Paramount wouldn't want to spend 100 million on that. But, then, maybe it's just a 50 million dollar movie (which you can't do either--think of the scandal) but you would easily recoup.
Yeah. And a real alien showing up was too much.
Would have been like Moses showing up at the end of Raiders or Jesus at the end of Crusade.
My point has nothing to do with plausibility.
I don't think Indy should ever reach the level of seriousness of The Spy Who Came In From The Cold; although it would not be inappropriate for the character to become contemplative about his violent life to some degree as he ages.
I'll mention it again for the record, as I do in every Indy Thread: I thought the fridge scene was brilliant. Totally over the top and infinitely clever: Who else but Indiana Jones could think himself out of a nuclear explosion in ten seconds? Well, maybe James Bond. Speaking of which:
I had no problem with aliens being in Crystal Skull; I just wish they had been space aliens instead of interdimensional whatevers.
And Ubik, you make some great points; I think there's a lot of truth in what you say. I wonder if JJ Abrams might be a good choice to direct an Indy movie, as long as there's somebody who understands Indy to keep him from screwing up the characters and story content.
I'll mention it again for the record, as I do in every Indy Thread: I thought the fridge scene was brilliant. Totally over the top and infinitely clever: Who else but Indiana Jones could think himself out of a nuclear explosion in ten seconds? Well, maybe James Bond. Speaking of which:
That's a very interesting idea; I'd be up for it, as long as there's an interesting artifact and some supernatural shenanigans going on.
I had no problem with aliens being in Crystal Skull; I just wish they had been space aliens instead of interdimensional whatevers.
And Ubik, you make some great points; I think there's a lot of truth in what you say. I wonder if JJ Abrams might be a good choice to direct an Indy movie, as long as there's somebody who understands Indy to keep him from screwing up the characters and story content.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
aw crap don't start with this.
There's stuff that 'fits' into an Indy movie. Religious and occult things do. Even though I don't believe in them.
You shouldn't have time travel in Star Wars and you shouldn't let Frodo have a sassy robot pal and you shouldn't have aliens ( or 'transdimensional beings') in an Indiana Jones movie.
That makes no sense to me. You shouldn't have aliens in a pulp adventure? Since when?
JJ Abrams?! Seriously? The guy with only one style and who mostly uses the same creative team over and over again regardless of what movie he does? Shaky cam? Giacchino doing the music? A character driven plot, written by Lindelof or Orci/Kurtzman? That's would not be Indiana Jones at all, seriously.
It does make sense. Indiana Jones is about religious and occult artifacts, about magic and ghosts. Aliens/science fiction doesn't fit into it. Indiana Jones meeting the Devil would be more appropriate than meeting Aliens from Vega.
I just think they should have kept the whole thing more of a mystery. Have it so they're not sure if it's all a bunch of hooey or not. And then at the end when they see the aliens it's like WTF HOLY SHITE!!!
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
Yeah it was holy shite alright.
Similar threads
