Indiana Jones 5 Still Happening With Shia Says Shia...

[Caligula]

The reason people bring up the raft is that people say "Crystal Skull was bad because [insert nit-picky details] were unrealistic". Other people can respond with "Well, [insert something from older movie] was as well." If you thought the raft scene was stupid, did you hate the movie because of it? People have basically said they hate Crystal Skull because of the fridge scene. If they had problems overall with the movies pacing, structure, or story, I wouldn't mind. It's the complaints about the little things that annoy me.

Speaking for myself... No. In fact I don't hate any of the Indiana Jones movies for any reason, including certain scenes which defy credibility (all of which have already been covered). That sort of thing has become part of what makes the series the fun thrill ride that it continues to be. I'm a little less fond of The Last Crusade than the other three, but I have my reasons for liking that one as well.

 

[davejames]

In Raiders, even the wildest action sequences seemed tantalizingly plausible. But each and every Indy sequel (Doom's raft and mine carts, Crusade's jumping from the deserts of Utah to forested land in the course of an afternoon, Skull's... well... you know) pissed all over that standard in some form. I actually think that, magic aside, the stunts in the first Mummy are more plausible than those of the Indy sequels - yet another reason, imho, why The Mummy is the best post-Raiders Indy-style retro adventure movie.

I admit the action in Doom and Crusade started to cross the line a bit, but I think for me the key difference is that the surrounding stories were so thrilling and fun that it was much easier to go along with (something I definitely can't say about the dull and lifeless Crystal Skull).

And the fact they were also filmed with practical effects in a real, physical world also helped quiet a lot (plus, as we saw on Mythbusters, the raft escape WOULD work almost exactly how we saw it).

As for the Mummy, I had high hopes for that first movie, but unfortunately I just found the writing and dialogue to be painfully generic and unoriginal. If it had even HALF the snap and wit of the Indy films, I might think differently.

 

[Gaith]

If you thought the raft scene was stupid, did you hate the movie because of it?

I can't stand Temple for many reasons, including the raft.

If they had problems overall with the movies pacing, structure, or story, I wouldn't mind. It's the complaints about the little things that annoy me.

For me Indy 4 was a fun, mindless movie in a similar style to the ones that came before it. It wasn't as exciting in that regard, but it made up for it by adding nostalgia (which I thought it handled quite well). Sure, there were dumb moments, but, as an overall picture, I thought it did its job just fine.

Okay, I'll challenge that view on pacing grounds.

Though I have little love for Temple or Crusade in their theatrical forms (I've seen fan edits of both that dramatically improve 'em), they at least have the good cinematic sense to end their narrative and emotional stories at the same time: in Doom, Indy accepts and calls upon the stones' power, and defeats evil. In Crusade, Indy lets go of his lust for the Grail and reconciles with his father for the same time. End of movie.

The emotional story of Skull is about Indy building a family: reconciling with Marion and accepting Mutt as a son. But this basically occurs when he tells Marion all the other women "just weren't you, sweetheart", and insists to Mutt that he is his father. And at that point, Marion's clearly willing to take him back.

End of the emotional story - but there's still forty or so minutes left. Indy doesn't give a damn about the skull outside of his hypnosis, so the audience, not being hypnotized, has no reason to either. Indy has no pride to overcome this time, as he recognizes pretty quickly that they don't want to stick around and gab with the aliens. The entire climax is all plot, no character movement at all. We're just waiting for Indy's hypnosis to run its course, so we can go home. Oh, and Ox regains his marbles as a bonus. Okay. Yay, I guess.

And that, along with the nuked fridge and etc., is why Skull's a mediocre movie.

 

[JarodRussell]

Like Die Hard 4 and a couple of other sequels, Indy 4 was - I dunno how to say it - too self-aware and self-serving.

Indy and Marion didn't get together in this movie because it developed naturally on screen throughout that particular movie, they got together because the fanbase expected it since Raiders. [Also in Star Trek. The crew didn't get together naturally, and Kirk didn't became Captain in a believable way, they just got together and Kirk just became Captain because the franchise demanded it].

And then the stuff about Indy's WWII OSD story. And WHAT A HERO he was. You know, as soon as a movie needs to spoonfeed the audience what a great hero the main character is, something went wrong. Same thing happened in Die Hard 4, when John McClane had to explain himself to the audience (I do it because nobody else is there, blabla). Basically, it's a movie critic analysis spoken by the character himself.

And then again, I simply can't picture Indiana Jones as a war hero, and not as someone who actively fights against Nazis. I always pictured Indy as a John McClane type of guy. He is an archeologist, he likes to go on adventures to find treasures, he does what he does. But he does not actively go after his enemies. He hates Nazis, yes, but he doesn't seek the fight with them, he avoids them when he can. So if anything, Indy would have become a war hero accidently.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

And then again, I simply can't picture Indiana Jones as a war hero, and not as someone who actively fights against Nazis. I always pictured Indy as a John McClane type of guy. He is an archeologist, he likes to go on adventures to find treasures, he does what he does. But he does not actively go after his enemies. He hates Nazis, yes, but he doesn't seek the fight with them, he avoids them when he can. So if anything, Indy would have become a war hero accidently.

Oh come on! What do we know exactly about that, besides a couple of oblique references? Not only have you invented a whole little story about what happened to Indiana Jones during the war, you disagree with it?

 

[Admiral2]

You know what kills me with all the "Crystal Skull" detractors? It's that all of them probably saw the first movie, where at the end death angels flew out of a box full of dust and melted a bunch of Nazis' faces, but they think the interdimensional alien plot made no sense.

I shake my head in bewilderment.

The angels didn't so much fly out of the box as teleport from within it, imo...

It's death angels coming out of a box of dust.

You really don't see the contradiction in a race of interdimensional beings... who travel in a very dimensional-looking UFO?

If the beings are traveling in dimensional space they and their equipment would have to manifest themselves in a dimensional way, which is why you could hold their skulls and their ship is a saucer. If they manifested as they appear wherever they came from it would have been "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Formless Glowy Blobs." Would you all have preferred that?

You don't see the awkwardness of a technological apparatus blasting up the roof of an ancient throne room... when it later becomes clear that a UFO has been lying dormant beneath the pyramid?

If buried UFO's didn't bother me in Spielberg's War of The Worlds, why would it have bothered me in this movie? For the record, no, I didn't see anything awkward in it.

And, bonus, the decaying throne room is full of falling rocks and debris which quite magically neither hit anyone on the head nor cause anyone to even worry about such an occurrence!

First movie: A giant bowling ball chases Indy down a narrow passageway. Second movie: Indy and friends take a joyride in an uncontrolled minecar on a rickety track through an abandoned mine. If he survived that stuff, why would a rickety building and a couple of tiny falling boulders bother him, or anyone near him?

You really can't see how that might be perceived as a tad more asinine than a bunch of ghosts not disturbing two people who close their eyes in piety?

I can see how it might be perceived that way. What I'm saying is I think you're all (a) wrong and (b) being hypocrites about it. There's nothing about any of the movies that is more asinine than what's in any of the other movies.

Remember that the ghosts are clearly conscious, whereas the falling rocks and stones probably aren't.

But as in the case of the giant bowling ball, they can have sucky aim.

Which part of this comparison is so baffling, exactly?

Still on the "interdimensional aliens are stupider than the Death Angels in a Box" thing. How exactly?

 

[Gaith]

If they manifested as they appear wherever they came from it would have been "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Formless Glowy Blobs." Would you all have preferred that?

I'd have been perfectly happy with plain ol' aliens in a plain ol' UFO, with no reference to interdimensionalism, which was only offered by GL to Spielberg as an excuse for using aliens without using "aliens". Uh, Steve... no one was fooled. They're aliens in a UFO. What were you smoking?

If buried UFO's didn't bother me in Spielberg's War of The Worlds, why would it have bothered me in this movie? For the record, no, I didn't see anything awkward in it.

I don't have a problem with a buried UFO, either. I have a problem with what appears to be part of a UFO hull sitting above the throne room, when we later see that the ship was buried below the pyramid. WTF?!

First movie: A giant bowling ball chases Indy down a narrow passageway. Second movie: Indy and friends take a joyride in an uncontrolled minecar on a rickety track through an abandoned mine. If he survived that stuff, why would a rickety building and a couple of tiny falling boulders bother him, or anyone near him?

First movie: he was scared ****less by that boulder!

Second movie: second movie was crap on a stick (see above). I'm measuring Skull against Raiders only.

So no, there's no reason for any of the group not to be worried about all those falling rocks. That's just crap filmmaking.

There's nothing about any of the movies that is more asinine than what's in any of the other movies.

Yes, there is. There's Raiders, which is in a class of its own (with The Mummy lurking in the corner), then there's the Indy sequels, which all contain absolutely wretched impossibilities and stupidities. So while it'd indeed hypocritical and wrong to whine that Skull isn't as realistic as Temple or Crusade, it's entirely fair to wish that it had been as realistic and plausible-seeming as Raiders.

 

[RJDiogenes]

But... but... the weight of their bodies weighed down the center of the raft!

Well, the laws of physics are different in the Indyverse.

(plus, as we saw on Mythbusters, the raft escape WOULD work almost exactly how we saw it).

How'd they manage to prove that?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Gaith, your modified view is a respectable view. You make valid points (whether or not I agree with them is different, but it's a matter of taste). It's much better than saying "Aliens and a nuked fridge are stupid". It brings the debate to a more intellectual level (although when personal taste isn't the baseline for intellectualism because it got replaced by random nit-picking, the state of movie criticism is pretty bad).

The movie is about the whole picture, not the little parts. For me Indy 5 was a fun, mindless movie in a similar style to the ones that came before it.

Wait, you've traveled forward through time and seen Indy 5? Glad to know its another good installment!

Ack. I was probably tired when I wrote that. I wouldn't give away my time traveling abilities so carelessly.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Awww no one obviously thought my Indy 5 pitch was worth commenting on, oh well. I might work on it a bit more and flesh things out.

 

[Lonemagpie]

I loved KotCS, thought it was the best of the sequels, and have no idea what people's problem with LaBeouf/Mutt was.

The fridge thing was dumb, sure, but I took it as a nod to their not having been allowed to do it in Back To The Future.

Aliens? The perfect fit for a 50s pastiche, since the 50s were when saucer religions and contactee cults started taking their place alongside more traditional religions and cults.

OTOH, I also think they definitely should *not* make another one, because KotCS rounded things off so perfectly by putting Indy and Marion back together. If they want to make a Mutt movie, then fine, but Indy should definitely retire.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Yeah, I was surprised when they wanted to make another. Indy4 seemed to designed to bring things full circle.

 

[davejames]

(plus, as we saw on Mythbusters, the raft escape WOULD work almost exactly how we saw it).

How'd they manage to prove that?

I don't remember all the details (it was from one of the early seasons), but basically they dropped it from a huge height with a dummy attached, and it floated to the ground almost exactly as we saw in the movie. Didn't flip over or anything.

But even if such a thing couldn't work in real life, it's still such an inventive and brilliant idea that I can't help but love it anyway.

 

[Mr Light]

Yeah, I was surprised when they wanted to make another. Indy4 seemed to designed to bring things full circle.

Because...

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $317,101,119 40.3% + Foreign: $469,534,914 59.7% = Worldwide: $786,636,033

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=indianajones4.htm

 

[Captain Craig]

I know the following is just one kid but still I think it has merit.

Last night at the dog park a 10yr old took a liking to my dog, ergo he was near me and my beagle looks like the one from Cats&Dogs so movies came into discussion. His dad was nearby and said they had 6,000 DVDS.

After awhile Indiana Jones came up. Hid dad was my age, mid 30s, and the kid loved BTTF and Ghostbusters. I asked the kid if he liked Indy as well and he said they were all great. Not much surprise there, they are designed to capture the spirit of adventure and what 10yr old doesn't like that.

Which is your favorite I said. He said, oh the first I guess but I love 'em all.
Well anytime you have 4 so your sure to like one in the series best and another least so which is your favorite the first one?
Yeah, he said. I like how it starts off with him as a boy scout.
I tell him thats the third one.
What about a second favorite? The one where the heart gets ripped out. I wish I could've been in that mine car with Indy and the kid.
He quickly calls a tie on the other two but likes that Indy has a kid who can fight with a knife.


So, my totally unscientific polling of 1 kid tells me that the less jaded you are to life the more fun the movies still are. I think it interesting that he pointed out 'boy scout, kid in mine car and Indy's son. Seems he was identifiying with the character closest to him each time. Maybe why Raiders didn't get menioned specifically, no kid. His dad, loves Raiders best just for the record.

Crystal Skull is a fun movie and listening to the gripes on it remind me of those who moan over the SW Prequel Trilogy. Kids loved it, the grown up adults who had to start paying taxes, voting and living the unjoyous routines of life forgot what it meant to just enjoy the ride.

 

[Gaith]

Yeah... but kids are stupid.

 

[davejames]

Crystal Skull is a fun movie and listening to the gripes on it remind me of those who moan over the SW Prequel Trilogy. Kids loved it, the grown up adults who had to start paying taxes, voting and living the unjoyous routines of life forgot what it meant to just enjoy the ride.

And yet I'm still fully capable of enjoying other movies made today (Star Trek, Iron Man, anything made by Pixar...)

 

[Forbin]

But... but... the weight of their bodies weighed down the center of the raft!

Well, the laws of physics are different in the Indyverse.

(plus, as we saw on Mythbusters, the raft escape WOULD work almost exactly how we saw it).

How'd they manage to prove that?

Walla:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NODvOx0V57E

 

[Captain Craig]

Crystal Skull is a fun movie and listening to the gripes on it remind me of those who moan over the SW Prequel Trilogy. Kids loved it, the grown up adults who had to start paying taxes, voting and living the unjoyous routines of life forgot what it meant to just enjoy the ride.

And yet I'm still fully capable of enjoying other movies made today (Star Trek, Iron Man, anything made by Pixar...)

Outside Star Trek the rest of your list doesn't prove what you are trying to assert vs my statement. Even then ST has always been cerebral wheras Indy hasn't. Yet suddenly the now astute educated adult is nitpicky about what is most plausible in Crystal vs the other installments. When you watch IM, Cars or Toy Story you don't have a point of reference from having seen them as a kid/teen(that one does with Indy). Which is the point I was making.

 

[davejames]

Outside Star Trek the rest of your list doesn't prove what you are trying to assert vs my statement. Even then ST has always been cerebral wheras Indy hasn't. Yet suddenly the now astute educated adult is nitpicky about what is most plausible in Crystal vs the other installments. When you watch IM, Cars or Toy Story you don't have a point of reference from having seen them as a kid/teen(that one does with Indy). Which is the point I was making.

I don't deny that we all view the original movies through rose-colored glasses to some degree. But at the same time, one doesn't have to be biased to recognize, for instance, that the dialogue and character banter in the original Indy and SW movies (as cornball as it may be) was MUCH wittier and snappier than in the newer ones.

People have been quoting those movies for decades. I seriously doubt anyone will be doing the same with Indy 4 or the SW prequels decades from now.

If that's not a testament to the poor writing and quality of the newer movies, I don't know what is.