• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Raiders vs Crystal Skull

It's the difference between concept and execution. Both films have much the same premise but Raiders is just so much better done. More fun. The tone is spot on. The villains are more memorable (who would've thought that some little known European and UK actors would make better bad guys than Cate Blanchett?). The humour works, even (or especially?) the corny stuff. The action rattles along. The leading lady is appealing and far from the stereotypical damsel in distress. Marcus and Sallah were great supporting characters.

And Indy himself is wonderful - part action man, part bookworm. The outfit was instantly iconic, the bullwhip makes him stand out from the herd. He can be awkward with women and gets his ass kicked ass often as he kicks ass; but he never gives up.

I went into Skull wanting to love it, even like it. But while Ford gave his best performance in years, some time in, my grin turned into a yawn. It felt at times like watching a computer game. It was like an Indiana Jones film written and directed by someone who has been told about the last 3 films but never seen one. Marion was a simpering wimp, so unlike in Raiders, Ray Winstone was tiresome and John Hurt wasted. Shia was actually okay, IMHO, and credibly cast as Harrison's son (its the nose) but nobody could have saved the Tarzan yell or being smacked in the balls by the treetops.

I could live with the aliens McGuffin and I understand Lucas' reasoning that it should feel like a 50s B-movie rather than a 30s cliffhanger. But it didn't. It felt like a soulless 00s blockbuster. Indy and we deserve more.
 
Crystal Skull would have been awesome had it been done in the 80s, with the same plot.

But this film was clearly directed by the guy who decided to replace firearms with walkie talkies, not the guy who loved to do films with serious shock effects and a gritty tone. Together with a George Lucas who was no longer stopped by limits of visual effects, and who decided it was a good idea to let Han shoot second.

There are no death traps, Indy doesn't actively kill anyone in this, and there are some seriously silly jokes. The film's tone is way too light. The scene from Raiders I posted earlier where Indy just shoots the guy because he's too tired wouldn't have had a chance to happen in this film, because of the new mindset.


Actually I quite like the first half of the film. The film falls completely apart when they find Marion in the Soviet camp.
 
Yeah the opening action sequences and the stuff at the college actually works pretty well I think. But once they fly down to South America and the alien skull storyline kicks into high gear, the movie just loses me.

It doesn't help that there's no real mystery there. In the other movies there was room to doubt the veracity of the legends, and to believe that maybe the Ark, Sankara Stones, and Grail either didn't exist or were just simple historical artifacts with no supernatural power (and the fact those objects all looked man-made did a lot to sell that idea).

But here, there's never any doubt at all. The second we see the skull, we're like "yup, it's alien." End of mystery. All that's left if to wait for Indy to find the spaceship and meet the aliens.
 
Maybe a bit harsh but at times it felt as if they were doing an Indy film by the numbers. Sure I enjoyed the film but it felt as if that magic factor was missing
 
crookeddy said:
I think people are slightly misunderstanding my opinion here. While I find both movies entertaining, Raiders is clearly the better movie. The thing is, I believe that had Raiders come out in the 21st century, people would be too busy finding plot holes to actually enjoy the movie. Similarly, had Crystal Skull come out in the 80s, and used the more practical effects of the time, it would be considered a great movie as well.
Click to expand...
This is based on a fallacious premise, though. Raiders is one of the movies that set the standard for action blockbusters to come, and it earned its place in history based on its own merits. It's like asking if the Beatles' music would be as well-received if it were made today and compared to the music of artists who were influenced by artists who were influenced by the Beatles.
 
JarodRussell said:
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE[/yt]
Click to expand...

Watch the start of this clip--all those guys walking to the right, towards the cart.

Doesn't it look like their instructions were "walk towards the cart, then turn around and walk back"? There's at least four guys doing this.
 
^ Ha ha, yeah looks like they were told to just wander around aimlessly until the big swordsman scene.
 
If Raiders was released today, it would probably be considered the same kind of great, old-fashioned throwback that Gladiator was when it came out.

It would be the rare action movie that actually took the time to tell a good story, had memorable, well-written characters, and had action scenes that were genuinely thrilling to watch.
 
I think im in the minority here where Doom is my favourite, but then i think the first 3 are all fantastic.

To be clear, I don't dislike Skulls it's just not in the same league. I was enjoying it up to the point when the point when the jungle chase began, then it slowly went down hill until the aliens appeared.

Also, the one thing I didn't enjoy throughout was Ray Winestone. I like him but think he was miscast in this film.
 
The problem I had with Crystal Skull was the big finish. The sci-fi element, supposedly intended to reference the 1950s, didn't look anything at all like something from 1950s science fiction. It sort of fell out of the moment for me during that climax.

Edit: To make that clearer, I mean that I wish there had been an obvious visual acknowledgment that might make us think of Forbidden Planet, or When Worlds Collide, in terms of production design for the aliens.
 
The whole idea of placing Indy in a 50s scifi movie just seems totally wrong to me. Just as much as if you were to place him in a monster movie.

It's just not the world he belongs in.
 
Captaindemotion said:
I think each Indiana movie was poorer than its predecessor. I'm in the minority but I much prefer TOD to TLC.
Click to expand...

Yeah I prefer TOD as well, mostly because Indy still had much of the darker, harder edge he had in the first movie.

With Crusade (as much as I love the hell out of it), it feels like they were softening him up too much, and making him a little too fun and loveable.
 
Gaith said:
davejames said:
With Crusade (as much as I love the hell out of it), it feels like they were softening him up too much, and making him a little too fun and loveable.
Click to expand...
InfoDroid's Crusade fan edit goes a long way towards restoring Raiders' harder tone...


JiNX-01 said:
Raiders and Crusade, hands down.
Click to expand...
Raiders and The Mummy is the correct answer.
Click to expand...

Love the Mummy. Too bad that franchise went downhill so quickly. Also, too bad there so few movies of this type around that are any good.
 
Loved the idea of The Mummy, but for me the tone was a little too comical, and the generic banter and dialogue completely lacked any of the wit of the Indy movies.

And of course the sequel just made me want to gouge my eyes out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mojochi
Picard's Questionable Mental Health & Competence
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Farscape One
F
Trek Writers Room
STAR TREK: Expedition 8180 - Episode 4 "The New Frontier"
Replies
1
Views
633
Trek Writers Room
Trek Writers Room
P
Star Trek: Lower Decks - Fall from Grace. Chapter 3 of 4
Replies
1
Views
445
Robert Bruce Scott
Robert Bruce Scott
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top