Indy 4 still as infuriating as ever

[Aldo]

People grow up and change, it happens all the time. I recall at the time 'Last Crusade' got some negative reviews and some of them said (in no uncertain terms) that perhaps Spielberg had grown up since 'Doom' and shouldn't have returned to Indy again. So to see these same criticisms pop up is not surprising to me regarding Indy.

Though I will concede that not all of them are unfounded this time around.

 

[Gaith]

I mean, a lot of imagery, editing, style and even the way the plot moves, is very similair to the 80's Indy movies.

Actually, Skull's visuals are far more syrupy and Thomas Kinkade-y than those of the first three. To quote Mr. Pinkett: "You may not have noticed it... but your brain did."

 

[Professor Zoom]

People grow up and change, it happens all the time. I recall at the time 'Last Crusade' got some negative reviews and some of them said (in no uncertain terms) that perhaps Spielberg had grown up since 'Doom' and shouldn't have returned to Indy again. So to see these same criticisms pop up is not surprising to me regarding Indy.

Though I will concede that not all of them are unfounded this time around.

I think it's great when and artist grows up and changes. They should. (Looking at you Tim Burton).

I think my problem with Kingdom is that they only superficially dealt with growing up and changing. They made quips about it. And that's it. But they basically did the same thing they did twenty some years prior... except Soviet baddies instead of Nazis.

The music was the same, the costumes were the same, the sequences felt the same...

But everyone was different.

As much as I liked that feeling of excitement of seeing my hero on screen again, it's total nostalgia--which is fine. I would rather have had them take Indy in a new direction. A grown up direction, something that reflects how their sensibilities have changed. At least Spielberg's.

 

[Set Harth]

The lesson I got from the Indy films, as well as the Star Wars films, and even E.T. courtesy of the horrors visited upon it decades after its creation

What, you've never been scared when someone pointed a walkie-talkie at you?

 

[JarodRussell]

George Lucas's crazy ideas have always been limited by budget and technology, that's it. The original idea for Indiana Jones 3, Indiana Jones and the Monkey King, was the worst shit I have ever read in my life.

 

[Aldo]

People grow up and change, it happens all the time. I recall at the time 'Last Crusade' got some negative reviews and some of them said (in no uncertain terms) that perhaps Spielberg had grown up since 'Doom' and shouldn't have returned to Indy again. So to see these same criticisms pop up is not surprising to me regarding Indy.

Though I will concede that not all of them are unfounded this time around.

I think it's great when and artist grows up and changes. They should. (Looking at you Tim Burton).

I think my problem with Kingdom is that they only superficially dealt with growing up and changing. They made quips about it. And that's it. But they basically did the same thing they did twenty some years prior... except Soviet baddies instead of Nazis.

The music was the same, the costumes were the same, the sequences felt the same...

But everyone was different.

As much as I liked that feeling of excitement of seeing my hero on screen again, it's total nostalgia--which is fine. I would rather have had them take Indy in a new direction. A grown up direction, something that reflects how their sensibilities have changed. At least Spielberg's.

I was about to ask if you misread my post until I read the last paragraph. You're right, the criticisms I mentioned that were levied against 'Last Crusade' was because that film reflected the more mature sensibilities of Spielberg. The movie dealt a lot with the father and son dynamic that is so present in a lot of his work that I think some people feel it overshadowed the adventure aspect of the film. Which I disagree with, but that's for another thread.

As you say, Crystal Skull is made by older, maturer film-makers, but the product doesn't reflect that. They were trying to go for the fun adventure of the earlier films, but they were going about it with the technology of today's era of film-making, which took away some of the fun of it.

 

[Mage]

I quite liked it aswell, and I think if this was on of the original three Indy's, people would be a lot more forgiving on some of the faults they see now. I mean, a lot of imagery, editing, style and even the way the plot moves, is very similair to the 80's Indy movies. Thing is, those things worked back then. Now, they don't. The reason people still love those same aspects in old Indy movies, is because they grew up with them, loved them and now find them flawless. I know of some youngsters (12-15 y/o) these days that grade the older Indy movies and Crystal Skull equally bad. Does that make them wrong? No, they just grew up with different movies and a different approach to style when it comes to movie making, so they'll find just about anything from that time period lame.

Sorry, but any kid from today who thinks Raiders is "lame" is just a naive idiot who has no idea of what a great movie is. And if they can't even appreciate Raiders, I'd hate to think of what their opinion is of even older classics!

Clearly they've been watching way too many mindless, overblown CGI spectacles in their youth.

What's the point of debate then if you're going to introduce blanket statements such as that one? Everyone has their own opinion and no opinion is the wrong one. Art is subjective, one man's "classic" is another persons "weak film." That's just the way it is.

That said, I enjoy Raiders, and seeing it in IMAX last year was just a blast.

Exactly. Like my girlfriend likes to say: just because everyone says it's a classic, doesn't mean it's good. It's about personal taste, and some stuff that we see as classics in our preferred genre, can be seen as horrible by others.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Somewhere along the line, Spielberg joined The Leftist, Liberal Hollywood approach to movie-making, whilst still relatively young. This would forever affect his film for the worst, for part of this Leftist/Liberal philosophy was that "Guns Are Icky!" and would never be used to effect in a Spielberg picture, forever on. One of the earliest indications of this trend that I can recall, off of the top of my head, was in JURASSIC PARK: LOST WORLD.

The character Eddie, a Field Tech Expert, is confronted with a pair of T'Rex and although he has a rifle by his side, Spielberg demands it be snagged, and inaccessible. Despite the fact that Peter, Harrimond's nephew, has gone on his expedition with "a couple dozen Marlboro Men," the only one to really use a gun is The Big Game Hunter and because the Earth First Guy screwed with his gun's ammo, all he has to shoot with are tranquillizer darts.

KINGDOM of the CRYSTAL SKULL does have Indy - I mean Henry Jones, Jr. - shot at, in the Warehouse, but you'll notice that though he stands directly in the line of fire of a couple dozen Ruskies, not a stray bullet wings him. And ONLY the bad guys are ever allowed to fire a rifle, in the first place. The only way Henry gets a shot off at his Double Agent pal is by dropping it and the gun accidentally goes off and shoots him in the soul of his shoe.

Even when Henry is standing there in the graveyard with his kid and some crazed natives are giving them a hard time, he does, indeed, have a gun on him, but it is only as an empty threat. Spielberg is so idiotic with his Gun Stance, that I really wish he'd hand these better franchises over to someone else who doesn't share his Hollywood Liberalism. Also, yes, he has gotten old and has lost his edge, anyway, even if his Politics never came into play. His heart just isn't in these type of "Entertainment" Movies, but since his name is bankable and he loves money, he finds himself doing them, anyway.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Yeah, totally ruined Saving Private Ryan for me, that leftist bent of his.

 

[Mage]

Somewhere along the line, Spielberg joined The Leftist, Liberal Hollywood approach to movie-making, whilst still relatively young. This would forever affect his film for the worst, for part of this Leftist/Liberal philosophy was that "Guns Are Icky!" and would never be used to effect in a Spielberg picture, forever on. One of the earliest indications of this trend that I can recall, off of the top of my head, was in JURASSIC PARK: LOST WORLD.

The character Eddie, a Field Tech Expert, is confronted with a pair of T'Rex and although he has a rifle by his side, Spielberg demands it be snagged, and inaccessible. Despite the fact that Peter, Harrimond's nephew, has gone on his expedition with "a couple dozen Marlboro Men," the only one to really use a gun is The Big Game Hunter and because the Earth First Guy screwed with his gun's ammo, all he has to shoot with are tranquillizer darts.

KINGDOM of the CRYSTAL SKULL does have Indy - I mean Henry Jones, Jr. - shot at, in the Warehouse, but you'll notice that though he stands directly in the line of fire of a couple dozen Ruskies, not a stray bullet wings him. And ONLY the bad guys are ever allowed to fire a rifle, in the first place. The only way Henry gets a shot off at his Double Agent pal is by dropping it and the gun accidentally goes off and shoots him in the soul of his shoe.

Even when Henry is standing there in the graveyard with his kid and some crazed natives are giving them a hard time, he does, indeed, have a gun on him, but it is only as an empty threat. Spielberg is so idiotic with his Gun Stance, that I really wish he'd hand these better franchises over to someone else who doesn't share his Hollywood Liberalism. Also, yes, he has gotten old and has lost his edge, anyway, even if his Politics never came into play. His heart just isn't in these type of "Entertainment" Movies, but since his name is bankable and he loves money, he finds himself doing them, anyway.

It has nothing to do with being Leftist, it's because these movies needed a rating to allow a younger audience.

 

[2takesfrakes]

It has nothing to do with being Leftist, it's because these movies needed a rating to allow a younger audience.

It's more than just a concern for ratings. JAWS, for example, had a shark being rather indiscriminate, regarding who he ate - and would eat people you didn't, necessarily, want him to. Like an innocent kid. And this totally served the movie, the believablity of it, because sharks do not make those kinds of judgement calls. If it perceives a swimmer as a food item, it's going to attack. But that was before Spielberg's Leftist conversion. Now, the only Shark Victims would be EEEEEEEEEEEVIL Corporate Executives, and their ilk ... someone you'd just LOVE to see GET IT!!! And I have even seen interviews with Spielberg, in the past, where he complained about the violence of the INDIANA JONES videogames, but deflected that criticism at Lucas, for having control of that aspect. Spielberg's "bent" certainly has - and does - affect his film making. It's not just about motion picture ratings, it's this philosophy he's trying to sell the audience.

 

[JarodRussell]

Spielberg makes violent films, he just doesn't think of violence as "entertaining" anymore. For him, violence is drama. After Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, he also doesn't want to show entertaining or funny Nazi characters. I can understand his POV.

 

[Set Harth]

JAWS, for example, had a shark being rather indiscriminate, regarding who he ate - and would eat people you didn't, necessarily, want him to. Like an innocent kid.

Sometimes you just want a snack.

 

[davejames]

Exactly. Like my girlfriend likes to say: just because everyone says it's a classic, doesn't mean it's good. It's about personal taste, and some stuff that we see as classics in our preferred genre, can be seen as horrible by others.

Maybe to a degree. But I guess I'm one of those who feels a works of art like Michelangelo's David or Van Gogh's Starry Night are still masterpieces regardless of whether you happen to personally like them or not.

In the same way, I think there are plenty of movies that can be considered objectively great as well (whether I happen to like them myself or not). A work's worth shouldn't just depend on whether it happens to align with your personal taste.

 

[Roshi]

Somewhere along the line, Spielberg joined The Leftist, Liberal Hollywood approach to movie-making, whilst still relatively young. This would forever affect his film for the worst, for part of this Leftist/Liberal philosophy was that "Guns Are Icky!" and would never be used to effect in a Spielberg picture, forever on. One of the earliest indications of this trend that I can recall, off of the top of my head, was in JURASSIC PARK: LOST WORLD.

The character Eddie, a Field Tech Expert, is confronted with a pair of T'Rex and although he has a rifle by his side, Spielberg demands it be snagged, and inaccessible. Despite the fact that Peter, Harrimond's nephew, has gone on his expedition with "a couple dozen Marlboro Men," the only one to really use a gun is The Big Game Hunter and because the Earth First Guy screwed with his gun's ammo, all he has to shoot with are tranquillizer darts.

KINGDOM of the CRYSTAL SKULL does have Indy - I mean Henry Jones, Jr. - shot at, in the Warehouse, but you'll notice that though he stands directly in the line of fire of a couple dozen Ruskies, not a stray bullet wings him. And ONLY the bad guys are ever allowed to fire a rifle, in the first place. The only way Henry gets a shot off at his Double Agent pal is by dropping it and the gun accidentally goes off and shoots him in the soul of his shoe.

Even when Henry is standing there in the graveyard with his kid and some crazed natives are giving them a hard time, he does, indeed, have a gun on him, but it is only as an empty threat. Spielberg is so idiotic with his Gun Stance, that I really wish he'd hand these better franchises over to someone else who doesn't share his Hollywood Liberalism. Also, yes, he has gotten old and has lost his edge, anyway, even if his Politics never came into play. His heart just isn't in these type of "Entertainment" Movies, but since his name is bankable and he loves money, he finds himself doing them, anyway.

 

[Gaith]

It's not just about motion picture ratings, it's this philosophy he's trying to sell the audience.

True, but many conservatives think there's too much violence in mainstream entertainment. There's no need to make partisan hay out of this.

Spielberg makes violent films, he just doesn't think of violence as "entertaining" anymore. For him, violence is drama. After Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, he also doesn't want to show entertaining or funny Nazi characters. I can understand his POV.

Yep.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Somewhere along the line, Spielberg joined The Leftist, Liberal Hollywood approach to movie-making, whilst still relatively young. This would forever affect his film for the worst, for part of this Leftist/Liberal philosophy was that "Guns Are Icky!" and would never be used to effect in a Spielberg picture, forever on. One of the earliest indications of this trend that I can recall, off of the top of my head, was in JURASSIC PARK: LOST WORLD.

Yeah, totally ruined Saving Private Ryan for me, that leftist bent of his.

Or Munich.
Or War Horse.

Yeah, he just doesn't make movies with guns, because of his leftist bent.

 

[Set Harth]

True, but many conservatives think there's too much violence in mainstream entertainment.

And not enough in the real world.

 

[2takesfrakes]

I was referring mainly to how Spielberg's views seemed to have affect his film-making, particularly with what he terms as his "Entertainment" Films. Bringing "politics" into it was for clarification on that point, only. In any event, "Indy 4" was not a Box Office failure, as I recall. But I do wonder how much of that had to do with the hype revolving around the simple fact that it had been some 20 years, or so, since the last picture came out. Rather than the story, itself. I do remember people being interviewed on the sidewalk, when it first came out and the overwhelming majority said that it seemed "uninspired," basically. But there were a few, particularly those people bringing their kids to see Indy for the first time, who had nothing but praise for it. So whether it's a Quality Production, or not, it certainly wasn't reflected in the amount of business it generated.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I was referring mainly to how Spielberg's views seemed to have affect his film-making, particularly with what he terms as his "Entertainment" Films. Bringing "politics" into it was for clarification on that point, only.

Now you're not making any sense.

First, you say Spielberg wants the message to be that guns are icky, yet when presented with evidence to the contrary, you say...it has affected his film-making, but...how?

How is Spielberg any different than any other director with left OR right sensibilities. The same thing could be said of Eastwood. Yet, it's only a problem when it's a "leftist" like Spielberg?

The simple fact is: he makes pictures for all kinds of audiences now. Adults and children. And he tempers, rightly, what is presented on screen for the audience.

Left or Right, Spielberg is in this business to make gobs of money. Why the fuck else would be producing the Transformers movies--with all of those icky guns?