Indy 4 still as infuriating as ever

[2takesfrakes]

As someone else had mentioned, one example also presents itself in how Spielberg has gone back and altered Blue Rays, and so forth, of features like "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial," in removing weapons of FBI agents and replacing them with Walkie-Talkies. But as you pointed out, it seems like any "spin" can be put on anything he's done. I just don't feel like going on for pages about it.

 

[Professor Zoom]

As someone else had mentioned, one example also presents itself in how Spielberg has gone back and altered Blue Rays, and so forth, of features like "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial," in removing weapons of FBI agents and replacing them with Walkie-Talkies. But as you pointed out, it seems like any "spin" can be put on anything he's done. I just don't feel like going on for pages about it.

That's fine, but you take one example of how something he's changed in a movie (and as far as I know, this is the only movie he's done such a change) as some sort of political stand on his part, which the rest of his movies seem to contradict quite clearly.

He's a grandfather, and yeah, in a kids movie, a bunch of guys chasing kids with guns, he doesn't like that idea now.

But, clearly, based on the rest of his work, he doesn't think guns are icky.

You might think I'm trying to "spin" something, but, in fact, you are just wrong. So, yeah, we don't have to go on for pages about it.

 

[Aldo]

It's worth noting that while he did make that change in E.T. He hasn't buried the original version so he doesn't seem to think guns are that "icky."

 

[davejames]

It does feel with Indy 4 that Spielberg and Lucas tried too hard to make something safe and family friendly, which resulted in a pretty tepid and formulaic movie. But I don't know how much of that has to do with their age or politics or current sensibilities.

I think it's more that they mistakenly thought the fun, family friendly tone of Last Crusade was the best one to continue using for the movie, and the one fans most wanted to see. And didn't realize just how incredibly old and tired that would end up making the movie feel in 2008.

Who knows, maybe the entire ridiculous crystal skull premise could have actually worked if they had taken the idea a lot more seriously, and surrounded it with a much stronger and less cartoonish story. I kinda doubt it, but it's possible.

 

[Harvey]

It's worth noting that while he did make that change in E.T. He hasn't buried the original version so he doesn't seem to think guns are that "icky."

He's also mentioned in interviews that he regrets the walkie talkie change, and on Blu-Ray, the theatrical version is the only cut of the film available.

 

[Admiral2]

Well yeah, as the article says they're real things... that only originated a couple hundred years ago. They certainly don't have the historical and cultural weight that the Ark and Grail have.

And the skulls also never looked nearly and obviously as alien as Indy 4 makes them look.

Oh, please...

The ark melted Nazi faces off.

The grail brought Henry senior back to life.

Anybody using the complaint of realism to bash Indy 4 is just desperate for something to whine about.

 

[GalaxyX]

I've never gotten the hate for Indy 4. It's basically the same stuff as the previous three, and it's much better than "Temple of Doom" with the fingernails-on-chalkboard Capshaw and cheap gross-out scenes. I think the complaints are largely a result of a nostalgia filter for the original trilogy. "Crystal Skull" is no more or less realistic than the other three and they made several good decisions like acknowledging Indy's age, changing the setting and the villains, and bringing back Karen Allen. Not a great movie but an enjoyable one.

Same here, it's not like there's some Knight actually protecting the Holy Grail, so complains of realism are pretty ridiculous.

My only complaint was the shoehorning of Shia LeBoeuf into the movie. He stuck out like a sore thumb. At least they could have given him another role, but Indy's son?

 

[Professor Zoom]

My only complaint was the shoehorning of Shia LeBoeuf into the movie. He stuck out like a sore thumb. At least they could have given him another role, but Indy's son?

YEAH, he shoulda planned the Russian Woman. That woulda worked.

Is it Indy having a son, or Shia's performance?

Because let's be frank, there's probably quite a few little Indys running around the world...

 

[davejames]

Oh, please...

The ark melted Nazi faces off.

The grail brought Henry senior back to life.

Anybody using the complaint of realism to bash Indy 4 is just desperate for something to whine about.

Yes, and all that crazy stuff happened after the movies had already established these objects as fairly believable and plausible religious artifacts. And after also establishing the world around them in a fairly believable way (Raiders much more so than Crusade, but even the jokier Crusade still felt like it took place in the real world).

Skull on the other hand takes place in this crazy fantasy world of CG monkeys and ants, and where people can do impossible stunts and survive impossible explosions. And then somehow we're supposed to take them seriously when they talk of aliens visiting ancient indians and leaving their crystal skulls behind.

I don't know, maybe some people can just accept any ridiculous premise in a movie like this (like Lucas, who seems perfectly fine with Indy chasing after ghosts and aliens), but I prefer an Indy that at least feels somewhat grounded in the real world.

 

[Silvercrest]

Anybody using the complaint of realism to bash Indy 4 is just desperate for something to whine about.

After the giant CGI ants dropped Indy's hat, he just shoved it right back on his head. He never once looked inside to make sure no ants were still there. REALISM!!!!!

 

[mos6507]

Skull on the other hand takes place in this crazy fantasy world of CG monkeys and ants.

Scary animals performing choreographed activities goes all the way back to Raiders, like the spiders in the cave and especially the pit of snakes.

The world of Indy is kind of like Dungeons & Dragons. The second you go off the beaten path you have to expect running into random encounters with "dangerous critters", mundane or monstrous.

So really, Indy4, at its individual level, is very much an authentic Indy movie, but somehow doesn't really transcend the sum of its parts. I felt the same way about Temple of Doom, really, although with that one you can't point to Ford's age, but it did have an annoying sidekick in Short Round.

 

[davejames]

Yeah but those were real creatures that looked and behaved for the most part like real creatures.

 

[Mage]

Honestly, people are using Indiana Jones and realism together?

I give up....

I mean, I'm sorry. I didn't want to piss people of with that, but people are reaching to hate something simply to hate. There was never anything realistic about any Indiana Jones film.

 

[Shat Happens]

This thread made me wish to eat some chilled monkey brains

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And what's with all of these bullshit medals and this war-hero crap?!?!?!

Indy was in the military? I didn't know that. Was this only just established in Indy 4?

(I'm just guessing that the war in question is World War I, amirite?)

 

[Doctorwhovian]

The TV series had Indy in World War I before the movies, while Indy IV established he had fought in some capacity along with "Mac" in World War II, I think mainly in military intelligence.

 

[Captain Craig]

^^^
Correct IJ:KotCS established Indy contributed to the war effort in WWII with the Americans.
The YIJC established that he fought in the Belgium Army in WWI

 

[DWF]

Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull is just a fun action/adventure movie and doesn't try to be anything. It's a shame that Pat Roach died after The Last Crusade, it wasn't quite the same without their traditional fight scene.

 

[davejames]

Honestly, people are using Indiana Jones and realism together?

I give up....

I mean, I'm sorry. I didn't want to piss people of with that, but people are reaching to hate something simply to hate. There was never anything realistic about any Indiana Jones film.

So I guess just anything goes then? We can Indy interacting with superheroes or time travelling back to the dinosaurs and it's just all the same to you?

The first Die Hard wasn't completely "realistic" either, but it was still a helluva lot more believable-- and thus a much better and more exciting movie-- than the last couple cartoonish, over the top sequels. The difference is that the first movie actually took the time to establish a fairly plausible situation and world for its characters, and then kept the action fairly plausible as well.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I never saw any of the previous movies as being "unrealistic" because of their religious symbolism - artifacts such as the Ark of the Covenant having very real effects are at least being true to themselves. Viewers expect the Ark to do the things it did - same with the Holy Grail. Those have always been associated with having very powerful effects - and so actually showing it, isn't way out of line.

But aliens? Really? What are aliens even doing in an Indy film in the first place?