Star Trek and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[M'Sharak]

I suppose you could enlighten us yourself by summarizing and condensing for us the conclusion we were intended to have drawn from the hard-to-read page to which you linked above? That really would have been the better way of going about it, rather than simply posting an unexplained link; the linked page should act in support of your contention, not be a stand-in for it.

I'm not here to nurse-maid anyone. Sheesh. Anyone would think you need someone to summarise because you're too lazy/dumb/inept (take your pick) to read the page yourself. Now, you're not saying that, are you? As for the text being hard to read, which you throw around like some impervious, catch-all criticism: yes, it's hard to read; yes, the author should have picked a different colour; yes, one can copy the text into a separate text reader, or if one has a half-way decent browser, switch to a basic page style (black text on a white background) at the click of a button. Even if I was so inclined, which I'm not (although I often go out of my way to explain things to people), no summary would abide, since the beauty of that author's analysis can only be appreciated in full (and, ironically, a person would be less inclined to believe any summary I might give; though you've trashed the full analysis without ever reading it, anyway; thanks for confirming my belief that the average message-board interlocutor prefers sounding off and mocking anything of substance that comes their way).

Cryogenic, perhaps you are under the impression that I was kidding when I instructed you (twice, in fact) to knock off the personal jabs. That would be an incorrect assumption for you to make.

Further, the hyperbolic shtick you've been cultivating here and in previous threads has worn very thin by way of its tendency to veer into condescension toward and antagonism of other posters; when it was aimed at no one in particular, it might have been amusing in the short term, but making it personal is taking it too far -- it is no longer funny and it is disruptive to the discussion. I'll recommend here and now that you dial this behavior way back or drop it altogether. If you are at this board to discuss, then dispensing with the posturing and the bluster should not impair your ability to discuss any topic in the slightest.

Lastly, it's never a good idea to troll the moderator twice in the same thread, after having first been directed (twice!) to drop disruptive activities. You now have a warning for it. Comments to PM.

 

[Gepard]

Lastly, it's never a good idea to troll the moderator twice in the same thread, after having first been directed (twice!) to drop disruptive activities. You now have a warning for it. Comments to PM.

I picture you with a scepter and a little Pope hat when you do this.

OT, Star Trek and KotCS both suffered from the "bigger, dumber, faster" syndrome that I swear has taken over adventure movies these days. As a result, I'm not fond of either one.

 

[M'Sharak]

Hey, I wrote those notes regarding Crystal Skull. Thought it might be good to explain them. Sorry you hate the text size/color, this is intentional, we want to keep anyone who is not really interested from partaking, it's like keeping membership in a secret society. Only the strong continue deeper.

On one hand, I suppose I can appreciate the aesthetic/design choice. On the other hand, while I am interested (and I did skim and read portions) the eyestrain and possible headache which would ensue from reading whole in that format a detailed discussion about a movie I haven't even seen yet... well, I'm not that interested -- I hope you understand. I will try to tackle it later in sections, just so that I can see what you had to say, but Cryogenic's recent antics have lessened the appeal of the topic for me somewhat, at this moment.

Let me say that I do appreciate your coming by to offer your comments here. They'll help provide a jumping-off place for me to use when reading your other page.

 

[Chrisisall]

I picture you with a scepter and a little Pope hat when you do this.

That's kinda silly IMO. It's like the difference between teasing a cat & a tiger. You can piss 'em both off, but one will hurt.
It's human nature, not a royalty thing.

 

[Kegg]

I was one of those people who liked Crystal Skull well enough, but not well enough to actually want to see it again. It's fairly entertaining and hits mostly the right (if expected) notes, though it does feel a trifle tired and winded. There's quite a bit of silliness, but that's par for the course of this franchise.

The new Trek film was a more confident and thoroughly more entertaining film from beginning to end. It too has some silliness and plot holes, but a far more charismatic and entertaining cast - I didn't mind Shia as many did, but he doesn't compare to Pine, Quinto, Saldana et al in this picture. Harrison was sort of phoning it in, honestly.

Airing a controversial view: I probably like the new Trek more than the other Indy films too, but I've honestly never been a big fan of that franchise. Give me The Indian Tomb anyday!

 

[Chrisisall]

Airing a controversial view: I probably like the new Trek more than the other Indy films too,

I was with Trek from the first season in '66, and I must say, apart from the emotional investment in the Trek characters, no Trek was ever as well made as Raiders.
Sorry.

 

[Kegg]

Airing a controversial view: I probably like the new Trek more than the other Indy films too,

I was with Trek from the first season in '66, and I must say, apart from the emotional investment in the Trek characters, no Trek was ever as well made as Raiders.
Sorry.

Apology accepted.

Raiders is fun and all but I couldn't actually sit through it last time I tried, I got bored at the midway mark for some reason. Not that it isn't a good film, I just never really liked it the way I did another George Lucas property.

 

[The Castellan]

I enjoyed Indy 4 for the most part, right up until the ALIENS and the FLYING SAUCER...

I really didn't expect that sort of thing out of an Indy movie. Strange mystical forces, sure, but ALIENS?? When did Indy become ET?

Star Trek was way better.

You make aliens sound like a bad thing. I loved the Crystal Skulls film alot cause of it. An alien ship landing/crashing in some ancient society, and the occupents being looked at as gods....that sounds VERY reasonable to me. In fact, I believe that is what's behind many of our cultures.

Seemed logical for a story set in the 1950s just as Nazis and mystical objects work in a 1930s and 40s setting.

I think it's logical for today especallialy.

 

[Nerys Myk]

You make aliens sound like a bad thing. I loved the Crystal Skulls film alot cause of it. An alien ship landing/crashing in some ancient society, and the occupents being looked at as gods....that sounds VERY reasonable to me. In fact, I believe that is what's behind many of our cultures.

Seemed logical for a story set in the 1950s just as Nazis and mystical objects work in a 1930s and 40s setting.

I think it's logical for today especallialy.

There is a "more of the same" element that some need in a sequel. Which is why Temple of Doom isnt as well liked as Last Crusade.

 

[Chrisisall]

There is a "more of the same" element that some need in a sequel. Which is why Temple of Doom isnt as well liked as Last Crusade.

I like all of the last three equally, but that may be just me.

 

[Charles_Grady]

Hey, I wrote those notes regarding Crystal Skull. Thought it might be good to explain them. Sorry you hate the text size/color, this is intentional, we want to keep anyone who is not really interested from partaking, it's like keeping membership in a secret society. Only the strong continue deeper.

On one hand, I suppose I can appreciate the aesthetic/design choice. On the other hand, while I am interested (and I did skim and read portions) the eyestrain and possible headache which would ensue from reading whole in that format a detailed discussion about a movie I haven't even seen yet... well, I'm not that interested -- I hope you understand. I will try to tackle it later in sections, just so that I can see what you had to say, but Cryogenic's recent antics have lessened the appeal of the topic for me somewhat, at this moment.

Let me say that I do appreciate your coming by to offer your comments here. They'll help provide a jumping-off place for me to use when reading your other page.

The writing won't help you until you see the film. Since the film is experimental in a way the other Indy films are not, its nuances are like emblems you recall as you read the piece. It is the chicken to the writing's egg. Good luck thinking through Skull. Also i wouldn't worry too much about monitoring other participants as passionate as Cryogenics, he is, after all, the reason I checked out this thread.

 

[Cryogenic]

The writing won't help you until you see the film. Since the film is experimental in a way the other Indy films are not, its nuances are like emblems you recall as you read the piece. It is the chicken to the writing's egg. Good luck thinking through Skull. Also i wouldn't worry too much about monitoring other participants as passionate as Cryogenics, he is, after all, the reason I checked out this thread.

And I'm glad that you did, and let it be known.

Your site is estimable. It's one of the very few places that attempts to really give popular filmmakers like Spielberg and Lucas their due, by treating their art as they would really wish, I'm sure, to have it treated, in the long term.

This reviewer also seems to get KOTCS. If someone wants a "summary" of Mister Grady's page (tries to say that in his best Jack Nicholson voice), this is one; well, kinda:

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2008/05/migration-and-exodus-indiana-jones-and.html

Some really clever stuff in "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones"; make no mistake. Then again, that's a clumsy preposition. The clever stuff ain't so much "in" the movies as "is" the movies; the way they're shot, edited, scored and finally put together; the final assembly being both the vernacular and the poetry of the human mind (and its wish to understand and connect with the divine); film as cave painting; film as totem pole; film as mausoleum; film as flesh and blood; film as organic intelligence; film as something precipitated by thousands of years of cultural evolution, but never before done; film as past, present, future.

* * *

Re: Violence In The Movies Of Spielberg And Lucas

Perhaps both men are more cautious regarding -- or have a greater sensitivity towards and about -- the kind of stuff they put in their films. In fact, I don't see how they aren't. If their understanding of human nature has improved with age, and if their film making craft has also matured, then it stands to reason that they would be less keen to throw nasty stuff in, and they probably mull over decisions with as much diligence as they are able to give.

I'm a little less invested in Spielberg, but, if anything, George Lucas over-thinks his movies, if there's such a thing. And less is often more. For example, while Lucas may have decreed that there be no blood in Star Wars after a certain point, a sequence like the Order 66 montage in ROTS is no less graphic, or intellectually horrifying, without it. Spielberg, and especially Lucas, I think, know that film is built on contrasts. During the Order 66 montage, Lucas goes from a male Jedi being gunned down by troopers on foot (echoing Sergei Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin") to a female Jedi suffering the same fate, followed by other Jedi deaths of a more extravagant nature. This duplication, before the more varied deaths, would almost seem mindlessly repetitive, were it not for the fact that this is George Lucas we're talking about here. Notice that the male troopers stop firing when the male Jedi hits the ground? Notice that the male troopers continue firing after the female Jedi hits the ground? As the scene cuts away, they are still firing on her; in fact, the attack is so brutal that Lucas occludes her body with a piece of alien fauna; again, showing less, suggesting more. Also, the male Jedi turns round and looks stunned before he is shot, but keeps his lightsaber in hand and tries deflecting the laser bolts, but the female Jedi immediately surrenders, yet still gets blasted indefinitely. This contrast is quite harrowing when you consider that the Empire is an all-male organisation. Later in the film, another female character becomes the victim of another male character's wrath, being held in a choke after doing nothing aggressive herself. These directors still bring amazingly dark visions to the screen.

 

[The Castellan]

Seemed logical for a story set in the 1950s just as Nazis and mystical objects work in a 1930s and 40s setting.

I think it's logical for today especallialy.

There is a "more of the same" element that some need in a sequel. Which is why Temple of Doom isnt as well liked as Last Crusade.

I never liked Temple of Doom, cause I hated Shortround and that screaming blonde bitch. Plus Lou Che was nearly a pointless baddie.

 

[Charles_Grady]

The writing won't help you until you see the film. Since the film is experimental in a way the other Indy films are not, its nuances are like emblems you recall as you read the piece. It is the chicken to the writing's egg. Good luck thinking through Skull. Also i wouldn't worry too much about monitoring other participants as passionate as Cryogenics, he is, after all, the reason I checked out this thread.

And I'm glad that you did, and let it be known.

Your site is estimable. It's one of the very few places that attempts to really give popular filmmakers like Spielberg and Lucas their due, by treating their art as they would really wish, I'm sure, to have it treated, in the long term.

This reviewer also seems to get KOTCS. If someone wants a "summary" of Mister Grady's page (tries to say that in his best Jack Nicholson voice), this is one; well, kinda:

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2008/05/migration-and-exodus-indiana-jones-and.html

Some really clever stuff in "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones"; make no mistake. Then again, that's a clumsy preposition. The clever stuff ain't so much "in" the movies as "is" the movies; the way they're shot, edited, scored and finally put together; the final assembly being both the vernacular and the poetry of the human mind (and its wish to understand and connect with the divine); film as cave painting; film as totem pole; film as mausoleum; film as flesh and blood; film as organic intelligence; film as something precipitated by thousands of years of cultural evolution, but never before done; film as past, present, future.

* * *

Re: Violence In The Movies Of Spielberg And Lucas

Perhaps both men are more cautious regarding -- or have a greater sensitivity towards and about -- the kind of stuff they put in their films. In fact, I don't see how they aren't. If their understanding of human nature has improved with age, and if their film making craft has also matured, then it stands to reason that they would be less keen to throw nasty stuff in, and they probably mull over decisions with as much diligence as they are able to give.

I'm a little less invested in Spielberg, but, if anything, George Lucas over-thinks his movies, if there's such a thing. And less is often more. For example, while Lucas may have decreed that there be no blood in Star Wars after a certain point, a sequence like the Order 66 montage in ROTS is no less graphic, or intellectually horrifying, without it. Spielberg, and especially Lucas, I think, know that film is built on contrasts. During the Order 66 montage, Lucas goes from a male Jedi being gunned down by troopers on foot (echoing Sergei Eisenstein's "Battleship Potemkin") to a female Jedi suffering the same fate, followed by other Jedi deaths of a more extravagant nature. This duplication, before the more varied deaths, would almost seem mindlessly repetitive, were it not for the fact that this is George Lucas we're talking about here. Notice that the male troopers stop firing when the male Jedi hits the ground? Notice that the male troopers continue firing after the female Jedi hits the ground? As the scene cuts away, they are still firing on her; in fact, the attack is so brutal that Lucas occludes her body with a piece of alien fauna; again, showing less, suggesting more. Also, the male Jedi turns round and looks stunned before he is shot, but keeps his lightsaber in hand and tries deflecting the laser bolts, but the female Jedi immediately surrenders, yet still gets blasted indefinitely. This contrast is quite harrowing when you consider that the Empire is an all-male organisation. Later in the film, another female character becomes the victim of another male character's wrath, being held in a choke after doing nothing aggressive herself. These directors still bring amazingly dark visions to the screen.

Thanks for your compliment! I took a look at housenextdooronline. He's aware, but he's not exactly sure of what he's aware of (he can see the mountain and pyramid bookend but he doesn't see their relatives in progressions). He's still slightly trapped in plot digression (he's a literary mind) and he only notices certain types of visuals. You would think the videogame age would bridge to film by now, but they remain weirdly distant fields. A thinker like that has to resolve or absolve character issues for a living (essentially the paradigm of the novel), so the pure form of the experience will always be a tease for him, maybe.

Also the site's take on Inglourious Basterds missed the point entirely.

ROTS yes, dead on. Lucas is certainly overthinking it, yet/and paradox: he has a hard time blending his themes with the last three films, so they're ripe with ideas, then he lays them out staccatto, one-after-the-other. It's either too formal or too sloppy. He needed Spielberg to hide them ably. This is there overlap and why it has such disjointed results. What is so bizarre is that Lucas gets to shoot it like a B-movie, digitally paint it like an A, and then reshoot it, even add entire sequences as if its an A, but again, in a B style.

What's the deal with the Abrams trekkie zombies? Do they all want to ditch their step-daddys' chevy in a canyon? Under the surface its designed for a generation that knows only the success of intense school work (look at Spock's trials) or the completely instinctual reaction (the fake new Kirk). Abrams trek was the easy way out: even spock was illogical (there were no rules, so then there is no real soul, it's a pod blockbuster). The real experience would have been a youthful reboot that added to the futurism not detracted from it, instead the highest role a woman possessed in the film was Mommie and a BAR BRAWL stolen from better films sparks the 'kirk realisation' from his only father figure, a VERY white capn Pike. All abrams did was a weak tweak: Spock fucks and kirk whines for trim. This could've been such a good comedy, it was ALMOST a Scary Movie version of the old Trek.

 

[Shazam!]

it was ALMOST a Scary Movie version of the old Trek.

I'm convinced it was a Galaxy Quest sequel but they couldn't get any of the original cast back.

 

[Charles_Grady]

it was ALMOST a Scary Movie version of the old Trek.

I'm convinced it was a Galaxy Quest sequel but they couldn't get any of the original cast back.

that is a freakishly good idea. they could beam into a drama from a comedy.

 

[Planetary]

I walked out of the theater when the new Indiana Jones movie reached the point of the ridiculous mobile sword fight atop the Jeeps. I just couldn't sit there and watch it anymore -- as South Park so hilariously pointed out, Spielberg and Lucas "raped" Indiana Jones with this installment.

It wasn't a walk-out of indignation, it was more of a collective groan, and then incredulous laughter, from me and my friends, before we all agreed we could be doing something better with our time, nevermind the $11 we each paid to watch it.

Star Trek was more tolerable, but I wouldn't watch it again. I just couldn't get down with the idea of such a bratty Kirk, or a Starfleet willing to hand over command of its flagship to such a douchebag.

 

[startrekrcks]

Why was Kingdom even made The Last Crusade had the perfect ending that brought the Indy trilogy to an end any thoughts?

 

[I am not Spock]

The next Bond film, regardless of quality, will be huge. The reason is because The Bond Character and series has a solid reputation. Indy has a similar reputation. I'm not saying those are the only factors, but the film from day one was going to make money, there was no question.

The next Bond film will be avoided by me. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

They really have their work cut out for them, after the dire critical response given to Quantum of Solace. I hope Star Trek 12 will be more TDK and less QOS.

 

[startrekrcks]

but do you not think Star Trek XI paid tribute to TOS