|
Post by Kevin Smith on May 26, 2008 15:56:35 GMT -8
Wait, why didn't Ripley and her powerloader show up in the movie if there's a giant alien?
|
|
|
Post by General Silliness on May 26, 2008 16:03:17 GMT -8
Wait, why didn't Ripley and her powerloader show up in the movie if there's a giant alien? she is in new zealand fighting new aliens.see on december 18th 2009.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Smith on May 26, 2008 17:09:22 GMT -8
I don't care anymore really.
|
|
|
Post by General Silliness on May 26, 2008 17:26:02 GMT -8
I don't care anymore really. you are lucky.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 26, 2008 18:07:35 GMT -8
Enough of all this "what Clark said" nonsense. I have tremendous respect for Clark, of course, and he expresses himself considerably better than I ever could, but I nonetheless couldn't find his comments here any more misguided. I think there's an enormous difference between what Steven Sommers was attempting with his "outrunning the sun" scene and what Spielberg was attempting to do with this Indy film. Sommers intended that scene as a supposedly exciting action sequence, but it was undercut by the sheer ridiculousness of the whole situation. The ridiculous nature of the Indiana Jones scenes that no one likes were the entire point of those scenes. I found the idea that Indy could survive that nuclear blast and those three waterfalls immensely amusing. It was Spielberg's way of reminding us that the series is rooted in old B-movies, where heroes would inexplicably survive situations that would kill you or I. I think trying to bring the director's intentions into the analysis is just silly. Saying that Sommers failed because he meant his ridiculous action scenes to be seriously dramatic while Spielberg didn't... not only is that incredibly fuzzy logic, but it also has no bearing on the actual quality of either directors' films. I find the whole "Yes, it's stupid and unrealistic, but it's SUPPOSED to be!" argument to be infuriating; not just because it can be used to excuse pretty much anything, but also because if that was indeed Spielberg's thought process, it makes Indy 4 an even bigger slap in the face of his fans than previously thought. It really means he didn't even TRY to make anything genuinely involving this time. In fact, "Yes, it's stupid and unrealistic, but it's SUPPOSED to be!" actually sounds like George Lucas' film-making philosophy to me. I've already addressed in previous posts why the whole alien plot is out of line with accepted Indy themes. This is a series that previously has been rooted in mythological and religious subject matter, not science fiction. I honestly fail to see how aliens fit into that. I'm also surprised nobody yet mentioned that the movie is basically just a bad carbon copy of Raiders, from the passing of the skull back and fourth between Indy and the Russkis, to the truck chase, to the face-melting ending.
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on May 26, 2008 19:52:36 GMT -8
I prefer to think of the scenes as "knowingly goofy" rather than "intentionally stupid and unrealistic", but that's merely my own glass-half-full POV. If you don't like them, I don't have a problem with that. My main concern here is that so many people are suggesting that the other films didn't have the exact same problem/style, and that "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is somehow infinitely less credible than the other three films when it comes to the believability of the action scenes.
I do think that the director's original intentions matter, because I think it shows on the screen. Spielberg is obviously winking at the audience with his scenes, while Sommers is obviously playing things in a straight-forward manner. Sure, maybe it's just a cheap way to excuse all kinds of preposterous things... but only within a rather limited realm of action scenes. It's just Spielberg's cinematic shorthand, he's simply telling the audience how to view the movie. I still need to give the film a second viewing, but I can't remember a single moment where the film suggests that it needs to be taken seriously. In fact, I would say that "Raiders" is the only film of the entire series that did attempt that, and as such it's a somewhat less silly action movie than it's successors.
You make a valid point about the alien stuff being a break from the religious/mythological elements... though I think this movie did attempt to make the crystal skull itself a mythological object (much like the fictional Shankara Stones from Temple of Doom... although those had some unknown power that was fueled by... something never explained... whereas the crystal skull is obviously alien). But anyway, I'll give you that. The Spielberg/Lucas explanation that 1950s sci-fi B-movies were the inspiration for "Crystal Skull" (because the movie was set in the 1950s, rather than the adventure-serial-dominated '30s or '40s) was enough for me, though.
A bad carbon copy of Raiders? I guess the basic structure of the plot was the same, but it certainly didn't steal nearly as much from Raiders as "Last Crusade" did.
Back at ya later
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 26, 2008 20:06:37 GMT -8
I see this discussion fizzling out at this point, as we're really just repeating points we've already made now. Since you actually have valid reasons for viewing the film they way you do, I feel comfortable agreeing to disagree.
I still suggest Crystal Skull is far less credible than Last Crusade or even Temple of Doom. Sure, those films had their ludicrous moments, but they weren't a continuous barrage of ludicrousness. There certainly wasn't anything remotely like the tree stunt Marion pulls in them, or Shia LaBeuf repeatedly being hit in the crotch with branches, or the greaser monkeys. I can only suspend so much disbelief, and this movie crossed the line for that less than 15 minutes in.
|
|
|
Post by indy2003 on May 26, 2008 20:09:15 GMT -8
I see this discussion fizzling out at this point, as we're really just repeating points we've already made now. Since you actually have valid reasons for viewing the film they way you do, I feel comfortable agreeing to disagree. Fair enough. Back at ya later
|
|
MikeP
Orchestrator
Posts: 537
|
Post by MikeP on May 28, 2008 4:15:31 GMT -8
The silliness in the other films tended to feel more like the 'punchline', after a semi-plausible setup that built tension. The tank scene in Last Crusade was a bit out there, it certainly had its moments, but it was grounded in reality enough to build tension. So when Indiana stuck a rock in one of the turrets, causing the thing to explode, it managed to relieve that tension - much like a punchline should. In Crystal Skull, the whole thing felt like a giant punchline without a setup. If Indy had gotten to the waterfalls without the crotch knocking and monkey swinging, it would have been much more interesting and fun to see him go over them.
Anyway, I don't want to hold the aliens against it. Just because previous films didn't use them doesn't mean this one can't. Just like I don't want to hold the alien reveal against it - as Raiders of the Lost Ark showed everything at the end, and that movie turned out just fine. The skulls were just a MacGuffin anyway, so I don't think they were the problem. The problem was in the script, and it's failure to add any real weight or interesting lore to the skulls. So even though I don't want to hold those things against the movie, I ended up doing so anyway.
Anyway, just my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on May 28, 2008 5:51:53 GMT -8
That Spielberg didn't want anyone to take this movie too seriously is seen with the opening of the film, when the Paramount mountain is transformed into a mole hill (or gopher hill, or whatever). Don't you think that was his way of warning everyone at the outset that we were just going to have a lot of fun, not necessarily a super serious movie?
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 28, 2008 6:51:17 GMT -8
Don't you think that was his way of warning everyone at the outset that we were just going to have a lot of fun, not necessarily a super serious movie? Too bad that an adventure movie with no sense of danger really is no fun at all. Did Spielberg really think that what people wanted out of an Indiana Jones sequel was a cartoony farce?
|
|
|
Post by Armin on May 28, 2008 16:05:01 GMT -8
I think we're all talking these "classics" a bit too seriously. Don't want to compare Indy to Star Wars, but there is a certain resemblance. Just a few days ago I thought it was so silly putting aliens into the movie, and then I remembered all the weird stuff happening in Temple of Doom. Or the invisible bridge and all those things. These movies were never meant to be classics, so just because we were born in a time and age when they are considered such, doesn't mean they have to be. In that light I don't see the problem with the new one, as I don't see the problem with the new Star Wars trilogy.
The kids love the new versions, and that's exactly what we did when we were kids with the old ones.
|
|
|
Post by General Silliness on May 28, 2008 16:51:56 GMT -8
I think we're all talking these "classics" a bit too seriously. Don't want to compare Indy to Star Wars, but there is a certain resemblance. Just a few days ago I thought it was so silly putting aliens into the movie, and then I remembered all the weird stuff happening in Temple of Doom. Or the invisible bridge and all those things. These movies were never meant to be classics, so just because we were born in a time and age when they are considered such, doesn't mean they have to be. In that light I don't see the problem with the new one, as I don't see the problem with the new Star Wars trilogy. The kids love the new versions, and that's exactly what we did when we were kids with the old ones. an 8 year old son of my friend told me how much he liked the "luke skywalker" movies more than the "videogame movies". that boy will bring balance to the force.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 28, 2008 17:36:36 GMT -8
These movies were never meant to be classics, so just because we were born in a time and age when they are considered such, doesn't mean they have to be. In that light I don't see the problem with the new one, as I don't see the problem with the new Star Wars trilogy. Oh sure, denigrate the old Indiana Jones movies to make the shitty new one seem better by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by Armin on May 29, 2008 2:34:14 GMT -8
That's how it is.
|
|