Is the Online Fan Community Over-Reacting to Indiana Jones 4?
So I’ve pretty much come to the conclusion that among the internet movie bloggers and commentor’s I know, I’m the only person who liked Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. The film does have its supporters, but they’re pretty small in numbers. Sure the film has its flaws, but overall I was entertained and had a fun time. I guess it was pretty much what I’d expected. Surprisingly, it seems I’m in the minority here. To say that most Indy fans were let down by this fourth installment in the series would be an understatement. The reaction has been overwhelmingly negative, reminding me of the hatred directed towards Raimi’s third Spider-Man film. In that case, things such as hair-do’s, dance numbers and female characters (Gasp!) were enough to turn an entire internet community sour, possibly endangering the series. (That is, if it didn’t make shit loads of money at the box office.) Although I didn’t think Spidey 3 came close to part 2, I certainly didn’t think it deserved the hate it received. Worst film of 2007? Hardly.
Now we get Indy 4 with it’s own set of problems that people seem caught up on. A film that quite possibly could never meet the expectations of those of us who’ve been waiting 19 years for a new installment in the Indy franchise. For the most part, like Spidey 3, the fans seem to be picking on some pretty inconsequential visuals. Mainly those directed towards kids.
Here’s a few quotes from around the web, mostly from comment sections, that blow my mind:
Simon: “If you’re an Indy fan then prepare yourself for two hours of cinematic soddemy.†(/Film)
Rot: “I am truly stunned that people enjoyed this film, something like Iron Man I can at least understand. I found virtually every moment of Crystal Skull awkward, clunky, grating, silly, embarrassing, or boring. To me it is the ultimate trainwreck of a film.” (Row Three)
Steven C: “This movie was a giant piece of shit, and almost unwatchable. I can’t believe Lucas and Speilberg took 20 fucking years to come up with this pathetic movie. Neither one of them should ever even think about making another movie ever again after completely fucking up a great trilogy. It was so bad, that it even made the Star Wars prequels look great!!!” (The Movie Blog)
Dan: “I saw Indy Last night and it was the biggest pile of rubbish i have ever seen. by far the worst movie of the decade. Lucas / Speilberg need to retire as i don’t want anymore of my childhood spoilt.” (The Movie Blog)
Elisabeth: “I absolutely hated it. I went in with middling expectations and there wasn’t one thing I enjoyed.” (Cinematical)
Blarney Man: “Broke my fucking heart. I have never wanted to unsee a movie so much.” (The Movie Blog)
Clearly, this film is being raked over the coals by many people. I’ll admit that some criticisms I’ve read have been understandable, but it’s the gut reactive, nostalgia driven HATE that I can’t wrap my head around. The film is really that bad? Am I missing something here? (This coming from a guy who really liked Lady in the Water.)
It seems to me that ever since the internet facilitated film fan message boards and the open discussion of the best and worst theatrical releases of the year, we’ve gotten the negative side effect of mob mentality backlashes that seem to be, in most cases, fueled by other commentor’s (commentators?) rather than the films themselves. Whether it’s the ‘tarzan scene’, ‘groundhog’ or ‘fridge’ from Indy 4, the ‘emo haircut’ or ‘dance sequence’ from Spidey 3, or the ‘flames’ or ‘pissing’ from Transformers, entire films are written off based on visual gags. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying everyone who hated these films is wrong. I didn’t like The Transformers, and there’s been many good points made against Indiana Jones 4, some that I completely agree with. I just don’t think any of the sight gags I mentioned are earth shattering enough to bury a film.
What do you think? Am I way off the mark here? Is the internet notorious for nit picking or am I guilty of giving Indy a free pass?
Comments (85)
I havent see The Indiana Jones 4 (hat tip), but will by the end of the week. I have no set expectations. I like the Jones trilogy more than the Star Wars trilogy or first Spderman films, but Im not going to go apeshit if its not incredibly similar to the first films.
The only trilogy Id be overly protective with is probably Back to The Future. Hands off!
I may be misremembering though Jay, but just to play devils advocate werent you upset with what they did to Die Hard 4?
Posted by Goon on May 27th, 2008dosen’t the internet over react to evreything
Posted by Drew on May 27th, 2008My criticism towards die hard 4 was as a film itself. Admittedly, I did see it at the drive in and I did fall asleep for about 20 minutes of it. I’ve been meaning to re-watch it.
Also, I did not claim that Die Hard was the worst film in ten years or even of that year. I just didn’t like it much.
Posted by Jay C. on May 27th, 2008My advice to people who say their childhood was ruined by a pair filmmakers:
1. Get therapy for your sh–ty childhood.
2. Grow. The. F–k. Up.
I loved Star Wars and Indiana Jones. And, yes, I am disappointed in Lucas. I think the Star Wars prequels were pretty plodding, flat and unimaginative (given the source material). I don’t think Indy 4 is the best movie either (better than Temple of Doom anyway) and … guess what? I am just fine. I can still function as a human being without tearing into Lucas and Spielberg on the Internet. I don’t know how I do it. I just can. Inner strength, I guess.
The childhood me still loves the movies I loved. Those are my memories and no new movie or filmmaker can take those away because my nostalgia is stronger than CGI.
Posted by Brett on May 27th, 2008It’s not hate is, it is profound bafflement as to why even approach the Franchise again. These guys are all filthy rich, the ended the previous trilogy with them riding off into the sunset fer-chrissakes.
The pain here is that Spielberg and Lucas tease with the Nuclear, plastic and ‘modern’ world realities at the beginning (suburbia, MusroomCloud, etc.) and the just devolve into recycling the past films. Crusade was borderline in recycling stuff too, and for that reason it is the least of the original trilogy. But here the lighting, cinematography, screenplay (mostly the screenplay) are so undercooked and lazy that it is insulting to the Franchise that spawned so many imitators.
now Spielberg is just another imitator of himself.
Posted by Kurt on May 27th, 2008I feel the reason why the first Indian Jones fared so well because it was ground-breaking, much like the original three Star Wars. When you try to “modernize” older movies that were once ground-breaking the whole magic is lost. I’m a huge Star Wars fan but the first three movies but by any means are not the best written scripts ever…they did so well because people haven’t seen that technology and it blew people’s minds.
People disliked the Star Wars prequels because technology had advanced and in turn, allowed Lucas to do more with that technology but nothing that is new. You can soup up a lightsaber fight, make space more “realistic” but it’s been done. It’s not new.
Now’ with the new Indiana Jones, people were expecting a film on the lines of Raiders or Crusade and what they got was X-Files that abused the technology at hand. That’s why people loved the first three Indiana Jones movies…because they didn’t over-do special effects. Surviving a nuke in a fridge? Gophers popping up? Monkey Shia? I understand that the Indiana Jones trilogy played on the slight unbelievable but I felt this film went too far with those unbelievable actions. I was distracted by the large use of CGI in the movie and that really hurt the film for me. But if you look back to Crusade, the effects weren’t overly done, the plot was fun and it was an overall adventure.
One last point. I feel that Shia did a really good job with holding the entire movie together. Although many of the characters were under-developed, Shia did a good job making it feel like a fun adventure movie…not an Indiana Jones movie, but an adventure movie, but as for him taking over the franchise, I’d probably boycott anything that had Lucas/Spielberg name on it…on second thought, they can do what they want, I’ll agree with “Goon” and ask Zumeckis and Speilberg to kindly leave Back to the Future alone.
Posted by Dan on May 27th, 2008You should stick to FilmJunk where none of those quotes came up.
Posted by Henrik on May 27th, 2008I’m more then a little annoyed that people are referring to them as gophers when they are clearly prairie dogs.
Fucking Internet and its goddamn know-it-alls.
Posted by Matt Gamble on May 27th, 2008Kurt. We asked for a new film. The people were craving for it. I don’t think anyone hates it because they don’t understand why they did it in the first place. George and Spielberg didn’t need to make this movie but the public asked for it for almost two decades so they decided to do it. It didn’t hurt that they knew that people would flock to see it.
Posted by Swarez on May 27th, 2008I really liked Indy 4. It is an action movie first and foremost and it delivers action in spades. I’ve seen so many people complain about how over the top and unrealistic the film is. Have these people even seen the first three?
There isn’t anything in Indy 4 that is any less believeable than say an 800 year old knight? Or the Ark of the Covenant? Or living after having your heart ripped out? These people are just looking back on the originals with rose tinted glasses. It is no Raiders or Last Crusade but it is far from the crap film they claim.
Posted by Stephen on May 27th, 2008First, although quoted under the heading of ‘fan community’ I would entirely emphasize that my dislike of the film has nothing to do with being a fan, there is not an ounce of fanboy to me, if anything I am the arch-nemesis of that kind of mentality. I looked to be entertained, I hadn’t really followed much of the hype, honestly there was no agenda to my viewing.
I am fine with going back to the jungle, fine with aliens, hell I am fine with LeBeouf, but I cannot squint hard enough or harken back in my mind to the other three Indys and superimpose them upon this film to find anything redeemable about it. That was not hyperbole, I truly see a trainwreck in virtually every frame, and am stunned by people who see something else, usually I can imagine what others are seeing, hell I could even see what some people saw in Phantom Menace but this, this did not work on any level. This would be a bad film for Brett Ratner let alone Steven Spielberg.
and I agree with Kurt entirely that it began with an unpolished script and everything else followed. I highly recommend people listen to Kurt/Andrew on the cinecast at RowThree for their blow-by-blow breakdown of the many many flaws of sloppy storytelling that took place in this film… not nitpicks… but every scene… they entirely gel with my experience, and yet he was able to find some redeemable qualities.
I am wondering if the appeal is that things look good, that surface veneer is enough, beautiful stills are enough… I mean I cannot begin to understand it.
Posted by rot on May 27th, 2008In some ways I can understand why people had such a visceral reaction to this movie. Indy is one of the most beloved characters in American Cinema. People were hoping for the best and they got, “prairie dogs”, refrigerators, and rope swinging monkeys. But remember there were similar jokes in raiders…does anyone not remember the “Zeig Heil” Monkey? Or the rotating mirror hitting Indy in the Chin? Or the torture device that becomes a coat hanger?
Granted I think there was more wit back then with the Raiders jokes…but in the end they were still jokes.
What I took away from Indy were the best scenes, the familiar characters and the fact that this is it for Indy. I waited 19 years and am now 35 and for me I’ve learned to lower my expectations a bit. After The Phantom Menace (Which in my opinion is a far worst tragedy than Indy ever could be) that things will never be like the original. They can’t be.
George thinks differently now (Strangely differently) and Spielberg is not the same director. Harrison is older and does not move as fast and Karen Allen is older too. Things are just to far removed to be the same as the original. It’s just been too long.
I enjoyed Indy and will watch my DVD’s until Blu-Ray becomes the norm and accept that Indy has finally moved off into the sunset.
That is until they get Nathan Fillion to play the role!
Posted by 1138 on May 27th, 2008Can you really blame people for “nostalgia driven” reactions? Isn’t nostalgia this film’s meal ticket?
Posted by Rusty James on May 27th, 2008I remember seeing Phantom Menace in the theatre with some friends who have kids. I was very angry about Jar Jar Binks at first, but then I saw how their kids reacted to him…they fuckin loved him! They were laughing at his walk, his tongue and his craven cowardly acts. After that, I gave Phantom some slack. I was just as doofy when Return of the Jedi came out, busting a gut to Ewoks and silly droids.
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on May 27th, 2008Phantom Menace doesn’t seem so bad to me, especially because my dad liked Jar Jar Binks and quoted the line “BIG GOOBAFISH” several times after seeing it. I was 13 when I saw it, and didn’t really feel anything except that on the 2nd viewing I realized it was filled with effects that I hadn’t noticed on first viewing, which was amazing. I can completely understand people being afraid of Darth Vader wanting to see more of him hating the film.
Posted by Henrik on May 27th, 2008Give the kid stuff some slack, it’s a summer movie, it’s supposed to be fun for everyone. I don’t want to be challenged by “summer movies”, I want to ride a roller coaster in my seat, snicker at dumb shit, and watch stuff explode. I know a summer film can still be bad but I don’t think this one was.
Raiders of the Lost Ark was a more serious film than the next two, Temple of Doom was a little goofy and a little violent for it’s time. Last Crusade amped up everything the first two had..meaner Nazis, more mysticism, goofier sidekicks and crazier stunt scenes. This newest film is just the progression of what has been done already.
Bottom line: This film needed Nazis, not Commies. Commies aren’t scary, especially Russina ones. Yeah, bring back the Nazis!..Nazis..Nazis..Nazis..
Posted by Lord Dungbeetle on May 27th, 2008In response to Rusty’s point, maybe I am wrong but I feel like the film is coasting on nostalgia for those willing enough to overlook its flaws.
I consider Iron Man a lousy film only because it does not aspire beyond the most strict of comic book formulas, but I can entirely understand how people who like that sort of thing could praise it. Its a 1:1 ratio.
Indy 4 as a roller coaster blockbuster is extremely uneven, stretches of McCarthyism and Atomic Bombs, a set-piece on an academic campus, stilted go-between scenes (prison cell, boogie-men Peruvian tomb), before the actual roller coaster starts. and if it is a purely nostalgia old school Indy then what the hell was the last half all about? Indy driving? I do not see who this was intended for.
Kids would be bored, fanboys would get upset that Indy is underused, people who like stories get nothing from this. Action purists would hate the amped up CGI, fans of Spielberg will inevitably harken back to Jurassic Park or Raiders and think how technically lackluster the whole enterprise is.
I mean obviously some people do like Indy 4, so I am missing something, but I truly do not know what it is.
Posted by rot on May 27th, 2008I didn’t like the Tarzan, groundhog, and refrigerator scenes in Indiana Jones 4, but those things weren’t enough to make me dislike the movie. What I absolutely hated were the last ten minutes. This doesn’t mean that the whole movie was bad, it just means that I’m probably not going to want to watch it again for a long time.
The funny thing about a post like this is that you’re asking the online film fan community if the online film fan community is overreacting, to which the people who liked Indy 4 will say yes and the people who disliked it will say no.
For my money, Indiana Jones was worth the $9.00 it cost to see in the theater. However, it is not worth the $20+ it will cost to own it on DVD.
Posted by Rian on May 27th, 2008I’m done reacting to it, arguing about it, discussing and picking it apart…I will just sum it all up right now and move on with my cinema driven life:
1. I love all 3 original Indy movies with all my film-lovin’ soul.
2. Fuck George Lucas.
thank you. I’m done.
Posted by Bob the Slob on May 27th, 2008p.s. to add to what goon said…if anyone touches BACK TO THE FUTURE…someone needs to die.
Posted by Bob the Slob on May 27th, 2008Regarding all this Back To The Future stuff… I don’t think you guys have anything to worry about.
http://www.moviehole.net/news/20080527_gale_talks_back_to_the_future.html
Posted by Sean on May 27th, 2008Its the second best, the action is more 3d than the the raiders, which obviously has a better plot, but a better cinematograhper, i think Kaminski is the puppet master in this, intersingly, Douglas Slocombe is still alive, he has no DP credits since Last Crusade, he’s class no doubt. Unforutnely it isn’t much to say this is one of David Koepp’s decent scripts, Harrison Ford in my opinion is good for the middle 90 minutes, getting topless, he seemed to be only having fun when they were shooting in the USA, as opposed to the first scene and the second half which was done in Hawaii, the place where the fun did seem to go out of the performers, if Lucas could live in the here and now, this movie would be better more than just better than Star Wars, the continuity/tension dosen’t match Casino Royale/Bourne. And for the unbeleiveable, i think that taking out the stupid waterfall liners and you’ve got a accurate sequel. The reason i like Die Hard more than Indiana Jones is the villians, the ’spectacular realism’ and the fact its a straight up Hollywood movie, not agreeing that Raiders is a B-movie, i don’t see that in anything ouher than the chessy bites which you could attribute to Lucas. Indiana Jones would be better than Mad Max if it had no supernaturalism. Mad Max Raod Warrior is ‘IT’.
Posted by Darcy on May 27th, 2008Clearly saying that it is the worst film of the year/decade is an over reaction. However, I feel that some people have gone too far the other way and forgiven a very, very average film just because it had the words “Indiana Jones” attached to it.
I hated the movie personally, but I found the filmjunk podcast review very interesting, and some good points were made. Perhaps the best test would be to get an adult and a kid who had never seen any of the films to view them all and rate them, that might give objectivity.
I take Jay’s point about the other films having ridulous moments in also, the most famous being the plane jump in TOD. However, I think there is a subtle (yet significant) difference between the plane jump and the fridge scene. The fridge scene was like a cartoon. What I found most stupid of all was that the whole test site was blown up, but only the fridge came shooting through the sky towards the camera. Sounds like nitpicking, but it totally took me out the film. Far more than a dingy falling out a plane with three dummies tied to it. The culprit again seems to be CG, which makes the impossible seem possible…but still look impossible! Add to that the fact that Indy then popped out the fridge and exchanged glances with a f*cking chipmink thing, and it was ruined for me.
The way any action film should be judged is whether you actually FELT something watching it…excitement, tension, laughter, whatever. So few CGI blockbusters do this, and when a film actually does (Bourne films for instance) it’s such a shock that everyone thinks it’s genius. If film makers actually thought about what makes a film good, this stuff would be less rare, and we’d have to endure less sh*t like Indy 4.
The only time I felt tension during this film was when the trucks drove along the edge of the cliff…hence a bit of old fashioned vertigo gave me more than all the rest of the CG action scenes put together. Hence my point.
Posted by Liney on May 28th, 2008I’d like to go on record as saying I did not hate the film at all. In fact, I gave it 3/5 stars. I’m definitely a fanboy and I was disappointed, but not so disappointed that the original 3 are ruined (that’s retarded).
As rot said above, even though I picked the movie apart and tore into a lot of it scene by scene, I also saw a lot of redeeming qualities and ultimately gave the film a pass.
Posted by Andrew James on May 28th, 2008I think I hated the film, but I would give it 2 out of 4 I think. Was just the same as a lot of average blockbusters.
On the anger front I should clarify though. I don’t feel that the first three films have been tarnished or that my childhood is ruined or any of that crap. I’m angry (or at least very disappointed) because a bad film was made instead of a good one. I’m angry that the reasons that it is bad are so obvious that it could have been avoided. I’m angry that good artists get old and lazy and don’t know when to stop.
They really waited years for the right script and then settled on that one!? Frank Darabont must be fuming.
Lucas keeps saying “it’s just a movie, chill out”…if he’d have had that attitude when he was young and hungry, when he was almost giving himself a heart attack making Star Wars, then movie history would be very different today, and he wouldn’t have millions of dollars to sit back on his lazy arse with.
Posted by Liney on May 28th, 2008Alright, I finally saw Indy 4..
let me summarize now how every complaint I’m seeing registers into my head
“OH NO! THERE’S CGI! WAHHHH!”
“OH SHI EVEN THOUGH ALL RELIGIONS HAVE BEEN TRUE IN THESE MOVIES AND EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE RIP OUT HEARTS AND RIDE INNER TUBES DOWN MOUNTAINS.. ALIENS WHAT THE FUCK”
“THERE WERE MONKEYS”
Seriously, I mean what the fuck, people. Nitpicking reaches new heights with this one, to an even more baffling degree than most of the Spiderman 3 “OMG HIS HAIR WAS PARTED WEIRD THAT EQUALS EMO” bullshit. It’s an adventure movie beginning to end, over the top and fun. Is it better than Raiders or Last Crusade? No, but I dont see how that was possible.
But I’m gonna say it, its better than Temple of Doom. I see people saying the only way to enjoy this is by being childish or having nostalgic apologies for Indy. I put it in reverse – The nostalgic “Hands off” fanboyism is what I find childish and silly.
Some people just aren’t going to agree, but I know that the movie I just saw doesnt even come close to being bad.
Posted by Goon on May 28th, 2008I don’t feel like rewording this, so this is what I posted at Row Three:
It’s funny, because all of this Indy 4 back and forth really reminds me of another recent critical attack on something that I thought was totally undeserved; Scarlette Johansson’s album.
I’ve heard so many people rag on her ‘bad singing’. This coming from people I’ve never heard drop a critical word such as ‘range’, ‘pitch’, or ‘tone’ in their lives, especially in regards to an indie-spirited (not Indy spirited) album. I could name fifty critically acclaimed ‘indie’ releases that feature folks who simply can’t sing. I always thought the joy of albums such as this wasn’t their ability to sing, but rather the spirit of creativity and an element of risk taking. It’s the presentation and instrumentation, not the range or pitch. In this case, Johansson’s album consists of Tom Waits covers. A hefty weight on her already burdened shoulders. Afterall, actresses should stick to acting, right?
Well for me, the album works, much due to the great production of Dave Sitek (TV on the Radio) Of course this is ignored by most, as mainstream media simply sinks to un-informed jokes and potshots towards Scarlette’s failed attempt in the music industry while indie snobs attack her for stomping all over their precious Tom Waits originals. (As though it really has any effect on the originals.) Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
I guess, to sum this up for those who have glazed over…I don’t care if Indy 4 can sing, as long as he’s got a great backing band.
Posted by Jay C. on May 28th, 2008you now how people shit all over female characters in comic book movies
I think that same mentality is stretching over to Cate Blanchett in Indy 4…
…as for your music analogy, you may not agree, but i think theres a similar hyperbole whn it comes to new Weezer. I would agree that its not as good as the early stuff, but if I put old and new albums on my cd changer and hit random, theres really not that much difference to me between “Suzanne” and “perfect situation”, in songwriting, lyrics, or overall quality. But since some can see that maybe its not upto par with the early stuff, they are not only dissatisfied, they act OUTRAGED and on pitchfork for example, end up giving the last album, like, a 0 out of 10?
Posted by Goon on May 28th, 2008“as mainstream media simply sinks to un-informed jokes and potshots towards Scarlette’s failed attempt in the music industry ”
with Scarlett’s album I simply dont really care either way… but yeah, the media love to trash something, the indie crowd will jack off to her but otherwise she’s hollywood and is sullying their indie circle jerk of coolness and are biased against her. a bit unfair.
but i dont worry about the larger media bashing in that regard. they dont know how to handle actors turned singers that ARENT trying to be pop superstars.
Posted by Goon on May 28th, 2008From my point of view, cinema as a whole is in a pretty healthy state at the moment (look at all the great films of the last 12 months), but blockbusters are in a pretty dire state. Last summer, almost all of the blockbusters were sh*t. And yet sh*t will continue to get made, because it keeps making money.
We can’t vote with our feet cos stuff like Indy 4 will always make money (I myself paid to see it). So venting about the flaws of the film on the net is the only way that film makers might be alerted that people aren’t happy, and don’t want to see dumbed down films with over the top action sequences that make us feel nothing.
To put it in context, I’d give this summer’s blockbusters so far:
Iron Man – 2 (out of 4)
Speed Racer – 3
Indy 4 – 2
I imagine that most this summer’s blockbusters will score similarly, but I can but hope.
Posted by Liney on May 29th, 2008I think this proves nostalgia causes movie hate more than anything. First Star Wars, now this.
Btw, I can’t believe you liked Lady in the Water. I mean…really?
Posted by Ryan on May 29th, 2008As this discussion is working on two sites, I guess I will paste my response here as well.
To riff on something Kurt and Andrew brought up in their cinecast I think one of the main problems I had with Indy 4 is the lack of stakes involved in the story. I think the execution of the story was also seriously flawed, but this element is key for me to its failure. The constant refrain from those who enjoyed the film is that everyone should lighten up, its an Indiana Jones film, leave your brain at the door. To which I wonder aloud is there anything in the Indy universe that would stir your brain to question it? If to escape a siege of Russians Indy suddenly was able to fly, would you be okay with that? There is an attempt by some to make everything black and white, but I see much more subtlety to how things work in a film. Each film has its own universe and implicit rules on how that universe should work.
The action adventure universe portrayed in the previous Indiana Jones films have all pushed the limits of believability, but never so fully as to remove entirely the stakes of danger for the main characters. We can believe that when a tank goes over a cliff Indy could possibly hold onto a vine and climb back up, or that even in the roller coaster mine scene obstacles are put in the way but there is still some sense of threat. Likewise, as Andrew pointed out, in the previous films there were some vested stakes for going on the adventure in the first place, and the more dire the stakes (the kidnapping of Indy’s father) the more forward thrust the action adventure has, because we want to see Indiana persevere in order to achieve his end. There was joking and winking at the audience in the previous ones but this was mixed in with set-pieces of genuine threat. In Indy 4 everything is a parody of itself, everything is a joke. Also, there seems to be no natural progression to the story, plot points are shoe-horned in to get some idea in the screenwriting room passed. In Indy 4 the crystal skull is used multiple times to easily prevent a problem, Indy might as well of had an invincibility cloak – it’s the same effect. The result of watching this, knowing there is no stakes, knowing there is no reason to move forward, is to not be engaged in the action of the film but glaze over and enjoy it for its faint nostalgia, when the music kicks in and familiar faces show up.
The Indy universe is not the Bourne universe, I understand that and I would never want it to be, but there is transgression in each, and when there is nothing to transgress, when you give something a pass that anything goes, then there is nothing different between that and Teletubbies, a bunch of color and light bouncing across a screen. What distinguishes is the stakes, the vested interest in one color blob over the other color blob and the possibility of threat and something to achieve.
The fantasy elements in Indy come with their own limitations, The Ark and the Grail did not pervade the entire story, they were contained spaces that when you entered you understood the mystical realm was tolerated. The fantasy elements are introduced into the universe as certain parameters that aspects of the story can enter and then they enter. There was no introduction to the possibility of monkey ESP (to name one of many believability transgressions) it happened because a writer wanted it to happen. There are endless examples of this in the film, continually resisting any direct stakes for the characters, they exist as personages to be moved around according to some nostalgic agenda. In the previous Indy films they moved because of some inner logic to the story (although I do have problems with Temple too in parts).
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008rot:
I suppose it was slightly unfair to include your comment in my post as your thoughts on the film seem pretty genuine. But there’s no denying that we’re all affected by hype/backlash. Maybe I’m experiencing a little bit of one, and you’re experiencing a little of the other?
Nah. I just liked it. You didn’t. Oh well.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2008Yeah agreed, and I have no ambition to convince you otherwise, I am defending my reasons for not being purely hyperbolic or fanboy nitpicky in my dislike of the film.
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008“I think one of the main problems I had with Indy 4 is the lack of stakes involved in the story.”
I dont find the stakes any higher or lower than the other films. Get the artifact to X because baddies will use it to make strange weapons. To me the only difference is that Nazis are inherently taken more seriously, because well – they’re Nazis, and it was wartime. Because of aging it pretty much had to be Commies, and we dont exactly take that sort of thing seriously. If it werent for McCarthyist crap or the fact that we survived the cold war, Indy’s talk about fighting the Reds, Macs betrayal, etc, would seem a little more badass/intense to people.
“I think the execution of the story was also seriously flawed”
I just dont see it at all.
“The constant refrain from those who enjoyed the film is that everyone should lighten up, its an Indiana Jones film, leave your brain at the door. To which I wonder aloud is there anything in the Indy universe that would stir your brain to question it?”
I always say in defending or attacking certain movies, be it effects or dialogue, is that what i accept or reject is relative to the world the filmmker creates. While overall Indy4 may be further over the top than any of the others, Indy 4 is its own film, and within the universe created here, it works for me.
You on the other hand, seem to be treating it as the tail end of a 4 part movie, which it is not. This is where our complaints about your nostalgia kick in. I think on its own terms, Indy 4 is a fine film.
It reminds me of Jays defence of Escape from LA. Many flat out hated it on its own terms, but many others were just mad that it didnt have the feel/look of the first one. it wasnt the same ‘universe’ – i can only say, too fucking bad.
I’m a big James Bond fan. Those movies are ridiculous and take strange liberties from film to film, dare to push, even reinvent things while also trying to carry forward the staples of the series. I think people are being too hands off about the Indy series, and are romanticizing the other ones a little too much.
So far this summer, we have Iron Man nagged about for playing things to close to what people like.
Speed Racer is nagged for going competely balls to the walls and doing something new.
and now Indy is nagged for playing things too far away from what people already decided they like.
You know, from whre i stand a lot of the people who said they want to be challenged or see something new as a defence for trashing Iron Man, really arent proving it to me with the way they critique these other films. it leaves me to qustion the way they handle blockbusters all together. some built in phobia and cynicism that actualy disallows them to have a good time, something in them that requires them to write a review in their head even while he movies running.
Posted by Goon on May 29th, 2008… and by the way.
why the hell do people still allow themselves to be carried away by hype, and then say things like ‘way overhyped’ when it disappoints?
I’ve seen a shitload of movies at the cusp of their hype, but its been years since I think I allowed myself to get carried away to the point where this hyperbolic reaction spews out.
Ive had hyperbolic reactions to other peoples handling of the hype, but really, I dont think Ive had a fanboyish “WTF MY CHILDHOOD HURR” esque rampage since Matrix 2 shat in my drink.
Posted by Goon on May 29th, 2008“some built in phobia and cynicism that actualy disallows them to have a good time, something in them that requires them to write a review in their head even while he movies running.”
I think that sums things up pretty well. I have never made a point to take notes of any sort while watching a movie. Writing a review should always be a far second to experiencing the film.
I guess that’s what happens when we start going to movies to have something to talk about on our podcasts rather than to have a good time.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2008What about when you’re going to a press screening and you’re required to review the film? You can’t rewatch it, you have to sit there trying to figure out what about the movie works, what doesn’t work, why am i interested, why am i not interested, would I have been satisfied if I had paid etc. etc.
I haven’t gone to the point of making notes, but undoubtedly when reviewing something, you have to think about it. Some films do take you for a ride anyway (the icelandic Parents did me over when I watched it).
I think in the end though, it comes down to most movies being horrible shit, and it’s wether you’re willing to make an effort to like even some of the worse ones, in order to be able to convince yourself that movies are worth spending time on. Most people don’t want to exist in a world of horrible shit, wasted time and chaotic idiocy. For somebody like me, I definitely don’t feel a need to praise something like Iron Man just because it didn’t offend me, it is a terribly boring film without meaning, literally a waste of time. The films of Stanley Kubrick and Ingmar Bergman validate the medium enough.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008And btw. I like Matrix 2 more than Matrix 1
. Cooler action.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008Henrik,
I don’t go to press screenings. I’m not important enough.
If I was a paid journalist, I suppose taking notes during the film would be one of those aspects of my job that I would dislike. Luckily, I’m not.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2008I understand Henrik, that yes, theres no alternative for actual professional critics who face deadlines and questions immediately following the feature.
but i’m just going to say thats an inherent problem with film criticism then, and maybe explains the chasm between the critical response and fan response to say, Speed Racer. SR is not goign to appeal to all audiences, however audiences HAVE accepted it at a much greater percentage than critics.
When I did more writing for this site even I found myself in the theater sometimes thinking, “well so far this is a 2.5/4″ – it certainly colored a couple film experiences. Years later and past that way of thinking I like Munich a hell of a lot more than the 1/4 I gave it then, but still dont care for Narnia
(aside re: last weeks podcast – I agree with Jay about the Narnia christian bashing thing. However I simply disiked Narnia because once all of the kids get into Narnia I just found it got boring, and the brighter more colorful areas of Narnia didnt do much for me visually either)
Posted by Goon on May 29th, 2008furthermore as to ‘not thinking while watching X’ – Im not trying to defend it as a requirement for watching certain movies, I’m merely stating that I wont be browbeaten for being able to be swept away and enjoy the ‘on rails’ feeling of Cloverfield. Some films make no direct attempt to challenge you to anything other than smiling and laughing. I think some people expect everything to make them think, and that something is worthless if it doesn’t. I don’t gibe well with people who put themselves so high on a pedestal that they wont allow themselves to experience things on such a “commoner” level.
Posted by Goon on May 29th, 2008“I think some people expect everything to make them think, and that something is worthless if it doesn’t. I don’t gibe well with people who put themselves so high on a pedestal that they wont allow themselves to experience things on such a “commoner†level.”
That’s another reason I dislike the word ‘pandering’. It gives the assumption that the person using it is mentally above those who are getting enjoyment out of the lowly entertainment they’re criticizing.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2008I was mad at Kurt when he used that word to critique ‘Lars and the Real Girl’ – if its a accurate reason to describe why he didnt like it, so be it…
however considering in LATRG the absurd nature of the plot, how a single degree in either direction makes it a Farrelly movie or a TV movie of the week, a word like that is something I find a bit demeaning, undermining just how difficult it is to make a premise like that succeed at all.
Posted by Goon on May 29th, 2008“I don’t gibe well with people who put themselves so high on a pedestal that they wont allow themselves to experience things on such a “commoner†level.”
No matter how you might think, I assure you that I have no qualms with enjoying anything. I simply don’t. When I watched Iron Man I was not enjoying it, it was like watching a child placing square plastic into square holes. I think it’s more a case of refusing to be unhappy with things that cause people to not rally against stuff like Iron Man. An attitude of not wanting to be a downer, trying your best not to get on a high horse, realizing that this is the best that one is going to get, and one might as well enjoy it other than walking around being miserable all the time.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008Jesus Christ, Goon, again, I am the last person to indict for writing a review in his head while watching a film! Not only have I bashed academic posturing in the endless debates I have had with you but I have quoted directly from my mission statement post about this sort of thing before as well, and will link again here:
http://www.thepaganagenda.com/2007/08/18/the-filmosophy-manifesto/
the first paragraph: “It has been a long held suspicion of mine that bad film criticism is a product of filmgoers who are themselves habitually poor listeners. By this I cast no aspersions upon those who for whatever reason neglect to recognize subtext in the films they watch, rather it is upon those who fanatically pursue the subtext as a pre-established end that I direct my observation. Like interlocutors who chronically employ faulty reasoning because they anticipate the other’s argument as a fixed counterpoint to their own, waiting to speak and be heard, a bad listener in a film-going context is one who impatiently undermines the significance of the cinematic experience by reducing its value to pre-established schemata relationships which elements of the film must either adhere to or deviate from. I would much prefer the inarticulate ‘it sucks’ analysis to the sort of posturing of value that is made when, for example, the significance of a film is reduced to how it fits into the director’s oeuvre, presupposing the merit of auteur theory. This preoccupation with context beyond the limits of the frame to the detriment of perceiving the film’s intrinsic quality is a rampant and dismaying epidemic of lazy criticism.”
can the record show that this is my position before I am once again pigeon-holed as something else.
I went into Indy 4 with NO agenda. I observed the film which in its own thinking is conscious of the three previous films… hell at times it seems merely to be a parody of them… my cues are in the film not as abstractions but as events that link together… I understand this want of not thinking at all, to me that is the only way one can enjoy this film, but you know for most people with narrative cinema one is thinking about events in relation to others and how each scene is supposed to carry forward… I suppose if the monkeys started talking I should just accept that too, don’t think about it… but that would be a transgression of the implicit rules of the Indy universe… in Narnia that would be fine… to rebuke people for their concerns of nostalgia with the film is ridiculous, the film is saturating itself in nostalgia, it is a bunch of set-pieces that exist solely to be nostalgic about it!
but right lets close the mind off, lets let colours and sounds wash over us, lets not think about the relationship of characters and dialogue drops, and plot points and how they relate to something WITHIN the plot (NOT in an academic sense). Do you see the difference between that? Show me where in my criticisms of Indy 4 I have spoke of my concerns of it failing to live up to some academic ideal.
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/28/purported-ufo-video-be-shown-friday/ – with Indy’s ending, I just wanted to throw this out there:
“I think it’s more a case of refusing to be unhappy with things that cause people to not rally against stuff like Iron Man.”
I’ll agree that herd mentalities about a film exist in both directions. I mean if we’re going to argue that it happens against Indy, or Spiderman 3, that it can happen the other way. I think ‘refusing to be unhappy’ did indeed effect Transformers fans.
But I hope you’ll also agree that people out there do actually also refuse to be happy. There are those that willingly throw down money only for the right to bitch and complain, or are so cynical in advance for a release that they back themself into a position where they are lookng for things to complain about, desperate to not be proven wrong.
I’m sure ive been guilty of this somewhere. I had a hate-on for Johnny Depp for a number of years, and I had to grit my teeth after liking Sweeney Todd and admit I’d been unfair. To a lesser degree, after Indy 4 I’m going to have to be nicer to Shia.
Posted by Goon on May 29th, 2008To assume Indy 4 is supposed to be enjoyed in a vacuum, that is has no relation to what came before it ( stylistically, thematically, narratively) and that images are never used to implicitly draw associations with other images (i.e. genre archetypes) is a gross fabrication of how anyone encounters Indy 4. One does not need to bring some extraneous baggage to the film, these associations are not even implicit in the film, they slam you over the head… this is the same Indy universe but poorly done.
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008I’m sure people like that exist. There is usually something to be gained from their dishonest reaction though, in one way or another.
If you hated Johnny Depp, it’s probably because you thought he was shit, and when he did something you didn’t think was shit anymore you changed your mind. I hardly think this qualifies as dishonesty mate. Obviously things change, both in you and in Johnny Depp. It’s only the names that stay the same.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008no… seeing Sweeney Todd I was able to better unlock, recognize and seperate the things I like about him from the things I don’t. I think I’d painted almost all Depp performances with the same brush, and in that sense, i was unfair, and in fact was avoiding certain Depp films simply because he was in them that I might otherwise have watched (ie Finding Neverland)
Posted by Goon on May 29th, 2008Even if you want to say the film sets its own tone, I would argue that tone is still the same kind of Indy universe, and the tone is set in the very first scene… I can by-pass any relationship to what existed before by focusing solely on INDY 4, but it makes more sense in relation to the other films because the film operates entirely self-conscious of the other films. To deny these prompts is insane. I guess it was purely coincidental that Shia choose a snake?
See the argument that people are being too nostalgic rings false because the film is nostalgic and is setting itself up for obvious comparison. If the goal was to live in a different universe of B-movie pulp then it did a poor job of achieving that because it still had one foot in the old universe, and ended up being a mess.
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008I’ve always felt myself lucky in that I’m able to enjoy the whole spectrum of films, from indie/arthouse/foreign to blockbusters. I’m interested in popular culture, so I’m always keen to see the latest blockbuster, and hopefully enjoy it. I watched Fantastic Four 2 (Silver Surfer) the other day and actually kind of liked it, and thought it’s a shame there won’t be more.
I’m not into herd mentalities. Saying “this is the worst film of the last ten years” or retarded. But if you don’t think the film is very good, and you can back it up, then I think you are duty bound to say so, and be honest. Like the Row Three review, which I’ve now listened to and agree with laregly. I also enjoyed Jay’s review…he made a lot of excellent points, but overall I find myself not agreeing with him on this particular film. Which is fine obviously!
I’d compare the Indy Franchise to a band you love that over time gets old and grows crap (and this happens to 98% in the end). This analogy sticks more than in some other cases of francises, because the same director, story writer, producer, and star remain through the four films.
When a band go crap, you can either:
a) pretend you like the new stuff as much as the old stuff, even though at heart you know it isn’t (I could never do this personally).
b) acknowledge that the new stuff is not as good, but still get what you can from it, and still cherish the old stuff.
c) have a big tantrum, burn all the old CDs, and swear at the artist concerned for selling out.
We’ve seen all three reactions to Indy 4. Incidently, I’d put both Jay and the Row Three guys in category b, as they were both objective and honest about the film in their reviews (in their own way).
I’m not a particular Paul McCartney fan, but I would say that to me Raiders is like Beatles era McCartney, Doom and Crusade are like Wings era McCartney, and Skulls is like Eighties/Nineties McCartney. I would never argue that McCartney is still as good, and neither would I argue that the new Indy film is as good. It ain’t.
Posted by Liney on May 29th, 2008or d) admit to not liking it at all without a tantrum.
I’m amazed at the resistance from this option by people. The gull of finding nothing redeemable in a film and not attributing it to fanboy hysteria, or academic posturing… imagine that.
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008“The gull of finding nothing redeemable in a film and not attributing it to fanboy hysteria, or academic posturing… imagine that.”
having flixster and seing one sentence reviews about having their childhood being raped, oh please forgive me mr. man for drawing such a conclusion.
Posted by Goon on May 29th, 2008Flixster is hardly a place to go for intellectual discussion. Even if intellectualism doesn’t exist in your vocabulary and you find everything as nothing but boasting, maybe you should consider that there might be a difference between the Flixstermob, and people like rot. It would seem only fair, to not associate his comments with a mob he may not even be aware of.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008So Jay there is a hang-up with the word pandering because it has elitist undertones… then what word fits the description when a film behaves a certain way because it knows it can elicit a response from the viewer even if this behavior is out of sync with the mandates of the story? I believe that is what Kurt means by ‘pandering’ and that is certainly how I use it.
an example of pandering would be to have soap-operatic music underscoring a dramatic scene. Its telling you what to feel and this is jarring and explicitly pandering when the response is not earned from the storytelling.
I think Indy 4 panders at times but that to me is the least of its faults.
@Goon
just leave me out of your theories of why someone would find nothing valuable to the experience of Indy 4, I’m not delirious, my childhood was not raped, I’m not writing a review in my head, not imposing schemata relationships between things learned in school onto Indy and then discerning its value. My criticisms come directly from the way Indy 4 thinks of itself, its there in the way it tells its story, and in the way it alludes to the past.
Posted by rot on May 29th, 20081. I realize what Kurt means when he says ‘pandering’. I just think the word has connotations that can be misread.
“then what word fits the description when a film behaves a certain way because it knows it can elicit a response from the viewer even if this behavior is out of sync with the mandates of the story?”
You guys can use the word pander all you want. I just think it’s a term that can be somewhat vague and can actually be applied to more films than none.
Based on your definition, I felt Funny Games pandered. Kurt doesn’t think it pandered.
He think Lars pandered…but in that context, how was the emotional response from the audience out of sync with the mandate of THAT story?
It just seems like a term that raises more questions than it answers. That’s my problem with it. It’s used both as a crutch and a positive. It’s too ambiguous.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2008Lets call LATRG extremely obvious then. It doesn’t encourage the audience to up make their own minds, it just wants them to be engaged emotionally on its terms, not on their own.
I don’t feel that all movies do this, most classical narrative cinema is trying to engage an audience and try and get them to follow the ideas and sensibilites of the filmmaker (Alfred Hitchcock is the prime example of this attitude, “no questions allowed please!”, but he at least several times employed genuinely interesting filmmaking and earned his audiences interest through innovative filmmaking), but some movies aren’t as concerned with this. Some films strive for portraying realism, some are concerned with philosophy, others playing with the medium for playings sake. The classical narrative is working just fine to get mass audiences in the cinema, but unless it’s backed by real innovation, it’s boring. It’s been done. Some films survive because they have awesome set pieces, but even this is dying out because with CGI nothing is that impressive. I mean I get more thrills watching ‘John Wayne’ jumping from horse to horse in Stagecoach than watching Iron Man fly with fighter jets. Without the thrill, the set piece is pointless. And with no innovative filmmaking, and no thrilling set pieces, the movie is a waste of time.
LATRG is not realistic, it gives off a feel or vibe of being some sort of bedtime stories for teenage girls. I can’t imagine why you would buy into the story. I guess human beings have always been easy to lure with a feeling of security and pleasant safety, but do you really want to be lied to this blatantly? I sure don’t.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008“LATRG is not realistic, it gives off a feel or vibe of being some sort of bedtime stories for teenage girls. I can’t imagine why you would buy into the story. I guess human beings have always been easy to lure with a feeling of security and pleasant safety, but do you really want to be lied to this blatantly? I sure don’t.”
HAHAHHAHAH This reads like a Sprockets SNL sketch. Great job.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2008Unfortunately I don’t know the reference, so I’m innocent – though I’m sure you meant to insult.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008It’s an insult only with the kindest of intentions.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2008Kind of like all the gay jokes in Chuck & Larry and the fat jokes in Shallow Hal.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008“HAHAHHAHAH This reads like a Sprockets SNL sketch. Great job.”
This is just hitting you now? I’ve noticed this about Henrik a loooong time ago.
“See the argument that people are being too nostalgic rings false because the film is nostalgic and is setting itself up for obvious comparison.”
A statement like this is bullshit to me. so simply because its going to be compared to the other films, it can’t be judged as its own seperate film? The film is nostalgic? I hardly think so, I mean it hardly relies on references as a crutch whatsoever. It pretty much is a new adventure, through and through. They don’t trot out in jokes or drag out old character after old character, which ironically the Star Wars prequels were raked over the coals for.
If Richard Donner made a new Superman movie that continues among the original films (as Singer more or less is doing), is he required to be stingy with CGI, keep the actors around the same age as Reeve and his cast, and make Luthor more bumbling and jokey? I can’t wrap my head around this “Indy Universe” argument.
If there had been an Indy movie every 3 to 5 years since “Last Crusade” I am certain it would be gradually getting as slick and modern as Indy 4 looks. I was completely un-shocked at what I was seeing on screen. It was if there had been a couple Indiana Jones movies already over the years, and I had simply missed them. I have to think part of this reaction is againt Spielberg/Kaminski’s modern filmmaking techniques being carried over into the Indy films. Spielberg trying to mimic a 20-25 year old style to please fanboys? Now THAT would be pandering, now THAT would be the film being nostalgic.
I think Speilberg challenged people to see a modern Indiana Jones movie, and people are just plain…
…not up to the challenge. There, its out there. People who said they were unchallenged by Iron Man? I think SOME of you are so wrapped up in other films that you just can’t do it. Some don’t want to see ANY modern Indy film, regardless of how many or few monkeys and groundhogs populate it. They want an Indy movie with a Harrison Ford, Spielberg, Lucas and restricted effects budget that doesn’t exist. Indy grew up but they can’t.
The gap between movies I think is messing with your brains. I have no idea who the hell thought there’d really be restrained CGI, or that a 65 year old Harrison Ford wouldn’t need to surround himself with more characters. I have no idea how anyone can say anything is over the top or unreasoned.
Posted by Goon on May 29th, 2008@Jay
Fair enough, most words have passive connotations that are problematic.
I can see what you are saying about Funny Games, but I think the asides are earned, I mean so long as the thoughts they are accusing you of are in fact running through your mind, all they are doing is making an obvious point about it. If you had no sense of exhilaration of watching violence then yeah their remarks would feel forced, like they are trying to hit home the point of the film and not allowing you to feel it on your own terms.
Never saw Lars. but I would also say, and this is in agreement with you and Goon, that each film sets it own tone, its own implicit rules (a Narnia universe is different from a Indiana Jones universe) so there is no universal rule and if we are to talk about failures in a film we need to talk about those failures that are ostensive to what is inside that particular universe. My case with Indy 4 is it is entirely thinking about past sequels, the ire of fanboy nostalgia is legitimized because the film is thinking about its relationship to the nostalgic Indiana.
If Lars operates in a Frank Capra universe then it likely has no pandering, in that I do not think it would be out of sync with the mandates of the kind of story it is telling. That said someone could still say it works fine for what it wants to do but I want nothing of it. My opinions about Indy 4 are not about how I feel about the Indy universe, I love mindless action adventure, I love Raiders, I am saying quite emphatically the film as it ‘thinks’ its particular story along is ill-conceived and ill-executed and flounders between shoe-horned plot points in an unnatural way that has all the outer signs of an Indiana film without any of the charm, imagination, or suspense.
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008@Goon
” I can’t wrap my head around this “Indy Universe†argument.”
can’t get your head around the idea that a franchise like Indiana Jones has its own self-imposed parameters to its storytelling? or the particulars of it?
We can quibble over particulars, but I think I can fairly easily convince you that there is some sort of unwritten rules… what if the monkeys started to talk in the film, what would you think? What if there was a cartoony aspect, that Indiana fell off a perilous cliff hit the ground and bounced back up? What if Indiana hurt himself and spent half the film in a wheelchair? What if the film ended in a long drawn out courtroom case to resolve the issue of some important artifact?
These things do not happen in an Indiana film because the tone and the way every frame of the film thinks of the characters in the situation has a particular worldview in mind. Woody Allen made a whole film out of this conceit, the Jade Scorpion I think it was called where a character from a 50’s harlequin film steps into the real world and tries to co-exist in our world. Obviously there are implicit rules to how Indiana works in a film, you can close your mind to this all you want.
Next is to look at what the film is thinking about in each frame, what it says about the world the characters inhabit. This ‘thinking’ in Indy 4 truly feels like something arranged by committee vote, a patchwork of unrelated thoughts, a world of ‘cool’ shots and scenarios which dictate everything else, characters and plot mere details to the next storyboard. I guess if this was one of those Hardy Boys teen novelizations, that would be okay but the film harkens back to REAL relationships and storylines that existed in the other films, Indy and his father, Indy and Marion, and you cannot help but notice the parody everything has become.
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008Regarding the use of CG:
I’m all for seeing a film attempt an old school approach. I’m just not surprised that film wasn’t Indy 4, simply because I think it would’ve alienated a lot of people. Especially the younger crowds. I’m talking those who want Transformers and Iron Man level effects, not sets and matte paintings. It’s a tough balance, trying to stay true to the spirit of the originals while still making a film that appeals to a new generation.
Having said that, according to Indy 4’s wikipedia page, ther were a total of 450 effects shots. This includes the use of CG matte paitings and the removal of wires and what not in stunt work. What about some other recent blockbusters?:
Speed Racer – over 2000 (Time)
POTC 3 – 1050 (Wikipedia)
King Kong – 2500 (IMDB)
Star Wars Episode 3 – 2200 (IMDB)
Batman Begins – almost 600 (www.theasc.com)
Harry Potter 5 – over 1400 (Wikipedia)
Zodiac – 380! (www.editorsguild.com)
I was most surprised by Indy 4’s numbers being lower than Batman Begins. And it only has 70 more effects shots than Zodiac! Pretty good for an blockbuster adventure film.
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2008People obviously are disappointed if Indy 4 didn’t ‘get them going’ because they ‘get going’ by the first movies. The question there is wether or not they ‘got going’ because they were stupid kids, or wether it really is the filmmaking that gets them. I would definitely argue the former, and any sense of adventure now is deeply linked with the experience of watching it as a stupid kid. BUT, it wasn’t CGI and this is. So that’s the obvious place to yell at the new one for not ‘getting us going!’ like it used to.
I generally think CGI is a hinderance in ‘getting me going’. I prefer CGI when its used to paint something beautiful and create a sublime image, like the new Star Wars movies did with all the different worlds, or the way Speed Racer seems to fill up the screen. Very rarely has a CGI action sequence ever meant anything to me. Jurrasic Park would be an example, even though it was mix’n'match, but I also saw that when I was a child, so it’s hardly an objective analysis. Usually when I see CGI action scenes like in Lord of the Rings it’s completely boring and ridiculous and it just ends up reminding me of The Mummy Returns where it’s meant to be a joke. The Matrix 2 would be an example that worked for me I guess. I do think there is some great action in that.
But I can’t help but go back to how awesome set pieces like the airplane in North by Northwest, the Stagecoach attack in Stagecoach, the trainride and the river in Our Hospitality, and the killing of the child in Jaws are.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008You might not know me, but I am a fellow blogger who liked Indiana Jones too. Solidarity!
My thoughts are here if you want to read them: http://www.toybender.com/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull-my-thoughts/
Posted by Paul on May 29th, 20081st off, it really sucks that my work blocks filmjunk’s IP address (this seems to be a recent thing) because I came to this very delicious conversation very late.
@Pandering, in its simplest definition (for me) is any film that takes the ‘easy way out’ by not challenging the filmmakers or audience in some way (a good way, not a bad way) – I think at least the first two Indiana Jones challenged their audiences in a good way, by stringing together highly detailed and superb action sequences, that paid hommage to the old serials, but also updating things to modern filmmaking techniques and barrier pushing. Now, you might say that Indy 4 attempts to update Indy to modern filmmaking with CGI and shorter attention spans and such…maybe, but the whole affair stinks of laziness in the approach and in story telling. That, for me is a deal-breaker for the film.
@ CGI, I was surprised that 450 effects shots is considered low, but breaking David Fincher (a man who is famous for constructive and elaborate (but well integrated) effects is perhaps the wrong example, even If Zodiac was a bit of a departure from something like Panic Room.) Pirates of the Carribean is a better comparison, but I’d actually be more curious to see the number of effects shots in Tomb Raider 1, Tomb Raider 2, National Treasure 1, National Treasure 2 and The Mummy 1-3 for comparison, after all, these are the Indy imitator films.
Good conversations all around. Nice to see such mature discussion regarding this sort of thing.
Posted by kurt on May 29th, 2008@Henrik – a fellow Matrix: Reloaded fan. I also happen to think that the elaborate set-piece in the middle of the second Matrix is simply fantastic. Also, I liked all the programming metaphors made visual in the film, especially the architect, oracle, and keymaker, the back-doors, etc. my favourite of the three matrix films.
@modern action sequences that ‘get me going’ – the car chase in Death Proof, The original rooftop chase and the girl-on-girl in the weapons room in Crouching tiger, the chase through the imagination sequences in Paprika, the opening sequence in NARC, the chicken in City of God, Robert Carlyle fleeing the zombie hordes in 28 Weeks Later, the last 15 minutes of [*REC], the bridge sequence in Cloverfield, the last 10 minutes of The Blair Witch Project, pretty much any action sequence in Children of Men, the ‘faceless man and buffet’ in Pan’s Labyrinth, the last 15 minutes (and self discovery, an internal action sequence) in The Fountain, Much of Ong Bak, Tom Yum Goong and Born to Fight (despite all three of those thai action films being quite over-the-top-silly) scattered moments in A L’interieur, Vacancy, P2, Ils and High Tension, and lastly the infamous ‘bathroom fight’ in Eastern Promises.
Yea, there is a lot of good stuff out there, none of it having to do with Indiana Jones. The first two films (and much of the third) do still work with me, both as a cinemaphile and a ‘former dumb kid’, but mostly the former, those first two Indy films are very, very well put together. The 4th one, most definitely not.
Posted by kurt on May 29th, 2008I’m definitely with you on Death Proof, even though I do think the end chase goes on a little too long and becomes boring at parts, it still has mindblowing parts (much better in the cinema as well), and the first set-piece is astounding.
I’m definitely NOT with you on Children of Men though. For me, this was too tricky and CGI’ed to get me going.
But please, lay off the pedagogy. We don’t need to be told by you that we’re doing a good job with our conversations, I know you’re around kids every day so I’ll cut you some slack, but it’s enough that you do it on your pseudo-own website rowthree.com, we don’t need it here as well mate.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008It’s tough finding effects shot numbers because in many cases, the effects are split among different companies. This is all I can find at the moment:
National Treasure – 500 (www.digitalartsonline.co.uk)
The Mummy “Tomb of the Dragon Emperor – 800 (www.robcohenthemummy.com/2007/12/)
Posted by Jay C. on May 29th, 2008Thus proving to me that Indy 4 is effects wise equivalent to the modern incarnation of ‘adventure movies’ which also indicates that Spielberg and co. reneged on the promise repeated in the media by them of doing this one ‘old school’.
It certainly shifted expectations for the film…
I honestly believe though in 10 years, after the dust has settled, people are going to consider Indy 4 as the odd-man out and worst of the litter, barely even worth mentioning in the same sentence as the originals. My thoughts anyway.
Posted by Kurt on May 29th, 2008@Henrik, I certainly don’t think it’s a crime to pay compliments to a movie conversation forum that is informed enough not to devolve into a flame war, and people go out of their way to formulate and express the complexity of their thoughts.
Seriously Dude, that is something to be fucking celebrated, and I’m going to let the moderators (even if I’m one of them at RowThree) know that I really appreciate it.
I can’t believe that this bothers you.
To each their own, is this another cultural thing. I’ll say clearly that ‘to needlessly pat oneself and ones friends on the back’ is very much in the Canadian Psyche, and to make self deprecating comments afterwards which both takes a piss at things, yet also underscores the former is also very Canadian.
It’s how were raised here; well most of us.
Posted by Kurt on May 29th, 2008It seems that you’re on some sort of pediestal where you’re either approving or disapproving of debates. We’re all thinking beings here, and if people disagree with me on this feel free to say so, but I think we would all like to be treated as thinking beings untill we prove otherwise.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008Yes but the CGI that is used is painfully obvious and flat. Henrik brought up Jurassic Park and that is a good example, seeing as this, for me, is a successful blockbuster, but also one that Spielberg worked on, and think of the mastery of the first T-Rex scene. Think of how unobtrusive that CGI was but also how it was threaded out…there was a real vehicle that had weight… the jeeps in the jungle never seem to have any sense of weight they are just part of the wash of colour. Different films sure, but there was a natural build-up to the T-Rex sequence that nothing in Indy 4 has… I believe Kurt made a similar point in the cinecast about how uncontrolled the jungle set-piece is, how it does not adhere to the Spielbergian tendency to … for lack of a better word… thread out the action/suspense. Indy 4 has Star Wars prequel overload to the jeep scene, nearly Transformers-level clutter/silliness. And its not just the jeep scene but everything, and if it is not execution, its that the scene is thematically, narratively pointless/inadequate. Acting, CGI, story progression, editing, disrespect to that which it is being nostalgic about, it really is a perfect storm of ineptitude from where I stand.
So it is genuine surprise that other people do like it and like it a lot. People can say with a straight face that, for example, Harrison Ford was just like the old Indy, or the spirit is the same. No hyperbole, just true astonishment.
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008Henrik I have no idea what you are talking about… so nobody can say something positive about a debate that is going on ?!
Posted by rot on May 29th, 2008I guess it’s the word ‘mature’ in his praise that makes it sound like pedagogy for me.
Posted by Henrik on May 29th, 2008No Henrik, I call Hubris!
Posted by Kurt on May 29th, 2008The thing most people seem to forget about Jurassic Park is that there is only about 6 minutes of CGI in the whole film. The rest is all physical effects by Stan Winston.
Posted by swarez on May 30th, 2008And look how amazing it turned out.
Posted by Henrik on May 30th, 2008Going on the purely execution criticism of the Indy 4 (again my problems with the film are not limited to this)
There is a lack of architechtonic sense of space and geography in the jeep scene that Spielberg usually is a master of. The threading out of visual cues and the gradual development of increasing peril were not adequately pronounced. It was very much like a cartoon where background is zooming past in constant repetition and there is some immediate action going on, and none of the simultaneous action sequences felt well orchestrated in themselves, but also they didn’t flow together in a way that was inventive or exciting or escalating. It was just silly, bouncing from vehicle to vehicle, no stakes, no danger, perhaps a nod to Buster Keaton, in which case I think it was a poor decision because that was the signature set-piece action sequence and it was too frivilous… not to say you cannot have comedy but in moderation. If you compare to the tank set-piece in Crusade or the Truck set-piece in Raiders you will see the difference, there is a delicate balance of comedy and peril in them that is never achieved in Skull.
Posted by rot on May 30th, 2008Internet forum posters are notorious for their overuse of hyperbole. I disregard most of what I read.
Except on this site, of course.
Posted by Jon Rocks on May 30th, 2008Man, I just thought the scene was a greaser sword fighting with a Communist.
Posted by Paul on June 3rd, 2008I just saw the movie, and i liked it, it’s a history movie, thats why people don’t understand it, it was around the time, with aliens and what not, the whole Red scare, i loved it, but then again, im a hostory buff lol
Posted by RJ on October 20th, 2008Leave a Reply