Indiana Jones IV

[Fly4victory]

I purposely stayed out of this tread and didn't read any reviews until I saw it today.

Hate to say but it was not an Indiana Jones movie but a Sci-Fi movie with Indiana Jones. Didn't even have the structure of the first three movies.

While Harrison Ford was great to see as Indy. The video games and novels had a better plot with more suspense.

Sadly all the best scenes were in the previews.

"Indiana Jones and the Lame Seagull"

AKA an albatross.

[transfan52]

You see people the problem is that with a movie like indy being hyped as much as it was and the ammount of rumors about it in production for years, people have come to expect the impossible... and that is lucas actually making a film like he did back in the late 70's and mid 80's...

Its just not gonna happen anymore... I seriously think ppl expect too much of the man... ever since he adopted those kids he has kiddiefied all the movies hes ever made and sanitized them so that the kiddies wouldnt be scarred for life. He did that with the star wars prequels and it comes out the most in episode 1 and he did that with indy with all the cheesy witty dialogue and animal scenes, sanitzed violence etc...

That doesnt mean that their bad movies per say... but theyre never gonna be like the classics we know of today. But lately I feel very few movies live up to their hype these days... especially modern ones... but overall the special effects make up for it and dissapointing movies can still be memorable at least.

[promethuem5]

I'm not really understanding the bile here... it wans't a particularly watertight plot, but in general it was a good clean fun action romp, which is what I think it set out to accomplish.

[Roy Focker]

You what the main problem the movie was?

Indiana Jones was in in. The audience expects certain things from a Indiana Jones film.

[Radd]

You what the main problem the movie was?

Indiana Jones was in in. The audience expects certain things from a Indiana Jones film.

You're drunk!

[kensei]

Hate to say but it was not an Indiana Jones movie but a Sci-Fi movie with Indiana Jones. Didn't even have the structure of the first three movies.

Great summary.

[transfan52]

You what the main problem the movie was?

Indiana Jones was in in. The audience expects certain things from a Indiana Jones film.

LMAO I didnt get this post either.

[Fly4victory]

Problems with the movie without discussing the plot.

1. The first three movies and Young Indiana Jones were filmed around the world. Not only did you see historic places... there was a sense of wonder when a historic site was incorporated with the fiction of Indiana Jones. Copan in Honduras, one of the three Mayan cities in Belize, or the ruins in Guatemala could have been used in Crystal Skull.

Yes the opening of Raiders was filmed in Hawaii and the temple was a sound stage but the end of Crusade was the combination of a historic site and fictional stage setting.

2. The opening of the first three movies had a mini-adventure and a separate treasure, fertility idol, remains of the first Emperor of China/diamond, Cross of Coronado. OK so it is close to the plot but highlights the departure for the structure of an Indiana Jones movie.

3. The truck crash and explosion and destruction of the Well of Souls were real stunts. Sadly there were digital effects in Crusade but after all these years the effects in Crystal Skull are still fake and look it.

4. Understanding the desires of the Producer and Director are important. Steven Spielberg wanted to make a musical so the title sequence for Temple of Doom was a musical but not the entire movie. 1950's were Sci-Fi and that was Lucas' thought here but should not have been at the expense of the movie. Again close to plot.

I had just finished viewing Masks of Evil the night before. There isn't a worst example of Young Indiana Jones than Indy vs Dracula so watching the movie should have been an enjoyment and parts.

When were can cover plot without the shadow boxes we can discuss how the movie was "too American" when compared to the first three.

[lord_breetai]

well still havn't seen the movie but my friend's store got the toys in... and I have to say I am disapointed since they're 3.75 inches and made by Hasbro, I thought some of them would be great figs to throw in with MY GI joes (like having the russian soldiers and stuff) but I have to say they seem really poor quality. if anything they remind me of of 70s Star Wars toys... hmm... really disapointing.

[eriku]

I think most of the Indy figures actually look really good and are at least on the level of current Star Wars figures. Even the worst one, Marion, isn't anywhere near the basic soft sculpt and rigid pose of vintage SW figures.

My only criticism of the line would be: Too many Indys! I ended up getting the "old" Indy with teh skull because I thought he had the best head sculpt. Unfortunately the skull is sculpted onto the hand, but at least they had the forsight to pack an extra empty hand in with him. And if I want a loose skull it comes with one of the other figures as a crate artifact.

Edited May 28, 2008 by eriku

[Alpha OTS]

I bought two Indy's, the classic Raiders one with the gold idol, and the turbaned one with the Ark. I pretty much bought them for the artifacts. The figures themselves are just ok. The basic detail is there for the clothing and accessories, but what puts me off are the eyes. They just look all wrong. The turbaned one looks better than the classic one. The classic one has this Uma Thurman thing going on.

[Uxi]

I'm probably going to be waiting for the Blu-ray the more I think of it. I'll still spend less than I will on a trip for me and my old lady to the movies and a minimal amount of goodies. Then still have to deal with all the inconveniences of the movies, as well, from parking to the overpriced concessions to the crowd to the cell phones to the other moviegoers. And I won't be able to recoup any by selling my copy if I really hate it.

[Fly4victory]

I'm probably going to be waiting for the Blu-ray the more I think of it.

Much better plan. Especially if it is a Blue-Ray box set of all the movies.

Wonder if that will be be release this Christmas?

Edit: Are the new Indy figures same size as the Disney Theme Park figures from a few years back?

Edited May 29, 2008 by Fly4victory

[GobotFool]

I've been avoiding reading this thread, mostly because fan boy complaining tends to spoil movies for me far more than any flaws a movie might have. But a few days after seeing Indiana Jones, and thinking about it, I have to say it was a very enjoyable movie. Not as good as Crusade and certainly in no way near the greatness of Raiders, but more much more likable than Doom.

I do have to throw in my support for those who have no problem with the pseudo-sci-fi element of the story. For me the psychic agents and aliens tapped perfectly into the pop-mythology that developed during that period in history. Incorporating these pseudo-scientific trends of the 1950's placed this Indiana Jones flick firmly in that era, and didn't seem particularly out of place to me. Indiana has always been a homage to the pulp fiction of the era it is set in. In the 1930's we had tons of tomb raiding adventures probably inspired by the discovery of King Tutankhamun's tomb and the all the stories of curses that surrounded it. With that in mind, it only makes sense that a Jones movie set in the 1950's would draw from the mythology that grew out of the Roswell incident and inspired so many bad UFO pulp novels and movies.

I found the dialog to be functional, and certainly a few good one liners were dropped here and there. If I had any particular problem with the dialog it was that the delivery of a few lines struck me as rather flat and awkward, as if Ford's heart just wasn't in when a few scenes were filmed. Awkwardly delivered dialog draws me out of a movie far easily more than obvious CG effects.

This movie works as an entertaining denouement to the Indiana Jones franchise, though I have a feeling that at least another movie is probably on its way.

I figure once Indiana loses an eye (as old Indy in the young Indy Chronicles, is portrayed as missing one eye) the torch will be passed, along with the hat, whip, jacket and name, to Henry Jones the Third.

Edited May 29, 2008 by GobotFool

[Fly4victory]

I figure once Indiana loses an eye (as old Indy in the young Indy Chronicles, is portrayed as missing one eye) the torch will be passed, along with the hat, whip, jacket and name, to Henry Jones the Third.

Very prophetic.

This is where I support Lucas revisionism. Since the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles were released on DVD minus "Old Indy" I hope that Lucas forgets/ignores the fact that Indy loses an eye. Yet I have read that the next Indy movie might have Harrison Ford in a supportive role rather like Jones SR from Crusade and pass the torch.

Either way, I will avoid the future movie until released, give Lucas my money, and hope for the best. The Stars Wars did improve after episode one perhaps it will be the case with the future of the Indy Franchise.

If anything we get Lego Indy and a new Video Game from Lucas Arts.

[GobotFool]

Very prophetic.

This is where I support Lucas revisionism. Since the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles were released on DVD minus "Old Indy" I hope that Lucas forgets/ignores the fact that Indy loses an eye. Yet I have read that the next Indy movie might have Harrison Ford in a supportive role rather like Jones SR from Crusade and pass the torch.

I actually would like to see Indiana loose an eye. *ducks to avoid several heavy objects thrown his way* For me it would clearly mark the point when age along with a permanent injury caught up with him and forced him to hang up his whip and hat. While part of me wants Lucas and Spielberg to stop messing with Indiana Jones. If they must make more I'd like to see two more with Ford as good old Indiana Jones, with the torch being passed in the 3rd installment. And please Mr. Lucas and Mr. Spielberg if you must, no cliffhanger middle movie. Make em all stand alone adventures.

While I didn't mind Lebouf as Indy's kid, Mutt, I just can't imagine him as Indiana Jones Jr. He doesn't have any of Ford's ruggedness, no matter how hard they tried to imbue him with it by making him a greaser. On him, the jacket and hat will just look weird to me. Instead of seeing my favorite rugged tomb raider, it'll be more like looking at a Halloween party picture of a thin pasty college student pretending to be Indiana Jones.

For me the only question that really remains what can Indiana Jones chase down next. A friend and I listed, Atlantis, or some kind of Egyptian artifact if they wanted to continue with the alien pop-mythology angle. Or if they choose to return to the borrowing from more traditional mythology I think maybe hunting down Noah's Ark or Excalibur might work.

Edited May 29, 2008 by GobotFool

[promethuem5]

Plus Mutt is played by Shia LeBouff, so we REALLY don't want to see him get his own movie out of this...

To be fair tho, Shia's acting in Indy was MUCH better than that of Transformers, and if this had been his debut movie, I wouldn't hate him with the heat of a thousand suns... but as it stands, he killed Transformers with his sucking, so he sucks.

[JsARCLIGHT]

The only "problem" I have with continuing the franchise with Shia as Muttdiana Jones Junior Junior is that "time wise" the series is entering the modern era. By the time Mutt is "old enough" to be an archaeologist adventurer like his daddy it will be the mid '60s. I could be alone in this but the whole allure and magic of the Indy movies are that they take place in the bygone era of "high adventure", the 30s. Back when the world was seemingly "innocent" and there were "easily defined" bad guys and good guys. Part of the "feel" of this movie that bothers me is that it takes place post WW2 in the era of paranoia. Following this era is the era of rebellion and protest, then disco, then Reaganomics.

Can anyone here take Muttdiana Jones seriously if he's searching for the lost city of Atlantis in 1970, wearing a tan pleather double knit leisure jacket and a cubs baseball hat with a whiny hippie chick as his tagalong gal racing against the clock and the Vietcong? Yeeeeaaaaaaahhhh... no thanks.

[eriku]

Well, that's why they're going to have Muttdiana Jones Junior Junior stumble across an interdimensional time portal in Atlantis where he gets transported to 1919. And since it's in a different dimension he conveniently doesn't run into his father. Either that or through some wacky slip up in the physicis of interdimensional travel he turns out to be Dr. Jones Sr. and thus the father of his own father. Whoaaaaa!!!

[JsARCLIGHT]

Only for us to discover that the "Indiana Jones Magic" is really just bacteria in his bloodstream and that in the past Muttdiana Jones was the one who originally put that golden Hovitos idol in the trap cave... before building Sallah in his spare time in Marion's garage.

[eriku]

I can see it now:

Sallah: "My parts are showing!"

Eeew.

[dizman]

Heres a review I thought was pretty spot on about the movie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER-CyEBjIxA (caution it includes minor spoilers).

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Hey I watched the old indy movies as a child but barely remember them. Is KOTCS a movie that I would be able to enjoy without really remembering the old ones?

[Lord of Tetris]

Hey I watched the old indy movies as a child but barely remember them. Is KOTCS a movie that I would be able to enjoy without really remembering the old ones?

The Indy movies are standalone adventures that have very little continuity carrying over from them. KOTCS will be perfectly viewable without prior Jones knowledge, although you will be missing several in-jokes and character relationships. But don't worry, it's more like James Bond, and less Godfather.

[Roy Focker]

I have theory. About life in general. People change when they have kids. Some are no longer fun because they start thinking like a concerned parents all the time. It was okay for Han to shoot first. It was okay for FBI guys to carry guns.

[Greyryder]

They should do prequels, with Daniel Craig playing a younger Henry Jones Sr. getting into all kinds of wacky adventures.

Edit: Forgot the smilies. No way, this was a serious suggestion.

Edited May 31, 2008 by Greyryder

[Alpha OTS]

I have theory. About life in general. People change when they have kids. Some are no longer fun because they start thinking like a concerned parents all the time. It was okay for Han to shoot first. It was okay for FBI guys to carry guns.

IIRC, George's kid was involved in the selection of Jar Jar's voice.

[promethuem5]

Indiana Jones and the Lost Contra Money?

Seriously, I do completely understand the wariness to shift time-eras for the movies... I think the Commie-scare of soon after the war is really as far as they should go, or at least as far as would still make fun movies... that was a big part of my point about why I enjoyed the movie; even tho it isn't full of Nazis in jackboots, it's still set in an era where you can have good old fashioned Rooksies... movies really don't get to have 'fun/clean' bad-guys like stereotypical Nazis and Commies anymore, and they're part of the Indiana Jones movie charm.

Edited June 1, 2008 by promethuem5

[Vermillion21]

Finally saw this last night and went in not expecting much. I also was aware of the alien storyline. Man, what a disappointment ... not even close to the original trilogy IMHO. They should have never made this one ...

Edited June 12, 2008 by Vermillion21

[Fly4victory]

I was reading bits of "The Making of Indiana Jones" and it seems that George Lucas had the alien idea back before "Independence Day". He was able to get Harrison Ford to agree during the filming of "The Mystery of the Blues" but with the release and success of I.D. Lucas shelved the project.

I wonder what kind of movie we would have had then because there was no character of Mutt.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

I had no problem with the aliens but I can see why people were worried.

Indiana jones is going to suffer what the castlevania games may suffer as it gets closer to modern times. The magic/wonder/mystery will have to make way for scientific things that clash with the feel of the originals. (you see dracula only appears every 100 years in that universe so each time a new game is made it gets closer to present day/future)

The similarity is that both indiana jones and the belmont family use whips, and both seem better in times where 'people were innocent' and everything was mysterious and unclear.

But seriously it's just entertainment and people get old and change. Just don't see the movie if the changes are so bad it will rape your childhood. Nobody complained that the latest james bond movie was more gritty than we are more used to from bond movies. "Aliens" was a better movie than Alien for making the aliens move more convincingly and adding more to the original idea by giving us a queen who laid eggs which wasn't in the original. Prequel trilogy star wars upped the light saber duels to a much-faster and more intense pace to make them more enjoyable to watch. Terminator 2 changed what was once a very dark movie (in the original terminator) set at nighttime in areas with very poor light and lots of shadowy areas for silent assasins to sneak stealthily and attack suddenly, ...into something set in the daytime where you could cleary see the badguy and which wasn't nearly as scary and horrific (digusting as in a robot covered in rotting flesh in the first movie) but had more loud action scenes, better stunts, special/visual fx and humour.

So yeah although this latest indy won't ever live up to the standard of the originals, not all changes/additions to old fave movie franchises turn out bad just because they don't keep the tone/feel of the originals. What they might lose in one thing they can gain in something else when they add something new on top of them to make the franchise more rich as a whole. (like the focus on magic/spiritua in the macross universe in macross 7 for example despite not having any mention of spiritua in the original. Just like there was no mention of queen aliens in the original alien movie.)

I'm just thinking that some people might see the change as a complement to the franchise that adds to it. Not a replacement for what was already put there or done before well. For instance star wars prequel trilogy's more kiddy friendly tone is similar to the kiddy friendly tone of Fellowship of the ring where it was all about hobbits and friendship and the bond between different races. As the second movie rolled on that friendship broke down, focused on humans' pride and started to get darker. By the third movie it got even darker and friends were capable of actually murdering each other possessed by evil. The changes in tone (from light to dark) may be there to reflect the growing seriousness of the the characters as they change, go through trials, and grow from those experiences; eventually being permanently altered by those events they just experienced. Just as the creators of the works themselves change and grow old and whose priorities/ideals shift.

Someone mentioned that when you become a father that means you are more responsible and more willing to censor things. The upside is that it might paint a more realistic picture of a rogue personality: that even anti-heroes are shown to have limits to what is acceptable by their personal code of conduct and can become more likeable when vulnerability is shown. Lots of people complained in the latest GTA game for example that the main character isn't really likable at all for so easily killing people despite it seeming that he is against it. (not enough internal conflict shown to be convincing?) Audiences' attitudes might have matured over time and they want some depth. Just as you might get angry that the size of hulks body is a little too big, or that the force isn't magical sounding enough, another person might want a more complex character who can change, grow up, or even question themselves like a real person, having gone through experiences that have changed them. Not have the characters be stuck the same each movie or doing the same thing over again. Sequels have to provide something new that hasn't been seen before, building upon what was provided in the previous movie.

At the end of the day its entertainment and it's a money-making machine more than art. Fans are outnumbered by the masses, and it's possible to still make a movie that is both good and different from what came before whilst also still appealing to non-fans of the franchise. (an example is how transformers offended the fanbase of transformer fans but was surprisingly easy to watch for anyone not familiar with transformers. Contrast this to the TF animated movie which is aimed squarely at children who already know the characters but would be boring for a parent to watch who knows nothing about the characters and can't appreciate it because it requires you to be familiar with the tv series. Fans vs masses. It's not so much that one is more important than another but that trying to appeal to all is the goal so that more people see it. So while Terminator is loved by the genre fan and is the original dark 80s cyberpunk vision, Terminator 2 is loved by the general movie watcher and shows a brighter and more optimistic and more realistic view of machines. That is that they are not just killing machines, but able to understand human emotion when given the chance. The sequel is more happy and less depressing than the first movie, adding a counterpoint to the original's view that the future is doomed with high technology and we must fear it only. Mass audience will like that better but it goes against the grain of the original which says technology can't be trusted and is a much darker more depressing tone but also more black and white. No room for greys like the sequel which is more sophisticated.)

Edited June 18, 2008 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[Duke Togo]

Finally saw this... not horrible but I just didn't feel the movie was about anything at all. Eh.

[bsu legato]

Finally saw this... not horrible but I just didn't feel the movie was about anything at all. Eh.

Pretty much. It's as if everybody was on auto-pilot for this one.

On the bright side, that "Complete Making Of" book rocks. Hard. If any of you have seen the "Making of Star Wars" from last year, this is pretty much the same deal. A full third of the book is devoted to Raiders, with the remainder divided up amongst the following three films. Great stuff.

[daeudi]

My daughter and I had been geeking out over IJatKotCS for months.

She's 14, and Indy has always been her favorite movie character, "evar!"

When it finally came out....

We were sitting in the theater and a few minutes after Indy stared into the skull,

she turned to me and ruefully said: "Phantom Menace."

At the climax, where the 'cgi thing' (the gray) appears, she was heard to say "And there's JarJar."

I think she's so cool

She will no longer make fun of me when I say that there were only 3 Star Wars movies.

========

God help us, the only thing of his own left to ruin is Willow.

Edit: (said because, imho, American Graffiti 2 sucked ballz.)

Edited June 21, 2008 by daeudi