Indiana Jones and the Last Lost Crystal Thread of Doom

Both Lucas and Spielberg have said they have a "genre" for INDY V. What genre would that be? I'm guessing it's 1960s spy movies.

FourDot wrote:

I can understand that KOTCS shouldn't necessarily look like those films, but whatever it's going for... it isn't there.

Yeah.

It's too digitally graded IMO, as is most stuff these days. KOTCS has this ugly blurry sepia look going on, like Lucas just pissed on it.

I saw parts of a fan edit that attempted to reverse the grading process, and it made the film look much, much better.

Is this it?

http://fanedit.org/8700/

Sharky wrote:

Is this it?

http://fanedit.org/8700/

Maybe. I'm not sure. What I saw was a work in progress.

Sharky wrote:

It's too digitally graded IMO, as is most stuff these days. KOTCS has this ugly blurry sepia look going on, like Lucas just pissed on it.

He basically did piss all over it.

Regardless of the grading (which I don't think is an inherent problem, since there's enough Eastman stuff which looks kinda bland nowadays; look at something like Salkow's Sitting Bull, for instance), I'm just not sure that Kaminski was doing the right thing. I think if they'd gone towards that sort of anonymous, flat-looking CinemaScope look that marks 50s Fox films done by Negulesco and King, they might have been onto something. Those films look bland now, but if someone tried to emulate it now, for a franchise film no less, the results might be interesting.

I think Kaminski would have actually done better in just trying to do the 30s look - what I've seen of War Horse looks closer to those late 30s/early 40s films.

As for another Indy film, so be it. The existence of one film doesn't devalue the quality of what came before for me, so have at it. The Indiana Jones record isn't as immaculate as it once was, so they can throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Actually, a film of just Indy and err... Mutt would work fine. Those parts of KOTCS were probably the best the film had to offer (and I really think that LaBoeuf was one of the few sincere and honest things about the film). It's when they start dragging along everyone's tennis partners' servants that things get ugly.

FourDot wrote:

Actually, a film of just Indy and err... Mutt would work fine. Those parts of KOTCS were probably the best the film had to offer (and I really think that LaBoeuf was one of the few sincere and honest things about the film). It's when they start dragging along everyone's tennis partners' servants that things get ugly.

Yeah. Mac could be removed from the film without affecting the story one bit, such is the extent of his uselessness. And Oxley doesn't bring anything to the table beyond some lame comedy bits, either. But the Indy and Mutt stuff, while a bit buddy-comedy for my tastes, didn't completely miss the mark. The best moments between the two of 'em had something resembling energy.

I know I'm a bit foolish for it, but I can't help but kinda want an INDY V. I've spent quite a bit of time daydreaming about an everything-including-the-kitchen-sink epic send-off for the series.

It is a bit buddy-comedy, but then Last Crusade was already that. And to a far greater extent, I'd say.

Everyone speculated that Hurt would be playing Abner Ravenwood, which would, or could have been interesting. But no. He's just there so we can have John Hurt! in the film.

I remember when Winstone was cast a friend of mine said that "Ray Winstone in a Marty Scorsese film makes sense. Ray Winstone in a Steven Spielberg film does not." Fair call, as it turns out. Completely frustrating, contributes bugger-all. Leaves you asking "Where's Sallah?"

Think Sallah's busy losing weight someplace.

FourDot wrote:

It is a bit buddy-comedy, but then Last Crusade was already that. And to a far greater extent, I'd say.

But the dynamic works much better in CRUSADE because the buddy characters of CRUSADE were better established and had more personality. The problem with KINGDOM is that we get lots of tagalong pals, but they're non-entities (including Mutt and the shell-of-her-former-self Marion).

FourDot wrote:

Everyone speculated that Hurt would be playing Abner Ravenwood, which would, or could have been interesting. But no. He's just there so we can have John Hurt! in the film.

"

I had the feeling that Hurt's role was originally conceived and written for Sean Connery's Henry Jones, and that when Lucas and Spielberg were unable to get Connery to come out of retirement, that they rewrote the role.

I'm one of the rare people who didn't mind the UFO theme serving as a backdrop to the film, but it was the combination of other factors that doomed the film for me. For example, the movie simply pushes the envelope on believable action. There wasn't anything in the previous three films that made me groan and think was completely impossible; most of the action in the first three was invigoration and adrenaline pumping. Not so with 'Skull'. It felt too often like I was watching green-screen work, even in the sequences that were actually shot on location in the Hawaiian jungle. But even that is a minor complain compared to the ridiculous, over-the-top "nuke-the-fridge" scene (which I find unforgivable). If it had just been the fridge scene I might have been able to get past it. But then we have a scene of Mutt being 2 miles behind a convoy of vehicles doing 45-60 mph, and yet by some sort of miracle, Mutt swings his way through jungle vines to catch up with the convoy Then the convoy goes over THREE long, huge waterfalls and yet not a single person falls out of the boat or has a broken or strained neck.

The location work seemed generic; one Central or South American location looked the same as the neck.

And, I'll just say it, Ford and Allen were all wrong for THESE TYPES of roles. The chemistry simply could not be matched because too much time had passed for both the characters and the viewers and the actors were simply too old to be playing romantic foils for one another. Not to say that there wasn't a place for Allen in the film, but it wasn't in the jungle or fighting off Russians. And to be fair, Ford was too old for this as well.

So where does that leave us? Not in a great place. Spielberg and Lucas don't seem to get it; they want to squirt out another one of these films with Ford (and maybe Shia LaDouche) and the audience just will not go for it. I got burned with 'Skull' and will not make that mistake again. If they want to continue the adventures of Indiana Jones beyond the last film, they've got to seriously think about recasting the role and going back to the 30's or late 20's as a period piece. Shia is not a leading man and if he's not surrounded by giant robots or Harrison Ford nobody wants to see him in anything. And Ford is too old. Recast the role. If Sean Connery can be recast, so can Harrison Ford.

And for the love of God, get someone else to write, direct, and produce these movies other than Jorge Lucas.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

I had the feeling that Hurt's role was originally conceived and written for Sean Connery's Henry Jones, and that when Lucas and Spielberg were unable to get Connery to come out of retirement, that they rewrote the role.

You'd think that, but it's pretty clear from earlier scripts that wasn't the case. In earlier versions of INDY V, Connery's Henry Jones played Jim Broadbent's role.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

But even that is a minor complain compared to the ridiculous, over-the-top "nuke-the-fridge" scene (which I find unforgivable). If it had just been the fridge scene I might have been able to get past it.

The fridge scene is the only really good moment in KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL.

Harmsway wrote:

The fridge scene is the only really good moment in KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL.

Then quite clearly your opinion of the film must be worse than mine.

I saw 'Skull' once in the theaters opening weekend. Gave it an "A-". Did not see it again until I bought it on dvd 5 or 6 months later, where I gave the film a "D". What happened between May and November of 2008? I didn't read other people's reviews, so it's not like I bought into the criticism of the film (why else would I have purchased it?). No, something more profound took place. I saw 'Skull' as it truly was; away from the excitement of opening weekend...away from the big screen and the huge sound system. Stripped away of the hype and the prestige of being in theaters and being an "event" film, I was able to watch it and analyze the film free of outside influences. What I found was a film severely lacking in most of the necessary requirements to be considered even a decent film.

That doesn't happen often. When I like a film in the theaters and buy it on dvd, I almost always still like the film. Examples: THE DARK KNIGHT, IRON MAN, CAPTAIN AMERICA...rare is the film where my opinion changes so drastically from one viewing to the next.

In conclusion, I will say this: George Lucas is a hack. A whore. An undeserving, no-good, talent-less piece of crap who was the right man, with the right idea (Star Wars), in the right place at the right time. He has essentially coasted off the success of Star Wars, and anybody who doubts me need only look at his directorial efforts with the prequels. He has nothing but contempt for his fan base, and therefore I have nothing but contempt for him. Together with Spielberg, they have raped our cinematic classics and I for one can't wait until they both have retired.

I like Armond's enthusiasm for SKULL, even if don't quite share it.

http://www.nypress.com/article-18318-another-indy-classic.html

As for Lucas? Eh, he ain't that bad. He may be The Emperor now, but this was once the guy who produced THX-1138, AMERICAN GRAFFITI and STAR WARS. That's worth something.

I'm actually in the process of rewatching Crystal Skull at the moment. Well, I was watching it last night and... turned it off in boredom.

That's its great sin - it's boring. I don't think it s***s all over the Indiana Jones universe, I don't think there's any inherent problem with aliens, and I always laugh at the fridge nuking scene. Spielberg's hand is assured, and the film actually looks more like a 50s film than I had remembered in fits and starts.

But Koepp's script is really lame. There's a sprinkling of gags that work (and they seem more like Spielberg's than anyones), but the script just lacks that wit and punch that Kasdan's script had, or any of the deranged humour that the Huyck/Katz script had. Both of which are the gold standard (for Indy, and the genre).

Basically, Koepp (and probably Lucas) seem to be more interested in hitting all the Indy tropes over the course of the journey, without A) doing anything interesting with them and B) doing them properly at all. The most glaring one being when Indy and Mutt are investigating the old tomb. That is literally all that happens. They fight some natives outside, and then... they just explore. Which is like watching paint dry - you've got to have either an external force bearing down on them, or some sort of lethal or complex trap that they manage to disengage in the nick of time, or something along those lines that keeps the suspense and adventure high.

But no. They just go through there without issue. Well, Mutt gets stung by a scorpion. But not to worry, since it's not a poisonous one.

And Spalko is just rubbish. Not Blanchett's fault - there is nothing remotely engaging about her dialogue, which is as lame as the rest of the script. Contrast any of her scenes with Indy against Indy's scene with Belloq in the cafe, and it's night and day. If they were going to do another one, the villain would really have to be something, since they're just as essential to an Indy film as they are to Bond films.

It seems to be okay up to about halfway. I find the 'clues' leading to Nazca so simple and basic that it's actually insulting to think you have to be a professor of archaeology to understand them. I don't mind the fridge that much - it's silly and in keeping - but I can't stand the fight through the jungle. There's something wrong with impossible camera angles. Where Mutt and What'sername are fighting from vehicle to vehicle - it's impossible. And it's wrongly impossible.

That probably doesn't make sense. I'll try to explain - basically, obviously there are things in any make-believe situation that are impossible. But there's a kind of internal logic to it. It might be impossible, but it's plausible. You can suspend your disbelief. But the fight on the vehicles is wrong - it's not only impossible, it's obviously impossible. The camera is swinging around in a way that gives you a view that is impossible. When Mutt is swinging through the trees, again, the camera angles are impossible. It's just wrong.

I'm probably not explaining it very well. Trust me - I do have a point. I'm just not making it very well.

Verisimilitude. The bulk of the previous Indy sequences have it.

Ah yes - that's it!

Forgive my witterings - I couldn't think of how to describe what I meant. Most remiss of me.

John Williams didn't seem to care much either, though I like the mad energy of this track.

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is far, far worse than any of the STAR WARS prequels.

Let's face it - it needed Nazis.

I wouldn't mind someone else playing Indy. I thought Dennis Quaid would make a good Indy. Or even David Duchovny. I don't think Indiana Jones is some sacred cow who must only be played by Harrison Ford.

He's tied with it now. It's too late in the game to switch actors.

Crystal Skull is better directed than any Star Wars prequel. And I'd watch it again before I ever touch Attack of the Clones again. Crystal Skull is less adventurous, but also (perhaps as a result), much less offensive than the prequels.

The Adventures of Tintin, though, wipes the floor with all of that rubbish, thankfully. I'd honestly rather Spielberg make more of those instead of more Indy.