Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[HaemishM]

Look, everyone likes to Nerd Rage about the new movies but that's because you're old and watching them.

You are wrong.

[DraconianOne]

Look, everyone likes to Nerd Rage about the new movies but that's because you're old and watching them.

No, that's not it.  That's not it at all.

[Venkman]

Look, everyone likes to Nerd Rage about the new movies but that's because you're old and watching them.

/pileon!

When I saw Attack of the Clones, I was as old as my parents were when they saw A New Hope, with me in tow. What they loved then was prequeled in what I didn't like today. I know it's easy to assume that our childhood memories being shat on is the source of the nerdrage, but you're wrong. They were bad movies glossed over with pretty good sfx. The only real nerdrage is the few dozen remasterings of the original series.

As to you other stuff, sorry, if someone asks "why" something happened, they're beyond just letting bad script mindlessly wash over them.

[WindupAtheist]

Darniaq's tastes versus those of his parents aside, I'll just point out again that the Star Wars movie most brutally critiqued upon release was... Empire Strikes Back. Sorry, but this refrain of "Shitty kids movies with stupid dialogue and crappy acting!" wasn't something unique to the prequels.

What's more, I have to laugh at the common nerdrager attitude of "George Lucas is so stupid and out of touch for not realizing how much he sucks now." When you make a bunch of movies, critics bitch that they suck, but they make you a billionaire and 30 years later everyone thinks they were great, what are you supposed to think? That your critics are valid and important?

[Ironwood]

No-one gets me.

[Venkman]

If it's part of the lore it's part of the lore. It's just a question of how much you've read it, or whether GL has retconned it  If someone disagrees with that then they are only not debating the difference between comic book lore and movie lore. Which is fine, but then they are not really nerd enough to care about this sub-topic anyway 

That your critics are valid and important?

Welcome to my feeling of every "what makes a successful MMORPG" debate since 2004.

[NowhereMan]

Wasn't that Top Secret!, that Val Kilmer flick from 84?

link for all

[Ratman_tf]

Why the fuck do those two Star Destroyers in Empire crash into each other? Were they planning on pinning the Falcon between them?

Can't immediately recall this. Was it when they were fleeing Hoth or before they suction-cupped to the back of the Star Destroyer? If it was the former, if I recall it was because the Ion Cannon knocked out their power. Which is something I never understood. If they had one of those things, why didn't they have ten of them. Then when the Empire inevitably showed up, disable everything and then take your sweet ass time lollygagging out of there.

It was after the Falcon had fled Hoth but before the asteroid field.

As for Ion Cannons, I figured the Rebels couldn't afford batteries of them. They're big and probably cost a lot of power to fire.

I just think it is in keeping with the law that all Imperial officers are British and stupid.

Pretty much. The Empire was doomed before it formed, and Palpie only got it off the ground because Lucassezithappened.

Ewoks? Fitting end.

[Cyrrex]

I'm quite possibly the biggest SW nerd imaginable - but for the damned life of me, I simply cannot recall two SDs colliding together in any of the films.

Also, while I'm sure there is some contradicting canon somewhere, Ion cannons where supposedly fairly new at that time, so it is fair to assume that they were costly. 

[Venkman]

They were fairly new at the time even according to canon. They were basically just introduced as a "secret weapon" a few episodes ago in the Clone Wars series on CN. Apparently they were able to scale them down enough between ESB and RotJ to fit them onto B-Wings (the bottom cannon on a B-Wing is an Ion Cannon iirc).

And that's not even getting into the EU stuff, to avoid the meruskblast 

@Ratman: Ah that makes sense. So yea, back to the original point: Empire r dum.

[Abagadro]

It was more of a scrape than a collision.  They were trying to pincer in the Falcon and sideswiped each other when the Falcon dove down.  They, much like Kahn, clearly only had two dimentional thinking.

[DraconianOne]

Apparently they were able to scale them down enough between ESB and RotJ to fit them onto B-Wings (the bottom cannon on a B-Wing is an Ion Cannon iirc).

Or, you know, the B-wing had a ship-to-ship scale weappn and the Echo Base was a ground to orbit version.  Kinda like the difference between a turbolaser and a Han Solo's blaster.

Shit - caught in nerd debate.  It's a trap!

[Merusk]

And that's not even getting into the EU stuff, to avoid the meruskblast 

The Meruskblast is because childhood memories love to be defended to stupid degrees.  If you're going to accept a movie as "pure awesome" or not "so full of loopholes, contrivances and deus ex that if it came out today you'd all tear it a new asshole" based on fan fiction (licensed or otherwise) retconning silly shit out, I'm going to nominate ID4 as the best Sci Fi movie ever.  Based wholly on my own to-be-written novel that fixes all the dumbass shit in the movie and makes it liquid awesome.

Look, I'm a huge SW geek myself, but that doesn't mean I can't accept that Lucas was as bad then as he is regarded now by the same fanbase.  SW was huge because it was so very different from previous shlocky sci-fi crap.  It's a classic because of the redefinition of a genre and the way it manipulated a very timeless story into that genre.  It was also presented to a much less sophisticated audience in a much different time in history where certain things 'just aren't done.'  You take Lucas from 30 years ago and put him around today, you'll get fart jokes, whizz-bang effects that are all style no substance and basically everything else hated in the prequels and the '97 re-release of the classics.

[DraconianOne]

Stuff

The reason that Star Wars is a classic is not just because of it's significance at the time but because it is actually a classic film.  WUA is right that it was given bad reviews at the time but that was by the film critics who were not a bunch of internet fanboys and nerds but an assortment of people who were well versed in journalism, dramatic critique, the language of film and so on.  But the people loved it and sold so well that it got released again in 1978 and became a phenomenon.  It's a classic because it remains an entertaining and watchable film.

Saying that it couldn't be released now because people would rip it to shreds is ridiculous - as long as a film is entertaining, fun, watchable and enjoyable then people will overlook any plot holes, contivances, slips of logic or whatever.  I present as evidence The Matrix, Blade, Hellboy, Batman Begins, Spiderman, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings... I could go on.  The Matrix is quite a good example: the first film was great.  The sequels were fucking abysmal.  But they were abysmal because they were bad films and not because of any nostalgic pining for the first film.  Similarly with the SW prequels - they're just not very good films. It doesn't help that they follow on from a series that's loved and adored by millions and undermines a lot of what was set up before - yes, that's nerdrage talking - but even taken apart, they're still lacking.

And, to bring it back on to topic, the same can be said for Crystal Skull.  It just wasn't written very well.  I don't actually give a stuff about nuclear blasts or taking a boat over several waterfalls or other incidental bits of plot - or even the illogical nature of using shotgun lead to find the alien coffin in Area 51. Take it or leave it, I don't care.  But the story and the characters were so badly written that I lost interest.  What should have been a fun film ended up verging on dull and tedious.  Marion Ravenwood is a great character - one we know from Raiders but it was an woefully underused and abysmally inadequate character in the new film.

John Hurt's character - wtf? What the hell was the point in having his character? Whatever purpose he had in the film could have been dealt with by any MacGuffin of your choosing - very much like the Grail Diary in Lost Crusade.  It was a criminal waste of John Hurt's talent and a pointless waste of screen time. Ray Winstone's character was much more rounded and far better characterized in Frank Darabont's draft of the script than the final version we saw on screen which devolved into generic double crossing sidekick #27951.  Sallah probably had less screen time in Raiders than Winstone had here but the character was much better defined and far more memorable.  And Mutt? Don't even get me started. The father-son interchange was done infinitely better in Last Crusade and there was absolutely no reason to go over that ground again here.  Not unless it was going to be better.  Which it wasn't. It was pedestrian, predictable and patronising.

The story itself felt tacked on. I don't mind that it was about aliens or vaguely sci-fi related but it was just a bad story.  There was no clear threat or danger in the same way that there was in any of the previous films.  In fact, Lucas seems to have overlooked the basic element of any written drama and that's creating conflict.  Indiana Jones wants to take the skull back to it's temple.  The russians want to take the skull back to the temple. And the conflict would be where exactly? Oh yes, in the contrived and artificial interplay that passed for plot points throughout the rest of the film.  Screenwriting 101 - how to create drama. Give your protagonist and antagonist conflicting goals:

- The Nazis want the Lost Ark (or Holy Grail) so they can win the war.  Indy wants to stop them.  Conflict.
- The Thuggees wants to steal the Sankara Stones and use their power for evil. Indy wants to stop them. Conflict.
- The russians want to take the skull back to the temple. Let's see - what sort of motivation could we possibly give Indy in order to create conflict here?

tl:dr version - Bad film is bad.

[Ratman_tf]

It was more of a scrape than a collision.  They were trying to pincer in the Falcon and sideswiped each other when the Falcon dove down.  They, much like Kahn, clearly only had two dimentional thinking.

Yeahbut I'm trying to think of how their 'pincer' manuver would have worked if the Falcon had... done whatever they thought it was going to do? It doesn't even make sense on a 2-dimensional plane to drive right at each other.

At the risk of derailing the thread.



Falcon fleeing Hoth.



Two more SD's show up "trying to cut them off"
I gues nobody in the Empire has played Homeworld.



Silly spacemen. Space is in 3-D! Yoink!



"Oh wow. We're awful close to the other guys now. Didn't anyone notice the skyscraper sized spaceship coming right at us?"



"Guess not... Ow, coffee all over my lap! I'll sue!"



"What the hell was this manuver supposed to accomplish in the first place?"

[HaemishM]

Le art.

[Grand Design]

Ratman, as usual, is funneh as Le Fuck.

[WindupAtheist]

What the hell do you guys mean "Didn't anyone see it out the window?"

[Ratman_tf]

Maybe their radar was jammed?

[stray]

Jesus, this Indy movie is not that bad at all. I was expecting something truly horrible. But it entertained me, and I got a few good laughs. You guys are dorks.

[Grand Design]

I'm exhausted just thinking about how to respond to that.

[stray]

Why? It's not that big of a deal. That's my only point at least.

[Grand Design]

Nope.

Going to sip my coffee and watch HBO.

Not a big deal at all.

[stray]

Let me "extend" then.. I need to clarify.

First, they didn't miss a beat with the whole beat slapstick/chase scene stuff that these movies are known for. This kind of thing will always be entertaining to me.

Harrison was Indy again. It had a good supporting cast. Blanchett, Winstone, Hurt, LaBouf. Cool. I don't know what that one complaint above was about with the corny Russian accents and all that. These movies were always about caricatures. It's not supposed to be much of a step up from Rocky and Bullwinkle. Every single character, from Indy himself, to little Chinese kids, to Nazis, to scary brown people, to whatever the fuck - all caricatures. And Blanchett just had fun with it -- it's not like she couldn't pull off a realistic "Ukranian" woman, if a film required it. She easily could. But this is Indiana Jones. Not Doctor fucking Zhivago.

As for the Aliens.. /shrug They explored other boneheaded sides of ancient cultures, why not this Chariots of the Gods stuff? Those skull shapes, for one, are grounded in reality. There are also all of those weird patterns on the ground down there that appear as if they were meant to seen from high aerial views.

Among other things.

Point is though, it's another odd subject in archaeology, that is grounded in some facts - and it's fair game to have fun with in a film like this. In fact, it's grounded in more truth than some "Holy Grail" or "Ark of the Covenant" shit. At least people have seen these skulls. While the Holy Grail is complete nonsense, when it comes down to it.

[Grand Design]

This coffee is fucking great.  It was ground last week and is still fresh.

My favorite crystal skull film.  This one has Shatner!

[stray]

oh, one other thing, i was expecting a movie full of gophers, the way you guys made it sound.

they were in but 7 seconds. if that. in two seperate scenes. you guys were overblowing it, complaining about spielberg having no soul and how he's getting old or some shit. i, otoh, would say that anyone who acts like a bitch for 7 seconds of cgi gophers is getting old.

[Slyfeind]

Random thoughts: "The Empire Strikes Back" wins the award for Worst Lucas Movie Title Ever, way way above and beyond "Attack of the Clones." At least "Attack of the Clones" has "Attack!" in it!

Winstone's character in Indy 4 was annoying and unnecessary. Hurt was a bit more tollerable, but honestly, the movie was at its best when it was just Indy, Marion, and Mutt. I don't know why they had to have MORE SIDEKICKS for Indy.

Overall, while I liked Indy 4, it had the feeling of a retirement project. Other people do crossword puzzles or model boats in bottles, while Lucas and Spielberg make movies!

[Samwise]

Jesus, this Indy movie is not that bad at all. I was expecting something truly horrible. But it entertained me, and I got a few good laughs. You guys are dorks.

I'm exhausted just thinking about how to respond to that.

Why? It's not that big of a deal. That's my only point at least.

Nope.

Going to sip my coffee and watch HBO.

Not a big deal at all.

Let me "extend" then.. I need to clarify.

(wall of text)

This coffee is fucking great.  It was ground last week and is still fresh.

Quoting for  .

[Ratman_tf]

Overall, while I liked Indy 4, it had the feeling of a retirement project. Other people do crossword puzzles or model boats in bottles, while Lucas and Spielberg make movies!

I really think they need to stop activley making movies and groom the next generation of moviemakers. They're not bad filmmakers, it's just that their tale has been told, and now they're making movies out of inertia.

[stray]

Jesus, this Indy movie is not that bad at all. I was expecting something truly horrible. But it entertained me, and I got a few good laughs. You guys are dorks.

I'm exhausted just thinking about how to respond to that.

Why? It's not that big of a deal. That's my only point at least.

Nope.

Going to sip my coffee and watch HBO.

Not a big deal at all.

Let me "extend" then.. I need to clarify.

(wall of text)

This coffee is fucking great.  It was ground last week and is still fresh.

Quoting for  .

Oh, he sounded confused. I figured I'd give him something more substantial to work with.

[Grand Design]

I just think we went through this with WUA already and I can't make the same arguments twice without feeling a tad too attached to something I really don't give a shit about.  I, and a lot of other people, didn't like Crystal Skull.  It felt forced and childish, which happen to be the same feelings we had about Star Wars I-II-III.  Those who were able to self lobotomize and enjoy these films want to say that we're too attached to memories of previous movies, or that those movies were just as stupid as these.  We disagree. 

You probably won't believe this, but I had this conversation - completely unprovoked - with a woman in her sixties today.  She was lamenting changes to the re-released Star Wars that I hadn't even noticed.  It was pretty tripped-out to hear this coming from someone who was my age now when the original SW and IJ were made.  The entire time I was thinking, if I had a video camera, I'd ask her to record this to show to WUA and Stray.  It isn't some sugar coated childhood fantasy; those were better films, and these just suck.

[stray]

I don't think you're attached to those old movies at all. Instead of being attached to them, I think you've distanced yourselves from them.. from what you really liked them for.. and are merely nostalgic now.

Kids, on the other hand, will enjoy these new movies. A new Star Wars can similarly get a kid stoked just like an old SW movie affected you when you were young. That shows that something's still being done right.

Anyways, calling it self-lobotomizing is just an indicator on how much you take this stuff and yourself more seriously than what is healthy. There's a time and place for that, but Indiana Jones is hardly a good excuse for it. Complaining about refrigators or gophers or "sets" is just being a grouchy old fart, when it comes down to it.

[Grand Design]

I'll distill everything I've posted on this subject in one paragraph.  I think its reasonable enough.

Certainly, my initial and subsequent enjoyment of SW or IJ is affected by the fact that I saw them as a kid in the theater.  However, they are good adventure flicks and not children's movies.  They pass the test of the Big Lie - you believe it because the little lies are never too far fetched.  SW I-II or Crystal Skull are bad, B-Movie quality adventure flicks.  They were made as children's movies and therefore Lucas did not feel the need to even attempt to pass the Little Lie or Big Lie test.  The evidence of this shift in style is now, in full hindsight, completely on display in the re-release of Star Wars IV-V-VI. 

Now, I'm going to watch Fitzcarraldo naked while sipping Heineken from a fucking champagne flute and forget that I ever devoted this much time to proving that crap is, in fact, crap.

[stray]

OK, fair enough. I think we just disagree on how much the axis has tilted into the "solely for kid's realm". I think they're all, both old and new movies, following the same formula. Especially this Indy film. It isn't any more childish than the last ones. Star Wars is a slightly different story -- but I think enough of what made the old ones worked are still there. They just lack Han Solo.

[Abagadro]

Now, I'm going to watch Fitzcarraldo naked while sipping Heineken from a fucking champagne flute and forget that I ever devoted this much time to proving that crap is, in fact, crap.

Heh. Awesome (and true).