INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL Post-Release Discussion - Page 3

Fucking A! Did I hear THE MIST called a turd in here?

Every one of Darabont's directorial efforts (especially his King adaptations) are all better than anything Lucas has directed since the late 70's.

I finally gave up and read some of the early reviews on AICN while trying to avoid major spoilers. I'm kind of depressed now. I wasn't looking for a movie as good as The Temple Of Doom but after all these years of waiting getting a film that's at best on par with The Last Crusade is anticlimactic.

Its funny how Lucas and Spielberg (and presumably Ford somewhere) keep saying that they're not in it for the money. They're always going on about it.

Of course, they don't say "but we are getting 97.5% of the profits split 3 ways".

That's right - according to quite a few sources, including David Poland's hot blog, (who seems quite clued up about these things) S/L/F get 97.5% of all money received after break-even. So lets say Crystal Skull cost $200 - $250 million, including ALL development and marketing costs. (Jeremy or Andre, correct me if I'm wrong about any of this)

That means it needs to make about $500 million to break even. (Because the cinemas take at least 50%)

Lets say it makes $700 million worldwide. That means S/L/F make $195 million - $65 million each - and Paramount only makes $5 million !!

These are only rough figures, but it's pretty clear that Paramount is getting shafted. Anyone know how much they made from selling foreign and TV rights? Or much they will likely make from DVD?

I know the financial stuff doesn't affect our enjoyment of the movie, but I thought this was fascinating.

Maybe its just me, but it seems that there are a lot of people who made up their mind about the new Indiana Jones film as soon as it was announced. Anticipation does make the online geek community go a bit crazy, but I still think the amped-up cynicism is a tad misplaced.

I don't think it was prudent to expect anything better than Last Crusade. For me, that's the benchmark. Raiders was lightning in a bottle. If Skull is just as fun as Crusade, I'll be happy.

And from those early reviews, it seems like that's what we're getting.

Three reviews, bad word we have been hearing for months now. It's not cynicism, it's setting expectations.

The reviews give a me weird HOOK vibe, in that there seems to be some boomer resentment/antagonism in the Indy/Mutt relationship. Then again, there are people here who will defend HOOK. Those people will likely enjoy this movie. If you do, don't get your panties in a twist over this.

I think with the 19 year gap a lot of people are expecting something along the line of Raiders. These expectations are definitely way off base, but for a lot of folks the passage of time equals increased quality.

Names and addresses for extermination please.

I won't defend that movie, but I'll go to war for RUFIO!

I don't think the cynicism is coming from the reviews or the bad word, but from the absolute glee some around the web are taking in reporting it.

I don't sense any glee about it, but more of "What did you expect?" kind of vibe. Certainly don't think anybody wanted or wants it to be a poor film, but when everything they hear about it is quite negative, it's gotta be hard to stay positive and chippy about its prospects.

All I was hoping for is something slightly below Crusade, a movie I still love. Even if Skull is complete crap, it's Indy on the big screen. It's gonna put a big dumb smile on my face regardless.

Well, it is hard to gauge.

A. The Indy films diminished in quality as the franchise went on (IMO), but...
B. Spielberg's maturity as a film-maker has risen in the past couple decades.

This, right here, could be a major factor. As much as Spielberg says he adhered to the look and tone of the previous films, there's no way he can fully approach Skull the way 80s Spielberg did. He's simply not the same person or filmmaker.

Personally, I was hoping for genius. That it isn't is hardly surprising, but of course it's disappointing. It's a let down, and if it ends up totally blowing, it'll be the biggest let down of the year (as far as movies go anyway). That's the risk they took making the movie, and it would suck much more than another shitty Batman movie, for example.

That said, the thing that keeps me somehow kind of optimistic about the whole debacle is that Last Crusade getting released today would have virtually the exact same kind of rain cloud hovering around it. And I love Last Crusade. I've definately watched it the most of the originals, and it sounds like a possibility the movie has a lot in common with that vibe. Despite online groupthink, these summer blockbusters always seem the most open to personal opinion. I happen to think Pirates 2 is the best of the series, for example. Maybe I'll have a phenomonal time with this thing. And if not, at least I'm going in ready.

I find it hard to believe that the guy who in recent years has made SPR, Minority report, WOTW and Munich could screw up an Indy film this badly.

At the very least all these movies contained scenes of great action and/or tension.

I wasn't arguing that Darabont's script probably sucked, I said nothing of the sort. I'm just saying the guy isn't always a guaranteed win. He's made one very good film in Shawshank and even that is very overrated.

And no I do not trust the word of some idiot reviewer who rambles on about things that don't necessarily make for a bad movie at all (and especially not a bad Indiana Jones movies), is so plainly ignorant that he tries to say the character Allan Quartermain is a ripoff of Indiana Jones, bitched about how realistic the sets in an Indiana Jones movie look and to cap it off claims you can expect some childhood molestations from Lucas and Spielberg regarding this film.

The simple fact that the review was posted on AICN isn't helping either.

That iteration of the character was just that. A total rip-off of Indiana Jones. He had nothing to do with the Haggard Quatermain.

Although yeah, it was on AICN.

One way or another, you are going to have to make peace with the fact that a lot of people, at least online and possibly everywhere else as well, are going to have some very vocal negative things to say about this one.

Of course you don't have to trust those reviews, but like Jeremy said, they do confirm what we had been hearing, which is that Spielberg wasn't engaged, and the material is weak.

At this point it's pretty pointless to debate the potential quality of this movie. Obviously those who liked the trailers have made the decision to enjoy Crystal Skull regardless of it's content. A kind of self-imposed conditioning.

Never heard that one, but my long-held belief has been that Spielberg has probably out-grown this sort of film. Is his heart really in it? It's been my biggest concern since the movie started shooting.

Well they've been trying to get it made for so long, it's possible Spielberg felt obligated to do it, even though his enthusiasm for it could possibly have waned during that long stretch...happens all the time.

Like I said earlier, I'm more looking forward to watching it with my old man Thursday night than whether or not it's any good at this point.

If it's great, then...great. If it sucks, that's fine too; not the end of the world.

If Skull came out three years after Crusade I wouldn't be that bothered. But if you're gonna wait almost 20 years until you try again I expect you to do much better than just OK. Fucking Stallone had Rocky go out on a high note, is it too much to ask the same from these guys?

It was pretty obvious that Spielberg's heart wasn't in it when he released that video about "This is all for you, the fans!" In other words, I'm making this for you, not for me.

I think part of the problem was simply Indy fatigue... This project was in the works for so damn long, by Day 1 of Shooting Spielberg was probably already burned out by the damn thing. I'm not going to give Darabont the benefit of the doubt simply because of who he is; maybe his script was better than the final product, maybe not. But if they weren't going to make that script, they shouldn't have even bothered, simply because the extra development time is only going to put a damper on everyone's enthusiasm, and even if the new script is significantly better, the overall effect of the delay is probably still going to hurt the film.

EDIT: Or what Ambler said.

Chalk me up as someone who has been hoping for something equal to Last Crusade, which I like better than Temple of Doom, anyway.

But my expectations and hopes keep dropping. Which means maybe it'll surprise me in a good way when I see it.

That would be a two-way street there. You think people haven't also decided they're going to hate it?

Kevin K: "I think part of the problem was simply Indy fatigue... "

And the thing is...no one is ever going to admit this...that's why it's important to read between the lines based on information you're getting from multiple sources (interviews, reviews, etc). It's possible that after Lucas rejected a draft Spielberg and Ford loved, Spielberg just threw up his hands and didn't give a fuck anymore...but like a loyal friend, gritted his teeth and bared it.

That's why I was bitching about Lucas...it could be Spielberg fatigue/indifference, Lucas using that to sneak in all his shitty ideas. Maybe, maybe not...just saying.

Yeah...I could definitely see that being the case...

Oh sure. But are they buying a ticket?

What am I thinking, of course they are. Fandom loyalty is an ugly/beautiful thing.

I am right there with you bro.

It would be more accurate to say those who liked the trailers haven't made the decision not to enjoy it.

Hahahaha.
No, those of us who didn't like the trailers have no reason to believe the movie will be any better. I don't expect to enjoy it much, but I haven't already decided to hate it.
What I'm reading here is people literally saying "I'll take what I can get."

I just look at the trailers and see how many scenes they've had in common, they've really not shown a whole lot of the film. Now while you could fairly argue that makes them poor trailers, it's kind of cool not having seen every single money shot before the film comes out. I'm not arguing that the film will be an out-of-the-park smash, but I think it'll be better than the trailers indicate.

Or it could indicate there are no money shots. I mean, I'm happy that so little of the film is spoiled, though we may have seen a majority of the film (though there's little of the Atomic test site, it looks like all of the major sets are on screen).

I'm not anticipating the new Indy nearly as much as I thought I would, and these reviews and rumors aren't helping things at all, but I'm still gonna try to see it with an open mind.

And with all the complaints about Iron Man trailers giving away too much of Stark's best stuff, I'm hoping the Indy trailers have been holding back. Hoping.

There are money shots that are definitely not in the trailers. Everything that was gleaned about the film in the last year was 100% correct - EVERYTHING.

The problem is that there's other stuff in the movie that's not in the trailer. Like Mutt trying to chase a truck in the jungle and getting an idea from monkeys to swing after it on vines... which he then does with a whole bunch of cute monkeys following him.

Or the long-discussed quicksand scene which features Mutt saving Indy by throwing him not a vine but... a snake! Jesus.

Ugh.

The vine swinging seems stupid, but I've thought the snake-save bit sounded funny since I first heard it.

It sounds like cheap mugging.

I can imagine Lucas in the editing room with his arms folded,
chuckling his little heart out while watching the monkey vine sequence...

What are the odds he delivers a Tarzan yell while doing this?

The analysis (conjecture) of Spielberg's enthusiasm levels makes me LOL. I'm gonna need to see some diagrams.

Well, have you seen The Lost World? It's not like there aren't examples of Spielberg phoning it in.

Maybe someone should get Struzan on the horn...

If there's a Tarzan yell...that is gonna send it over the edge. I mean, monkey swinging doesn't sound too great, but a Tarzan yell...Jesus.

I'd rather he do Chewbacca doing the Tarzan yell.

Geez, next thing you know they'll have monkeys giving the Nazi salute.

Ahhh, reason does still exist among the children of men. Well said.

For those of us that were kids the first Indy go around, this is the most reasonable outlook. It can never be like it was because WE AREN'T KIDS! We live in a world of chaos, lies and superficiality that has ingrained cynicism into our very souls. We live in a world where anyone can jump on line and crucify anyone or anything for no good reason and never face any consequences for it. Movies are an out. A 2 hour reprieve from worry about the cost of living or what natural disaster rages where or what war is tearing some far off country apart. We'll never feel like we did when we were 10 and watching Indy in action for the first time. Never. Ever. But we can sit down, park our brains for a few moments, reminisce with an old friend named Dr. Jones and be happy that we were able catch up with him even if we realize that he isn't what he once was any more than we are what we once were.

I think there's a relationship between how much we love a character and how shitty we allow films that feature that character to be. Raiders stands on its own as a great film. All the sequels are just Indiana Jones movies, and fans overlook their flaws because they love the main character so much.

I enjoyed Last Crusade. I think it's a fun movie. But primarily, and maybe only, because it's an Indiana Jones movie. That's about what I expect from Kingdom.

Let me second that. Considering some damning arguments that have been made I'm not so sure how "cool" the experience will end up being but I can't imagine not to get a bit emotional over seeing Indy on that big screen (for the first time).

At this point I just don't see any more purpose in wondering about Spielberg's low level of enthusiasm or how bad and dull this or that scene is. I just wanna go see this film. That's actually why I'm here right now, why I'm reading Chud, why I eventually get lost reading infinite threads of speculation or (actual post-release) analysis. Because I love to watch movies. One of the great things about sitting down in front of that big screen is that, no matter how much you've read about the story or how many of your buddies gave you some insight into daily production life, nothing can quite prepare you for the actual viewing experience. For better of worse. And I'm looking forward to that moment of surprise on May 22nd.