INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL Post-Release Discussion - Page 49

Lucas doesn't ever put himself in a position to be challenged or criticized. I've heard some stories of the 'a friend of someone I know who has worked for Lucas' variety. But, I guess it's still fun to imagine such a situation.

You'd be talkin' to Slicked Back Lucas though...

I think the only one who comes out of the film relatively unscathed is Cate Blanchett.

Maybe so, but as a villain she was still weak as fuck.

Then again it's hard to top my all time favorite villain Indiana Jones moment, Mola Ram ripping a dudes fucking heart out and laughing insanely as it bursts into flame in his hand.

The only thing that bothered me about Blanchett's character was that the script introduced her as being Stalin's psychic research specialist and highly knowledgable of the paranormal. There was that very cool moment when she raised her hand to Indy outside Area 51, but was unable to "read him."

That was a major missed opportunity. I was excited at that moment for things... Imagine if Indy's antagonist were actually able to read him, or at least anticipate what he'd do and when he'd do it. Where'd he go, what moves he'd make, a hand-to-hand combat situation with someone who can see every punch just before you throw it... She could have been Indy's greatest foe, and a psychic foe wouldn't have been a huge leap for a film so much about other such sci-fi concepts.

And I think her death scene was far too anti-climactic. Blanchett was a major part of why the film works on whatever levels it does. She deserved better.

There is some great material available in the bulding blocks of KOTCS... I just wished they'd thought enough to take it a few more steps toward greatness that could have been.

I miss Pat Roach in the Indy films, he always provided a great henchman for Indy to fight.

Pat Roach is the classic.

Sherpa in Nepal.
Big nazi killed by plane
Thugee
Dude Indy fights at the Zepplin(was cut)

And sadly, he was going to be the Russian Col Indy fights but he passed away... Shame.

I have thought for a long time that Lucas' divorce from Marcia just killed him. I honestly think that deep, deep down below the flannel he's a nice guy, a kind soul, and a very introverted creator who was just stopped cold by the break-up. Everything that has come out since is just flash-and-gimmick surface with absolutely zero substance. He just gave up.

I don't know, maybe. Lucas has always seemed to me a kind of man-child, isolated from the rest of the world because he knows how the world treats manchildren. Nothing about any of his movies indicate a deep understanding of human interpersonal relationships, and the only dynamic that ever rings true in his films in that between parents and children. I mean, THX-1138 is practically an autobiography.

Honestly, I always thought his divorce sprung from his emotional immaturity. Judging from how insular and detached his movies have increasingly become from how humans perceive emotion and how current interviews with him often directly contradict statements he made earlier in his career, I think the guy is a leper at this point.

Discussions about George Lucas make me wish every movie geek on the internet was dead.

I particularly love the attempts to psychoanalyze a guy from a few interview snippets about filmmaking. That's just adorable, guys.

"George is a bit socially crippled, really. Not good with people. So I just left him alone."

- John Hurt

It's rather impressive that you diagnosed the reason his marriage fell apart based on his films and interviews. You're the kind of geek who makes me uncomfortable.

i was supprised how easily this slipped from memory. i am still angry about the prequel trillogy, but this, dispite being almost worse in some ways, i was able to just let slide. maybe its because unlike the prequels, its not stepping on the toes of the first movie, changing what happened etc. i feel raiders and the rest are safe from crystal skull, where as it constantly felt like the prequels were attacking the first trilogy.i actually got the crystal skull dvd from a redbox and forgot to return it, so now i own it: /

CRYSTAL SKULL is the DIE ANOTHER DAY of the Indy films. It hurt bad. But it didn't leave a permanent mark on the series.

And, I don't know, I think it's entirely fair to look at Lucas' personal life and consider how that experience affected his films. It doesn't mean anyone can read an article in Starlog and have the guy totally figured out. But when well-documented personal ordeals happen around the same time as the quality of a person's work begins to change, I think there's probably a connection.

But whatever. I agree. It is a tedious subject.

There's actually a terrific website out there that deconstructs the original Star Wars trilogy, not based on current interviews, but based on interviews circa the time the films were being created. They paint a pretty different picture of Lucas and his workings, as opposed to how he does things now.

 

His friends input greatly changed Star Wars from it's rough cut form, to the final cut that hit theatres in 1977. For instance, Brian DePalma (and another writer, whose name I can't remember) rewrote the opening crawl, because I guess even the original opening crawl was dreadful and needed someone other than Lucas to fix it. 

 

There was a huge article on Marcia Lucas too, which I never figured in a million years I would read all of, but ended up reading the whole thing one night. From the interviews during the time that the author managed to compile, its pretty obvious she had a huge influence on Lucas, along with his circle of 'movie brat' friends. And after the divorce, he slowly descended into 'everything I think is right', which is how we would up with the PT ... and then Indy 4.

 

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html

 

The writer made a few interesting points, like how even though she edited Star Wars, and was involved with every part of the story creation, she's never once been interviewed, or barely mentioned at all, in all the literature on the making of the trilogy, post-divorce. The woman won a friggin' Academy Award for editing that trainwreck into what it is today, and she's still nothing more than a footnote in some pictures Lucas didn't get around to having 'special edition'd' from his family scrapbook.

 

 

 

 

Fuck you man, I had totally forgotten this movie ever existed, and here it is. Again.

 

brb drinking bleach

See pg. 42 for one of my first posts, defending the movie, and all the hooplah that followed. Funny, half the people that replied were banned by Devin in the year and a half that followed.

What a weird coincidence. I just re-watched this film (on Blu-Ray) for the first time since I saw it in theaters, and this thread popped up by coincidence. I must have magical crystal skull powers.

 

On a second viewing, a lot of the things that bugged me the first time didn't bug me, but a lot of things that didn't bug me then bugged me now. It was a weird exchange that sort of reset my feelings about it, but remained status quo. That was a really convoluted way around that idea, sorry.

 

 

I was surprised to find myself enjoying Shia Labeouf's performance. He's good here, and he's playing a character, and not just doing himself like in Transformers. He only does his trademark stammering once in the whole movie, during his misguided rescue that leads to the sinking sand pit. I like the character of Mutt; it's too bad he didn't catch with fans because I feel like if the series continued, he'd be a good lead. And he even looks kind of what I'd imagine the offspring of Ford and Allen to look like. Considering how awful this part could have turned out, I think Shia pulls off a minor miracle with it. I know most fans despise the character, but I think what they despise is the very idea of the character and not how he is actually portrayed on film. Mutt is no Jar Jar.

 

On the whole, I feel the film is weak, but more or less on par with the Last Crusade (I'm really not a fan of that one, sorry dudes). I think the alien thing works, Harrison works, Blanchette works (though as pointed out, the character is a missed opportunity) Shia works, the action works and bringing back Marion works (though Karen Allen is clearly a little rusty in the acting dept.)This is in no way a Phantom Menace -- it at least understands at it's core what makes the Indiana Jones engine run. Phantom Menace gets everything wrong from the ground up IMO. You can argue that there's only one truly great Indy film, Raiders, (though I love love love Temple of Doom), so the fact that this doesn't live up to it should come as no surprise.

 

Anyway, some random thoughts. I think time will reveal this in a slightly kinder light than this thread would have you believe.

I always thought Mutt was the most enjoyable and spirited character who was surrounded by a lot of dull movie.

There's a sense of tiredness to the whole affair, as if everyone showed up ready with their A-game but then got realized that once the ball got rolling, they really didn't have the energy to do it again. Except for Shia and Blanchette.

With another pass or two at the script, eliminating the kiddified silliness, and a DP other than Kaminski.........................it would have turned out a whole lot better.  As it stands, it isn't a terrible film.  It is entertaining, but I definitely like it the least of the four.  Here hoping that a little more effort is put into the fifth one if it ever actually gets made.

 

 

An interesting side note.......................the actual franchise contract with Paramount is for five Indiana Jones films.  That's what they all signed up for back in the day.  Paramount would never even consider suing Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford for breach-of-contract if they don't make a fifth one (or even if they didn't do the fourth), but it is still an interesting tidbit of information.

No offense, Plissken, but do you really think that someone like Kaminski was the problem here?  I can name numerous other glaring problems (the silliness, the green screen feeling, Karen Allen looking too old/looking like she forgot how to act).  

 

I think there are a million problems with the film(this coming from someone who actually sort of enjoys it), but IMHO it's got nothing to do with Kaminski.  

I just don't like the way it was shot.  The green screen FX are pretty atrocious on their own and the way the are shot doesn't help things.  Some of the FX and their staging look like they were pulled from a late 90s film.  It's embarrassing.  Kaminski is generally a great pairing with Steven, but I just don't think he was up to the task of shooting an Indiana Jones-style film.............let alone an actual Indy movie.  At least not under the conditions in which he shot KOTCS anyway.  I don't have a problem with how Karen Allen looked.  She should look her age, just like Harrison looked his.  I don't think she forgot how to act either.  She (along with everyone else) was saddled with a bad script that no one outside of George Lucas really and truly loved.  I have no doubt that Ford and Spielberg wanted to do a fourth Indy film.  I just don't think they wanted to do the story that Lucas wanted and after years of fighting him over it, they just decided to cave and give George what he wanted.  Hell, if you check their interviews around the time of release and since, they still seem very skeptical as to whether or not it was a good idea.  I suspect that if a fifth one is ever made, the screenplay will be a whole lot better.  Spielberg let George have his way and ended up with a film that is very well looked upon.  If he has any desire to make another one, he won't be doing it unless he gets his way this time.  I have a feeling we won't be hearing anything about it until after he makes Lincoln though.  Robopocalypse is still currently set up as Steven's 2013 release, which means Indy V wouldn't hit theaters until at least 2014.  I have a strong feeling that none of them will really have any desire to make it at that point, although I could be wrong.

I'm with Plissken. Kaminski is a great cinematographer, but he had no idea how to shoot an Indiana Jones movie. It's the kind of film that requires you to let go of all your stylistic ticks and allow the story to do the talking, and Kaminski just didn't do that. From frame 1 I could feel that something was off.

My wife got an email from a Halloween costume site which was having a blowout sale. Mutt Jones was one of the clearance costumes. Would anyone recognize "greaser jacket and a sword" as a character even this soon after the flick was released? Forgettable.

 

 

Like VAN HELSING (and US' GODZILLA, and THE HULK), I bought this dvd in hopes there lay a clue with what went wrong. Haven't had the urge to watch it yet.

I thought that was Patton Oswalt at first...

Mutt Williams and the Kingdom of the Double Cheeseburgers

I don't think the problem lay in the story, it was in the way that story was executed. There's nothing in KOTC that's more unbelievable than in Raiders or the other two films. You mention the poorly done FX  and the Cinematography (and I agree). But a lot of the way scenes were staged , shot and edited were "off" as well. It's like Lucas and Spielberg thought the action was going too fast and acted to slow things up for the audience. Which is also a compliant with Phantom menace.

 

I agree with Plisskin and Evi. Kaminski didn't let himself go on the cinematography. I understand that your basically being asked to copy in a way what has come before, but that's what happens when you're brought into an established series of films. It didn't look like an Indy film like the first three. The shooting was much more practical in the earlier films and Slocombe's framing for the Panavision anamorphic was impeccable. The color grading had realistic colors. Kaminski's color grading is off. You can see it in the actor's faces every time I pop in the DVD for Crystal when I should be seeing nicely represented skin tones. Yes, Slocombe's original cinematography was saturated with colors, like a technicolor film. But the whole frame wasn't pushed to a tint. This kind of a representative of how all films are color graded today. If you watch Live Free or Die Hard you'll notice the same problem. They push the color correction too far. I realize color grading back in the day wasn't as easy as it is now, but when you're able to do anything with color correction, you shouldn't shoot off the rails. In this case, KOTCS stands out like a sore thumb of what was a practical looking series.

Edited by Carnotaur3 - 5/24/11 at 11:19pm

The execution is what I was referring it.  It just seems like a half-baked screenplay.  A few more passes probably would have fixed many of the problems, particularly with character development and dialogue.  I just have a feeling that Spielberg was aching to shoot something and George was up his ass about making Indy IV, so he jumped the gun and made a film from a script he wasn't particularly fond of (even if he might have liked the basic concept of it).

 

You know this film never really had a chance when people are complaining that even the cinematography wasn't exactly the same as its predecessors.....

 

I personally like the tweaks in the look of Skull, because the story is in a different era than the original trilogy. Why should it be a carbon copy to those previous adventures then?

 

For a character that has so many self-contained exploits, why should there be only one filter to view him through, literally or figuratively?

 

 

Edited by Agent Z - 5/25/11 at 12:52am

Us Chewers are a savvy bunch. The entire film-making process is discussed. That's one of the reasons I hang out here.
 

 

I know this is a common complaint with the film, but KoTC feels so fucking fake.  The world of the first three films felt lived in and dirty and grimy.  This felt plastic and artificial.  I guess that has to do with all the green screening that went on with it.

To be fair, Temple of Doom isn't a whole lot better in that regard. Crusade is better, but Raiders is the only one that really nails the feeling of exciting things spontaneously taking place for real.

I agree about Kaminski. From the moment we got our first teaser trailer, with no real way to judge how the movie would turn out yet, I had a really off feeling because of how it looked.

 

And you make a great point about Die Hard 4, Carnotaur3; the same feeling of "off" in that movie is akin to what I felt from Indy 4.

 

But you won't a find single shot in Crystal Skull that evokes anything like this.

That right there is what I am complaining about when it comes to the cinematography.  I have no problem with it having a different look from the original three.......................it's just that they should have put some effort into it.  Instead, we get something that looks like it was from a Sky Captain fanfilm.  The problem is that Sky Captain was supposed to look the way it did..............................whereas the green screen FX in this were shoddily done both in execution and the way they were filmed.  It just feels like the technical crew for the film (particular Spielberg, Kaminski, and ILM) just didn't care all that much when putting this project together.  Like I said, it's a half-baked film. 

 

I like brownie batter, but I'd rather have a lovingly baked brownie than a squishy half-done one.

The jungles in Crystal Skull remind me of the ones in Avatar.  That's just wrong.  I agree with the point being made about both this movie and Die Hard 4 by extension.

But you are focusing on the script...I'm saying the problems lay in what was kept vs. cut, the pacing of the film, and aspects of the production (Like those fakey sets)