INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL Post-Release Discussion - Page 2

Lazier than The Lost World. Sadness.

So, are you just reiterating what was mentioned earlier or are the you the person that Moriarty was quoting?

Not me. I just think that's a money quote. I did talk to someone who saw it this week and they were underwhelmed. "It didn't click" they said.

Sorry to go off on a tangent, but this something I've always wanted to know and a quick answer should suffice.

In the end of The Lost World, is there an explanation for how the crew of the boat get killed when it crashes into the dock? From memory they are all eaten and mangled up, but the T-Rex is still in the holding bay...

So is it stupid or did I miss something?

Laziness on the part of the filmmakers. Hence...

ETA: And that quote "Lazier than The Lost World' is about the most damning thing someone could have said against the film before release. It's like telling me the girl I'm about to go on a blind date with starred in Chimps Up My Ass 2.

Where'd that come from?

AICN review.

Actually the talkbacks for the score talk.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed The Lost World. Still, I guess I'd better dial it down a notch.

Also in that universe, Bryan Singer made a wonderfully kick ass X-Men 3 and someone else made an exciting, action packed Superman movie.

The trade off is that, in that universe, nobody discovered a cure for polio.

I've always felt that the presence of a Daredevil film was proof WE were living in the alternate universe.

Yes, this news of Indy is not so much encouraging.

At some point in the scripting process, there were going to be raptors on the boat as well. They cut it (obviously) but didn't bother to fix the hole it created.

So yeah. Lazy.

Well I'm not imagining that Spielberg said before production began that he was the director of this film and not Lucas and for production to begin he had to approve of the script. That's why he brought Koepp in to rewrite it, he wasn't happy with Darabont's draft either.

Later on he described the relationship on set, between he and Lucas, as something like Lucas occasionally chiming in with an idea and him totally ignoring it.

Not making that up.

Hope that helps to curb some of your worries.

Also why does everyone assume that the Darabont script actually was really good? The guy wrote THE FLY 2, FRANKESTEIN, directed THE MAJESTIC and more recently wrote and directed THE MIST.

Classic spin.

Spielberg and Ford loved Darabont's draft and Lucas didn't...Lucas owned the character and the movie could not go forward without his approval.

Spielberg is obviously not going to fight with someone he has to work with, so he brought in a different writer to tweak the draft with Lucas' ideas. Koepp.

Spielberg was never unhappy with Darabont's draft.

Because Lucas didn't like it.

You left out The Shawshank Redemption, arguably one of the top ten films ever made.

Plenty of great writers have written shclock.

Will Shia do a gymnastics routine and kill some Commies? Stick the landing, Beeflord!

Darabont also said "He was very, very happy with the script and said it was the best draft of anything since Raiders of the Lost Ark. " (chud quote?)


link?

Obviously Lucas didn't like the script, he had some complaints about it, and Spielberg decided to have someone come in and fix it. But I highly doubt that in that process he pandered to Lucas' every demand.

You guys wanna bitch and moan and complain before you've even seen the product fine. But I see no reason to believe that Lucas' fingerprints are going to be all over this film. From what Spielberg himself has said Lucas has been very hands off on this, at least as far as the production goes.

Sorry I am wrong about Spielberg being unhappy with the script, you are correct there. But what I am trying to stress here is that when the issue of changing the script came up he certainly seemed alot less concerned with it meeting George's expectations and more with it meeting his.

The entire idea of the new macguffin never sat well with Spielberg and Ford. The only reason it's still the driving force of the film is because Lucas refused to budge on it.

Again, you're not reading between the lines. Once prep and shooting are under way, a filmmaker cannot afford to antagonize the production with debates and fights leaking to the press, so they play nice, no matter what their feelings.

It's like those EPK inside looks into a film, where everyone is practically licking each other's assholes in interviews...they have to; too much money is at stake to have a black cloud hovering.

I'm not saying Spielberg didn't eventually get in tune with Lucas' ideas...I don't know what happened. But you're an outright liar if you say he wasn't happy with Darabont's draft.

Top Ten. Ever? God I love internet hyperbole. It's a very good movie, but it's not top ten anything. Except maybe top ten films based off of material written by Steven King, or top ten most overplayed movies on tnt, or top ten films with a voice over performed by Morgan Freeman.

Bottom line is that having Darabont's name on the page doesn't guarantee a great film by any means.

He's almost as overrated around here as Kasdan.

You're the one who brought up Darabont's credentials, and I proved you were being ignorant. Shawshank is a very popular and well made film, and a very well written screenplay.

You were getting away from the point anyway...Spielberg and Ford love Darabont's draft, no matter how you feel about the man's writing.

I already acknowledged my mistake.

Now stop mistaking Spielberg for Rick "Yes Man" McCallum. Generally speaking you'd be correct, but when you're as powerful a filmmaker as Spielberg is, I would like to think that you could even tell George Lucas to shut the fuck up, so-to-speak.

I don't think Lucas would risk the film simply not being made by trying to take control of the film away from Spielberg, because that's what would've happened. No Spielberg, no Ford, no movie made.

I just don't think Lucas had anymore say over what the finished product is going to be than either of them.

I know there is some truth to this but...I have a hard time believing that Spielberg and Ford didn't eventually get on board with it, because Darabont's draft wasn't lacking that particular element.

You proved nothing. Darabont made one very good film, made a couple turds and wrote alot of pretty shitty films.

Yes, I get that. But that doesn't prove to me that his script would've made a better film.

Well, they would have at least had a completed script to work from if they had gone with Darabont's draft.

Of course they got on board with it, they didn't have a choice.

And I'm in no way comparing Spielberg to McCallum...basically what I and most everyone else is saying is...Spielberg and Ford loved a draft of Indy 4. Lucas didn't. Lucas' instinct is extremely suspect after the Star Wars prequels and not having made films for 17 years before Episode 1, not to mention his spotty track record as a screenwriter. Now that the early reviews have come in, most of the gripes seem to come directly from things Lucas is notorious for being terrible at.

And Spielberg hired him any way.

I don't disagree with this at all.

But this...

I'm not getting that impression at all from the reviews I've read (if you're referring to the AICN reviews). Alot of the negativity seems to stem from fanboy hopes being crushed due to their impossibly high expectations never being met. Who they choose to cast blame on means dick.

Sorry if I don't at all trust a review from a guy that believes Allan Quartermaine is a crappy Indy knock off, or a review that sounds like it was written by someone who was just waiting to bitch bitch bitch about the movie and obviously lacks in sort of skill in writing at all.

The third review up on AICN, which was very positive, seems to have been written by a more rational human being as opposed to an uber jaded movie geek that wanted a movie that would make him feel like a ten year old kid again.

I'll make up my own mind when I actually see it, but for now I definitely trust his word more than the others.

Better than Last Crusade sounds just fine to me.

Ah, so the really positive review is more believable.

Actually it was Lucas

Yes. Because it seems to come from someone who is a little more calm and rational and capable of making an argument and sticking to just that. Not someone who is either overly excited or overly dramatic.

The others reviews really sound like a big pile of bullshit.

I dunno something about those statements makes me think this guy is a complete jackass retard.

You mean he wrote some crap while working his way up the Hollywood ladder, but out of his own work, well, if The Majestic is the worst he has to offer, then he's got a pretty solid track record. Anyone who can crank out not one, but three of the best King adaptations on their lonesome has got some reliable chops, if you ask me.

I thought the second reviewer made his points very well. I won't know if I agree with him until I see the film, but he was very clear that he didn't hate the film, just found it to be a disappointment and outlined exactly why he felt that way.

Um, the Richard Chamberlain movies "King Solomon's Mines" (released one year after Raiders, to cash in on Raiders' popularity) and "Allan Quatermain and the City of Gold" (released one year after Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) were obviously cynical cash-ins, and that's what the reviewer was referring to.

The third reviewer is most likely a fake. Harry has a habit of balancing out negativity with a positive review, so I wouldn't trust it too much.

I'm not saying I agree with the positive reviewer, I'm saying his review seems to be more believable than the others. The second reviewer certainly isn't as bad as ShogunMaster, but again all he does is bitch and complain.

I can at least believe that he actually saw the film, and I don't necessarily trust his sensibility.

When it comes down to it you gotta take these things with a grain of salt, including the positive review.

I just don't see any reason to be worried about it. It looks like a really fun film. What I've seen honestly does give me the impression that it will at least be a better film than Last Crusade. I'm not expecting much more than that.

I"m just glad I'm not the only one who is made nervous by a new Koepp script. Blech.

Yeah, and the stupid asinine reviewer still seems to be completely ignorant that those movies were based off of a character more than 100 years older than Indiana Jones.

What's the deal with poor Nathanson being left out of the list of writers. The script Koepp was working on was Nathanson's script, not Darabont. But I'm sure Nathanson had a lot to go on from Darabont's anyway.

Something tells me the Mac character was Indiana Jones' brother character from Darabont's draft.

Plasticy sets? Stupid juvenile sight gags? A lack of a sense of real jeopardy for the hero?

Wow, sounds like EVERY OTHER INDIANA JONES MOVIE EVER RELEASED. Fanboys need some perspective.

That said, yes, I'm sure this sucks.

Hey, can I just say that I know a few things about the set of the movie, the way the behind the scenes stuff played out and all that, and Isildur's Bangs is, as usual, wrong and stupid. He does not know or understand the power and relationship dynamics that were at play here, and he is also a moron.

And he also said this in his review...


According to Spielberg, the line (It’s not the mileage, it’s the years!) is not in the film.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20192040_2,00.html

This exchange still cracks me up.

(and compliments ShogunMaster's review nicely )

So how about actually sharing some of this "inside information" you have about how they work together? Because I don't have that sort of information, I didn't get invited to the set of Indy 4, Spielberg did not sign a poster for me, and I hold no influence over what projects Spielberg takes or drops.

I was simply taking reference from what Spielberg has actually said.

Namely this:

“George Lucas isn’t the director. I am.”

And there's another quote, which I can't seem to find at the moment, where Spielberg described how he and Lucas work together on set, something along the lines of Lucas occasionally chiming in with an idea and Spielberg basically ignoring it.

I do remember reading that quote, something along the lines of Spielberg saying that he'll let Lucas go on for half an hour about one of his ideas and then say "No."

But I don't think it was intended in the way Isildur is trying to spin it.

I genuinely feel bad for you guys who have been eagerly anticipating this thing. I'm not the biggest Indy fan, but I was curious about seeing this simply because my dad is a HUGE fan of this franchise. I bought him the box set for his birthday a while back, and he damn near tackled me when he unwrapped it, he was that happy. I'm dreading the moment when the credits roll and I turn and look at him to see what he thought. For my dad's sake, I really want this to be good. I really do.

Jesus. Put down the doom and gloom banner.

Despite all the negative buzz I'm still anticipating the midnight showing I just got tickets for. This will be my first Indy film in the theater, and even if it totally sucks Shankara Stones it'll be a cool experience. There are worse things in life than being disappointed by an eagerly awaited movie. If KOTCS sucking is the worst thing to happen to me this summer then it'll be a pretty fucking good summer.

Is Bangs, how exactly is it important that the reviewer is aware of the novel King Solomon's Mines? The Chamberlin movies were obvious and blatant Indy rip-off cash-ins. If you were looking for a OED definition of blatant Indy rip-off cash-in, you've got two absolutely perfect examples on hand in the Quatermain films. And were you talking shit about Shawshank Redemption? To make the point that Darabont's script probably sucked?

I hope this thread turns into one of those pointless meandering Isilduir's Bangs labyrinths of horrible debate and clown logic. I could go for that today.

Same here man. I have absolutely no expectations. I'll take what I can get. At the end of the day, it's just a film, but of course I'm hoping to have a good time either way.

Look, there are people who aren't going to happy unless this is better than Raiders and makes a billion dollars. Not anyone around here, mind you, but I think it's an awful lot to pin on a film to expect it to be better than one of the all-time classics. I'm not letting the hype get me wound up the way I did with Phantom Menace, because I certainly don't need that roller coaster again. I'm expecting a fun Indiana Jones movie on par with Last Crusade (which I still thoroughly enjoy). If I get more than that, fantastic.