For me, the problem with Indiana Jones 4 is that it strayed too far from the style of the previous films. It also suffered from a lack of really compelling villains.
Indy 4....whats the problem?
- Thread starter FranicalFrazical
- Start date
Recommended Videos
actually it DID follow the style of villains, that the thing most ppl don't realize. nazis were into the occult, russians were into physic stuff and were the major enemies of the 50snilcypher said:
but most of the issue ppl have with them is they saw the original movies when they were young, i personally saw them all in theaters when they originally came out. i liked the new one and thought it was pretty good. this also applies to the star wars prequels
most ppl are just complaining cause it's cool to bash Lucas. they saw the movies as kids and have this fantastical image of what the original ones were like compared to the new ones
I wasn't commenting on the style of the villain, it's just that it didn't resonate with me in the same way as they other villains.
well, having watched the original films right before we saw 4, i can safely say the originals are, much much better. ok, the woman in ToD is irritating, but it still has some very cool bits. The scipts had wit, charm. Indy 4 doesn't. And yes, the cgi is not quite right (plus its dodgy as hell- aren't ILM suppose to be industry innovators?), there was no equivalent to face melting, or super-agey death, and actually seeing the aliens was far too much. Shia La Beouf? meh, he's alright, i just don't think the franchise needs to be carried on- itd simply be another cash cow. Which reminds me- my screening of Indy 4 was preceeded by Indy toy adverts. I had a bad feeling (about this) after that.cleverlymadeup said:
I agree with Nil, I had a lot of trouble caring about the villains in this one. And not caring as in liking them, just caring at all. Right from go with the whole "You're a hard man to read, Dr. Jones," crap I labeled her a worthless character, and now we're supposed to see her as a worthy adversary for Jones for the rest of the film? Right.
Someone mentioned "Double Mumbo-Jumbo" in a different thread, but I'll drag it out again. Double Mumbo-Jumbo is the writing sin which doesn't take into account how far humans will suspend disbelief. In short, we can accept demons, and we can accept spacemen, but having both in the same movie pushes things. Indy always uncovered religious artifacts, and it's not like we ran out of those. The whole "The Russians cared about aliens" thing doesn't work either, because this is fiction, and in fiction, you have the story fit the character, not vice versa. It'd be like making "Lord of the Rings 4: The Future" where the son of Aragorn goes to fight the Death-bots, and it makes sense because "the future has death-bots". Okay, but why are you putting Lord of the Rings on this?
The fact is that both Spielberg and Lucas are excellent with business to the point that they've become film hacks. All Spielberg knows how to do now is aliens. How does AI end? Aliens. Why? No goddamn reason. All the best parts of Ford's pulp movies have been improved anyway. Did you know that the original reply to "I love you," wasn't, "I know," but rather, "I love you too." And that scene where Indy shoots the guy with the two swords in Raiders was because he had to pee. There was supposed to be a big fight scene there. Ford didn't do any improv to save Lucas and Spielberg from their horrible writing this time around, and it shows.
Need more proof of hack-dom? They can't tell the different between fan-service and threatening the audience. That bit at the end? With smarmy kid about to put on the hat, and everyone in every theater everywhere went, "DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!" and then Indy took the hat back? That's not fan service. That's a threat, and then them saying, "Just kidding!"
- J
Someone mentioned "Double Mumbo-Jumbo" in a different thread, but I'll drag it out again. Double Mumbo-Jumbo is the writing sin which doesn't take into account how far humans will suspend disbelief. In short, we can accept demons, and we can accept spacemen, but having both in the same movie pushes things. Indy always uncovered religious artifacts, and it's not like we ran out of those. The whole "The Russians cared about aliens" thing doesn't work either, because this is fiction, and in fiction, you have the story fit the character, not vice versa. It'd be like making "Lord of the Rings 4: The Future" where the son of Aragorn goes to fight the Death-bots, and it makes sense because "the future has death-bots". Okay, but why are you putting Lord of the Rings on this?
The fact is that both Spielberg and Lucas are excellent with business to the point that they've become film hacks. All Spielberg knows how to do now is aliens. How does AI end? Aliens. Why? No goddamn reason. All the best parts of Ford's pulp movies have been improved anyway. Did you know that the original reply to "I love you," wasn't, "I know," but rather, "I love you too." And that scene where Indy shoots the guy with the two swords in Raiders was because he had to pee. There was supposed to be a big fight scene there. Ford didn't do any improv to save Lucas and Spielberg from their horrible writing this time around, and it shows.
Need more proof of hack-dom? They can't tell the different between fan-service and threatening the audience. That bit at the end? With smarmy kid about to put on the hat, and everyone in every theater everywhere went, "DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE!" and then Indy took the hat back? That's not fan service. That's a threat, and then them saying, "Just kidding!"
- J
I've always thought the appeal of those films was the Christian relics. To a Western audience, it's very appealing to have all those religious stories be the setting of an adventure. There's confirmation in that, there's much less suspension of disbelief because I'm already very familiar with the story and imagery. Unlike a magnetic space alien, the ark of the covenant was something the average Western watcher was totally willing to accept.
Like the second film, the fourth suffered from straying away from the Christian stuff. If they'd combed the Bible or Torah for more topics and themes, they would've maintained the plot devices that kept the other 2 afloat.
Like the second film, the fourth suffered from straying away from the Christian stuff. If they'd combed the Bible or Torah for more topics and themes, they would've maintained the plot devices that kept the other 2 afloat.
Needs more Sean Connery
Yes, films nowadays are going overboard with the CGI effects. Seriously, has anyone seen Hell Boy 2? How much of that is CGI? or a better question would be how much wasn't made with computers?
Yes, films nowadays are going overboard with the CGI effects. Seriously, has anyone seen Hell Boy 2? How much of that is CGI? or a better question would be how much wasn't made with computers?
actually a lot of indy 4 wasn't cgi, it was plain old special effects done the old fashioned way, yes there was some cgi but not as much as you'd thinkcountrysteaksauce said:
im not a massive indiana jones fan. but i watched the film and my main problem was the complete lack of any booty he got. in the others he got his hands on some shiny stuff. this ones treasure was 'knowledge'... what sort of poof wants that?
I wasnt talking about indy, the last bit with the saucer was about the scene with the most CGI. I'm just talking about the movie industry in general.cleverlymadeup said:
Somehow, movies made without an overabundance of CGI seem better. Or maybe if the CGI is executed very well, like on Jurassic Park or Terminator 2.
@ countrysteaksauce
Actually the majority of Hellboy2 was done with prosthetics and animatronics. You should read about Guillermo Del Toro's film-making process (there's a 2-hour video of it on the Hellboy1 DVD). The only things he really used CG for were the things that aren't physically/commercially/practically to make for real, ie giant robots. I'd much rather see a director that uses the little CG there is to stun me than to limit his or her vision for the sake of not being a 'CG fest'.
Actually the majority of Hellboy2 was done with prosthetics and animatronics. You should read about Guillermo Del Toro's film-making process (there's a 2-hour video of it on the Hellboy1 DVD). The only things he really used CG for were the things that aren't physically/commercially/practically to make for real, ie giant robots. I'd much rather see a director that uses the little CG there is to stun me than to limit his or her vision for the sake of not being a 'CG fest'.
Also, am I the only one that got that the monkey thing was a reference to Indy 1? The chick gave him the monkey and sarcastically said 'he could be your son'. And Indy swung from his whip in much the same way. It was a joke people, and it wasn't THAT bad. Lighten up -_-
Spoilers here, though it's already been spoiled above:
Audiences delude themselves so much. It's just easier to pass off the aliens as a cheap plot, but that's probably because nowadays, such things are much less mystical to us. We've been so awash in alien fiction, especially at the movies, that we are desensitized to the mystery that they once held, particularly during this film's time period. My opinion is that Lucas picked an appropriate subject, sufficiently enticing to keep people curious throughout the movie, then let down his audience when he drew the curtain. We don't understand the Ark, the Stones, the Chalice; but alien technology? Ho-hum, been there, done that.
However, chances are we wouldn't want the old religious mysticism either. It's about as passé as aliens. What's left? Dr. Jones unlocks the secret of the internet? Time travel? Indiana Jones in space? We just refused to admit that the Indy franchise unfortunately exhausted itself, and needed to either be laid to rest or altered into something new. We would not like either option, of course.
I doubt anyone could have been pleased with any new plot. They never are. All of the retreading of the classics, like Terminator, Indy, Superman, Star Wars (sort of) and the possible Mad Max or Evil Dead, they could never amount to the originals. Why? Because the new ones can neither deviate from or follow the old standard. Either be a new movie and break the beloved code, or be a rehash and bore the audience. Lucas did a great job walking the fine line in the middle, and he did it against all these odds. It was not a great movie, but it was both a pleasant reward for fans and a fun immersion for new audiences. A smattering of old and new. Hopefully it's a transition to newer adventures, though Shia needs some coaching. He's good, but not Indy good.
Lastly, the ride in the fridge? Come on! It was utterly ridiculous, but you'll never enjoy anything if you insist on picking it apart. Enjoy the fact that it was silly and thrilling, and let the absurdity be an unspoken warning that this movie and others are not going to adhere to the facts of reality, so stop expecting them to.
Audiences delude themselves so much. It's just easier to pass off the aliens as a cheap plot, but that's probably because nowadays, such things are much less mystical to us. We've been so awash in alien fiction, especially at the movies, that we are desensitized to the mystery that they once held, particularly during this film's time period. My opinion is that Lucas picked an appropriate subject, sufficiently enticing to keep people curious throughout the movie, then let down his audience when he drew the curtain. We don't understand the Ark, the Stones, the Chalice; but alien technology? Ho-hum, been there, done that.
However, chances are we wouldn't want the old religious mysticism either. It's about as passé as aliens. What's left? Dr. Jones unlocks the secret of the internet? Time travel? Indiana Jones in space? We just refused to admit that the Indy franchise unfortunately exhausted itself, and needed to either be laid to rest or altered into something new. We would not like either option, of course.
I doubt anyone could have been pleased with any new plot. They never are. All of the retreading of the classics, like Terminator, Indy, Superman, Star Wars (sort of) and the possible Mad Max or Evil Dead, they could never amount to the originals. Why? Because the new ones can neither deviate from or follow the old standard. Either be a new movie and break the beloved code, or be a rehash and bore the audience. Lucas did a great job walking the fine line in the middle, and he did it against all these odds. It was not a great movie, but it was both a pleasant reward for fans and a fun immersion for new audiences. A smattering of old and new. Hopefully it's a transition to newer adventures, though Shia needs some coaching. He's good, but not Indy good.
Lastly, the ride in the fridge? Come on! It was utterly ridiculous, but you'll never enjoy anything if you insist on picking it apart. Enjoy the fact that it was silly and thrilling, and let the absurdity be an unspoken warning that this movie and others are not going to adhere to the facts of reality, so stop expecting them to.
Objection!tiredinnuendo said:
People fail to notice that those Grey-like beings were actually future AI Mechas which brings us back to the line from the middle of the movie which claims that "Humans are jealous because we(Mechas) will remain long after they are gone."
There's your reason.
As for Indy 4, I've seen the other three and frankly, I don't give a shit.Sure, the aliens ending was far-fetched but the CGI-Saucer scene still had some "EPIC" left.I liked it and I'm not going to ***** just because it's different to the original trilogy.
that's the thing tho it's not different if you actually look at it it's a lot of the same stuffJakubK666 said:
he swung across pits etc, not from sodding vine to vine like tarzan though. The previous Indy films didn't try and push the willing suspension of disbelief too far, there was a core of realism around the fantastical judeo-christian artifacts. Indy 4 just went too far with it.teknoarcanist said: