What was so bad about Indiana Jones 4

[Darth Pope]

This and Shia Labeouf is in it. All that needs to be said.

 

[pfc_river]

My complaint with it wasn't as short-pointed as "nuke the fridge" or "aliens." My problem was that the characters were not developed to any degree. At what point was I supposed to care about Ray Winstone's character? That part where he kept saying "Jonesy!" with the bright light on him. What was up with that? You could tell where Lucas had control, because those were the sequences with over-the-top digital effects being used for their own indulgence. I can understand effects, but only when they look real and believable. Giant green screen effects were the emphasis of the Star Wars prequels, and the stories suffered for it.
It's like Michael Bay, only more colorful. I don't know what else they could have used for the quest objective, but the point is not the object itself. It's the journey and how the characters interact on the way. Even though it was in the title, Raiders of the Lost Ark was about how Jones interacts with his former love interest and plays against his rival. Temple of Doom was about enduring the possible annoyances of an overbearing and demanding companion as well as a youngster. Last Crusade was undoubtedly about Indiana's relationship with his father and where he came from. The supporting characters were engaging, entertaining, and interesting. Does anyone even remember the name of ONE supporting character or villain from Crystal Skull? What were they there for? The character is, for all intents and purposes, figuratively killed off. They could not do another movie, and the rumors of continuing with Shia LeBouf in the lead had better remain as rumors. I will not waste my time or money for that.

 

[MR T3D]

Its just too late after last crusade, maybe if it were about 10 years sooner, then it could have worked, but no, its just not quite enough, and far too late.

 

[pfc_river]

On another unrelated note, I have my own theory about long-delayed follow ups to classic self-contained trilogies. I believe that Hollywood uses the established fanbase of a well-known franchise to serve as a vehicle for an up and coming hopeful they wish to sell. Think about it. You had The Aliens series that came back with Alien Resurrection featuring "newcomer" Winona Ryder. Die Hard came back for a fourth with Justin Long. And now you have Indiana Jones with Shia LeBouf. It seems that rather than bringing back the franchise for the sake of what made the originals good, it's just to push the new talent onto an entrenched fanbase. Many would agree that in every case, the "new film" with the "new talent" has been the weakest of all these series. It's because the original characters get dumbed down as a sacrifice for the up and comers. The problem is, it doesn't work. Fans don't like what happened to the characters they loved and all the new stars I mentioned were unlikable, if not downright annoying.

Just watch. I guarantee the next franchise to be offered up will star a "young up and comer." Avoid whatever film this is at all cost.

P.S. On an even more unrelated note = Define irony. George Lucas on the set of Indiana Jones 4 wearing a "Han Shot First" T-shirt. Wrap your head around that one.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

Indiana Jones IV is just setting up the greatest movie of all time; its own sequel. George Lucas is handling the script. Michael Bay is in charge of directing. Shia LeBeouf will pull an Eddie Murphy and play every single character in the movie. The new bad guys will not be commies but rather Al Qaeda. The CGI budget will be worth as much as the American stimulus plan. Gollum makes a cameo.

It will be the greatest movie ever made.

 

[SkullCap]

Worst of the Worst: Shia Labeouf

Worst Line: "What are you a triple agent?"

 

[mrhappyface]

It deviated from the old formula so much, it just didn't feel like the old flicks where Indy hogs all the action...and does it awesomely. I don't give a crap about his son, or his lover, or the deranged hobo guy! I just want Indy!!!

 

[quiet_samurai]

You cannot survive a Nuclear Blast hiding in a fucking fridge.

You can't age incredibly fast by drinking the wrong mug. You can't heal any wound with water from the holy grail. Indy has never been too keen on realism has he?

OT: I thought it was a good movie, people just always moan about any attempt to continue and old film because they don't want their precious, precious memories ruined, they'd rather just sit and watch the old film over and over again.

Thank you!!! Everytime someone gives that reason, I bring up the whole pulling out the hearts then lowering the victim ALIVE into the lava....yadda yadda, you all know the rest.

Also, it was different beacsue of the time period it took place in. In the early 40's people were obsessed with the occult, and the Nazi's were a prevolent force in the world. In the early to mid sixties (which is when the film take place) people wre obsessed with flying saucers and America was all about hating the evil Russia and their Commie ways with their nuclear arsenal. It did an excellent job of sticking to the time period and portraying what was the pop culture of the time.

Also because you are not the children you were when you watched the originals.

 

[Nouw]

4 Stars. There.

OT: Nuke the fridge. Have you tried it? . The concept was great. Aliens. Over-reacting. It wasn't giant tyranids devouring the cast. Monkeys. That was funny.