Lotd2242 Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Where is all this negativity and lack of support for IJ4 coming from? This was right up there with The Last Crusade in my book. Blasphemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JCvgluvr Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 okay, yeah but here's what i want to say: if they took out the obvious CGI (alien dude, ground hogs, tarzan boy and the monkeys) the movie would have been AMAZING. if the aliens in skeleton form blew up the evil commie lady and the outside of UFO wasn't seen it was just the rocks floating. and the kid drove a motorcycle through the jungle and jumped onto the badguy's vehicle crushing a few of them. True. Those things are some of the only negative points in the movie. also, who the hell is mac and why should i care? Well, did you care about Sallah, Marcus Brody, Willie, Elsa Schneider, Walter Donovan, or other such minor characters? I know I didn't. But they served just as much a purpose in their respective movies' plots as Mac did in IJ4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyanCe Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 I saw Indy 4 a few weeks back, expecting to be completely unimpressed. It was waaaay better than I thought it would be, that's for sure, but a couple things REALLY annoyed me... 1. The very presence of Shia Labouf (sic probly). Am I the only guy who still thinks Even Steven's whenever I see his face? 2. ...Space aliens... Okay, this one may not be to far off from Indy's element, but still. 3. As stated before, Indy seemed to be a mostly disinterested party. It wouldn't even have mattered to him if Mutt and the KGB didn't drag him into it... 4. I just don't like Shia... complete idiot in Transformers, Tarzan boy in Indy 4... What will he ruin next!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 You can argue that the other films would work with a similar character, and perhaps that Temple of Doom could work with most action heroes, but definitely 1 and 3 require a character with the same basic set of abilities AND personality to be pulled off. Actually, Temple of Doom was the only Indy movie where Dr. Jones was kind of required to save the day. All the Nazis ended up dying when they opened the Ark (as they would have even if he wasn't there), and they never would have been able to remove the Grail from the temple, with or without Indy. It's a staple of Indy movies that the macguffin ends up destroying the villains of its own accord. That was the case here, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FuriousFure Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Well, did you care about Sallah, Marcus Brody, Willie, Elsa Schneider, Walter Donovan, or other such minor characters? I know I didn't. But they served just as much a purpose in their respective movies' plots as Mac did in IJ4. yeah, I guess the difference was that Mac (or Mack) was the traitorous type. like he did it in the beginning of the movie. if he had not done the whole double agent crap and actually showed some bond between him and Indiana. it would have actually meant something. also in the past movies Marcus Brody, Sallah, and Short Round were protrayed better to be important to Dr. Jones. they just didn't take the time to actually make the audience get to know the small characters before they did anything with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral_C Posted June 9, 2008 Share Posted June 9, 2008 Is it still spoiler at this point? If it is, you really shouldn't be in this thread to begin with... Moving on... A couple problematically ridiculous lines: "They've gone to the spaces BETWEEN spaces..." ... "Their treasure was knowledge. Knowledge was their treasure." ... Add Mack's "I'll be alright" at the end of the film... just before HE DIED!!!!!!! This little gem was the icing on the cake for me and my brother. What exactly was his grand plan? He let go of his lifeline and reassured his friend(?) that he was going to be "alright"... moments before he was ripped to interdimensional shreds. I LoL'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wintermute Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Actually, Temple of Doom was the only Indy movie where Dr. Jones was kind of required to save the day. All the Nazis ended up dying when they opened the Ark (as they would have even if he wasn't there), and they never would have been able to remove the Grail from the temple, with or without Indy.It's a staple of Indy movies that the macguffin ends up destroying the villains of its own accord. That was the case here, as well. You're confusing "Required to save the day" with "Required to tell the story of the movie." Obviously 1 and 3 have endings where Indiana Jones doesn't end up taking out the bad-guy, but in order for the story arc to have played out we needed him. Sorry if there was any confusion, that's what I was getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotd2242 Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 It's a simple distinction between something that holds your attention for a couple hours and a work of art. Crusade is like the Mona Lisa and Crystal Skull is like a child's fingerpainting. Will Indy 4 hold your attention for its running time? Sure. Is it at least entertaining to watch? Yeah. Bombs and car chases and swordfights are always entertaining. Is it anything more than that? Absolutely not. That's the problem with the movie. You can break it down into details, the CGI is bad and all over the place, the story is full of holes, the skull is possibly the goofiest artifact ever, the villains are hardly villainous, the supporting characters are useless, the score is hardly inspiring, the leaps of faith required for suspension of disbelief would make a scientologist laugh, and most of the dialogue would make even Anakin Skywalker roll his eyes, but ultimately, it's very simple. Indy 4 is something to simply keep you from leaving the theater, nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zup Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 The main problem I see for Indy 4 is that it will not hold up over time. The other three were timeless in the presentation and, whether through nostalgia or just plain fun, they entertain just the same today as they did the day they came out and I'm certain my kids will enjoy them just as much as I did. Indy 4 will not do the same. The holes that all of us are pointing out will only become more obvious as time goes on, expecially with the advancing rate of CG that we're currently seeing. Indy 4 will not face the future well at all while the main three will be classics for years to come. It's the differnce between Indy pulling a gun on a swordfighting guy and Indy blowing the dart back through the dart gun. Both are unexpected; one still makes me chuckle while the other will elicit a laugh for only the first time and a strained one at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Author Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Oh please. I cringe when I see the painted special effects. I laugh when I see the rocks and boulders bounce like rubber balls. At this point, it's fairly obvious you went to the movies with the intention of hating IJ4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Yeah I mean...the special effects in the old movies are really cheesy too. xD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotd2242 Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 The CGI is only one of many flaws and probably the most forgiveable. There are some obviously bad effects shots in the original trilogy. The problem here was not so much that the CGI was bad, but that it was both obvious and overused, especially when they spent all that time talking about how they were going to keep it to a minimum. I did not go into this movie with the intention of hating it. I went in hoping it would pull a Transformers and surpass my low expectations. Unfortunately, it landed right about where I expected it to, on its face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.