Full Version: The Return of Indiana Jones
QUOTE(BBC)
Steven Spielberg has said he is happy to make another Indiana Jones movie if fans enjoy the long-awaited fourth film, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
The director joined stars Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett and Shia LaBeouf at the film's premiere in Cannes.
Asked at a press conference if he wanted to make another film, he said: "Only if you want more.
"That's why we made this Indiana Jones. We'll certainly have our ear to the ground to hear what happens."
Link.The director joined stars Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett and Shia LaBeouf at the film's premiere in Cannes.
Asked at a press conference if he wanted to make another film, he said: "Only if you want more.
"That's why we made this Indiana Jones. We'll certainly have our ear to the ground to hear what happens."
QUOTE(BBC Review)
For the hardcore Jones fans, this film was never going to live up to expectations.
One cinemagoer leaving the first press screening in Cannes said: "George Lucas, you gotta stop hurting us".
Link.One cinemagoer leaving the first press screening in Cannes said: "George Lucas, you gotta stop hurting us".
I haven't seen this yet and I probably won't be able to for a few weeks, but prior to the film, I have noticed a lot of 'anti hype', and I've become more than a little weary of people blaming George Lucas for having 'ruined' their cherished 'holy relics'. Seems to me like an awful lot of people got old if they can't accept these films for what they are.
Maybe its just me, but I can't see what the big deal is, or why so many people seem to take against latter day returns to old favourites. Frankly I am happy just to see these films being made, even if they are 'sub par'. Nothing will ever beat 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' in my mind anyway.
So, I'd like to ask,
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jnes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
Well, from one point of view, if a series of films continue to make money, it's still a good idea to make them. From the point of view of artistic merit, well, that's more complex. Some franchises have their ups and downs, and sometimes you can breathe new life into them. Others seem to run out of energy, and it would be a good idea to let them die. It's a matter of opinion, of course, but to site one example I think it's about time to let Star Trek rest in peace.
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
Kind of a double-edged question here. First of all, fans of a particular series of films may expect things to get better and better with each movie. That's obviously not always possible, and such fans are bound to be disappointed. Secondly, it depends on if the "aging" creators are becoming weaker over time, or if their experience adds to their talent. For example, Alfred Hitchcock was making films in the silent days, but perhaps he didn't really hit his stride until the 1950's and 1960's, with masterpieces like Vertigo and Psycho. On the other hand, some might say that Stanley Kubrick lost something after the glory days of Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange. Certainly many viewers were disappointed by Eyes Wide Shut. (As a Kubrick fanatic, I am incapable of seeing any of his movies as anything less than excellent, but that's just me.)
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jones film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
N/A. I loved Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I thought that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a very disappointing sequel. (Was it my high expectations, or was it a failure on the part of the director? That's a very good question.) In any case, I gave up on the series at that point.
Well, from one point of view, if a series of films continue to make money, it's still a good idea to make them. From the point of view of artistic merit, well, that's more complex. Some franchises have their ups and downs, and sometimes you can breathe new life into them. Others seem to run out of energy, and it would be a good idea to let them die. It's a matter of opinion, of course, but to site one example I think it's about time to let Star Trek rest in peace.
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
Kind of a double-edged question here. First of all, fans of a particular series of films may expect things to get better and better with each movie. That's obviously not always possible, and such fans are bound to be disappointed. Secondly, it depends on if the "aging" creators are becoming weaker over time, or if their experience adds to their talent. For example, Alfred Hitchcock was making films in the silent days, but perhaps he didn't really hit his stride until the 1950's and 1960's, with masterpieces like Vertigo and Psycho. On the other hand, some might say that Stanley Kubrick lost something after the glory days of Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange. Certainly many viewers were disappointed by Eyes Wide Shut. (As a Kubrick fanatic, I am incapable of seeing any of his movies as anything less than excellent, but that's just me.)
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jones film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
N/A. I loved Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I thought that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a very disappointing sequel. (Was it my high expectations, or was it a failure on the part of the director? That's a very good question.) In any case, I gave up on the series at that point.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ May 18 2008, 11:31 PM) 
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
Well, from one point of view, if a series of films continue to make money, it's still a good idea to make them. From the point of view of artistic merit, well, that's more complex. Some franchises have their ups and downs, and sometimes you can breathe new life into them. Others seem to run out of energy, and it would be a good idea to let them die. It's a matter of opinion, of course, but to site one example I think it's about time to let Star Trek rest in peace.
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
Kind of a double-edged question here. First of all, fans of a particular series of films may expect things to get better and better with each movie. That's obviously not always possible, and such fans are bound to be disappointed. Secondly, it depends on if the "aging" creators are becoming weaker over time, or if their experience adds to their talent. For example, Alfred Hitchcock was making films in the silent days, but perhaps he didn't really hit his stride until the 1950's and 1960's, with masterpieces like Vertigo and Psycho. On the other hand, some might say that Stanley Kubrick lost something after the glory days of Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange. Certainly many viewers were disappointed by Eyes Wide Shut. (As a Kubrick fanatic, I am incapable of seeing any of his movies as anything less than excellent, but that's just me.)
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jones film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
N/A. I loved Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I thought that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a very disappointing sequel. (Was it my high expectations, or was it a failure on the part of the director? That's a very good question.) In any case, I gave up on the series at that point.
Well, from one point of view, if a series of films continue to make money, it's still a good idea to make them. From the point of view of artistic merit, well, that's more complex. Some franchises have their ups and downs, and sometimes you can breathe new life into them. Others seem to run out of energy, and it would be a good idea to let them die. It's a matter of opinion, of course, but to site one example I think it's about time to let Star Trek rest in peace.
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
Kind of a double-edged question here. First of all, fans of a particular series of films may expect things to get better and better with each movie. That's obviously not always possible, and such fans are bound to be disappointed. Secondly, it depends on if the "aging" creators are becoming weaker over time, or if their experience adds to their talent. For example, Alfred Hitchcock was making films in the silent days, but perhaps he didn't really hit his stride until the 1950's and 1960's, with masterpieces like Vertigo and Psycho. On the other hand, some might say that Stanley Kubrick lost something after the glory days of Dr. Strangelove and 2001: A Space Odyssey and A Clockwork Orange. Certainly many viewers were disappointed by Eyes Wide Shut. (As a Kubrick fanatic, I am incapable of seeing any of his movies as anything less than excellent, but that's just me.)
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jones film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
N/A. I loved Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I thought that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was a very disappointing sequel. (Was it my high expectations, or was it a failure on the part of the director? That's a very good question.) In any case, I gave up on the series at that point.
Aww i thought (the Temple of Doom) was a good sequel. Jones seems to have a different woman in each film, but that blond walking through all those bugs was hilarious, she was my favorite of all his flings because she belonged in a city going to fancy restaurants and expensive parties, instead she gets to walk though bugs and almost gets lowered into a pit of lava, thats funny. The little Asian kid says (sounds like fortune cookies) lol. It was quite unrealistic though especially when that guy rips that other guys heart out and he is still alive for another 3 minutes which was a bit corny, but then again none of those movies are realistic, they are just entertaining, which is the idea.
I just heard about the new one last week and it will be interesting to see if it can maintain the appeal that I thought the other movies had, especially the first one. I'm not keeping my hopes up too much, I just saw Live free or Die hard and thought is was the worst sequels for a classic series in a long time. Hopefully pulling Indiana Jones out of the bag again wont be equally disappointing.
QUOTE
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
I actually liked the Star Wars Trilogy (the second one) because I finally understood the damn story. I was not a Star Wars fan, but didn't want to be "that guy" who didn't even see the movie. (Nor do I want to be the guy who talks hours about manufacturing a StormTrooper Halloween Costume out of real PVC)
I will also see any Rush Hour sequel. I never get tired of Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan.
Net2007, every Die Hard ever made is an awesome classic, out of the box. Are you telling me that Bruce Willis couldn't take a helicopter down with a car? That's like saying he can't take out 9 bad guys one at a time. Or blow up a plane with a Zippo. Bruce Willis is Chuck-Norris-Lite, with a city attitude. Blasphemy!
QUOTE
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
I don't know. All the latest flicks I've seen from the "up and coming" filmmakers is crap on a stick. "Shoot Em Up" comes to mind, as do a few others.
QUOTE
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jnes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
I loved Raiders. Meh on Doom, but it has the spirit of the first movie, and the character was familiar, so it was fun. And the last one with Sean Connery was definitely worth seeing. I see maybe one movie every year. This is one I'll go to the theater to see.
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
Artistic considerations are the province of amateurs and those funded by others without the knowledge or control to understand or influence the likely outcome. Commercial film-making only really takes artistry into account when something else is also present, and that something is almost always EITHER the making of vast box office, sell-through, broadcasting and merchandising revenues (at which Speilberg and Lucas are ast masters), OR the publicity potential of artistic credibility (which we see every year with the flock of box office turkeys that get garlanded with metalware in awards season).
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
I'd argue that, by definition, "bloated" expectations are one's that are just a bit too big to ever possibly be met. If you'd said "high expectations" instead, then yes. While it's knocking on 20 years old, Unforgiven was close to, if not clearly, Clint Eastwood's finest screen appearance and director on top form. His subsequent films e.g. Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby have been some of his better work from behind the camera. Hell, even Space Cowboys had some useful things to say about ageing - not least about the kinds of things ageing movie stars ought to be doing on screen.
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jnes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
I haven't. I'm keen to go, but I'm expecting not much more than a decent adventure movie with some knowing gags about "this isn't as easy as it used to be" along with the Lucasian stalwarts of "we've got company" and "I've got a bad feeling about this".
If they bolt on some animated toy franchise as a major character as well, then mayb I'll be disappointed. Otherwise, it's all feelgood bubblegum entertainment and deserves to be taken no more (or less) seriously than that.
Artistically it will not touch the largest media launch of the year - GTA IV - simply because nothing that plays for less than 50 hours yet has the care and attention to detail of an HBO drama in every frame possibly could.
Artistic considerations are the province of amateurs and those funded by others without the knowledge or control to understand or influence the likely outcome. Commercial film-making only really takes artistry into account when something else is also present, and that something is almost always EITHER the making of vast box office, sell-through, broadcasting and merchandising revenues (at which Speilberg and Lucas are ast masters), OR the publicity potential of artistic credibility (which we see every year with the flock of box office turkeys that get garlanded with metalware in awards season).
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
I'd argue that, by definition, "bloated" expectations are one's that are just a bit too big to ever possibly be met. If you'd said "high expectations" instead, then yes. While it's knocking on 20 years old, Unforgiven was close to, if not clearly, Clint Eastwood's finest screen appearance and director on top form. His subsequent films e.g. Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby have been some of his better work from behind the camera. Hell, even Space Cowboys had some useful things to say about ageing - not least about the kinds of things ageing movie stars ought to be doing on screen.
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jnes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
I haven't. I'm keen to go, but I'm expecting not much more than a decent adventure movie with some knowing gags about "this isn't as easy as it used to be" along with the Lucasian stalwarts of "we've got company" and "I've got a bad feeling about this".
If they bolt on some animated toy franchise as a major character as well, then mayb I'll be disappointed. Otherwise, it's all feelgood bubblegum entertainment and deserves to be taken no more (or less) seriously than that.
Artistically it will not touch the largest media launch of the year - GTA IV - simply because nothing that plays for less than 50 hours yet has the care and attention to detail of an HBO drama in every frame possibly could.
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
There is still a market for an Indiana Jones movie, so it was probably a good idea.
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
As Jules said, "I'd argue that, by definition, "'bloated'" expectations are one's that are just a bit too big to ever possibly be met. If you'd said "'high expectations'" instead, then yes."
If you've seen the latest Indiana J[o]nes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
I did see the latest Indiana Jones film and I found it entertaining. But then, I don't tend to view films critically. I like the characters, especially Karen Allen, who was Jones' leading lady in the first film.
But I think it is a mistake for anyone to anticipate the same freshness they found with the first and possibly the second movies in the series. We know what to expect. We see the movie because we like the actors/story/special effects. It is escapism, and if someone doesn't like that, s/he is bound to be disappointed and should instead spend the money on a flick that requires more critical thought.
I certainly did prefer this one to the second one, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Something about chilled monkey brains....ewwww.
There is still a market for an Indiana Jones movie, so it was probably a good idea.
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
As Jules said, "I'd argue that, by definition, "'bloated'" expectations are one's that are just a bit too big to ever possibly be met. If you'd said "'high expectations'" instead, then yes."
If you've seen the latest Indiana J[o]nes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
I did see the latest Indiana Jones film and I found it entertaining. But then, I don't tend to view films critically. I like the characters, especially Karen Allen, who was Jones' leading lady in the first film.
But I think it is a mistake for anyone to anticipate the same freshness they found with the first and possibly the second movies in the series. We know what to expect. We see the movie because we like the actors/story/special effects. It is escapism, and if someone doesn't like that, s/he is bound to be disappointed and should instead spend the money on a flick that requires more critical thought.
I certainly did prefer this one to the second one, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Something about chilled monkey brains....ewwww.
QUOTE(moif @ May 18 2008, 05:21 PM)
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
If you have a salable franchise like Indiana Jones I think it's difficult to think of the ~40something crowd that is no longer in the demographic you're trying to hit anymore. The fact is the original fans, while lucrative, aren't the target audience. NEW fans are. New YOUNG fans with no actions figures, t-shirts, posters, books, video games, knap sacks, etc to remember the movie by.
QUOTE
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
No. The truth is it's never as good as you remembered it and often much worse. The effects in Star Wars weren't very special art all compared to today's movies. Compare Star Wars to Transformers for effects. And before everyone jumps on me about story and plot - let's all not forget that Star Wars was based heavily on several American Westerns (Shane, The Magnificent Seven) and Japanese Samurai movies including "The Hidden Fortress" a movie that Lucas sites as a major influence.
QUOTE
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jones film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
It was fun. I saw it last night with four 8 and 9 year old boys and they "got it" instantly. They may have missed some of the "Red Scare" stuff or quick shots back to the other movies but they got the "nuts" jokes. All in all if you're expecting to watch the movie and be 10 years old again - forget it. If you're willing to accept that Indy, like you has gotten older - you're going to have a good time.
I had a good time.
I saw the film two nights ago. It was the first cinema experience my GF and I have managed to get together since our daughter was born. I didn't expect anything and so I wasn't disapointed. I'm a big fan of the first film, but never thought all that much of the second and third films. The difference is, the first film was made on locations, with decent actors and with no preconceptions. The subsent films were made on sets, with plenty of preconceptions.
As you say BA, we're all older now and we can never return to where we were. I think thats the best counter argument I've yet heard against the many anti-Lucas arguments I've heard since his return to Star Wars
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
Art is made for its own sake. Even if art requires patronage to exist, the artist still creates from their own creative impulse.
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
No, but aging films makers can make fantastic films, as Clint Eastwood has proven.
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jnes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
There was something missing. My youth.
I saw the film two nights ago. It was the first cinema experience my GF and I have managed to get together since our daughter was born. I didn't expect anything and so I wasn't disapointed. I'm a big fan of the first film, but never thought all that much of the second and third films. The difference is, the first film was made on locations, with decent actors and with no preconceptions. The subsent films were made on sets, with plenty of preconceptions.
As you say BA, we're all older now and we can never return to where we were. I think thats the best counter argument I've yet heard against the many anti-Lucas arguments I've heard since his return to Star Wars
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
Art is made for its own sake. Even if art requires patronage to exist, the artist still creates from their own creative impulse.
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
No, but aging films makers can make fantastic films, as Clint Eastwood has proven.
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jnes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
There was something missing. My youth.
Was it a good idea to make this film, and others like it (I'm specifically thinking of the second Star Wars trilogy) or should they have left well alone?
Yes and no. I was very young when Indiana Jones came out and seeing them was like WOW. I remember the hype behind Last Crusade and it met my every expectation. They hype behind this one was from fans of the films and Jones wanting a bit of what they got from the originals. After seeing the movie
FAIL!!! The movie was great till the last 20 minutes (IMHO). It wasn't a waste of money so I'm glad they made it. I just wish they had made it with the same love and care that the others had. What makes a Jones so good is the interaction between characters, the mythology of what it is Jones is looking for, and the character development of the bad guys and Jones' sidekicks. This movie had very little to none of that.
Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
Yes. Rambo and Rocky Balboa are prime examples. I've never been a Rocky fan; but I gathered from all my friends who are that Rocky Balboa is a great Rocky movie. I am a Rambo fan and saw the latest one and it was AWESOME!!! Stalone didn't try to reinvent Rambo or shy away from what Rambo is or what Stalone is physically able to do. What made it great was that it was a Ramboo movie that can stand on its own. The true failure in this latest Jones film (and the Star Wars prequels) is that it can not stand on its own. If you don't like Jones or have never been introduced to Jones then this movie is at best 1 and a half stars. The action was way over the top even for a Jones film. The intelligent plot was thrown out for quick laughs. And it had no basis in reality.
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jnes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
It may seem like I hate the movie...but I'm a big fan and while it was the worst of the 4 I'd still say if you are a fan go see it. I'm still going to buy it on DVD. So if you are a fan then go see it; but lower your expectations and just enjoy the ride.
Yes and no. I was very young when Indiana Jones came out and seeing them was like WOW. I remember the hype behind Last Crusade and it met my every expectation. They hype behind this one was from fans of the films and Jones wanting a bit of what they got from the originals. After seeing the movie
FAIL!!! The movie was great till the last 20 minutes (IMHO). It wasn't a waste of money so I'm glad they made it. I just wish they had made it with the same love and care that the others had. What makes a Jones so good is the interaction between characters, the mythology of what it is Jones is looking for, and the character development of the bad guys and Jones' sidekicks. This movie had very little to none of that. Can bloated expectations ever be met by aging film makers?
Yes. Rambo and Rocky Balboa are prime examples. I've never been a Rocky fan; but I gathered from all my friends who are that Rocky Balboa is a great Rocky movie. I am a Rambo fan and saw the latest one and it was AWESOME!!! Stalone didn't try to reinvent Rambo or shy away from what Rambo is or what Stalone is physically able to do. What made it great was that it was a Ramboo movie that can stand on its own. The true failure in this latest Jones film (and the Star Wars prequels) is that it can not stand on its own. If you don't like Jones or have never been introduced to Jones then this movie is at best 1 and a half stars. The action was way over the top even for a Jones film. The intelligent plot was thrown out for quick laughs. And it had no basis in reality.
If you've seen the latest Indiana Jnes film, did you enjoy it? ...or was there something missing?
It may seem like I hate the movie...but I'm a big fan and while it was the worst of the 4 I'd still say if you are a fan go see it. I'm still going to buy it on DVD. So if you are a fan then go see it; but lower your expectations and just enjoy the ride.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.