Almost nobody in the movie called him “Indy” or “Indiana”. That is a travesty, and representative of the many mis-steps in the movie.
As an adventure, it’s fine and comparable to other movies of its ilk and era. But as an Indiana Jones movie, it was a disappointment.
I think people just don’t like the movie because it was trendy to dislike it. It was different in some respects (aliens instead of supernatural), but this was the appropriate decision to make with regards to the timeline and B movie equivalent. It was maybe slightly more campy than the others ones, except #2, but so what? The whole concept was an homage to serials and inherently campy. Even #1, the most “serious” had campy moments like the gun vs sword fighter scene. #4 might have been a tad better with a slightly higher gravitas quotient, but really, it was not far off from an ideal sequel.
I don’t understand this complaint. Indy 4 was simultaneously too ridiculous and also not enough fun? Contradiction much?
It’s the difference between “gimme a fucking break” and “awesome!”.
A lot of the complaints can be stretched back to Lucas. Harrison and Spielberg signed off on a screenplay that was like what we got, but Shia did not exist, Indy’s partner was in that role (and only existed in the most vestigial sense in the final movie), and the aliens were more alluded to than directly shown.
Lucas took a hatchet to it and the movie couldn’t go forward without his agreement, so Harrison and Spielberg agreed to Lucas’ revised script.
I disagree, this film was a disservice to the franchise, and its stars admit as much in spite of its commercial success. The Star Wars prequels were a huge success as well but are still clearly inferior to the original trilogy (even if you count the Ewoks).
People didn’t like Indy 4 for the simple reason that it was not a good movie on so many fronts. As others already pointed out there is no internal logic, the pacing is way off, the chase scenes were far too long, and the story itself was pretty lame. Every Indy film has added to the franchise in some way, but this movie just fell flat on its face.
The gun vs sword fighter scene from 1 is among the most famous moments in film because it fits the movie and the character perfectly. It works flawlessly whether it is camp or not, and it **is **the epitome of funny and cool. On the other hand, in Indy 4 the hero gets hit by a nuclear bomb and then poses right in front of the mushroom cloud. Aside from the nice (but empty) imagery, this is THE ultimate “give me a break” moment.
I beg your pardon? Do you mean to criticise MTCicero for (quite possibly) having the good sense to avoid Battlefield Earth, Twilight, *Catwoman *and other dreck?
These films have one thing in common: clips and interviews gave you every reason to assume that they’d suck. No reason to expose oneself without need.
Sure, you have every right to point out that the same can be said about the prequels – but they had a proud heritage on their side. And though I agree with you that they were bollocks, an attribute like “watchable” is first and foremost a matter of taste.
“Fun” in an action/adventure movie requires tension. All action scenes become pretty pointless when the movie establishes from the first scene that the protagonist can get hit in the head by a live nuclear bomb and survive with hardly a bruise. How am I supposed to be excited that they’re being shot at or falling off 200 foot waterfalls when the people in question are impervious to harm? The only question in the viewers mind is “uh, why is he running”?
Posts like these are just so sad. Some people so fervently wanted the movie to be good, that they are genuinely incapable of admitting it is terrible. Worse, they trick themselves into believing the problem is with them! I didn’t have any fun watching it… but that must be my fault… I didn’t look at it the right way. I thought it was stupid, but there is supernatural stuff in the trilogy too, so I must be wrong about it being stupid.
I assure you, it is not the end of the world. It was a bad movie. That’s all. The trilogy is still great (including the fantastic and underrated Temple of Doom). The world will keep on spinning. Life will go on. Be brave.
The more annoying aspect of posts like that is how the writer assumes that people dislike it because it’s trendy. Like we’re somehow winning social points by jumping on the “Indy 4 SUXORZ” bandwagon. :rolleyes:
Sheila who?
Well, you go, Mr. Thank God for Beef. I think it’s fantastic that he came out and said it. As far as “nobody will hire him?” Well, maybe he’s willing to eschew the big paycheck and work on movies that he actually thinks will be good. Maybe he wants to look back on his body of work and feel proud. I respect that.
Not that I disrespect actors who will do any old crap for the paycheck. That’s cool with me, but only they don’t BS about it. Christopher Walken is a good example. I disdain bullshit far more than I disdain anybody’s choice of movie roles.
I agree with this. I’ve only ever seen him in one other movie, Holes, and he was great in that. He was just all wrong for this part.
It has NOTHING to do with plausibility. The first three were big fun silly romps with a hero (yes, a hero, not a protagonist) who was cooler than h-e-double-hockey-sticks. The fourth one just sucked.
My least favorite bit–the totally random reference to Marlon Brando in The Wild Ones. They reproduced the iconic image in our first look at Shia’s character but there was no apparent rhyme or reason to it. Was it supposed to show that he was “wild?” There are better ways to do that without extraneous and distracting stuff.
No, I didn’t waste my time with any of the aforementioned films, as I knew they’d suck massive mule testicles, so I figured, why bother?
And speaking directly to the AOTC - Indy 4 comparison: We’re just gonna have to agree to disagree on this point. Certainly, AOTC was the worst of a sorry lot, but in no way is it the patronizing, convoluted, and, yes, damned unwatchable piece of dog shit that is Indy 4 (I mean, even my wife, who is far more tolerant of cinematic dreck than I am, was unable to sit through more than the first 15 minutes of the movie). But I will say that it is very telling that Georgie Lucas had his hand in making both the SW prequels and the execrable KOTCS.
Yep, Trey Parker and Matt Stone got it right: Lucas, Speilberg, et al, gave our Indiana a right mighty ass fucking.
This is the fucking strawiest of straw man arguments, when it comes to Indy 4. Let me be clear: In no way is my hatred of KOTCS tied to the fact that ETs are used as a plot device. Jesus christ, they could have used fucking leprechauns as far as I’m concerned, as long as they did it in a competent way. Unfortunately, this movie is pretty well authorial/directorial incompetence personified, so the aliens, sadly, didn’t have a fucking chance from the get-go.
You really need to face the fact that ridiculousness doesn’t necessarily = fun.
Ruminate on this for a bit, and you might just understand.
The atomic blast didn’t ruin the film for me. I’ll tell you what did.
When Shia first sits down with Indy, he asks if Indy knew his mother, Marion Williams. Indy replies, “There were a lot of Marions, kid.”
First: No, there weren’t. Marion was the love of your life, Dr. Jones. ROTLA is all about this. We never get that same feeling with Indy and Willie in ToD and there really wasn’t a love story at all in TLC (I’d say Indy and his dad were the love story). So everything points to Marion being special. Even if Indy dated a few women named Marion, wouldn’t Marion Ravenwood be at the top of his list?
Second, even if Indy didn’t figure it out right then, which seems out of character and unusual, everyone in the audience did. Which puts the audience in the strange position of knowing something, something crucial, that Indy does not. And that’s not typical for heroic, intelligent Indiana Jones. The writers wanted it to be a big deal when Indy finally found out, but that meant making him an idiot for half the film. That’s just bad writing, bad plotting, and a betrayal of the character of Indy.
“There were a lot of Marions, kid,” is, for me, right up there with Han firing first. A departure from storytelling and character for no good reason. And I know whose fingerprints are on both these crimes.
If I recall correctly, Shia first said his mother’s name was Mary, and Indy replied, “There were a lot of Mary’s, kid”. This makes sense, as he would definitely have recognized the name Marion.
Shia said that his mother’s name was Mary, not Marion. I’ve only seen the movie once, when it was in theaters (and certainly feel no need to see it again), but the moment stuck out to me, because I assumed that he must be Marion’s kid (knowing that the actress who played Marion had come back for the movie) even with the somewhat-wrong name.
Hmm…
According to this version of the screenplay, you’re right.
Did I just hear “Marion”? Or was even the name “Mary” so obvious that I just figured it out?
So perhaps the exchange wasn’t so heinous. But I still think it’s a very clumsy way to keep Indy from knowing his own son. I mean, supposed he had figured it out, right then and there? Wouldn’t that have made the film more interesting? Wasn’t a father-and-son dynamic used really well in the most recent Indy film?
I have nothing else to say but :smack:
I think “Shia LeBeouf” is one of the greatest movie star names EVER. I think the guy has talent and hope he continues getting his shit together and has a great career. And I admire him for calling an awful movie…an awful movie. One would think with a huge franchise like Indiana Jones, it would be wise to make it so it does not suck. But as I once read about the moviemaking process, no one sets out to make a bad movie, sometimes it just gets on the wrong track (insert George Lucas reference here) and takes on a life of its own, and there’s no way to turn it around.