The Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Outlook Thread

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Well the humour thread got me an idea to do an actual thorough "scientific" version of it.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Congratulations. I think this it the poll with more options ever.

I'll vote, when i'm fnished reading ALL of it...

OK, vote cast.

Basically i need new underwear.

I gave it an A-, I cannot put higher score as if it were a masterpiece (i would like it to be) without hearing it.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I was originally hesitant...and I think I've explained part of the reason to this forum, about my personal history with Indiana Jones.

Now I'm pretty excited...thankfully.

RIght now my hopes place the score at an A-. The fact that John Williams may be using synths...to the point its made a big deal of by the media...gives me hope he's going the experimentative route that gave us the likes of Prisoner of Azkaban.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

As long as he uses the synth as much as in POA..

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Well I don't care if it's a synth or an 8 legged octopus that makes a weird nose when you squeeze it.

I enjoy seeing John Williams experiment on BIG movies.

[Melange 446]

I suspect the score may be great, but that the movie won't

I suppose I could dress myself up as Short Round and set myself alight outside the theatre on opening night in a dramatic Falun Gong style protest at dragging this cherished character back decades later, but I have a high suspicion that everybody in the queue would just take pictures and video on their mobile phone and put up the footage on YouTube with lots of ensuing comments along the lines of - "HAHA" and - "Dude, this beats Chris Crockers 'Leave Britney Alone' video, any day"

[MrScratch 294]

Somewhat Excited, still Somewhat Excited and B-.

I was a little generous with the B-, I'm hoping because of the long hiatus that Williams will deliver a solid score with at least one good action/chase cue. I really hope there is nothing like "Coruscant Chase" or "Andertons Great Escape" on here.

[Ollie 1,059]

Somewhat Excited, still Somewhat Excited and B-.

Same with me.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Somewhat Excited for the movie, really never was a HUGE Indiana Jones fan. But since it'll be my firsty Indy theater experience I'm looking forward to it.

Pissing my pants for the score, mainly because it'll be John's first score in 2 years. Other than that, it being an Indy score doesn't make me more or less excited about it.

A- I'll probably love it, considering I love modern JW the best. But I cannot go higher than that without even hearing a sample.

[Henry B 50]

Somewhat Somewhat B+

What's exciting about this movie is the fact that Spielberg is still a competent filmmaker, unlike Lucas. The cast looks impressive, too.

[MrScratch 294]

the fact that Spielberg is still a competent filmmaker

The problem is, he used to be way more than just "competent".

[indy4 155]

Extremely Excited, Still Extremely Excited, A+

I'm very optomistic.

[Red 75]

Extremely, Somewhat, A-

As a big fan of the original scores, I am very much excited about hearing this. But still, I don't set my hopes that high because I know I'm bound to be disappointed if I do.

[AzOutcast 122]

Extremely Excited, Still Extremely Excited, A+

I'm very optimistic.

This, although I'm giving the score an A right about now.

Initially I thought I might be setting myself up for a disappointment, but when the ROTS score rolled around I loved it (still do) so I have no doubts Williams will deliver.

[odnurega1 0]

Extremely excited (seriously excited...let me tell you), Extremely excited, and B+.

I am also very excited about the fact that we are getting a new Williams score since not having one since Munich.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I cannot vote on the third poll, because I do not have enough knowledge to form a reasonable opinion.

[Pieter Boelen 740]

Extremely excited, extremely excited and A. I am a big Indiana Jones fan; I think the films are absolutely brilliant as are the scores. I am somewhat cautious as to the quality of the film itself (I've read some worrying rumours on The Raven forum), but I completely expect the score to be the best Williams score since Prisoner of Azkaban.

After a one-year hiatus, John Williams wrote The Phantom Menace, which I think is the most inspired Star Wars prequel score. And that was for a film that was good, but not excellent. Now it is a two-year hiatus and John Williams expressed his interests in writing another Indy score in the Music of Indiana Jones documentary on the box set's bonus disc, so I expect quite some creative juices to have been flowing.

Not to mention I do expect the film itself will be better than The Phantom Menace, so that should also give John Williams some additional inspiration. So I completely expect this to be the best score to have been written in years.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Not to mention I do expect the film itself will be better than The Phantom Menace, so that should also give John Williams some additional inspiration. So I completely expect this to be the best score to have been written in years.

It won't be as good as Goldsmith's last works on the LOTR scores.

[Richard Penna 3,694]

I'm excited about the movie. First Indy cinema experience will rock.

I'm not going to make any judgement on the score - come on people, it's crazy. I could understand completely if we were judging based on a 9 second midi of the crystal skull theme.

[King Mark 3,631]

remember the first statement of Battle of the Heroes we heard was a cell phone ring

[Jacob 0]

Extremely excited, extremely excited and A. I am a big Indiana Jones fan; I think the films are absolutely brilliant as are the scores. I am somewhat cautious as to the quality of the film itself (I've read some worrying rumours on The Raven forum), but I completely expect the score to be the best Williams score since Prisoner of Azkaban.

After a one-year hiatus, John Williams wrote The Phantom Menace, which I think is the most inspired Star Wars prequel score. And that was for a film that was good, but not excellent. Now it is a two-year hiatus and John Williams expressed his interests in writing another Indy score in the Music of Indiana Jones documentary on the box set's bonus disc, so I expect quite some creative juices to have been flowing.

Not to mention I do expect the film itself will be better than The Phantom Menace, so that should also give John Williams some additional inspiration. So I completely expect this to be the best score to have been written in years.

The same. This is pretty much my first new Williams score since becoming a serious fan. And with it being an Indy score I really couldn't be more excited.

[sEE AVATAR AND SIG]

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

It won't be as good as Goldsmith's last works on the LOTR scores.

OR

You cant even quote yourself...

[Delorean90 42]

No, he meant on.

What, you didn't hear about Goldsmith's rejected scores for the filmed but unreleased Bakshi trilogy of LOTR films?

[Kendal_Ozzel 36]

First options all the way around. What can I say.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

No, he meant on.

What, you didn't hear about Goldsmith's rejected scores for the filmed but unreleased Bakshi trilogy of LOTR films?

he was joking with the joke in the other thread:

Stefancos: Can´t touch any of the Goldmsith greatest works or the LOTR trilogy, but it is fine.

[Saxbabe 28]

Somewhat Somewhat B+

What's exciting about this movie is the fact that Spielberg is still a competent filmmaker, unlike Lucas. The cast looks impressive, too.

Same here. I'm just excited about another Indy movie in general.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

the fact that Spielberg is still a competent filmmaker

The problem is, he used to be way more than just "competent".

So we're claiming that Spielberg is "just competent" now?

I don't get that. Munich is a masterpiece, added to a long list of masterpieces. The ending to War of the Worlds is weak, and the middle is weak-ish, but the best parts of that movie are awesome. Spielberg is not in any kind of a decline. He's still vastly better than "competent" -- "competent" is a word reserved for movies like Night at the Museum and 27 Dresses. Spielberg at his worst has never been on that level.

The reason I'm not overly excited about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull -- apart from the fact that it just feels like a Lucas movie moreso than a Spielberg movie -- is that I'm not sure Spielberg's interests lie in making popcorn movies any more. Which is why War of the Worlds and Minority Report are uneven, and is also why he hasn't made much lately that isn't at least somewhat overtly "serious."

The best-case scenario is that he might've rediscovered his roots on Crystal Skull and go back to that kind of movie for a while. The fact that he's pushing ahead with Tintin as his next movie (as opposed to Lincoln or the Chicago 7 movie) might be a hint that something like that could well be happening. I'd love nothing better than to see a new run of Spielberg movies that replicates the old Spielberg, who was probably the best there has ever been at combining art with entertainment. Hollywood could certainly use a talent like that these days -- it'd be nice to see the king reclaim his throne.

Realistically, though, I won't believe that's happening until it's already happened. And since Crystal Skull remains an unproven commodity, what we've got is a belated sequel in a genre its director doesn't seem terribly interested in anymore. So me personally, I'm expecting a B. And if that's all I get, it'll still be better than all but maybe two or three other movies that come out this summer.

"Just competent"? Like hell.

[Morlock 11]

Munich is not a masterpiece. It is one messy film. Last movie he made that has the elements of a masterpiece is A.I.

[Delorean90 42]

No, he meant on.

What, you didn't hear about Goldsmith's rejected scores for the filmed but unreleased Bakshi trilogy of LOTR films?

he was joking with the joke in the other thread:

Stefancos: Can´t touch any of the Goldmsith greatest works or the LOTR trilogy, but it is fine.

I know...I was just joking...

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I'll leave this thread for now.

The JOE is coming.

[Morlock 11]

I fear him not.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Joe is fear itself. Be afraid, be very afraid.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

No, he meant on.

What, you didn't hear about Goldsmith's rejected scores for the filmed but unreleased Bakshi trilogy of LOTR films?

he was joking with the joke in the other thread:

Stefancos: Can´t touch any of the Goldmsith greatest works or the LOTR trilogy, but it is fine.

I know...I was just joking...

I knew it was a joke but i thought you based it in the statement incorrectly read.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Munich is not a masterpiece. It is one messy film. Last movie he made that has the elements of a masterpiece is A.I.

Sorry, no.

Munich is gold from start to finish. The quality of the filmmaking is staggering: Spielberg's use of the camera as a storytelling tool has been outstanding since Duel, but they might have been at a peak in Munich. The acting is all terrific; the lighting, sets, score, costumes, you name it. Not to mention, you know, the screenplay.

I've got a theory that I always know a great movie when I see one, because it just sorta makes the metaphorical hairs stand up on the back of my neck. They were up for the entirety of that movie. That happens to me only maybe two or three times a year. This year, it was four: No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Grindhouse (yep), and Ratatouille.

I agree with you about A.I., though -- that one's a masterpiece, too. Just so it's clear where I'm coming from, here are the rest of Spielberg's movies I'd put on that list:

Jaws

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Raiders of the Lost Ark

E.T.

The Color Purple

Empire of the Sun

Schindler's List

Saving Private Ryan

[indy4 155]

No Jurassic Park or Catch Me If You Can?

[Bryant Burnette 654]

No Jurassic Park or Catch Me If You Can?

I'm not a big fan of Jurassic Park, although I've got no beef with it. Catch Me If You Can is great, but it's on my list of second-tier Spielberg films, along with Duel, The Sugarland Express, 1941 (yep, I love it), Temple of Doom, The Last Crusade, Amistad, Minority Report, War of the Worlds and The Terminal. All great movies, but I'd put them at a slightly-less-than-masterpiece level.

That leaves Always and Jurassic Park on my list of merely-good Spielberg movies, and The Lost World and Hook on my list of lousy Spielberg movies.

[Henry B 50]

No Jurassic Park ... ?

BAHAHA

[indy4 155]

No Jurassic Park or Catch Me If You Can?

I'm not a big fan of Jurassic Park, although I've got no beef with it. Catch Me If You Can is great, but it's on my list of second-tier Spielberg films, along with Duel, The Sugarland Express, 1941 (yep, I love it), Temple of Doom, The Last Crusade, Amistad, Minority Report, War of the Worlds and The Terminal. All great movies, but I'd put them at a slightly-less-than-masterpiece level.

That leaves Always and Jurassic Park on my list of merely-good Spielberg movies, and The Lost World and Hook on my list of lousy Spielberg movies.

I'd say all the Indy films are masterpieces (IMO), as is CMIYC, MR, and some of the ones you listed previously.

[Morlock 11]

Sorry, no.

Munich is gold from start to finish. The quality of the filmmaking is staggering: Spielberg's use of the camera as a storytelling tool has been outstanding since Duel, but they might have been at a peak in Munich. The acting is all terrific; the lighting, sets, score, costumes, you name it. Not to mention, you know, the screenplay.

The screenplay is what's flawed about it. It's earnest and well-meaniong enough, sure, but it does not communicate much. It's idea of balancing is saying one things, than saying the opposite, and repeating it ad nauseum (waaaaaaaaay too much ponitificating, and not using particularly great dialogue). Watching the movie most recently, it felt like "Violence is bad .....Or is it? No. It's bad.....or is it?" or "This is the right thing for the wrong reasons. No, this is the wrong thing for the right reasons. No....never mind. We really bit off more than we could chew. Here's some achingly poignant scene with some terrifically affecting dialogue about eating over at the guy's house.

The screenplay is not an overall view, but two different outlooks, forced together in a shotgun marriage.

I do like the cinematography, score, costumes, and the acting (though I must say the accents were a bit distracting). But for my tastes, the film is too much about good intentions and not enough about actually making people think or feel something different. Terrorism is a hard subject to tackle, and I do not believe Spielberg, Kushner and co. succeeded.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Spielberg is such a great director that -- a few films excluded -- discussion of his filmography tends to end up in light-hearted argument over not which movies are good/great, but how good/great they are. Therefore, whereas Jurassic Park and Temple of Doom are nowhere near my list of favorite Spielberg movies, I can definitely say that on most other directors' resumes, they'd come in at the top of the list in terms of quality.

Which is why I object to anyone claming that Spielberg is a merely competent filmmaker. In my opinion, that's laughable.

Getting back to the original point of this thread -- the anticipated quality level of Kingom of the Crystal Skull -- I suspect that I'll find it to be merely good. But I'm hoping for a grand slam, and knowing Spielberg, it's a definite possibility.

[Henry B 50]

Sorry, no.

Munich is gold from start to finish. The quality of the filmmaking is staggering: Spielberg's use of the camera as a storytelling tool has been outstanding since Duel, but they might have been at a peak in Munich. The acting is all terrific; the lighting, sets, score, costumes, you name it. Not to mention, you know, the screenplay.

The screenplay is what's flawed about it. It's earnest and well-meaniong enough, sure, but it does not communicate much. It's idea of balancing is saying one things, than saying the opposite, and repeating it ad nauseum (waaaaaaaaay too much ponitificating, and not using particularly great dialogue). Watching the movie most recently, it felt like "Violence is bad .....Or is it? No. It's bad.....or is it?" or "This is the right thing for the wrong reasons. No, this is the wrong thing for the right reasons. No....never mind. We really bit off more than we could chew. Here's some achingly poignant scene with some terrifically affecting dialogue about eating over at the guy's house.

The screenplay is not an overall view, but two different outlooks, forced together in a shotgun marriage.

Well, I think the film is deliberately ambiguous. It doesn't try to present an answer because there are no answers.

[Marcus 390]

Munich is a masterpiece. Period.

Anyway...

I am extremely excited about both film and score, although of course even more so when it comes to the score.

There is nothing to worry about!!

Spielberg is a much better director than he was when he made the original trilogy, and I'm sure he won't let Lucas ruin it.

And Williams is an even better composer.

Seriously, the mature Williams of right now could have penned the score for ToD in his sleep!

What we'll get, will be pure GOLD!

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Sorry, no.

Munich is gold from start to finish. The quality of the filmmaking is staggering: Spielberg's use of the camera as a storytelling tool has been outstanding since Duel, but they might have been at a peak in Munich. The acting is all terrific; the lighting, sets, score, costumes, you name it. Not to mention, you know, the screenplay.

The screenplay is what's flawed about it. It's earnest and well-meaniong enough, sure, but it does not communicate much. It's idea of balancing is saying one things, than saying the opposite, and repeating it ad nauseum (waaaaaaaaay too much ponitificating, and not using particularly great dialogue). Watching the movie most recently, it felt like "Violence is bad .....Or is it? No. It's bad.....or is it?" or "This is the right thing for the wrong reasons. No, this is the wrong thing for the right reasons. No....never mind. We really bit off more than we could chew. Here's some achingly poignant scene with some terrifically affecting dialogue about eating over at the guy's house.

The screenplay is not an overall view, but two different outlooks, forced together in a shotgun marriage.

I do like the cinematography, score, costumes, and the acting (though I must say the accents were a bit distracting). But for my tastes, the film is too much about good intentions and not enough about actually making people think or feel something different. Terrorism is a hard subject to tackle, and I do not believe Spielberg, Kushner and co. succeeded.

Obviously, everybody gets an opinion, and that's all it ever is (mine included), but I just don't agree with you at all. I find that practically everything you have to say about the screenplay is totally off-base. I found it to be complex, moving, thought-provoking, and chilling. The whole point of the thing, to me, was to say that violence -- even when it seems to be necessary -- ALWAYS comes at a high price. Yes, that's an old sentiment, but it apparently needs to keep being repeated; why should the movie have to, as you say, make people "think or feel something different"?

Spielberg's movies have NEVER been about making people change their minds about things; not even his sci-fi movies try to do that. His focus has always been on examining the past and reminding us what is important about it; sometimes, that comes with the hope that we can integrate that knowledge into the present, but I don't see Spielberg's task as ever having been to change people's minds. Refresh them, maybe; but that's a different thing altogether.

Munich is a masterpiece. Period.

Anyway...

I am extremely excited about both film and score, although of course even more so when it comes to the score.

There is nothing to worry about!!

Spielberg is a much better director than he was when he made the original trilogy, and I'm sure he won't let Lucas ruin it.

And Williams is an even better composer.

Seriously, the mature Williams of right now could have penned the score for ToD in his sleep!

What we'll get, will be pure GOLD!

If that's how it turns out, I'll be a happy camper indeed.

[King Mark 3,631]

Seriously, the mature Williams of right now could have penned the score for ToD in his sleep!

I disagree .It happened when all his composing skills were firing on all cylinders

[Marcus 390]

Oh, he could easily write like that now. I think he feels he's outgrown certain aspects of the typical late 70s to late 80s "style". Actually, he rather modified some of them:

Pardon the jargon, but allow me to give an example: For instance, Williams seems to have more or less discarded the closed-position 7th chords in favour of clusters/secundal constructions (meaning: the once omnipresent horn chords pumping away on 3rd inversion maj7 chords, etc., now will play a cluster also emphasizing other pitches. It's an abstraction that retains the glow and function).

But I'm sure you'll find that he will revisit some of the older trademarks!

[King Mark 3,631]

For instance, Williams seems to have more or less discarded the closed-position 7th chords in favour of clusters/secundal constructions (meaning: the once omnipresent horn chords pumping away on 3rd inversion maj7 chords, etc.

I say bring those back where they belong

[crumbs 14,318]

We've been hearing for months that Williams has been writing this score in the exact same style as the old films. Why are people so worried? He's only been mulling on ideas for Indy 4 for about...oh, two decades?

[Morlock 11]

Obviously, everybody gets an opinion, and that's all it ever is (mine included), but I just don't agree with you at all. I find that practically everything you have to say about the screenplay is totally off-base. I found it to be complex, moving, thought-provoking, and chilling. The whole point of the thing, to me, was to say that violence -- even when it seems to be necessary -- ALWAYS comes at a high price. Yes, that's an old sentiment, but it apparently needs to keep being repeated; why should the movie have to, as you say, make people "think or feel something different"?

]

The movie says that violence comes at a high price. But sometimes, it may be justified. But it always comes at a high price. But it may be justified. But it always comes at a high price.....it felt extremely didactic to me. I find the overall arch of the screenplay very unconvincing. Don't get me wrong- there are elements of it I like...but the only unique questions it does raise for me are ones that I don't feel are relevant. And it didn't raise it's classic themes in a particularly affecting way.

Spielberg's movies have NEVER been about making people change their minds about things; not even his sci-fi movies try to do that.

I do not believe it is the job of a filmmaker to change people's mind....but, if one is making a supposedly complex, serious, challenging film....it should challenge.

Munich just feels like one big mess to me. Now, of course, I am extremely opinionated on the matters presented in the film (which is not to say I categorically see it one way or another).....so maybe the film could never really work for me. But I keep on coming back to it, and every time, it feels to me like it digresses into endless speechifying, that generally tries to 'balance' the film by off-setting what we've just seen now.

Also, I find that Spielberg is almost always trying to show you something new, either something you've never seen before, or something you never seen before done with such skill, or something you've never seen him do before......even in his pop-corn films, he has challenged conceptions.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Well, as far as Munich goes, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Bring on Kingdom of the Crystal Skull! Hopefully, that'll be one everyone can agree on.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I'm expecting the absolute bottom of the barrel worst just so I won't be exhausted from anticipation, which always leads to disappointment.