Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Pieter Boelen 633]

So how about an in-depth discussion and poll on what you like and did not like about the final Indiana Jones 4 film?

What do you think was handled well, what could've been handled better and how?

[Charlie Brigden 5]

No offence, but didn't we have this when the film came out and has been going on ever since?

[Pieter Boelen 633]

Of course we did; but not in poll-form. I'd be interested to see some actual values come out of the discussion.

I'm actually really quite interested in modern films, what works, what doesn't, trends, etc.

I want to understand a bit more about the way films are made (the reasoning behind them) and the way they're received by the audiences.

[Richard Penna 2,082]

I'm apparently only the third voter, but there's a huge variation in opinions already there.

Surprised someone voted the score making a negative contribution. It may be a substandard score IMO, but it didn't do anything to hurt the film. I think the film actually brought down the eventual quality of the score.

[Datameister 1,394]

I found this very interesting; I appreciate you taking the time to put this together. The scene-by-scene breakdown is particularly interesting, because KOTCS really is the sort of film in which some scene are far more enjoyable for me than others.

The chief negative influences in the film for me were the humor, the interdimensional beings, and some of the acting. (The screenwriting also could have gone into that category if it'd been an option.) I was conscious of these problems as I was watching, but I felt the film was simultaneously redeemed by the simple pleasure of being another Indy film, by many of the settings and concepts, by some of the acting, by offering some significant closure between Marion and Indy, and even by the score. Because while this is not my favorite Williams score, I nevertheless think he did a fine job with it and I'm looking forward to assembling a complete edit of it once I get my hands on the DVD in a few weeks.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Hm, now that I read a complete list of scenes, I realize that I like this film more than I thought. To be honest, the "Ants!" scene is my second-favorite fight scene in the Indiana Jones series, behind only "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". And I agree with Joe about the humor. It was "hit-and-miss", if that is the phrase to use.

[MrScratch 292]

For the negative options, I voted for everything except: Locations, Set Design, Sound Effects & Mixing and Score. All of these things were done adequately.

Because I had to pick something, I picked the Snake Pit scene. It made me laugh, probably the only time the movie elicited a positive reaction from me.

[Datameister 1,394]

Yeah, Nick Parker, I find that the best humor comes at times when it's not supposed to be particularly funny. If you thrust CG groundhogs in my face and insist that I start ROFLing in the theater, it probably ain't gonna happen. But little moments of understated, subtle humor can really bring a smile to my face. Can't think of any examples from KOTCS off the top of my head, but they were there, and I enjoyed them.

EDIT: I enjoyed the snake pit scene, too, MrScratch. Although I couldn't help feeling that even Indiana Jones wouldn't be quite that over-the-top with his fear of snakes.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

I felt that the prairie dogs were a "throwaway gag". If you thought they were funny, fine, but they did not destroy the scene if you did not find them humorous. That is what I think, anyways. I like discussing this film, I was not around to discuss when the film was first released.

[Datameister 1,394]

I felt that the prairie dogs were a "throwaway gag". If you thought they were funny, fine, but they did not destroy the scene if you did not find them humorous.

They didn't ruin the movie or anything for me, but they definitely felt to me like George Lucas trying to be funny, which is something I rarely enjoy.

I like discussing this film, I was not around to discuss when the film was first released.

Same here. I was a member, but I was halfway through what ended up being a yearlong break from this forum.

[Quintus 5,391]

I don't see how this thread will tell us anything we didn't all ready know, but I voted anyway.

I liked:

Story concept: the McGuffin and 50's SF influence

Russians: Irina Spalko and Dovchenko as the villains

Casting of new characters

Acting by Harrison Ford

Acting by other cast members

Booby Traps

Whip usage

Fight scenes

Locations

Sound Effects by Ben Burtt

Sound Mixing

Musical score by John Williams

Of the following I also liked:

Opening: Car chase with Elvis Presley's "Hound Dog"

Finding the crate in the Warehouse

Warehouse Escape

"Doom Town" and Atomic Explosion

Fight in Arnie's Diner

Motorcycle Chase through Town

Indy's home, travel to Peru, Cuzco Market Place

Graveyard Attack

Finding the Skull

The Russians' Camp

Over the cliff and the three waterfalls

Find the entrance to the lost valley

Ugha Warriors and entering the temple

The Throne Room

Departure

All of the above are hardly perfect, but all in all I like them. Ford was brilliant. The Jungle Chase has some good bits, but I dislike the sequence on the whole, so I didn't vote for it.

[Henry B 49]

Oh, dear. Well, I liked the score and the sound effects (not to be confused with the mixing). Decent acting by Ford; he does actually seem like Indiana Jones most of the time (I like his awkward reaction to seeing Marion again), although he spends the entire last act of the film with a harrowed facial expression. The 50s/sci-fi concept was fine; it just could have been done a lot better.

Major negative factors: convoluted story devoid of tension, characters (Spalko is one of the worst villains ever), acting (Karen Allen should not have come out of retirement), fight scenes/chase scenes, awful special effects, and sound mixing which destroyed the effectiveness of the score in the film.

The only scene I unequivocally like is the opening sequence. There's something very suspenseful about it.

[Datameister 1,394]

I like his awkward reaction to seeing Marion again

Awww, I loved that. Seeing them together again made my heart melt, and that moment was the right way to start that off.

acting (Karen Allen should not have come out of retirement)

I disagree; I thought she did a fine job, for the most part. For me, the acting was mainly an issue with Spalko, a few of minor characters, and - I'm sad to say - Harrison Ford, on occasion. Don't get me wrong, he's great, but there were a couple of lines that were just...not perfect.

The only scene I unequivocally like is the opening sequence. There's something very suspenseful about it.

The stuff with the motorcade, or the stuff in the warehouse? If you're referring to the latter, I agree. Not perfect, but it was a strong way to start the film, poor lighting aside.

[Henry B 49]

acting (Karen Allen should not have come out of retirement)

I disagree; I thought she did a fine job, for the most part. For me, the acting was mainly an issue with Spalko, a few of minor characters, and - I'm sad to say - Harrison Ford, on occasion. Don't get me wrong, he's great, but there were a couple of lines that were just...not perfect.

Well, Allen had an impossible part to work with, but she still made me cringe. "Young man, I SPECIFICALLY told you to stay home!" "Not like YOU did any better."

The only scene I unequivocally like is the opening sequence. There's something very suspenseful about it.

The stuff with the motorcade, or the stuff in the warehouse? If you're referring to the latter, I agree. Not perfect, but it was a strong way to start the film, poor lighting aside.

No, just the motorcade. I like it because the audience doesn't know what's going on. Who are these military people? What are they doing? And then a truck roars by and runs the car full of teenagers off the road. It's wonderfully shot by Spielberg, and Elvis's "Hound Dog" sells it. As soon as the Raiders March plays, the film loses me (sorry, John).

What follows... well, my problems are Spalko (she's such a joke that Indy laughs in her face), Mac's abrupt and needless betrayal, bad special effects, the gunpowder chase (a little far-fetched) and the illogical plot. When Spalko said Indy had been in the warehouse before, I'm sure everyone thought she was referring to the Ark, but she wasn't. Why was the Ark there? Why was it the same warehouse? It had nothing to do with anything. I guess they just wanted to titillate Raiders fans. Also, I can't help wondering what happened to the Ark. Did the military board it back up without invoking the wrath of God?

[Datameister 1,394]

No, just the motorcade. I like it because the audience doesn't know what's going on. Who are these military people? What are they doing? And then a truck roars by and runs the car full of teenagers off the road. It's wonderfully shot by Spielberg, and Elvis's "Hound Dog" sells it. As soon as the Raiders March plays, the film loses me (sorry, John).

That's interesting. I suppose I can see where you're coming from, but I didn't particularly enjoy the scene.

my problems are Spalko (she's such a joke that Indy laughs in her face), Mac's abrupt and needless betrayal,

No argument there....

bad special effects

I didn't have a problem with the visual effects in this sequence, particularly on the small screen. It was mainly the jungle chase that was problematic.

the gunpowder chase (a little far-fetched)

I know what you mean.

When Spalko said Indy had been in the warehouse before, I'm sure everyone thought she was referring to the Ark, but she wasn't. Why was the Ark there? Why was it the same warehouse? It had nothing to do with anything. I guess they just wanted to titillate Raiders fans. Also, I can't help wondering what happened to the Ark. Did the military board it back up without invoking the wrath of God?

I see where you're coming from. I suppose I just enjoyed the overlap of the two stories - it was better than no reference to the Ark at all.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

I thought it was nice to reveal the formerly ambiguous warehouse as "Area 51". It fits the feel of the film (1950's science-fiction), gives Steven Spielberg an excuse to show the Ark of the Covenant again, and I ultimately thought it was a nice play on "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (the ending of that film is the beginning of this film).

[indy4 152]

For me, everything was a positive contributor overall, except for these three aspects:

Special Effects (They could be brilliant--the Departure shows that--but they look terrible in the Jungle Chase, and they really bring the scene down.)

Sound Mixing (John's score was not very audible)

Editing (Really only because of the moment where Indy rips his pants--I think this was an editing mistake, but it really is a terrible moment)

The rest is all good to me. Not all of it is perfect, mind you, a lot of it is overall good with some flaws, but they were all positive contributors overall.

All the scenes were positive, for me.

[King Mark 2,924]

We seem to have this thread every week

[John Crichton 4]

My main problem with the movie is, as Henry mentioned, a complete lack of tension. There's never a moment where you feel any true danger.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

I will partially concur with that.

[indy4 152]

We seem to have this thread every week

No, the more popular threads lately have been regarding JW and whether he is a good as he was in his "Golden Age." But KotCS has been factored into those threads and used as examples a lot.

[Delorean90 32]

acting (Karen Allen should not have come out of retirement)

I disagree; I thought she did a fine job, for the most part. For me, the acting was mainly an issue with Spalko, a few of minor characters, and - I'm sad to say - Harrison Ford, on occasion. Don't get me wrong, he's great, but there were a couple of lines that were just...not perfect.

Well, Allen had an impossible part to work with, but she still made me cringe. "Young man, I SPECIFICALLY told you to stay home!" "Not like YOU did any better."

Meh.

No, just the motorcade. I like it because the audience doesn't know what's going on. Who are these military people? What are they doing? And then a truck roars by and runs the car full of teenagers off the road. It's wonderfully shot by Spielberg, and Elvis's "Hound Dog" sells it. As soon as the Raiders March plays, the film loses me (sorry, John).

It is really good. I love that shot of the truck running them off the road. It's a small, inconsequential thing, but it just adds to the scene and gives it sort of a vintage Spielberg vibe somehow.

What follows... well, my problems are Spalko (she's such a joke that Indy laughs in her face), Mac's abrupt and needless betrayal, bad special effects, the gunpowder chase (a little far-fetched) and the illogical plot. When Spalko said Indy had been in the warehouse before, I'm sure everyone thought she was referring to the Ark, but she wasn't. Why was the Ark there? Why was it the same warehouse? It had nothing to do with anything. I guess they just wanted to titillate Raiders fans. Also, I can't help wondering what happened to the Ark. Did the military board it back up without invoking the wrath of God?

I thought it was tying into the whole theme of the final shots of Raiders, which was, "Well, if they're just boxing the Ark up and storing it in a warehouse, what else do we have just sitting there?" With that in mind, it made perfect sense for it to be the same warehouse, and for it all to be Area 51, no less.

[indy4 152]

I felt that the prairie dogs were a "throwaway gag". If you thought they were funny, fine, but they did not destroy the scene if you did not find them humorous. That is what I think, anyways. I like discussing this film, I was not around to discuss when the film was first released.

I agree with the humor aspect.

My biggest problem with the prairie dogs was how fake they looked.

[Henry B 49]

I thought it was tying into the whole theme of the final shots of Raiders, which was, "Well, if they're just boxing the Ark up and storing it in a warehouse, what else do we have just sitting there?" With that in mind, it made perfect sense for it to be the same warehouse, and for it all to be Area 51, no less.

Yeah, I see what you mean, but it was handled confusingly. I feel like it was more a part of the online marketing campaign than the film. Remember when the official Indiana Jones web site just had that picture of the alien crate with an ID number on it? People noticed it was nearly identical to the Ark crate's ID number and wondered if it was a typo. Turns out it was a red herring.

What's awkward is that the Ark is never addressed by anyone in the film. It's just... there. * Spielberg set us up for something and we got nothing. That's why I was fine with the ending of Raiders: we know that the Nazis will not be the last ones to try to open the Ark. It's kind of a serial killer that gets away at the end of the movie. Like in No Country, heh. The film ends with an ominous warning against arrogance in the face of God. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull trashes all that by bringing the Ark back, but then it does nothing with it. Is it trying to say, "By the way, the Ark's still around, so you should still feel a sense of dread"? What's the point? Either involve the Ark in the plot or cut it entirely. It's like if Indy just happened to find the Holy Grail in that room full of world treasures in Akator but didn't drink out of it or anything.

* It's worth noting that a first time Indy viewer would have no idea what's going on. "Why is the camera on this pretty looking box?" The other Indy sequels stood on their own regardless of previous knowledge or chronological order.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Steven Spielberg just used it as a gag. As soon as they entered Area 51 with "Ark Theme" (I knew what it was back then), I knew Steven would do that. Oh, and I have seen the film with multiple people who had not seen the other Indiana Jones films, and they had no problem. That shot was too "glancing" for them to consider it, although the giggles from the audience confused them.

[Datameister 1,394]

I saw the film with two newcomers to the franchise, and neither voiced confusion about the Ark. (Though I suppose they could have simply neglected to mention it.)

[indy4 152]

What's awkward is that the Ark is never addressed by anyone in the film. It's just... there. * Spielberg set us up for something and we got nothing. That's why I was fine with the ending of Raiders: we know that the Nazis will not be the last ones to try to open the Ark. It's kind of a serial killer that gets away at the end of the movie. Like in No Country, heh. The film ends with an ominous warning against arrogance in the face of God. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull trashes all that by bringing the Ark back, but then it does nothing with it. Is it trying to say, "By the way, the Ark's still around, so you should still feel a sense of dread"?

It's a comic homage and reminder of the previous films, it isn't supposed to carry any deep meaning or message. The same way that all homages or comic events from Indy films aren't supposed to carry any deep meaning (the "Don't call me Junior" motif from LC would be one of the few exceptions).

* It's worth noting that a first time Indy viewer would have no idea what's going on. "Why is the camera on this pretty looking box?" The other Indy sequels stood on their own regardless of previous knowledge or chronological order.

These types of homages have been done in previous Indy films, and they worked fine. In LC there's a joke/homage to the Ark as well. If first time viewers are confused for about 2 seconds, it isn't going to make the entire film fall apart unless viewed with the other three.

[Henry B 49]

Yes, the other films had a few inside jokes. The Ark (and warehouse) cameo really can't be construed as comic. Do you want to make a case for it as a serious, dramatic cameo? Whatever that is.

[indy4 152]

Yes, the other films had a few inside jokes. The Ark (and warehouse) cameo really can't be construed as comic. Do you want to make a case for it as a serious, dramatic cameo? Whatever that is.

It's comic in its irony. It's ironic that Indy is so close to an object that he fought so hard for many years ago, and he doesn't even know it. It's also a nice shot of nostalgia.

[Ollie 859]

Lets see...

First section I checked score.

Second section I check too many to list.

Third section I checked the saucer departing.

[Delorean90 32]

Grumpy old sasquatch.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Yes, the other films had a few inside jokes. The Ark (and warehouse) cameo really can't be construed as comic. Do you want to make a case for it as a serious, dramatic cameo? Whatever that is.

It's comic in its irony. It's ironic that Indy is so close to an object that he fought so hard for many years ago, and he doesn't even know it. It's also a nice shot of nostalgia.

Hm, I never thought about it that way before....

[Henry B 49]

Yes, the other films had a few inside jokes. The Ark (and warehouse) cameo really can't be construed as comic. Do you want to make a case for it as a serious, dramatic cameo? Whatever that is.

It's comic in its irony. It's ironic that Indy is so close to an object that he fought so hard for many years ago, and he doesn't even know it. It's also a nice shot of nostalgia.

I got nostalgic too... nostalgic for a better film! At least Williams did a great job with the musical cameo. As for the frustration of Indy the treasure seeker, that's all well and good, but how does the film illustrate this? We're in the middle of an exciting chase scene and all of a sudden we just see the Ark. That's it. There's nothing that conveys that theme. It never occurred to me that the cameo had something to do with Indy never managing to recover the artifact (perhaps because it's completely irrelevant to the plot), and I have to wonder if that's what was on the filmmakers' minds. It's funny how many subtle undercurrents supposedly run through this film (e.g. Indy teaching about the Exodus when he gets fired), and yet we get blatant plot holes and lines like "I have a bad feeling about this" and "Somewhere up there your grandpa is laughing." It's obvious the film is the result of fifteen years of ideas - Lucas wanted his damn nuclear fridge and all that - but the ideas are put together so haphazardly.

[Delorean90 32]

It was a simple cameo, Henry. What's so hard to grasp about that? It was simply them saying, "Yeah, it's the same warehouse." It's the fulfillment of that "What else do they have?" idea. No more, no less. There's no need to take up a big chunk of screentime going indepth over a wink.

[Ollie 859]

It was pretty much a dead giveaway we were going to see the ark or something that represented it as soon as they opened the door, even without Williams musically giving it away.

[Henry B 49]

It was a simple cameo, Henry. What's so hard to grasp about that? It was simply them saying, "Yeah, it's the same warehouse." It's the fulfillment of that "What else do they have?" idea. No more, no less. There's no need to take up a big chunk of screentime going indepth over a wink.

No, I don't believe that any sort of cameo can just be thrown in without being taken seriously. What if there's another Indiana Jones film and a crystal skull makes a cameo? It would be awkward given how essential it was to the plot of the preceding film. What if Darth Maul had made a cameo in Attack of the Clones, but did nothing but stand next to Dooku during the arena scene or something? Wouldn't you expect him to kill some Jedi? (I'm sure he would, of course, in some Expanded Universe medium.) What if Boba Fett had made a cameo in--oh, wait. Man, f*ck the prequels.

[indy4 152]

Yes, the other films had a few inside jokes. The Ark (and warehouse) cameo really can't be construed as comic. Do you want to make a case for it as a serious, dramatic cameo? Whatever that is.

It's comic in its irony. It's ironic that Indy is so close to an object that he fought so hard for many years ago, and he doesn't even know it. It's also a nice shot of nostalgia.

I got nostalgic too... nostalgic for a better film! At least Williams did a great job with the musical cameo. As for the frustration of Indy the treasure seeker, that's all well and good, but how does the film illustrate this? We're in the middle of an exciting chase scene and all of a sudden we just see the Ark. That's it. There's nothing that conveys that theme.

Humor isn't supposed to be explained. Would you have preferred a title that appeared on screen saying "Note: This scene is humorous due to the ironic situation of Indy being so close to the Lost Ark of the Covenant (see Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark) and not even being aware of it?"

(The "Indiana Jones and the" bit would just be there to further piss off Henry )

It never occurred to me that the cameo had something to do with Indy never managing to recover the artifact (perhaps because it's completely irrelevant to the plot), and I have to wonder if that's what was on the filmmakers' minds.

Irrelevant to the plot? Don't most humorous situations in films add nothing to the plot (my apologizes for the double negative)? Humor, in many situations, is there because the plot allows for it to be, NOT because it is supposed to further the plot in any way. For example, Marcus' "That's just what the Hebrews thought" doesn't help to further the plot in any way. We know by definition that Hebrew people believed in God, we didn't need Marcus highlighting that fact for us. But it fits. Why? Because it's funny.

As the cameo is a humorous situation, the same applies.

It was a simple cameo, Henry. What's so hard to grasp about that? It was simply them saying, "Yeah, it's the same warehouse." It's the fulfillment of that "What else do they have?" idea. No more, no less. There's no need to take up a big chunk of screentime going indepth over a wink.

No, I don't believe that any sort of cameo can just be thrown in without being taken seriously. What if there's another Indiana Jones film and a crystal skull makes a cameo? It would be awkward given how essential it was to the plot of the preceding film. What if Darth Maul had made a cameo in Attack of the Clones, but did nothing but stand next to Dooku during the arena scene or something? Wouldn't you expect him to kill some Jedi? (I'm sure he would, of course, in some Expanded Universe medium.) What if Boba Fett had made a cameo in--oh, wait. Man, f*ck the prequels.

That wouldn't make sense. The Skull is somewhere in another dimension right now. Maul is

chopped in half in an endless shaft.

The Ark, on the other hand, was placed in a warehouse, which is the exact place where the action is going on in that scene.

[Delorean90 32]

Henry, what would you have had them do with it?

EDIT: I see you got there first indy4.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

So, is this the kind of discussion that took place in May?

[indy4 152]

EDIT: I see you got there first indy4.

And in this sort of race, there's no silver medal for finishing second.

So, is this the kind of discussion that took place in May?

The reception of the film in May was generally more positive, actually.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Well, halfway into this argument, I thought, "Wait, are we actually arguing over, what, two seconds of a film?" I feel pathetic....

[Henry B 49]

Yes, the other films had a few inside jokes. The Ark (and warehouse) cameo really can't be construed as comic. Do you want to make a case for it as a serious, dramatic cameo? Whatever that is.

It's comic in its irony. It's ironic that Indy is so close to an object that he fought so hard for many years ago, and he doesn't even know it. It's also a nice shot of nostalgia.

I got nostalgic too... nostalgic for a better film! At least Williams did a great job with the musical cameo. As for the frustration of Indy the treasure seeker, that's all well and good, but how does the film illustrate this? We're in the middle of an exciting chase scene and all of a sudden we just see the Ark. That's it. There's nothing that conveys that theme.

Humor isn't supposed to be explained. Would you have preferred a title that appeared on screen saying "Note: This scene is humorous due to the ironic situation of Indy being so close to the Lost Ark of the Covenant (see Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark) and not even being aware of it?"

(The "Indiana Jones and the" bit would just be there to further piss off Henry )

There's no need to be pugnacious. I still don't buy this humor thing. It just isn't done gracefully. Why have a shot of Spalko running past the Ark? It should have been Indy. In fact, if Indy had run past it I just may have gotten the "joke." Yes, I expect that much of Spielberg. This isn't Donnie Darko or something. If you're going to make a statement, please make it clear. Did you interpret the meaning of the Ark's cameo like this the first time you saw the film? Please be honest.

It never occurred to me that the cameo had something to do with Indy never managing to recover the artifact (perhaps because it's completely irrelevant to the plot), and I have to wonder if that's what was on the filmmakers' minds.

Irrelevant to the plot? Don't most humorous situations in films add nothing to the plot (my apologizes for the double negative)? Humor, in many situations, is there because the plot allows for it to be, NOT because it is supposed to further the plot in any way. For example, Marcus' "That's just what the Hebrews thought" doesn't help to further the plot in any way. We know by definition that Hebrew people believed in God, we didn't need Marcus highlighting that fact for us. But it fits. Why? Because it's funny.

As the cameo is a humorous situation, the same applies.

There's a moment similar to this in Frank Darabont's rejected script, actually. Indy gets piss drunk and wanders around a museum (I think?). He notices the Idol from the South American temple and quips about how difficult it was to finally obtain. (He then reenacts the scene from Raiders by attempting to steal the Idol without setting off the alarm, which I thought was quite hamfisted.) But the Ark isn't just some artifact and the Area 51 warehouse isn't a museum. I can't bring myself to say, "Haha, Ark!" I'm wondering what happens when the Soviets notice what's hiding behind that blasted box. Or, if they ignore it, when Americans come to board it back up. Hell, the full version of the Raiders script said the Ark would kill if it was even touched.

I'll be honest about my reaction to the Ark: it was spine-tinglingly cool. Williams's tragic strains had me thinking something really special was on the way. But I waited and waited and nothing came! And I realized that it made no sense.

It was a simple cameo, Henry. What's so hard to grasp about that? It was simply them saying, "Yeah, it's the same warehouse." It's the fulfillment of that "What else do they have?" idea. No more, no less. There's no need to take up a big chunk of screentime going indepth over a wink.

No, I don't believe that any sort of cameo can just be thrown in without being taken seriously. What if there's another Indiana Jones film and a crystal skull makes a cameo? It would be awkward given how essential it was to the plot of the preceding film. What if Darth Maul had made a cameo in Attack of the Clones, but did nothing but stand next to Dooku during the arena scene or something? Wouldn't you expect him to kill some Jedi? (I'm sure he would, of course, in some Expanded Universe medium.) What if Boba Fett had made a cameo in--oh, wait. Man, f*ck the prequels.

That wouldn't make sense. The Skull is somewhere in another dimension right now. Maul is chopped in half in an endless shaft. The Ark, on the other hand, was placed in a warehouse, which is the exact place where the action is going on in that scene.

Ugh, why did I know this would come up... Yes, there wouldn't be any crystal skulls because they're all in another dimension. Whatever. How about the Sankara stones? They're still around somewhere, so it's possible they could pop up. But given their crucial role in Temple of Doom it would be pretty disappointing to see them tossed aside like so many rocks. By the way, everybody knows that Darth Maul dies. Really.

Henry, what would you have had them do with it?

Interesting question. I thought about this a bit. I'd have involved the Ark in the plot or left it (and the warehouse) out entirely. Let's say that the Soviets were trying to recover the Ark rather than some mummified corpse. They capture Indy because they know he's dealt with the Ark. They find the Ark and are all set to whisk it away. This would be full of tension and have the audience think that the Raiders situation is actually going to be resolved. However, let's say that something goes wrong. Maybe a fight breaks out and a stray bullet hits the box next to the Ark - which is the mummified corpse, or the crystal skull or whatever. This "awakens the beast" so to speak and some sort of magnetic explosion takes place (please don't hold me to any scientific standards on this), destroying the Ark. Now we know that the aliens mean business because they have power even over God. It tops Raiders and sets us up for an even bigger adventure. I love when sequels employ this sort of technique: trashing the original film. The first example which comes to mind - and I can't believe I'm saying this - is Ewoks: The Battle for Endor. It takes the hard earned peace achieved in the first film, throws it away and kills off most of the main cast within ten minutes. Damn! As much as those movies sucked, Lucas was right on the money with that plot strand.

[Datameister 1,394]

Yes, there wouldn't be any crystal skulls because they're all in another dimension. Whatever. How about the Sankara stones? They're still around somewhere, so it's possible they could pop up. But given their crucial role in Temple of Doom it would be pretty disappointing to see them tossed aside like so many rocks.

If the plot called for the characters to be in that particular Indian village for some strange, unlikely reason, I wouldn't mind seeing the Sankara stones there. Anywhere else would feel forced, yes. Same with the Ark. If that scene had taken place anywhere else, of course an Ark cameo would have felt out of place and pointless and gratuitous. But since we were in that warehouse, it works for me. I get your arguments, but I honestly just smiled when I saw the Ark in there. Didn't bother me one bit.

What did bother me, however, was the use of the Ark theme as they entered the warehouse. That was unnecessary...thematically heavy-handed. I would have much preferred some tense, new underscoring or even no music at all. (And don't get me wrong..."The Map Room: Dawn" is one of my favorite developments of one of my favorite themes of my favorite composer of all time! But there's a time and place for everything.) I did enjoy the much briefer and more appropriate statement when the ark was actually seen, however. Pity that wasn't on the OST instead of the inferior "Map Room" re-recording.

By the way, everybody knows that Darth Maul dies. Really.

HE DIES?! Henry, why did you have to spoil that movie for me? Gah...it's only been out for ten years, and I just haven't gotten a chance to finish it yet.

[Nick Parker 3,017]

Interesting question. I thought about this a bit. I'd have involved the Ark in the plot or left it (and the warehouse) out entirely. Let's say that the Soviets were trying to recover the Ark rather than some mummified corpse. They capture Indy because they know he's dealt with the Ark. They find the Ark and are all set to whisk it away. This would be full of tension and have the audience think that the Raiders situation is actually going to be resolved. However, let's say that something goes wrong. Maybe a fight breaks out and a stray bullet hits the box next to the Ark - which is the mummified corpse, or the crystal skull or whatever. This "awakens the beast" so to speak and some sort of magnetic explosion takes place (please don't hold me to any scientific standards on this), destroying the Ark. Now we know that the aliens mean business because they have power even over God. It tops Raiders and sets us up for an even bigger adventure.

Uh... I prefer the two-second cameo.

EDIT: If that were to happen, more would be trashed than just the original....

[Henry B 49]

Yes, there wouldn't be any crystal skulls because they're all in another dimension. Whatever. How about the Sankara stones? They're still around somewhere, so it's possible they could pop up. But given their crucial role in Temple of Doom it would be pretty disappointing to see them tossed aside like so many rocks.

If the plot called for the characters to be in that particular Indian village for some strange, unlikely reason, I wouldn't mind seeing the Sankara stones there. Anywhere else would feel forced, yes. Same with the Ark. If that scene had taken place anywhere else, of course an Ark cameo would have felt out of place and pointless and gratuitous. But since we were in that warehouse, it works for me. I get your arguments, but I honestly just smiled when I saw the Ark in there. Didn't bother me one bit.

To be fair, the lost Sankara Stones could be anywhere in India. It's not inconceivable that Indy could have ended up somewhere in India (just like he went somewhere in South America, just like in the beginning of Raiders), so if that had happened and he had just happened to dig up the Sankara stones... it would have been really silly.

What did bother me, however, was the use of the Ark theme as they entered the warehouse. That was unnecessary...thematically heavy-handed. I would have much preferred some tense, new underscoring or even no music at all. (And don't get me wrong..."The Map Room: Dawn" is one of my favorite developments of one of my favorite themes of my favorite composer of all time! But there's a time and place for everything.) I did enjoy the much briefer and more appropriate statement when the ark was actually seen, however. Pity that wasn't on the OST instead of the inferior "Map Room" re-recording.

I agree. By the way, check the DVD menus for a more interesting version of the Ark theme than what's in "Spell of the Skull."

[Datameister 1,394]

To be fair, the lost Sankara Stones could be anywhere in India. It's not inconceivable that Indy could have ended up somewhere in India (just like he went somewhere in South America, just like in the beginning of Raiders), so if that had happened and he had just happened to dig up the Sankara stones... it would have been really silly.

Right, and it would have been silly if he'd just happened to be wherever the Sankara stones were hiding out. But if he's going to be where the artifact is already, I don't mind them briefly reminding us that it is indeed there. (However, it's very easy for the circumstances surrounding him being there in the first place to feel forced. But I was fortunate enough not to be bothered by that in KOTCS.)

By the way, check the DVD menus for a more interesting version of the Ark theme than what's in "Spell of the Skull."

Thanks! I'm planning on ripping all the DVD audio when I get a chance in a few weeks, and I'll be sure to check it out.

[Henry B 49]

You might want to check this out then.

[Datameister 1,394]

You might want to check this out then.

Yeah, it's going to be a helpful resource when the time comes, although there's a certain amount of fun in "pioneering" these things on your own, too.

[indy4 152]

Humor isn't supposed to be explained. Would you have preferred a title that appeared on screen saying "Note: This scene is humorous due to the ironic situation of Indy being so close to the Lost Ark of the Covenant (see Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark) and not even being aware of it?"

(The "Indiana Jones and the" bit would just be there to further piss off Henry )

There's no need to be pugnacious.

Yes, because your sarcastic remarks never incite quarrels or fights.

I still don't buy this humor thing. It just isn't done gracefully. Why have a shot of Spalko running past the Ark? It should have been Indy. In fact, if Indy had run past it I just may have gotten the "joke." Yes, I expect that much of Spielberg. This isn't Donnie Darko or something. If you're going to make a statement, please make it clear.

Huh? Are you honestly criticizing the Ark cameo because Spalko was in the shot for a moment? I associate the Ark with Indiana Jones, no matter who is standing in a shot with it.

Did you interpret the meaning of the Ark's cameo like this the first time you saw the film? Please be honest.

I laughed because such irony is sorta instilled in me as humorous. It is instinctive for me to laugh at that type of stuff, I didn't specifically think to myself "It's funny because it's ironic!" It was just a reference that made me laugh. That was the reason, I just didn't quite realize it until I tried to explain why I found it funny just now. If that makes sense.

There's a moment similar to this in Frank Darabont's rejected script, actually. Indy gets piss drunk and wanders around a museum (I think?). He notices the Idol from the South American temple and quips about how difficult it was to finally obtain. (He then reenacts the scene from Raiders by attempting to steal the Idol without setting off the alarm, which I thought was quite hamfisted.)

That is an awful idea, if I may say so myself.

But the Ark isn't just some artifact and the Area 51 warehouse isn't a museum. I can't bring myself to say, "Haha, Ark!" I'm wondering what happens when the Soviets notice what's hiding behind that blasted box. Or, if they ignore it, when Americans come to board it back up. Hell, the full version of the Raiders script said the Ark would kill if it was even touched.

Not everything in Indy films must be perfectly resolved. I mean, Raiders leaves on a somewhat suspenseful note, what with the Ark being placed in a warehouse. I hardly see how you want something, meant to be a fun, nostalgic , two second cameo, to conclude satisfyingly, as though it were some sort of important subplot.

That wouldn't make sense. The Skull is somewhere in another dimension right now. Maul is chopped in half in an endless shaft. The Ark, on the other hand, was placed in a warehouse, which is the exact place where the action is going on in that scene.

Ugh, why did I know this would come up... Yes, there wouldn't be any crystal skulls because they're all in another dimension. Whatever. How about the Sankara stones? They're still around somewhere, so it's possible they could pop up. But given their crucial role in Temple of Doom it would be pretty disappointing to see them tossed aside like so many rocks.

You act as though I'm nitpicking and failing to see the big picture with my rebuttals, but I think that my previous point (about Maul being dead and the Skull being gone) illustrate the bigger picture: the only reason that the Ark cameo works is because it makes sense, in terms of location. If the camera panned over the Ark in the middle of the Jungle Chase, I would've hated it. But instead, it took place in the exact location that we know the Ark to be residing! It makes sense, as opposed to the random interjections of Maul and the Skull that contradict the very plot of the previous films.

I agree with Datameister in his example with the Stones.

[Diego 21]

I thought it was OK, better than the prequels, at least Ep. 2 and 3 (I'm very weird and actually think Ep. 1 is the best of the prequels, it was the last one that at least felt like a coherent film and not a videogame on steroids).

Anyway, my main problem with KOTCS is the script, the whole "Oxley has already been here so he knows what to do" seemed lazy to me. Then there are the plots that don't go anywhere, like the FBI one, they claim Indy is of interest to them and then we don't see them again, I think it would have been ok to change the formula and also have the FBI going after the skull. The supposed psychic powers of Irina is another plot that goes nowhere.

There's also the anti-climatic ending where Indy doesn't really do anything. Marion, who is completely wasted and seemed to be there just so they could have the wedding at the end, speaking of which, it was also horrible, at least they should have made a cooler wedding.