Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,476]

The ending where the Government has mysteriously let Indy off the hook and he's got his job back or whatever? That sort of lazy storytelling/tying up of loose ends with no explanation is the worst. I know it's Indiana Jones but the plot was just all over the damn place. The best stuff was the opening in Nevada, introduction to Mutt and motorcycle chase and then basically everything up until they get captured again (seriously, Shia put in a better performance than Ford in scenes). After that, scenes are hit and miss and the finale...well. The less said about it, the better.

[Henry B 49]

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.

Please, I'm not trying to do that.

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.

It's bad direction/editing. It's so abrupt given that it's in the middle of a chase scene. I'll bet that precious few viewers registered immediately that was a joke referring to Indy's tantalizing closeness to the Ark. If that's really what it is. By the way, tie-in material suggests Indy already knew the Ark was there. It says he discovered the location of the crate but got its ID number wrong. Presumably that means he accidentally recorded the ID number of the alien crate. But he was coerced into investigating that subject anyway in 1947, so... eh? I dunno, it doesn't make any more sense than the movie does.

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.

Heh, exactly. Raiders doesn't explain what happens to the Ark. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does, but it... doesn't... ergh... it's kind of half resolved.

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.

Yes, I see. But say Maul had survived his fall and become a cyborg. That was a really popular train of thought back in 1999/2000, you know. It then would have been possible for him to return, but if he returned and did nothing it would have been awkward.

[Datameister 1,394]

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.

I disagree. Perhaps it's just because I'm a romantic (to a certain extent) who always felt Marion and Indy belonged together, but I really liked that ending.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,476]

The Crystal Skull was really cool, in my opinion. When they enter that chamber with all the skeletons in a council or something, totally awesome imagery. You expect it to all come together and make the whole adventure worthwhile but then...oh, I don't even know what happens!

"I'll be alright, Jonesy!

*wink*

AHHHHHHHHH!!!"

WTF?!

[AzOutcast 122]

Well, looking through those options, it seems my biggest beef really was the actual execution. I didn't mind the 50's references, the Crystal Skull, or even Mutt. Everything was so underutilized though, especially Spalko. I also felt most of the action was a bit . . . fake. It felt very three stooges at times, or even sluggish. Take, for example, when Indy uses his whip in the beginning to take the gun from the Russian. It looks very cringe-worthy. The special effects really hurt the movie as well (mushroom cloud and departure aside). It certainly didn't help that after the Jungle Chase, there's no action what-so-ever. I just drop out of the movie at that point, and it all becomes very . . . boring. I really can't pinpoint why. There's booby traps (I guess) and exploring.

For some reason or another, I thought there would be much more action in the temple. I figured there would be Indy, fighting to return the Crystal Skull (the Russians fighting to get it back), Mutt dueling with Spalko, warriors popping out of everywhere, determined to kill everyone, booby traps galore . . . a rousing action spectacle of an ending. Instead, it's . . . well, not that.

I enjoy the movie to a degree, but it's a great disappointment to me. Even the score. It's good, yeah, but it's not great. Ah well.

[Diego 21]

I disagree. Perhaps it's just because I'm a romantic (to a certain extent) who always felt Marion and Indy belonged together, but I really liked that ending.

I'm ok with them getting married, my problem is with the wedding itself, the church seemed ugly, the kiss was atrocious, etc. And as long as they were going for the cheesy ending they might as well had Short Round and Sallah attende the ceremony.

[Henry B 49]

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.

I disagree. Perhaps it's just because I'm a romantic (to a certain extent) who always felt Marion and Indy belonged together, but I really liked that ending.

I would have liked it too if the romance had been adequately rekindled. One of that absolute worst moments in the film is just after everyone escapes from Akator.

"Come on, junior, why don't ya stick around?"

"I dunno. Why didn't you, Dad?"

LeBeouf delivers this line pretty seriously and it's evident he has issues with discovering that his real father has been missing for the first seventeen years of his life. But Indy and Marion just laugh it off and get married! Marion's so in love with Indy that she leaps at his mouth when the minister finishes speaking. Why, why, why? I can't believe they get back together only a few hours after being reunited (seriously, think about that timespan). There's not a shred of development. Indy says, "They weren't you," and three or four action sequences later they're suddenly about to kiss. Ridiculous.

I should add that in Darabont's script, Indy and Marion spend weeks together and there's no kid involved, so Indy isn't a deadbeat dad.

[Datameister 1,394]

I'm ok with them getting married, my problem is with the wedding itself, the church seemed ugly,

The church looked fine to me...

the kiss was atrocious,

...but yeah, the kiss was not the best the silver screen has ever seen. I suppose it'd be a little disturbing if we were treated to a hot makeout session between these two aging actors, but still.

And as long as they were going for the cheesy ending they might as well had Short Round and Sallah attende the ceremony.

Short Round? No way. But I seriously wouldn't have minded Sallah's presence! They consider each other family, don't they? Besides, as far as I'm concerned, the ending of KOTCS is less cheesy than that of TOD and TLC. I'll take a sappy wedding over either of those messes. But of course, Raiders is the real winner in this category. What else is new?

EDIT:

I can't believe they get back together only a few hours after being reunited (seriously, think about that timespan). There's not a shred of development. Indy says, "They weren't you," and three or four action sequences later they're suddenly about to kiss. Ridiculous.

Who says there weren't weeks or months between the departure and the wedding? I mean, there are mere seconds between the Nazis' bodies being swept up into the heavens and the meeting back in Washington, but we assume that days or even weeks have passed.

[Diego 21]

The church looked fine to me...

I think an outdoor wedding would have been better... I dunno, it seemed so "meh" to me

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,476]

It's what's his name's photography.

[Henry B 49]

For some reason or another, I thought there would be much more action in the temple. I figured there would be Indy, fighting to return the Crystal Skull (the Russians fighting to get it back), Mutt dueling with Spalko, warriors popping out of everywhere, determined to kill everyone, booby traps galore . . . a rousing action spectacle of an ending. Instead, it's . . . well, not that.

Yes. The trailers really excited me. I thought all those howling prisoners were going to be part of the alien setup at Akator and I thought, "Whoa, just WHAT is going on here?" But it turned out to be an ordinary asylum, and the skull's psychic effects proved to be less than stellar. Nothing but John Hurt hopping around like a fool and Indy getting the movie's script implanted in his head for convenience.

I was also rooting for zombies. Yeah, seriously. That shot of Ford whacking somebody with a shovel got me excited. It's so retro. What could be cooler than Indiana Jones beating the hell out of zombies? Instead, the "living dead" turned out to be the Hovitos from Raiders with more face paint. I guess they were immortal, but there was nothing interesting about it. I wanted to see some horror and gore! Which, by the way, was laughably missing from the shot of the dead natives. Downing a hundred people with machine guns would produce a little blood, I think.

In general, just a fantastical tour de force would have been fun. Zombies, crazy imprisoned people, everything. Unfortunately, the locations and lighting are boring; you never get anything like the storms in Raiders or the temple scenes ToD. I did like the scenery surrounding Akator at its destruction, though. The valley of waterfalls... quite cool.

Who says there weren't weeks or months between the departure and the wedding? I mean, there are mere seconds between the Nazis' bodies being swept up into the heavens and the meeting back in Washington, but we assume that days or even weeks have passed.

Nah, they're already back together in South America.

[indy4 152]

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.

It's bad direction/editing. It's so abrupt given that it's in the middle of a chase scene. I'll bet that precious few viewers registered immediately that was a joke referring to Indy's tantalizing closeness to the Ark. If that's really what it is. By the way, tie-in material suggests Indy already knew the Ark was there. It says he discovered the location of the crate but got its ID number wrong. Presumably that means he accidentally recorded the ID number of the alien crate. But he was coerced into investigating that subject anyway in 1947, so... eh? I dunno, it doesn't make any more sense than the movie does.

I think that that is due to the always expanding world of Indiana Jones. George Lucas once admitted that some of the SW books contradicted the rules set in the comics (I think it was books and comics). With so many people having a go at Indy, there's bound to be some mistakes/contradictions within the entire world. I'm really only interested in what takes place in the 4 feature films.

But anyways, I think that your point is still arguable, forgetting what I just wrote. I doubt Indy ever saw a picture of Area 51, which is why he didn't recognize it. He probably just knew the directions to the place. And clearly he didn't know where he was going when he was in the Russians' truck, because he was stuffed in the trunk.

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.

Heh, exactly. Raiders doesn't explain what happens to the Ark. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does, but it... doesn't... ergh... it's kind of half resolved.

I don't quite understand what you mean.

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.

Yes, I see. But say Maul had survived his fall and become a cyborg. That was a really popular train of thought back in 1999/2000, you know. It then would have been possible for him to return, but if he returned and did nothing it would have been awkward.

Then the story would be going out of its way to justify a two second cameo. In KotCS, they're in the warehouse anyways, why shouldn't they throw in the Ark? And what are the odds that Maul would be in the exact place that the action is taking place in SW? That'd be like Indy seeing Shorty in the middle of the motorcycle chase. Actually, it'd be less likely, because there's only one planet that Shorty can be on. Maul has the entire universe, what are the odds he would end up with Anakin or whoever?

[Datameister 1,394]

Unfortunately, the locations and lighting are boring; you never get anything like the storms in Raiders or the temple scenes ToD.

Again, I find myself disagreeing. While some of the scenery was boring, I thought a lot of it was quite inspired and genuinely hearkened back to Raiders and some of the better parts of the other sequels. The graveyard was particularly atmospheric.

[indy4 152]

The Graveyard looked awesome (well, not the CGI shot, but the actual set). So did the Departure, which was visually completely opposite from the Graveyard. The sun glancing off the saucer is a beautiful shot.

[Henry B 49]

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.

It's bad direction/editing. It's so abrupt given that it's in the middle of a chase scene. I'll bet that precious few viewers registered immediately that was a joke referring to Indy's tantalizing closeness to the Ark. If that's really what it is. By the way, tie-in material suggests Indy already knew the Ark was there. It says he discovered the location of the crate but got its ID number wrong. Presumably that means he accidentally recorded the ID number of the alien crate. But he was coerced into investigating that subject anyway in 1947, so... eh? I dunno, it doesn't make any more sense than the movie does.

I think that that is due to the always expanding world of Indiana Jones. George Lucas once admitted that some of the SW books contradicted the rules set in the comics (I think it was books and comics). With so many people having a go at Indy, there's bound to be some mistakes/contradictions within the entire world. I'm really only interested in what takes place in the 4 feature films.

I'm only questioning the intent of Spielberg and Lucas. This "Lost Journal" was produced in conjunction with the film, so I would think it would be consistent with the film. Seriously, is there an interview or something that explains this? Like something about Spielberg saying, "We thought it would be fun to bring the Ark back..." Seriously, I want to know. I VANT TO KNOW!!!

But anyways, I think that your point is still arguable, forgetting what I just wrote. I doubt Indy ever saw a picture of Area 51, which is why he didn't recognize it. He probably just knew the directions to the place. And clearly he didn't know where he was going when he was in the Russians' truck, because he was stuffed in the trunk.

Hmm, hadn't he been there before, though? After the Roswell incident. He was lying when he told Dovchenko, "Drop dead." Which, incidentally, is followed by the terrible, "I'm sorry. I meant drop dead, comrade."

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.

Heh, exactly. Raiders doesn't explain what happens to the Ark. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does, but it... doesn't... ergh... it's kind of half resolved.

I don't quite understand what you mean.

Well, Raiders makes it a point to leave the Ark's fate a mystery. KotCS makes it a point to reveal the Ark but then doesn't do anything with it, so it's kind of still a mystery... kind of?

Then the story would be going out of its way to justify a two second cameo. In KotCS, they're in the warehouse anyways, why shouldn't they throw in the Ark? And what are the odds that Maul would be in the exact place that the action is taking place in SW? That'd be like Indy seeing Shorty in the middle of the motorcycle chase. Actually, it'd be less likely, because there's only one planet that Shorty can be on. Maul has the entire universe, what are the odds he would end up with Anakin or whoever?

Okay, okay, making Maul a cyborg is too involved. But my point is simply that it would be odd to bring back a major character but not involve him in the plot - or explain his presence at all. It's like if Nute Gunray was back but it wasn't explained that he spent time in prison after Episode I and wanted revenge on Amidala, nor that the Trade Federation had joined with Dooku. You'd obviously be wondering what he was doing on Geonosis.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,476]

The Graveyard looked awesome (well, not the CGI shot, but the actual set). So did the Departure, which was visually completely opposite from the Graveyard. The sun glancing off the saucer is a beautiful shot.

Yeah, beautiful shot. But WHY does it happen? Why does Mac and everything get sucked up/destroyed in a vortex? They collected all this stuff to destroy it? I don't get any of this. It just seems to have all been written with the intention of leaving it ambiguous and showing an alien/spaceship. Why did the Russians need the alien corpse? It was just a plot device. It's like if in ROTLA (ignoring the exposition in the school) Indy needed the headpiece to the staff of ra and then after picking up Marion in the bar fight the medallion is like never brought up again the rest of the film.

[Delorean90 32]

I don't actually think all the stuff gets destroyed. The temple is destroyed, but it was a facade. Spalko is specifically killed for her greed, overwhelmed by the mental powers. But I'm not so sure about Mac and the soldiers, and I suspect the treasure was not destroyed. In the book, Mac does not specifically get killed--the last we hear of him is his thought: Let's see where this goes. I think if they hadn't added in Mac yelling/screaming as he is sucked in, it would make a lot more sense, and clarify it as a moment of self-sacrifice (which was handled much better in the book).

As for the alien remains, I think they were really getting it to confirm their existence and do tests, such as confirming that the skull was similar to the mythical crystal skull. It was never meant to be a key in the actual quest.

[Joe Brausam 203]

The Graveyard looked awesome (well, not the CGI shot, but the actual set). So did the Departure, which was visually completely opposite from the Graveyard. The sun glancing off the saucer is a beautiful shot.

Yeah, beautiful shot. But WHY does it happen? Why does Mac and everything get sucked up/destroyed in a vortex? They collected all this stuff to destroy it? I don't get any of this. It just seems to have all been written with the intention of leaving it ambiguous and showing an alien/spaceship. Why did the Russians need the alien corpse? It was just a plot device. It's like if in ROTLA (ignoring the exposition in the school) Indy needed the headpiece to the staff of ra and then after picking up Marion in the bar fight the medallion is like never brought up again the rest of the film.

But the medallion WAS brought up. He used it to find out the measurements of the staff and then subsequently used it on the staff to find the Ark's location. Toht had it burned onto his hand and used what he could see to TRY to find the Ark's location, ultimately being wrong and allowing to Indy to find it himself. The medallion doesn't just disappear.

[Henry B 49]

As for the alien remains, I think they were really getting it to confirm their existence and do tests, such as confirming that the skull was similar to the mythical crystal skull. It was never meant to be a key in the actual quest.

The alien remains. Another disappointment. The film foreshadows the hell out of aliens, but we actually see one halfway into it. An actual... alien... corpse. Despite this blatant proof, the scripts continues to hint at aliens as Indy and gang explore the temple at Akator.

I don't actually think all the stuff gets destroyed. The temple is destroyed, but it was a facade. Spalko is specifically killed for her greed, overwhelmed by the mental powers. But I'm not so sure about Mac and the soldiers, and I suspect the treasure was not destroyed. In the book, Mac does not specifically get killed--the last we hear of him is his thought: Let's see where this goes. I think if they hadn't added in Mac yelling/screaming as he is sucked in, it would make a lot more sense, and clarify it as a moment of self-sacrifice (which was handled much better in the book).

I bet it was. If I remember correctly, the Revenge of the Sith novelization actually explained Anakin's fall to the dark side after killing Mace Windu. Palpatine basically takes Anakin aside and explains that he created him for the express purpose of exterminating the Jedi, He blasts through an account of Anakin's entire life, revealing it to be nothing more than a setup. That's why he falls.

Anyway, what happens with Mac? I figured in the film he could have had a moment of remorse when he saw that the aliens were about to kill the hell out of everyone and sacrifice himself (however that works), but instead he continues to grab treasure. Then he suddenly has a change of heart and lets get sucked into the vortex (and from what we see in the movie he's tossed about like a rag doll). I don't get it.

[indy4 152]

I think that that is due to the always expanding world of Indiana Jones. George Lucas once admitted that some of the SW books contradicted the rules set in the comics (I think it was books and comics). With so many people having a go at Indy, there's bound to be some mistakes/contradictions within the entire world. I'm really only interested in what takes place in the 4 feature films.

I'm only questioning the intent of Spielberg and Lucas. This "Lost Journal" was produced in conjunction with the film, so I would think it would be consistent with the film. Seriously, is there an interview or something that explains this? Like something about Spielberg saying, "We thought it would be fun to bring the Ark back..." Seriously, I want to know. I VANT TO KNOW!!!

The intent was to make a nostalgic and humorous reference to Raiders. I don't have a source to back me up, but I'd be willing to bet my Indy Boxset that that's why.

But anyways, I think that your point is still arguable, forgetting what I just wrote. I doubt Indy ever saw a picture of Area 51, which is why he didn't recognize it. He probably just knew the directions to the place. And clearly he didn't know where he was going when he was in the Russians' truck, because he was stuffed in the trunk.

Hmm, hadn't he been there before, though? After the Roswell incident. He was lying when he told Dovchenko, "Drop dead." Which, incidentally, is followed by the terrible, "I'm sorry. I meant drop dead, comrade."

That's not what I thought. I suppose he could've been, but I thought he looked pretty sincere when he said "I've never been here in my life." I dunno, maybe you're right.

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.

Heh, exactly. Raiders doesn't explain what happens to the Ark. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does, but it... doesn't... ergh... it's kind of half resolved.

I don't quite understand what you mean.

Well, Raiders makes it a point to leave the Ark's fate a mystery. KotCS makes it a point to reveal the Ark but then doesn't do anything with it, so it's kind of still a mystery... kind of?

But by revealing the Ark, we haven't really learned anything that we didn't know from Raiders. Its fate is still just as mysterious, all we have now is a conformation that it is still in the warehouse. Its fate is still unknown.

Then the story would be going out of its way to justify a two second cameo. In KotCS, they're in the warehouse anyways, why shouldn't they throw in the Ark? And what are the odds that Maul would be in the exact place that the action is taking place in SW? That'd be like Indy seeing Shorty in the middle of the motorcycle chase. Actually, it'd be less likely, because there's only one planet that Shorty can be on. Maul has the entire universe, what are the odds he would end up with Anakin or whoever?

Okay, okay, making Maul a cyborg is too involved. But my point is simply that it would be odd to bring back a major character but not involve him in the plot - or explain his presence at all. It's like if Nute Gunray was back but it wasn't explained that he spent time in prison after Episode I and wanted revenge on Amidala, nor that the Trade Federation had joined with Dooku. You'd obviously be wondering what he was doing on Geonosis.

The example doesn't quite match up with Ark cameo. The Ark is completely justified in being the warehouse, because that's what Raiders led us to believe. It needs no explanation, which is why it didn't get one. Gunray needed that explanation or, as you mentioned, the fact that he is on Geonosis wouldn't make sense.

You did say that "it would be odd to bring back a major character but not involve him in the plot - or explain his presence at all." The latter doesn't really apply to the Ark, as I already said, because the Ark needs no explanation. As for the former point, I think that the fact that it was just a short little cameo doesn't make it necessary to include it in the plot. Maybe if Indy saw it, dusted it off, and said "Wow, I can't believe I'm finally seeing this Ark again!" I would feel slightly jipped if they just forgot about it. But because it is onscreen for so short a period of time, and there's absolutely no interaction between Indy and the Ark, I don't think its necessary to involve it in the plot.

[Henry B 49]

The Ark is demystified a bit. We don't know what happens to it, but we do know that it's at Area 51 in New Mexico in a military facility "where your government keeps all its secrets." Eh, when it comes down to it, I just don't see what it contributes to the movie. The ending of Raiders is important because it demonstrates the short-sightedness of the FBI in dealing with the Ark and reaffirms its danger. But in Crystal Skull, it has nothing to do with the plot, so it's just there. Don't dismiss it as a two second cameo, either. Anybody who knows his Indiana Jones would have started wondering what was going on as soon as the warehouse doors open. We hear the Ark theme. Could it be any more blatant? We then spend about five minutes expecting to see the Ark, but instead the focus is on some alien corpse. Then we finally do see the Ark, but it's only a cameo. Disappointing. I mean, compare this to the cameo in Last Crusade where Elsa just notices a drawing on the wall and Indy makes a quip about it. Funny and brief. But because the opening scene takes place in the same warehouse it creates expectations in the viewers' minds... expectations I don't think were met.

Now here's a curiosity: Williams apparently wrote an alternative version of "The Spell of the Skull" which changes the orchestration of the Ark theme, places it in a different key and continues all the way to its finish (rather than cutting early to the military motive). However, only thirty seconds of this piece show up on the DVD menu, so we don't know what happens afterward. Also, Williams's Ark music for the chase scene was pared down by two or three seconds. Quite a discrepancy. Was there originally another shot of the Ark? A shot of Indy seeing it? Who knows.

[indy4 152]

Eh, when it comes down to it, I just don't see what it contributes to the movie. The ending of Raiders is important because it demonstrates the short-sightedness of the FBI in dealing with the Ark and reaffirms its danger. But in Crystal Skull, it has nothing to do with the plot, so it's just there. Don't dismiss it as a two second cameo, either. Anybody who knows his Indiana Jones would have started wondering what was going on as soon as the warehouse doors open. We hear the Ark theme. Could it be any more blatant? We then spend about five minutes expecting to see the Ark, but instead the focus is on some alien corpse. Then we finally do see the Ark, but it's only a cameo.

That's all I was expecting. I, for one, am glad that Spielberg and Lucas created new ideas rather than relying on old ones that worked, and I would have been slightly disappointed if a large chunk of the film was dedicated to an artifact that had already been tried and true.

Now here's a curiosity: Williams apparently wrote an alternative version of "The Spell of the Skull" which changes the orchestration of the Ark theme, places it in a different key and continues all the way to its finish (rather than cutting early to the military motive). However, only thirty seconds of this piece show up on the DVD menu, so we don't know what happens afterward. Also, Williams's Ark music for the chase scene was pared down by two or three seconds. Quite a discrepancy. Was there originally another shot of the Ark? A shot of Indy seeing it? Who knows.

It is indeed curious, but I doubt the cameo would have been any more prominent in the film had this alternate shot been used.