Shia LaBeouf acknowledges Indiana Jones 4 was disappointing

[Jay 37,368]

AI is absolute torture (the film). Just abysmal. I had forgotten about it.

Catch Me If You Can....The Terminal....ugh. I just don't know what Spielberg has been thinking in the last 15 years. They all suck.

What about Munich? Did you see that one? Great movie.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

I thought the shia character worked well for the mainstream people.

I didnt think his actic was bad either...

These statements are puzzling.

I dont understand why Harrison wants to make Indy V if the 4th didnt work for him (?)

[Ollie 1,059]

Kudos to Shia, he also said something similar about Transformers 2. Unfortunately he's still doing T3.

Williams' score is too whimsical for IJ but given the material on screen he gave the film the music it deserved.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Spielberg and Lucas just can't make these types of movies anymore. Why they went back to Star Wars and Indy, I don't know (stock "$" response), but I do know a lot of people wish they hadn't. Harrison Ford wasn't that great in KOTCS either. At points it was like he was playing the character straight, just, you know, older. Other times it was like a parody. "Somewhere your Grandpa is laughing!", Indy and that big Russian guy, the Twilight Zone-esque scene in that quaint 1950's neighborhood in the middle of the desert. The blame is certainly shared by Lucas and Spielberg. In fact, it's mostly on their shoulders. I mean, how the hell can Harrison Ford play such a ridiculous scene as that straight. "Hello? Can I use your phone??" *nuke is about to blow* "Uh oh, not good." *hides in fridge, flies hundreds of feet through the air and lands, rolling out into the path of a CGI gopher* THIS is Indiana Jones? Ugh.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Shia LaBeouf admits his acting was subpar, and as an example, he gives the monkey swinging scene, where he was probably replaced partially by computer graphics?

[indy4 155]

Well, interesting article, but I disagree with Shia.

[paleo 63]

What about Munich? Did you see that one? Great movie.

Good movie, no doubt, but also one of the most depressing things I've ever watched. Nothing for suicidal persons...

[gkgyver 1,645]

Well, interesting article, but I disagree with Shia.

Hence your name.

[Sandor 797]

For almost two years now, I’ve been trying to find the right words to describe my major problem with the disastrous ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’. I think it’s one of the most annoying, least satisfying films ever made, and it’s even worse than any Star Wars prequel.

First off: I have so much love for the truly fantastic works George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and John Williams were able to deliver from 1975’s Jaws till 1982’s E.T. In those 7 years, the trio were involved in the creation of 6 truly outstanding masterpieces: Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. That body of 6 films represents for me the very best in the history of cinema and this string of superb filmmaking has never been equalled. Never.

For me, it ended with Return of the Jedi and The Temple of Doom (1983 and 1984 respectively). Those films were still good, but the six aforementioned films had a sense of pure perfection that simply ended with E.T.

I often wander: what made those 6 films so brilliant and unique? Of course the quality of the more obvious factors like the writing, directing, imagination, etc. But there is something else.

When you’re making films about aliens and robots, about a giant shark or the search for the Lost Ark, there is really one big challenge: MAKE THE AUDIENCE BELIEVE THIS SHIT. Special effects can help, but there is another extremely important facet that must be respected: PLAUSIBLE REALISM. (I know this is not an official term, but I hope the description below clarifies what I’m referring to).

When Yoda lifts the X-Wing out of the swamp in ESB using The Force we believe it. When Vader cuts of Luke’s hand with a lightsaber we accept this completely. When Indiana Jones is chased by a giant stone ball we almost look away from the screen because we can visualise ourselves in Indy’s position. When E.T. makes the bikes fly we watch in awe. And more importantly; we BELIEVE all those things. Not just because of the special effects, but because these fantastical scenes are put in a realistic context. It feels as if all these things COULD happen by the way it’s been presented to us, even if we know they cannot. It’s the magic of film and when you’re doing sci-fi and fantasy material, plausible realism is almost always the best point of departure. Lucas and Spielberg were true masters in making us believe things like a Death Star or a melting face.

The major problem with KOTCS is that it challenges the laws of realism beyond comprehension. Not once, but multiple times. This kills the film. The Indiana Jones films had always been imaginative and fantastical, but somehow they felt real. Even the stupendous bridge scene in TOD or the crashing aircraft overtaking Indy inside a tunnel in LC.

With KOTCS, Spielberg and Lucas take it to such extremes that the whole film feels like a bad parody on Indiana Jones. The refrigerator scene is unforgivable IMO. It destroys the film so early on (I did enjoy the warehouse scene very much and really thought the movie would be fantastic). And just when I thought nothing could top the refrigerator scene, here comes Marion riding the truck of a cliff onto a big tree and… Well, you saw it. It’s things like this that normally only happen in crazy Loony Tunes cartoons, but now also in Indiana Jones. It makes the whole movie one big joke.

The writing and build up of the movie also doesn’t work. The CGI monkeys and shit are ridiculous and the finale has absolutely no tension whatsoever. There is so much wrong with KOTCS. The only thing that really works is Harrison Ford. His presence and acting REMINDS us of a great movie, of the other Indiana Jones movies and our mind may be confused enough to THINK that this movie is just as good. It’s not.

I’m not saying the other Spielberg and Lucas films (even the great 6) didn’t have any moments that challenged plausible realism, but they were minor and not so offensive. I think about C-3PO and R2-D2 walking through a rain of laserbolts and not getting hit in Star Wars. Or the mine car chase in TOD. For some reason, those moments don’t kill the movies at all. With KOTCS they do.

The Star Wars prequels – no matter how lame or obscure the writing and execution is at times – always feel a lot more serious and real to me than KOTCS despite its CGI overkill. At least Lucas was trying to tell a new story with depth and symbolism (not that it all worked, but I can definitely see the vision behind it). With KOTCS, the focus didn’t seem to be on telling a great new story at all. It was on putting Indiana Jones (and Marion) in outrageous and silly situations just ‘for the fun of it’. The ‘story’ is just there to glue these scenes together and therefore always feels like a spoof.

It's sad that I enjoyed films like The DaVince Code and even National Treasure more on an 'Indiana Jones' level than an actual Indiana Jones film.

[Red 75]

Kudos to Shia, he also said something similar about Transformers 2. Unfortunately he's still doing T3.

I was less surprised when he talked about Transformers 2, since that movie was (and is) such a hated movie. The response to Indy IV wasn't nearly as bad. I definitely admire him for the honesty, it's rare in this day and age, but I still enjoy the movie for what it is.

[Jay 37,368]

Roald, thank you for that post, I have to say you have more or less summed up what I found wrong with it as well. Especially how it compares to the prequels

[Jacck 23]

Ummm... What about Indy and gang jumping out of a plane and riding down mountains and waterfalls in a fecking water raft thing... That's no more or less believable than the stupid refrigerator sequence. I don't think KoTCS was as good as ToD, but not because of its unbelievable elements. That's always been a tongue in cheek part of Indiana Jones for me.

[Sandor 797]

Ummm... What about Indy and gang jumping out of a plane and riding down mountains and waterfalls in a fecking water raft thing... That's no more or less believable than the stupid refrigerator sequence. I don't think KoTCS was as good as ToD, but not because of its unbelievable elements. That's always been a tongue in cheek part of Indiana Jones for me.

And that's what I said: there have always been moments that defied plausibility. However; the raft scene at least has a purpose. It brings our heroes out of a plane on a collision course to earthly terrain. The refrigerator serves absolutely no storytelling function: it's just there for the sake of being there. That's what's so irritating about it.

The raft doesn't kill TOD. And to be honest: it's much more plausible that the refrigerator scene. KOTCS took things to extremes not seen in any Indiana Jones film before.

[Jay 37,368]

MUCH more plausible. Every bone in Indy's body would be broken when that fridge landed, regardless of any radiation concerns

[Elmo Lewis 6]

For almost two years now, I’ve been trying to find the right words to describe my major problem with the disastrous ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’. I think it’s one of the most annoying, least satisfying films ever made, and it’s even worse than any Star Wars prequel.

First off: I have so much love for the truly fantastic works George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and John Williams were able to deliver from 1975’s Jaws till 1982’s E.T. In those 7 years, the trio were involved in the creation of 6 truly outstanding masterpieces: Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. That body of 6 films represents for me the very best in the history of cinema and this string of superb filmmaking has never been equalled. Never.

For me, it ended with Return of the Jedi and The Temple of Doom (1983 and 1984 respectively). Those films were still good, but the six aforementioned films had a sense of pure perfection that simply ended with E.T.

I often wander: what made those 6 films so brilliant and unique? Of course the quality of the more obvious factors like the writing, directing, imagination, etc. But there is something else.

When you’re making films about aliens and robots, about a giant shark or the search for the Lost Ark, there is really one big challenge: MAKE THE AUDIENCE BELIEVE THIS SHIT. Special effects can help, but there is another extremely important facet that must be respected: PLAUSIBLE REALISM. (I know this is not an official term, but I hope the description below clarifies what I’m referring to).

When Yoda lifts the X-Wing out of the swamp in ESB using The Force we believe it. When Vader cuts of Luke’s hand with a lightsaber we accept this completely. When Indiana Jones is chased by a giant stone ball we almost look away from the screen because we can visualise ourselves in Indy’s position. When E.T. makes the bikes fly we watch in awe. And more importantly; we BELIEVE all those things. Not just because of the special effects, but because these fantastical scenes are put in a realistic context. It feels as if all these things COULD happen by the way it’s been presented to us, even if we know they cannot. It’s the magic of film and when you’re doing sci-fi and fantasy material, plausible realism is almost always the best point of departure. Lucas and Spielberg were true masters in making us believe things like a Death Star or a melting face.

The major problem with KOTCS is that it challenges the laws of realism beyond comprehension. Not once, but multiple times. This kills the film. The Indiana Jones films had always been imaginative and fantastical, but somehow they felt real. Even the stupendous bridge scene in TOD or the crashing aircraft overtaking Indy inside a tunnel in LC.

With KOTCS, Spielberg and Lucas take it to such extremes that the whole film feels like a bad parody on Indiana Jones. The refrigerator scene is unforgivable IMO. It destroys the film so early on (I did enjoy the warehouse scene very much and really thought the movie would be fantastic). And just when I thought nothing could top the refrigerator scene, here comes Marion riding the truck of a cliff onto a big tree and… Well, you saw it. It’s things like this that normally only happen in crazy Loony Tunes cartoons, but now also in Indiana Jones. It makes the whole movie one big joke.

The writing and build up of the movie also doesn’t work. The CGI monkeys and shit are ridiculous and the finale has absolutely no tension whatsoever. There is so much wrong with KOTCS. The only thing that really works is Harrison Ford. His presence and acting REMINDS us of a great movie, of the other Indiana Jones movies and our mind may be confused enough to THINK that this movie is just as good. It’s not.

I’m not saying the other Spielberg and Lucas films (even the great 6) didn’t have any moments that challenged plausible realism, but they were minor and not so offensive. I think about C-3PO and R2-D2 walking through a rain of laserbolts and not getting hit in Star Wars. Or the mine car chase in TOD. For some reason, those moments don’t kill the movies at all. With KOTCS they do.

The Star Wars prequels – no matter how lame or obscure the writing and execution is at times – always feel a lot more serious and real to me than KOTCS despite its CGI overkill. At least Lucas was trying to tell a new story with depth and symbolism (not that it all worked, but I can definitely see the vision behind it). With KOTCS, the focus didn’t seem to be on telling a great new story at all. It was on putting Indiana Jones (and Marion) in outrageous and silly situations just ‘for the fun of it’. The ‘story’ is just there to glue these scenes together and therefore always feels like a spoof.

It's sad that I enjoyed films like The DaVince Code and even National Treasure more on an 'Indiana Jones' level than an actual Indiana Jones film.

I strongly disagree. The key to make any stunt realistic is making the audience want to believe it. It's like a magic trick -- you need to have spectacular, memorable images in your movie. Spectacle is, by its very nature, the denial of realism. So you make the stunt so vital to the story that the audience will look away from its attachment to reality. That's why nobody gives a rat's ass about Indy getting in the sub in Raiders. Or his being dragged by a truck through the desert with not a scratch on his face. You want Indy to do all right because otherwise the movie is over.

So the laws of physics weren't the problem in KOTCS. It was the lack of tension, the lack of relatable characters, and the lack of a goal for the protagonists to achieve. Without that, all you have is a succession of situations that have no emotional resonance in you. The fact that they insult your intelligence is just the icing on the cake.

[Sandor 797]

For almost two years now, I’ve been trying to find the right words to describe my major problem with the disastrous ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’. I think it’s one of the most annoying, least satisfying films ever made, and it’s even worse than any Star Wars prequel.

First off: I have so much love for the truly fantastic works George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and John Williams were able to deliver from 1975’s Jaws till 1982’s E.T. In those 7 years, the trio were involved in the creation of 6 truly outstanding masterpieces: Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. That body of 6 films represents for me the very best in the history of cinema and this string of superb filmmaking has never been equalled. Never.

For me, it ended with Return of the Jedi and The Temple of Doom (1983 and 1984 respectively). Those films were still good, but the six aforementioned films had a sense of pure perfection that simply ended with E.T.

I often wander: what made those 6 films so brilliant and unique? Of course the quality of the more obvious factors like the writing, directing, imagination, etc. But there is something else.

When you’re making films about aliens and robots, about a giant shark or the search for the Lost Ark, there is really one big challenge: MAKE THE AUDIENCE BELIEVE THIS SHIT. Special effects can help, but there is another extremely important facet that must be respected: PLAUSIBLE REALISM. (I know this is not an official term, but I hope the description below clarifies what I’m referring to).

When Yoda lifts the X-Wing out of the swamp in ESB using The Force we believe it. When Vader cuts of Luke’s hand with a lightsaber we accept this completely. When Indiana Jones is chased by a giant stone ball we almost look away from the screen because we can visualise ourselves in Indy’s position. When E.T. makes the bikes fly we watch in awe. And more importantly; we BELIEVE all those things. Not just because of the special effects, but because these fantastical scenes are put in a realistic context. It feels as if all these things COULD happen by the way it’s been presented to us, even if we know they cannot. It’s the magic of film and when you’re doing sci-fi and fantasy material, plausible realism is almost always the best point of departure. Lucas and Spielberg were true masters in making us believe things like a Death Star or a melting face.

The major problem with KOTCS is that it challenges the laws of realism beyond comprehension. Not once, but multiple times. This kills the film. The Indiana Jones films had always been imaginative and fantastical, but somehow they felt real. Even the stupendous bridge scene in TOD or the crashing aircraft overtaking Indy inside a tunnel in LC.

With KOTCS, Spielberg and Lucas take it to such extremes that the whole film feels like a bad parody on Indiana Jones. The refrigerator scene is unforgivable IMO. It destroys the film so early on (I did enjoy the warehouse scene very much and really thought the movie would be fantastic). And just when I thought nothing could top the refrigerator scene, here comes Marion riding the truck of a cliff onto a big tree and… Well, you saw it. It’s things like this that normally only happen in crazy Loony Tunes cartoons, but now also in Indiana Jones. It makes the whole movie one big joke.

The writing and build up of the movie also doesn’t work. The CGI monkeys and shit are ridiculous and the finale has absolutely no tension whatsoever. There is so much wrong with KOTCS. The only thing that really works is Harrison Ford. His presence and acting REMINDS us of a great movie, of the other Indiana Jones movies and our mind may be confused enough to THINK that this movie is just as good. It’s not.

I’m not saying the other Spielberg and Lucas films (even the great 6) didn’t have any moments that challenged plausible realism, but they were minor and not so offensive. I think about C-3PO and R2-D2 walking through a rain of laserbolts and not getting hit in Star Wars. Or the mine car chase in TOD. For some reason, those moments don’t kill the movies at all. With KOTCS they do.

The Star Wars prequels – no matter how lame or obscure the writing and execution is at times – always feel a lot more serious and real to me than KOTCS despite its CGI overkill. At least Lucas was trying to tell a new story with depth and symbolism (not that it all worked, but I can definitely see the vision behind it). With KOTCS, the focus didn’t seem to be on telling a great new story at all. It was on putting Indiana Jones (and Marion) in outrageous and silly situations just ‘for the fun of it’. The ‘story’ is just there to glue these scenes together and therefore always feels like a spoof.

It's sad that I enjoyed films like The DaVince Code and even National Treasure more on an 'Indiana Jones' level than an actual Indiana Jones film.

I strongly disagree. The key to make any stunt realistic is making the audience want to believe it. It's like a magic trick -- you need to have spectacular, memorable images in your movie. Spectacle is, by its very nature, the denial of realism. So you make the stunt so vital to the story that the audience will look away from its attachment to reality. That's why nobody gives a rat's ass about Indy getting in the sub in Raiders. Or his being dragged by a truck through the desert with not a scratch on his face. You want Indy to do all right because otherwise the movie is over.

So the laws of physics weren't the problem in KOTCS. It was the lack of tension, the lack of relatable characters, and the lack of a goal for the protagonists to achieve. Without that, all you have is a succession of situations that have no emotional resonance in you. The fact that they insult your intelligence is just the icing on the cake.

You disagree with me, yet I agree with what you say. Strange.

But I think you underestimate my notion that Spielberg DID add a lot of details to Raiders to make it more believable. It's not just about WANTING to believe, the audience has no chance BUT to believe.

Like making Indy get shot during the desert chase. It's a very effective moment: all of sudden you realize that Indiana Jones is a human and can get hurt, even die.

And to be honest Elmo: how can you compare the sub and even the stunt underneath the truck to the absurdity that's seen in KOTCS? It's not comparable. Raiders played with the rules of reality, but it never defied them to the extremes of Indy's 2008 stint.

[Hlao-roo 389]

It was the lack of tension, the lack of relatable characters, and the lack of a goal for the protagonists to achieve. Without that, all you have is a succession of situations that have no emotional resonance in you.

Emotional resonance is overrated. Real men are above emotions.

[Wojo 2,453]

And to be honest Elmo: how can you compare the sub and even the stunt underneath the truck to the absurdity that's seen in KOTCS? It's not comparable. Raiders played with the rules of reality, but it never defied them to the extremes of Indy's 2008 stint.

The sub transit is a cheat. In order to get the character from point A to point B, they just show the audience something else during the journey so they don't have to explain it.

There is an Indiana Jones comic that explains his survival by declaring that Indy clung to the periscope of the submarine all the way to the secret base by wrapping his whip around it and himself. Fortunately for him, the submarine never dove deeper than periscope depth. It didn't really have a reason to. Germany was not at war in 1936, they believed Jones to be dead, they knew the Bantu Wind could not keep up with them, and it was better for the health of the submarine crew to only submerge for military action, which this simple transport was not.

http://jamesgroome.com/media/personal%20site%20pics/raiderspics/INDY-COMICwhole2.jpg

Unfortunately, regardless of its canon, the comic was not filmed, leaving this giant gaping plot hole in Raiders of the Lost Ark. The only reason for a U-boat to hijack the Ark instead of a surface ship is so that it could sneak up on the Bantu Wind undetected, making its quick surrender possible. A cruiser flying the German flag would be spotted at the horizon, and force us to ask why Katanga would either try to outrun the Germans (and get shot at) or surrender (and be seen as conspiring against Indy).

[crocodile 8,017]

To those "surprised" with all this apparent honesty... Well if you don't realize, it's an interview and the purpose of these is to promote something or someone. He's aware of what he's saying. I mean, how can you be ever truly honest if you're aware million of people will read/hear that? Complete bullsh*t!

Karol

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Good post Karol!

I still enjoy the movie after these two years.

Sorry for you folks that never did, or dont now.

[Josh500 1,615]

For almost two years now, I’ve been trying to find the right words to describe my major problem with the disastrous ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’. I think it’s one of the most annoying, least satisfying films ever made, and it’s even worse than any Star Wars prequel.

First off: I have so much love for the truly fantastic works George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and John Williams were able to deliver from 1975’s Jaws till 1982’s E.T. In those 7 years, the trio were involved in the creation of 6 truly outstanding masterpieces: Jaws, Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Empire Strikes Back, Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial. That body of 6 films represents for me the very best in the history of cinema and this string of superb filmmaking has never been equalled. Never.

For me, it ended with Return of the Jedi and The Temple of Doom (1983 and 1984 respectively). Those films were still good, but the six aforementioned films had a sense of pure perfection that simply ended with E.T.

I often wander: what made those 6 films so brilliant and unique? Of course the quality of the more obvious factors like the writing, directing, imagination, etc. But there is something else.

When you’re making films about aliens and robots, about a giant shark or the search for the Lost Ark, there is really one big challenge: MAKE THE AUDIENCE BELIEVE THIS SHIT. Special effects can help, but there is another extremely important facet that must be respected: PLAUSIBLE REALISM. (I know this is not an official term, but I hope the description below clarifies what I’m referring to).

When Yoda lifts the X-Wing out of the swamp in ESB using The Force we believe it. When Vader cuts of Luke’s hand with a lightsaber we accept this completely. When Indiana Jones is chased by a giant stone ball we almost look away from the screen because we can visualise ourselves in Indy’s position. When E.T. makes the bikes fly we watch in awe. And more importantly; we BELIEVE all those things. Not just because of the special effects, but because these fantastical scenes are put in a realistic context. It feels as if all these things COULD happen by the way it’s been presented to us, even if we know they cannot. It’s the magic of film and when you’re doing sci-fi and fantasy material, plausible realism is almost always the best point of departure. Lucas and Spielberg were true masters in making us believe things like a Death Star or a melting face.

The major problem with KOTCS is that it challenges the laws of realism beyond comprehension. Not once, but multiple times. This kills the film. The Indiana Jones films had always been imaginative and fantastical, but somehow they felt real. Even the stupendous bridge scene in TOD or the crashing aircraft overtaking Indy inside a tunnel in LC.

With KOTCS, Spielberg and Lucas take it to such extremes that the whole film feels like a bad parody on Indiana Jones. The refrigerator scene is unforgivable IMO. It destroys the film so early on (I did enjoy the warehouse scene very much and really thought the movie would be fantastic). And just when I thought nothing could top the refrigerator scene, here comes Marion riding the truck of a cliff onto a big tree and… Well, you saw it. It’s things like this that normally only happen in crazy Loony Tunes cartoons, but now also in Indiana Jones. It makes the whole movie one big joke.

The writing and build up of the movie also doesn’t work. The CGI monkeys and shit are ridiculous and the finale has absolutely no tension whatsoever. There is so much wrong with KOTCS. The only thing that really works is Harrison Ford. His presence and acting REMINDS us of a great movie, of the other Indiana Jones movies and our mind may be confused enough to THINK that this movie is just as good. It’s not.

I’m not saying the other Spielberg and Lucas films (even the great 6) didn’t have any moments that challenged plausible realism, but they were minor and not so offensive. I think about C-3PO and R2-D2 walking through a rain of laserbolts and not getting hit in Star Wars. Or the mine car chase in TOD. For some reason, those moments don’t kill the movies at all. With KOTCS they do.

The Star Wars prequels – no matter how lame or obscure the writing and execution is at times – always feel a lot more serious and real to me than KOTCS despite its CGI overkill. At least Lucas was trying to tell a new story with depth and symbolism (not that it all worked, but I can definitely see the vision behind it). With KOTCS, the focus didn’t seem to be on telling a great new story at all. It was on putting Indiana Jones (and Marion) in outrageous and silly situations just ‘for the fun of it’. The ‘story’ is just there to glue these scenes together and therefore always feels like a spoof.

It's sad that I enjoyed films like The DaVince Code and even National Treasure more on an 'Indiana Jones' level than an actual Indiana Jones film.

Very good and insightful post! I agree with most of what you said. However, I don't think it has anything to do with plausible reality, like you said: E.T. and ToD, for example, have no plausible reality whatsoever (riding a bicycle over the moon, riding an inflatable boat down the Himalaya mountains? WTF.). Because that's not the point. Personally I think it boils down to this:

The way great movies are made and stories are told has changed drastically over the past decades. What worked back in the 80s doesn't work today. It's as simple as that, and any director who doesn't realize that is doomed to fail. Spielberg and Lucas tried to recapture the flair of the original Indy movies so hard, it simply backfired. You have to move on and (try to) produce something that will appeal to the audience of today. And understanding what the audience of today wants and craves to see (at any given point in time) is one of the hardest thing to do. They didn't do that with Indy 4, or at least didn't try hard enough. If Indy 4 had been released back in the 80s, it would not only have been a box-office success, it would have been a critical success as well--at least more of one than it was 2 years ago.

Most movies of the 80s, if released today, would look terribly old, maybe even laughable, to one degree or another.

James Cameron, for one, is a visionary director who understands what the audience of today wants like no other. He would never make the same kind of movies he made in the 80s--like The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss. If they were made and released today (or movies in the same vein) they would by abysmal failures. So he constantly looks ahead, progresses, makes movies for the next generation--like Titanic, Avatar.

[Delorean90 42]

I don't think this is the case. Firstly, it WAS a box office success--$317 million domestic is nothing to sneeze at. If it was a simple matter of "80's style doesn't work today," then that still wouldn't be the issue. It was definitely a far more old school film than is common today, but I think the stuff that made Raiders great still stands today, and if they released a film of that caliber, you'd still have the odd snarky person trying to be cool by dissing it.

But in reality they didn't hit it on the head. Even disregarding the stylistic misses (there could have been still less CG than there was, and the cinematography still was on the glossy side at times--the "shooting on the surface of the sun" look of some daylight scenes didn't help either), there is a main flaw in that it didn't take itself quite seriously enough. It didn't strike the emotional balance that the previous films did to allow the danger and the poignancy along with the fun. The waterfall scene is actually the biggest offender for me. I laughed at it in the theater, but really, they should've played it straight--when they first neared the falls I was thinking, "Oh crap! How are they going to get out of this one?!" (That's right, the fridge scene didn't destroy that for me), but then the scene plays out and it's like, "Oh...okay. No problem." The family angle also needed to have some more serious moments. There are a couple of really good moments ("A damn good, really good life" and the exchange of looks leading to "What're you looking at, Daddy-O?"), but the big beats it needs to hit are really lacking. The reconnection with Indy and Marion needed to be better developed, and "I don't know, Dad. Why didn't you?" needed to have a serious answer. We didn't get a zeppelin conversation in this film, we didn't get a cliffside reunion in this film, we didn't get an "Indiana...Indiana, let it go" in this film--and it needed something like that.

All of that said, I really enjoy a lot of it, and I like a lot of the vibe that's there--in fact, I think the section from the college scenes all the way up through the night camp scene is pretty dang solid, and I'm glad to have this film for the good that's in it. But they took the whole "Not taking yourself too seriously" thing a bit too far. That's really the problem--a lack of balance.

[Josh500 1,615]

Hmmm, I disagree.

Maybe Indy 4 didn't take itself seriously enough, but I don't think that's the issue. If you think about it, ToD and LC didn't take itself too seriously, either. (And the end of Indy 4 was kind of serious, what with the aliens merging together and Irina disappearing wherever and whatnot). No, movies with heavy comedic elements are released even today, and some of them to great success.

The problem with Indy 4 was that the audience constantly had a sense of, "We have all seen this before!" There were no true surprises. The audience wasn't impressed, surprised, amazed. It all felt a bit too old, predictable. Like I said, it felt like a movie we might have seen in the 80s, not something we would see (or expect to see) in the 21st century.

[DigitalfreakNYC 59]

Hmmm, it's not all black and white, you know. Just because it's not a HUGE blockbuster success like E.T., Jaws, Raiders, or Jurassic Park, doesn't mean it's all crap.

I for one like MR, AI, CMIFY, and even WotW.

When it comes to those movies, it is for me. I thought AI and WotW were absolutely atrocious films. MR and CMIYC were passibly ok. Neither had any sort of emotional resonance to me whatsoever.

I never said a movie has to be a blockbuster for it to be good. However, with the movies you listed, they were all fantastic. Spielberg set the bar quite high for himself and, since then, he hasn't attained that same status, IMHO. And I feel the same way about John. Maybe it's because they've both gotten older...or perhaps because the movies that John has scored have sucked. Who is to say?

Also in his defense, though, is that most movies barely use themes at all anymore. They're almost entirely underscoring.

[Delorean90 42]

Hmmm, I disagree.

Maybe Indy 4 didn't take itself seriously enough, but I don't think that's the issue. If you think about it, ToD and LC didn't take itself too seriously, either. (And the end of Indy 4 was kind of serious, what with the aliens merging together and Irina disappearing wherever and whatnot). No, movies with heavy comedic elements are released even today, and some of them to great success.

And I noted that. I'm saying the balance was out of whack. For all the humor of LC, you had a good four or five serious beats with Indy and his father (the discussion at the crossroads, the conversation in the zeppelin, the aftermath of the tank scene, and the end of the climax). There were maybe one and a half, two serious beats between Indy and Mutt--and even they weren't as sustained or substantial. Heck, there were more serious moments between Mutt and Oxley than there were between Mutt and Indy. The emotional resonance and poignancy was not there to the degree it should have been. It didn't respect its characters--and by extension, its audience.

The problem with Indy 4 was that the audience constantly had a sense of, "We have all seen this before!" There were no true surprises. The audience wasn't impressed, surprised, amazed. It all felt a bit too old, predictable. Like I said, it felt like a movie we might have seen in the 80s, not something we would see (or expect to see) in the 21st century.

Hmm...I don't really agree, but that's okay. Personally, I'd love to see more movies like we might have seen in the 80s...but I'll try to avoid explicitly opening that can of worms. I'll play ball if it comes up, though.

[Jeff 10]

I don't think this is the case. Firstly, it WAS a box office success--$317 million domestic is nothing to sneeze at. If it was a simple matter of "80's style doesn't work today," then that still wouldn't be the issue. It was definitely a far more old school film than is common today, but I think the stuff that made Raiders great still stands today, and if they released a film of that caliber, you'd still have the odd snarky person trying to be cool by dissing it.

But in reality they didn't hit it on the head. Even disregarding the stylistic misses (there could have been still less CG than there was, and the cinematography still was on the glossy side at times--the "shooting on the surface of the sun" look of some daylight scenes didn't help either), there is a main flaw in that it didn't take itself quite seriously enough. It didn't strike the emotional balance that the previous films did to allow the danger and the poignancy along with the fun. The waterfall scene is actually the biggest offender for me. I laughed at it in the theater, but really, they should've played it straight--when they first neared the falls I was thinking, "Oh crap! How are they going to get out of this one?!" (That's right, the fridge scene didn't destroy that for me), but then the scene plays out and it's like, "Oh...okay. No problem." The family angle also needed to have some more serious moments. There are a couple of really good moments ("A damn good, really good life" and the exchange of looks leading to "What're you looking at, Daddy-O?"), but the big beats it needs to hit are really lacking. The reconnection with Indy and Marion needed to be better developed, and "I don't know, Dad. Why didn't you?" needed to have a serious answer. We didn't get a zeppelin conversation in this film, we didn't get a cliffside reunion in this film, we didn't get an "Indiana...Indiana, let it go" in this film--and it needed something like that.

All of that said, I really enjoy a lot of it, and I like a lot of the vibe that's there--in fact, I think the section from the college scenes all the way up through the night camp scene is pretty dang solid, and I'm glad to have this film for the good that's in it. But they took the whole "Not taking yourself too seriously" thing a bit too far. That's really the problem--a lack of balance.

Your analysis is pretty close to the way I feel. As I said in my post, I enjoyed the film - I try not to analyze it too much while I'm watching so that I don't spoil it for myself (I'm a very forgiving viewer). But I think you're right about what was missing (i.e., the emotional connection). Those moments are the reason Last Crusade is my favorite of the four.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

KOTCS had such lame supporting characters. The earlier movies had the younger spunky Marion, Sallah, Belloq hamming it up, Connery stealing the show, Shorty, Willie (yeah I'm going there), Mola Ram, Elsa (grrrrr), Toht, Lao, etc. KOTCS offers Nicholson's Departed guy (easily the most annoying and unlikeable of the bunch, not to mention horribly written and ridiculously developed), boring old Marion who shows up with limited screen time late in the movie and is suddenly back with Indy (meanwhile we don't really feel the connection at all, regardless of whether we've seen Raiders a billion times), the wasted crazy old guy who unfortunately is a GREAT actor when he isn't playing a dumbass. The female villain was also quite lame, I think. There was another wasted opportunity. What made Elsa such a sexy bad girl in Last Crusade was just that--SEX. Sex appeal. Use it. Instead we got a butch Russian broad with a sword fighting Shia LaBeouf and collecting alien corpses. Speaking of Shia, he's another poorly developed character. He's introduced as this hot-headed young biker punk kid. A bit later on in the movie, we find out he's basically a sissy that dropped out of prep school and threw on a leather jacket. Couldn't he have been COOL? This is Indy's son for Christ's sake. This is what was totally ridiculous about the notion of Lucas doing Mutt sequels. What a joke. Who would really want to see that?

[indy4 155]

Well, interesting article, but I disagree with Shia.

Hence your name.

Actually, the name was born from the anticipation of the film rather than the film itself. I decided a few weeks before the film came out that even if I hated it, I would keep the name in honor of the wonderful anticipation.

[Jeff 10]

I liked the first Transformers

Does that really say Orson Welles in the cast list?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

It's sad that if you were to replace the Transformers in that poster with Indy, Mutt, Ox, Irina, etc., there you have the finale of Indiana Jones IV.

[artyjeffrey 20]

Nice to hear your opinion, but I bet many would disagree.

A.I. is an awesome score. And Minority Report too.

Not to mention the Spielberg-produced Memoirs of a Geisha.

AI is absolute torture (the film). Just abysmal. I had forgotten about it.

Catch Me If You Can....The Terminal....ugh. I just don't know what Spielberg has been thinking in the last 15 years. They all suck.

Oh thank God I'm not the only one who thought AI was a big shiny wastebasket full of garbage. It was one of the rare times that I've been in a theater and audibly groaned when I realized that the movie wasn't going to end yet.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

artyjeffrey would have loved to have been at the screening of A.I. that I attended that Friday afternoon it opened. The reel became screwed up when David was talking to that Kamino robot dude and the movie stopped for 20 minutes. We had like three endings between the false ending, reel problems and the literal ending. Would not frickin' end. And it just kept getting worse...and worse.

[Jeff 10]

When you’re making films about aliens and robots, about a giant shark or the search for the Lost Ark, there is really one big challenge: MAKE THE AUDIENCE BELIEVE THIS SHIT. Special effects can help, but there is another extremely important facet that must be respected: PLAUSIBLE REALISM. (I know this is not an official term, but I hope the description below clarifies what I’m referring to).

I disagree with your conclusion, but I think you may be on to something. As you said, implausible things happen in every movie. The filmmakers must make it all believable. But I don't think it matters HOW implausible the scenario is. It's all in the execution. Special effects can help , but they can also hurt, because the most effective way to make the audience believe that what is happening on the screen is real is to have the actors sell it. For example, Jabba is nothing more than a giant rubber puppet, but Carrie Fisher strangles him with such convincing disgust that we are willing to go along with it and accept that he is real. Mark Hamill's astonishment when Yoda raises the X-wing accomplishes a similar purpose. I could go on but you get the idea.

In fact, I think that may be why some people dislike the prequel Star Wars trilogy - Lucas relied too heavily on CGI (OK that's not a new idea, but keep reading), leaving the actors out of the picture (in some cases even replacing the actors with CGI), so no one is there to help us connect to the reality of the fantasy we are seeing. And even when real actors are on screen, they are often interacting with a blue screen, making it very difficult for them to bring the scene to life. It's much more difficult for Ewan MacGregor to make us believe Jar Jar is real (though thankfully he is not) than for Mark Hamill to make us believe Yoda is.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

The thing about Jabba and Yoda is that they were created in an era where they were REALLY good at that sort of thing and really seemed to care about the work.

[Ollie 1,059]

Does that really say Orson Welles in the cast list?

Yes, he did the voice of Unicron. I believe it was his last role before he passed.

It's sad that if you were to replace the Transformers in that poster with Indy, Mutt, Ox, Irina, etc., there you have the finale of Indiana Jones IV.

Actually that would be The Mummy & The Mummy Returns posters.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Nice to hear your opinion, but I bet many would disagree.

A.I. is an awesome score. And Minority Report too.

Not to mention the Spielberg-produced Memoirs of a Geisha.

AI is absolute torture (the film). Just abysmal. I had forgotten about it.

Catch Me If You Can....The Terminal....ugh. I just don't know what Spielberg has been thinking in the last 15 years. They all suck.

Hmmm, it's not all black and white, you know. Just because it's not a HUGE blockbuster success like E.T., Jaws, Raiders, or Jurassic Park, doesn't mean it's all crap.

I for one like MR, AI, CMIFY, and even WotW.

The HUGE blockbuster successes are the ones that are worse. I know I'm probably the only one, but give me Spielberg's late 90s-00s work over those 70s "classics" any day.

[King Mark 3,631]

Yeah but those 70's Spielberg movies are classics now. They deserved the money they made at least.

I don't understand for the life of me how a piece of crap film like Alice In Wonderland can make 330 million dollars .Are people brain dead now?

[Wojo 2,453]

1. Johnny Depp

2. Tim Burton

3. 3D

4. Recognition of a familiar story many grew up with, whether it be the book or the classic Disney cartoon

5. Tickets. Cost. More. Money. So. Movies. Make. More. Money.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Are people brain dead now?

Yes. They'll go see anything has pretty colors of pops out of the screen.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Even I went to see Alice in Wonderland and payed the premium for an IMAX ticket. For a while there in my youth, it seemed like Burton was going to be the next Lucas/Spielberg, or at least continue the legacy so to speak. He could do no wrong until he just became a jackass circa 2001 when he did Planet of the Apes. I was hoping he would redeem himself through Alice. It looked kinda cool. Alas, it turned out to be another SW Prequel, Indy IV, Star Trek, etc.

[Andy 4,131]

I don't understand for the life of me how a piece of crap film like Alice In Wonderland can make 330 million dollars .Are people brain dead now?

:)

I keep looking at the Blu Ray advertisement and wondering... do I even want to Netflix this? Really, I don't get the appeal. It looks like a really bad Syfy Channel production.

[King Mark 3,631]

I kinda liked the girl that played Alice, but I was never drawn into the film at any point. Did Tim Burton re-use some sets from his previous movies?

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

Exactly. I just never really got into it.

The opening shot with the clouds looked exactly like when the Batwing flies up in front of the moon (see: your Elfman Batman CD cover). The tree from his last okay-good movie Sleepy Hollow was there. I had this feeling throughout that Burton was just going through the motions and dumping in concepts and things from earlier movies. The CGI was atrocious and insanely overused. I don't get that either. On the Batman SE DVD interviews in 2005, you get an almost anti-CG vibe from Burton. Change of heart I guess. I think he has an evil twin that makes shitty movies. Maybe they actually got the REAL Burton for the Batman DVD interviews.

Also, Shia is the fucking man for taking a dump on Indy IV at Cannes while Lucas and his sexy African American squeeze were there seeing his new movie and also for trashing Transformers 2 while in the middle of doing that franchise.

[King Mark 3,631]

You know that feeling ,your became super aware your sitting in a theater looking at a screen with images and time slows to a crawl and you can physically feel the reels move through the projector frame by frame. That's what happened.

[Datameister 2,044]

Alas, it turned out to be another SW Prequel, Indy IV, Star Trek, etc.

How is Star Trek on that list? Everything the prequels did wrong - sluggish plots, political ponderings at every turn, unconvincing CGI characters, ridiculous attempts at humor, embarrassing acting, pathetic writing, general lack of emotional connection, etc. - was corrected in Star Trek. Some people had a problem with its quasi-revisionist approach to a beloved franchise, and there are certainly holes in the plot, and it's not the most intellectual film ever made, but that hardly puts it anywhere near the prequels or Indy 4. (I enjoy the prequels and Indy 4 for what they are, mind you - but I'm not blind to the countless flaws that they have and Star Trek doesn't.)

[King Mark 3,631]

I'm not a trekkie and I liked Star Trek .The film flows well and is exciting to watch ,some good acting and some strong emotional scenes

[Datameister 2,044]

Exactly. Finest cinematic masterpiece ever? Hardly. But it keeps an exciting-but-not-annoying energy level, its humor is (mostly) genuinely funny, the character relationships are important and even convincing, the plot is good enough to drive the film forward, the visual effects are generally well handled...and it succeeds in actually creating an emotional connection.

[King Mark 3,631]

Yes,I agree with all of that.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

In general, I hated it. I hated how it was a dumb popcorn movie, how it was more Star Wars than Trek, too much comedy and parody ("Sulu" with sword, "Spock" turning his back on the council while that silly ass music plays, basically everything young "Kirk" said and did, etc.), asinine changes to the canon or whatever you want to call it. The Enterprise being a warship with all those Death Star turret things, Nero a very weak villain. Plot holes galore that I don't even feel like getting into. The story sucked. The music sucked and, yes, I'm going THERE. I would rather they had just come up with a new set of characters or something. The countdown comic with the Next Generation crew was better than the movie. They crossed a line and unfortunately for me, it was a huge success.

[Trent B 337]

Alas, it turned out to be another SW Prequel, Indy IV, Star Trek, etc.

How is Star Trek on that list? Everything the prequels did wrong - sluggish plots, political ponderings at every turn, unconvincing CGI characters, ridiculous attempts at humor, embarrassing acting, pathetic writing, general lack of emotional connection, etc. - was corrected in Star Trek. Some people had a problem with its quasi-revisionist approach to a beloved franchise, and there are certainly holes in the plot, and it's not the most intellectual film ever made, but that hardly puts it anywhere near the prequels or Indy 4. (I enjoy the prequels and Indy 4 for what they are, mind you - but I'm not blind to the countless flaws that they have and Star Trek doesn't.)

I agree with Joe on Star Trek and take it from someone who was against the movie from the very first mention of it. Only to have his opinion completely turned around after he saw it in theaters.