My Indy 4 Essay - Spoilers

[Batbrick]

Like the title says, feel free to merge with another topic if necessary.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was the biggest disappointment of my life. Sure, deep down we all knew it was not going to be as good as the OT, but I had hoped for something that was good at all. There are many problems evident throughout the film's length which point to it being a large misfire. Of these, the largest dilemmas are that of the overabandunce of CGI, over-the-top (WAY over-the-top btw, not INDY over-the-top) scenarios, the unengaging macguffin, the entire alien concept, the awkward and disjointed pace, useless humour, out-of-place plot points, abrubt ending, wasted characters and a general heavy reliance on older films, especially Raiders, which prevent it from becoming it's "own" film. These are some of the many things that make me personally consider it to either never exist or be totally out-of-continuity.

Firstly the CGI. While one was to expect this early on from interviews and the trailer, the producers and director seemed to point out that only a minority of the film would be using this sometimes controversial technique. Imagine one's surprise when seeing when seeing the entire film saturated in it. While this viewer would have been happy to see CGI used for the supernatural parts -Ala' Raiders melting face sequence and Last Crusade's aging one - this viewer was absolutely stumped to see it used (and unnecessarily in most places) to the point where one could almost think of it as part of the cast. The disgusting, vile and thrilling feel of the snakes, insects and bugs in the three originals is gone, replaced by digitally inserted giant ants which never convey that sense of dread like the older ones did. Why? Because as real as they look, you know they are not real. The digital age has also had an effect on the action, making it possible for the makers to indulge into the most cringing and delusional scenes they imagine. Point in case is Mutt's sword fight with Irina Spalko in the jungle, while doing the splits between two speeding cars, not to mention he is holding his own against a professional sword fighter when Mutt has most likely never held a Rapier in his life before. The whole scene has a very Pirates of the Caribbean sequels feel to it, and that is NOT a favourable comparison. This is followed by a ridiculous scene - again, not an Indy ridiculous scene, but a plain cringeworthy one - where Mutt swings from vine to vine amid digital monkeys with the digital jungle floor far below. One does not doubt he actually was swinging, just everything else. The writer of this piece won't even bother elaborate on the "alien" parts, as ridiculous as they were, that criticism is left to the script.

Which brings us to the signature macguffin, and in turn the alien concept itself. It fails miserable because not only is it the single most unengaging macguffin of the series, but the audience simply fails to care. Why care? In the previous films, the macguffin always had something in it for Indy eg. The Sankara stones and Ark would make him famous, the Cup would do that and give him immortal life (in addition to his father wanting it), what treasures can be found in the skull? The answer sadly is, nothing at all, atleast for him. And if all Indy is racing after this skull for is "because it told him to", then why should we care at all? Why root for the protaginist when he has almost no reason to go on himself? The skull is also unengaging as it is extraterrestrial. While in the right hands an ancient, possibly not-of-this-earth artifact could've been an exciting plotpoint, we are left listening to communists talking about "psychic energy" and how they could use it to control enemy's minds. A large threat perhaps, but one that lacks substance, afterall, psychic energy is a big step down from the power of God himself. Even then when trying to enjoy the adventure, the ending stumps all. nothing is fully expalined, was Spalko killed by the alien or "beamed" to their ship? How did the alien come back to life after it was dead just with all skulls returned? Why only one? While it is stated they had a hive mind, a collective conscience if you will, this in no way explains the bizarre and rushed events. We are left feeling cheated, after all the hype we get Close Encounters of the Indy Kind, and while hard to accept, an alien force might have worked, had it not been so full blown. We see a real alien in an adventure about an archeologist's who's previous (and better) adventures involved religious artifacts. Why do these feel more riveting? Simple, because he power of the supernatural is far more interesting than the power of psychic aliens, far more classic than the slew of alien and space based films we see today, and far more Indiana Jones, rather than something that would be more at home a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away....

Which brings one to the next point: the pacing. In a recent interview with the director, Steven Spielberg, he stated that this film follows the same formula as the others (early action scene, Marshall college, adventure begins). It does, barely. The opening scene was always intended to be the last exciting part of a previous adventure, here that is heavily diluted by hearing they were only just kidnapped. Worse though is the time it takes, while the other films were incredibly fluid and fast paced in their storyline, here the supposedly short introduction adds an unnecessary and very unbelievable sequence in which our old adventurer escapes an atomic blast in....wait for it......a fridge. Yes, a fridge. The film trudges along at a very slow pace, and (believe me, I looked at my watch in the cinema) only introduces the skull myth around the 45 minute mark. After that, this means the pacing must readily speed up to end the film at an appropriate time, which causes the finale, a very key scene, to whiz by rusing all the way. The introduction of new characters suffers this too, as Marion Ravenwood is introduced in a manner that leaves no time for appropriate dialogue (instead we are force fed recycled Raiders lines) or interaction, as the film is too busy to catch up on where it should be, instead of where it is at.

Which brings us sadly yet again to the next disappointing bit: the characters. While Shia does a surprisingly good job as Mutt, Marion Ravenwood, Oxley and Mac are all characters very much wasted. It seems Karen Allen can't act anymore (characterised by an "Indyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy) and was neither a necessary character (the marriage ending was not very Indy-ish at all, a variation of Last Crusade's sunset ending would be more appropriate), which leaves this writer wondering why she was included at all. Gone is that great banter in Raiders, replaced instead by awkward moments and a reveal of Mutt being Indy's son which therefore means that despite their total contradiction of opinions from that point on they simply must share the same character moments. Mac is poorly used, starting as an interesting "Satipo with a heart" but ending up being a ridiculous triple crossing man who points gun at Indy's head yet still seems to care for him by the end. Oxley is plain odd, replacing the awesome hieroglyphics and temple writings by simply guiding them with silly and cringe inducing rhymes and riddles. His return to normal at the end does nothing for his character as, despite what we have heard about him, we still don't know HIM. The Last Crusade managed to juggle a great amount of humour, classic Indy adventure and heart throughout, this film doesn't know what it wants. He shares a moment with deceased dad, then meets Marion, finds he has a son, and the gets married. Sounds more like a rom-com, and it isn't even that. While in Crusade, Indy has a set arc, changing slowly over the film's length, here instead (to go along with the bad pacing), we are given disjointed character moments that pop out at only certain times, changing constantly, and never really showing any change in Indy bar the ending marriage, which doesn't entirely convince because of the mentioned reasons.

And lastly (though one could go further), the heavy reliance on the older films that not only leaves a bad impression on this film, but sadly on the classics. The crate sight is scene (a good idea, if taking away the mysteriousness no it) with the Ark making a cameo. As good as that was, it starts the trail of bad throwbacks. Marion seems to repeat every second line form Raiders ("Get your hands offa me!" "Indiana Jones" - bar scene intro), and even the moment where Indy reflects we are told of Marcus and Henry Jones Sr dying, a sweet moment, but one ruined by the disrespectful bit where Marcus Brody's statue is defaced by a communist car. Even in the jungle, constant throwbacks that try so hard to sound good and original fall flat as Indy quotes his father ("intolerable!") and Mutt suddenly does everything the way Indy does after the realisation of relation. David Koepp the writer stated his script would not make these references, and that it would not be a fan script in nature. How wrong, or delusional, he was.

Sad that the production went this way, trying so hard for new yet aiming to feel next to the old that it ends up such a disappointing affair. It seems the gold union of Spielberg and Lucas is gone, the height of their career when Lucas didn't feel the need to cram CGI down our throats, Spielberg the need to shove constant ridiculousness and injokes into our heads, and even David Koepp the need to go radical yet predictable, are gone, and Indy's TRUE days, the days of classics adventure, are now gone. And what good days they were.....

This is Batbrick saying goodbye to a legend, thaknyou for possibly reading, I feel tired now.

Batbrick Away!

[Siegfried]

Perhaps it should be mergerd later, but you have put so much work into it that it should stay separate for at least a few days. Thanks very much for taking the time to post this.

I love CGI.... but only if it's done smartly. It is relatively easy to make a realistic looking thing using CGI... but blending it with a real life moving background (or vice versa) is really hard. Light is a really complex thing to simulate as most objects reflect different coloured light which then bouces of another object and results in what we see. Human sight is based a lot on expectation and we inately know how things are supposed to look. Thus when we see un-realistic CGI it looks wrong and I personally find it really annoying. Some scenes in Matrix Reloaded for example were just plain horrid... on the other hand Pirates II for the most part was 100% convincing. (Darker settings really helped on the Flying Dutchman.) I think directors should ask preview audiences to write down what they thought was obvious CGI and if too many people know it was not real then it should be removed or re-done.

(believe me, I looked at my watch in the cinema)

That is always a bad sign.

[SirNadroj]

Wow, thanks for writing this long essay.

I agree and disagree with some points. A couple parts I didn't care for: Mutt fencing (though, they do say he took fencing classes [though dropped out]) and the monkey/vine swinging sequence. I little too kooky for me.

But I thought the CGI was well done. The ant scene was blended nicely, I think. Especially the ants carrying Dovchenko (my favourite character ) into the ant mound. (Fire) Ants, though are that big, and in groups can swarm and kill, because I think they're pretty toxic. (Though I'm not insect expert), I watched a special on Crystal Skulls, and they mentioned the vicious ants in South/Central America. So that was plausable.

The aliens, I thought, were a nice touch, and a positive leap in a different direction. Would I have enjoyed the movie if if was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Forbidden Idol" NO! I'm really happy they took it in a different direction. The alien coming to like again really wasn't explained, but then again, they are aliens. Must be some advanced alien technology.

No, nothing was really in it for Indy. The aliens' treasure was Knowledge - knowlege to the Ughan peoples. Again, a different and interesting "treasure".

Oh, and I really enjoyed the Atomic Bomb scene.

So I'll have to agree to disagree with you, Batbrick. Thanks for taking the time to write this! Interesting!

[meschepers]

Having not seen the movie yet I am only going to make a historically based observation.

The Nazis (especially Hitler) were fanatical about the occult and the power of God. They did indeed experiment with corpses attempting to reanimate them. They also sought many Holy relics including the Ark, the Grail and the Spear of Destiny (the spear that killed Jesus). The Soviets however, including Stalin, were intrigued by the power of the human mind and different ways to amplify it to affect others. They believed heavily in psychic powers and ran many grisly experiments to try to find ways to control the minds of others. So the fact that the Soviets were seeking a psychic relic makes sense. And the fact that it is set after the fall of the Third Reich means that there has to be another villain and who is a better choice from the American perspective than the Soviets? Lastly, during the 50's and 60's when the whole Roswell incident was first appearing the American public, at least some of it, believed that the crashed UFO that was "discovered" was in fact a Soviet bomber going to drop a nuclear bomb on an American city. Spielberg combines the psychic fanaticism of the Soviets with the American fear of Aliens and the Soviets using that technology.

One more thing: Spielberg himself said that he would never again make use the Nazis like he did in Raiders and Last Crusade after he made Schindler's List. He realized that their actions were abhorrent.

Sorry for my little tirade, but I hope that will shed some light on things as far as the film goes.

[legobear]

that was a very enjoyable read, I just saw the movie and I heavily agree with the things you've said. On first impression it was fun but not something worth remembering. I had no idea you were so talented in writing

[Batbrick]

Perhaps it should be mergerd later, but you have put so much work into it that it should stay separate for at least a few days. Thanks very much for taking the time to post this.

Thanks, I'm a pretty slow writer, it took me a bit over an hour

I love CGI.... but only if it's done smartly. It is relatively easy to make a realistic looking thing using CGI... but blending it with a real life moving background (or vice versa) is really hard. Light is a really complex thing to simulate as most objects reflect different coloured light which then bouces of another object and results in what we see. Human sight is based a lot on expectation and we inately know how things are supposed to look. Thus when we see un-realistic CGI it looks wrong and I personally find it really annoying. Some scenes in Matrix Reloaded for example were just plain horrid... on the other hand Pirates II for the most part was 100% convincing. (Darker settings really helped on the Flying Dutchman.) I think directors should ask preview audiences to write down what they thought was obvious CGI and if too many people know it was not real then it should be removed or re-done.

Oh I agree entirely, I hope my post didn't seem anti-CGI I love CGI, but only when it is used appropriately, well done and doesn't distract from the point of the movie. You make a great point with Davy Jones, the motion capture performance was stunning. What I meant was that the CGI was used unnecessarily. The giant ants in the movie were incredibly real looking, but that doesn't change the fact that deep down you knowit isn't real, which means you never get that spine tingle like with the rats in Crusade or bugs in Temple. And the CGI used to make the Mutt swordfight sequence look real was great as well, but that doesn't change the fact you know that it is absolutely ridiculous, this is where the creators "just CG it" thus resulting in a silly scene achievable by this means, which is a perversion of what CG should be used for: enhancing the film.

That is always a bad sign.

I though the same thing when I looked at it. Them movie was interesting, but when will the damn story start?

Wow, thanks for writing this long essay.

Thanks, glad you atleast enjoyed it despite our differences of opinion, unfortunately I'll have to debate you now

I agree and disagree with some points. A couple parts I didn't care for: Mutt fencing (though, they do say he took fencing classes [though dropped out]) and the monkey/vine swinging sequence. I little too kooky for me.

I agree, glad that despite liking the film (which is fine) you still recognise a few annoying bits.

But I thought the CGI was well done. The ant scene was blended nicely, I think. Especially the ants carrying Dovchenko (my favourite character ) into the ant mound. (Fire) Ants, though are that big, and in groups can swarm and kill, because I think they're pretty toxic. (Though I'm not insect expert), I watched a special on Crystal Skulls, and they mentioned the vicious ants in South/Central America. So that was plausable.

Oh don't get me wrong the CG was excellent, but it wasn't real. I thought the ant scene was fun, but never once feared for the protagonist or got that chill down my spine from the crawlies, because, unlike Temple of Doom, you knew they weren't there. A real animal perhaps, but not on camera, so no feel of peril.

The aliens, I thought, were a nice touch, and a positive leap in a different direction. Would I have enjoyed the movie if if was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Forbidden Idol" NO! I'm really happy they took it in a different direction. The alien coming to like again really wasn't explained, but then again, they are aliens. Must be some advanced alien technology.

I agree they may have been interesting, but they sure weren't positive. Try and watch Raiders and then this, and tell me if a forbidden idol is so gross Seriously, it would've been better if the "aliens" were more vague and never came back to life, so we didn't get the single weakest "gross" death in the quadrilogy - Spalko's incineration into CGI dust. A different direction could have easily been done with an artifact, just like in Temple of doom with the Indian Sankara Stones, I would've loved a chinese artifact, imagine the cool temples there! Way better than the Akator one!

No, nothing was really in it for Indy. The aliens' treasure was Knowledge - knowlege to the Ughan peoples. Again, a different and interesting "treasure".

That's the point, interesting, different, totally unengaging. If something was in it for our intrepid explorer, that would've been better, as without a reason to chase after it except for "it told me to" we are left cheated, a crystal skull with psychic powers may be important to the enemy but the audience doesn't identify with the enemy do they? Thus we are left rather cheated.

Oh, and I really enjoyed the Atomic Bomb scene.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it, but it had nothing on the escapism of Club Obi-Wan or other beginnings, which was the eptiome of adventure, rather than being blown to kingdom come in a fridge.

So I'll have to agree to disagree with you, Batbrick. Thanks for taking the time to write this! Interesting!

Perfectly fine! I hope you reply back to, I love friendly debates, it gets both people to appreciate opinion and each other's views more

Having not seen the movie yet I am only going to make a historically based observation.

The Nazis (especially Hitler) were fanatical about the occult and the power of God. They did indeed experiment with corpses attempting to reanimate them. They also sought many Holy relics including the Ark, the Grail and the Spear of Destiny (the spear that killed Jesus). The Soviets however, including Stalin, were intrigued by the power of the human mind and different ways to amplify it to affect others. They believed heavily in psychic powers and ran many grisly experiments to try to find ways to control the minds of others. So the fact that the Soviets were seeking a psychic relic makes sense. And the fact that it is set after the fall of the Third Reich means that there has to be another villain and who is a better choice from the American perspective than the Soviets? Lastly, during the 50's and 60's when the whole Roswell incident was first appearing the American public, at least some of it, believed that the crashed UFO that was "discovered" was in fact a Soviet bomber going to drop a nuclear bomb on an American city. Spielberg combines the psychic fanaticism of the Soviets with the American fear of Aliens and the Soviets using that technology.

Oh yes, that makes sense, but I believe ditching the whole thing in favour of a more exciting macguffin would've been better anyway. It's like saying it HAD to have UFO's and aliens in it because of the commies, why not just replace commies then?

that was a very enjoyable read, I just saw the movie and I heavily agree with the things you've said. On first impression it was fun but not something worth remembering. I had no idea you were so talented in writing

Thankyou very much legobear, I'm glad you appreciate my writing!

I enjoyed the movie, but honestly in my opinion it could've been a great one if they just dropped Indy from the title

Batbrick Away!

[Ecto]

I agree with virtually everything you said except Mutt fighting Spalko was cool.

But aliens? What the hell Lucas?

[Scouty]

First, thanks for writing such an essay.

Unfortunately, I don't really have time to reply to each of your points, so I'll do my best to do some.

Overall, I mostly disagree, as I liked the film, but some points are agreeable, like Mac and some other weak points of the film.

But for me, who cares, really? It's an Indy film, it has what an Indy films usually has: a paranormal artifact, creepy crawling sequence, action scenes, sticky situations for Indy and his friends, bad guys riveling and chasing after Indy.

One obvious difference between today and 1980 to 1989, is that the times have changed, CGI is right on the platter, ready to be used. To do anything "real" by setting up large sets and expansive props would cost so much as compared to a while ago; so CGI does not only enhance a film, but it is cost effective. Now, I'm not saying CGI is the best to use, I'm looking for as little CGI as possible, which this Indy film uses less than I though, but I'm alright with it being used.

The plot could have done some better refining, but I thought it was good enough.

So, I disagree mostly, but agree with some. Thanks for writing this essay, despite its negative connotations.

[Pencoin]

abotu the crazy guy (ox?) he appeared in a indy thing not the film might of been young indyanna?

[Shoc]

I enjoyed the movie, but honestly in my opinion it could've been a great one if they just dropped Indy from the title

Ana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? No, I don't think that would work...

:skull:

[Fire_Mario]

Hmmm, I have to both agree and disagree with you there. This Indy movie had a very different feel from the other 3, but I still enjoyed the movie very much. You have to admit there were some parts where you said, "Are they really gonna do this?" An example of this is the Attack of The Monkeys, but hey, who doesn't like to see monkeys fight the good fight against Evil Commies anyway? Personally, I like the addition of the Aliens. It's just like The Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail, they are both very mysterious and have many theories behind them. Lucas had to choose one theory for the Crystal Skulls and that one happened to be the Extra Tarrestrial Theory. But one thing that did agitate me was that in the Crystal Skull room, if you looked at the floor, they were standing on the Aztec Calender. Now what was the Aztec Calender doing in Peru? Your guess is as good as mine. One of my favorite scenes was when Indy boarded the Freedom Fridge and Happytown blew the hell up and went ZAPPLE DAPPLE DOOM!!!!!! (go to http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/442704)

So overall, I would reccomend you watch it in theatres, buy it on it's DVD release, and make best of the Indy merchandise.