Word on the street about the new Indiana Jones movie is that it is

  • Thread starter Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movie
AI Thread Summary
The discussion reveals widespread disappointment regarding "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," with many labeling it as "utter garbage" and a "fan's worst nightmare." Critics have drawn unfavorable comparisons to "The Phantom Menace," suggesting that George Lucas has a history of damaging beloved franchises. Despite the film's screening at the Cannes Film Festival, where it received mixed to negative reviews, some participants express skepticism about the credibility of early reviews, arguing that critics often misjudge popular films. The conversation also touches on the use of CGI, with some participants arguing that excessive reliance on it detracts from the film's realism and storytelling quality. While some viewers remain optimistic, citing enjoyment of the original series, the overall sentiment leans heavily towards disappointment and concern over the film's quality and direction.
gravenewworld
Messages
1,128
Reaction score
27
utter garbage. People who have seen it are caling it a 'fan's worst nightmare' and 'dreadful'. What did you expect? George Lucas has a knack for absolutely killing old classics. Reviewers are saying it is as bad as the Phatom Menace was for Star Wars.


http://sffmedia.com/content/view/193/38/



Apparently it is Colonel Jones now...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gravenewworld said:
utter garbage. People who have seen it are caling it a 'fan's worst nightmare' and 'dreadful'. What did you expect? George Lucas has a knack for absolutely killing old classics. Reviewers are saying it is as bad as the Phatom Menace was for Star Wars.


http://sffmedia.com/content/view/193/38/



Apparently it is Colonel Jones now...
This is a review by one person. :rolleyes:

The film has not been screened yet, that won't be until tomorrow at the Cannes Film Festival and the film has been kept 'secret" there have been no showings of the film until today. I seriously doubt the credibilty of this person claiming to have been to some secret premiere of the movie. Your article is dated 5-13.

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080516/121095996000.html

And Gravenewworld, you've been warned numerous times about making these super overly dramatic threads.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm trying to remember if the critics liked the original one either. Often the critics give a movie a really harsh review, but it winds up being wildly popular by regular movie goers who just want to see something fun and enjoyable without worrying about complex plot lines and artsy cinematography.
 
Evo said:
This is a review by one person. :rolleyes:

The film has not been screened yet, that won't be until tomorrow at the Cannes Film Festival and the film has been kept 'secret" there have been no showings of the film until today. I seriously doubt the credibilty of this person claiming to have been to some secret premiere of the movie. Your article is dated 5-13.

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20080516/121095996000.html

And Gravenewworld, you've been warned numerous times about making these super overly dramatic threads.


Apparently you don't know your pop culture very well Evo. Exhibitor screenings are required by law in 2 dozen states to prevent blind bidding on films which theater owners/execs used to have to do. Paramount has already shown such exhibitor screenings to theater execs and their reviews have started to leak out.


Oh and overly dramatic could describe 60% of PFers.


They are calling LaBeouf (or whatever his name is) the new Jar Jar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/movies/10indy.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin

Paramount had shown the film to a handful of theater company executives at its Los Angeles lot and elsewhere.

Movie studios increasingly tend to protect their biggest bets from advance showings. Two years ago, for instance, Sony Pictures screened “The Da Vinci Code” for critics at the Cannes Film Festival only two days before its opening in the United States. But exhibitors’ screenings can open a window for determined reviewers.

Such screenings are required in about two dozen states that have laws against blind-bidding, a practice in which theater owners were once asked to bid on films they had not seen.

As a practical matter, there is little or no actual bidding in the contemporary theater business, which relies instead on negotiations between distributors and theater owners. But distributors continue to hold screenings for theater company executives in the weeks before a film’s release, whether as a courtesy or as a way to avoid conflict with a patchwork of state laws.

Theater executives may have an incentive to play down a movie’s prospects after such a screening, to get better terms. In any case, many fans will most likely flock to “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” if only to make their own judgments about Mr. Spielberg’s decision to revisit the franchise fully 19 years after its last installment. Still, bad notices could keep the more ambivalent moviegoers from attending and thwart a truly huge box office haul.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am still looking forward to seeing the new film. I think it will be good, I have liked all the rest of them, so far... :smile:
 
It's not a revisitation, so much as a continuation. As with Star Wars, the Indy movies were intended to be a trio of trilogies (nine parts). Whatever might have changed due to technology and viewer preferences, this movie was planned before the first one came out.
 
I just hope that Spielberg decided not to go too overboard with the special effects. The one thing I loved about the series is how realistic it was... no overdone pyrotechnics, nothing too 'out there'.

Then again, I suppose there's nothing realistic about souls coming out of the Ark of the Covenant and an 800 year old knight from the First Crusade surviving to the 1920s.

I guess as long as there's plenty of power hungry Nazis, i'll be happy.:biggrin:
 
gravenewworld said:
Oh and overly dramatic could describe 60% of PFers.
At least in GD. :-p
 
B. Elliott said:
I just hope that Spielberg decided not to go too overboard with the special effects. The one thing I loved about the series is how realistic it was... no overdone pyrotechnics, nothing too 'out there'.

Then again, I suppose there's nothing realistic about souls coming out of the Ark of the Covenant and an 800 year old knight from the First Crusade surviving to the 1920s.

I guess as long as there's plenty of power hungry Nazis, i'll be happy.:biggrin:
When you consider the plot, it may not be as way out as the aliens Lucas wanted, but it may be pretty far out there. I guess if anyone can pull it off, Spielberg can. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it will be ok. I'd like to see one more Indiana Jones film.
 
  • #10
gravenewworld said:
Oh and overly dramatic could describe 60% of PFers.

HOW DARE YOU, YOU THRICE ACCURSED SON OF A CROSS-EYED SHE-CAMEL?!
I can get away with that in GD, right...? :rolleyes:

:biggrin:
 
  • #11
Well, at least Harrison Ford is in it.
 
  • #12
Darkiekurdo said:
Well, at least Harrison Ford is in it.

Ultimate person who makes the movie what it is, and sooo good :biggrin:
 
  • #13
mcknia07 said:
Ultimate person who makes the movie what it is, and sooo good :biggrin:
If he can't make the movie good, the movie is, per definition, plain crap. :biggrin:
 
  • #14
Darkiekurdo said:
Well, at least Harrison Ford is in it.
You heathen! Karen Allen is in it and she MADE the first movie.
 
  • #15
turbo-1 said:
You heathen! Karen Allen is in it and she MADE the first movie.
Yes, but Harrison Ford.
 
  • #16
Darkiekurdo said:
If he can't make the movie good, the movie is, per definition, plain crap. :biggrin:

Exactly, I'm so with you on that one :biggrin:
 
  • #17
B. Elliott said:
I just hope that Spielberg decided not to go too overboard with the special effects. The one thing I loved about the series is how realistic it was... no overdone pyrotechnics, nothing too 'out there'.

Then again, I suppose there's nothing realistic about souls coming out of the Ark of the Covenant and an 800 year old knight from the First Crusade surviving to the 1920s.

I guess as long as there's plenty of power hungry Nazis, i'll be happy.:biggrin:

From what I've heard he is fighting commies aka Soviets. Something about not being able to make Harrison Ford look young enough to have him going against Nazis.
 
  • #18
am i the only one who hasnt seen ANY of the indian jones movies :eek:
 
  • #19
proton said:
am i the only one who hasnt seen ANY of the indian jones movies :eek:
:eek:

You do know that Raiders is the best movie ever made, bar none...
 
  • #20
proton said:
am i the only one who hasnt seen ANY of the indian jones movies :eek:
I'm sure there are a handful of North Koreans and Tibetan monks who haven't seen it, but yeah, you're one of perhaps a few dozen.
 
  • #21
proton said:
am i the only one who hasnt seen ANY of the indian jones movies :eek:

Say What? I think you are really like so totally missing out. I know there are a few out there that haven't, but not too many...
 
  • #22
Argentum Vulpes said:
From what I've heard he is fighting commies aka Soviets. Something about not being able to make Harrison Ford look young enough to have him going against Nazis.

That's a bit of a letdown, but I suppose it'll do.

Are they at least ill tempered?:biggrin:
 
  • #23
Action Adventure and Fantasy

I'm in.

I'll bet the good guys win :)
 
  • #24
Alfi said:
Action Adventure and Fantasy

I'm in.

I'll bet the good guys win :)

Alfi, I haven't heard that name in a long time. Brought back a flood of memories...
alphie.jpg
 
  • #25
Oh dear lord, I am watching one of the many tv shows hanging onto the interest in the new Indian Jones film.

This is on the Sci-Fi channel "Mystery of the crystal Skulls".

Ok, a review after it's over.
 
  • #26
Evo said:
Oh dear lord, I am watching one of the many tv shows hanging onto the interest in the new Indian Jones film.

This is on the Sci-Fi channel "Mystery of the crystal Skulls".

Ok, a review after it's over.

LOL I saw the ads for that garbage too.

Well looks like our worst fears have been confirmed. The movie has been screened at Cannes and has received mostly mixed and negative reviews. Rotten Tomatoes confirms it:

After more than a year of hoping and praying that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would do right by fans of the archaeological franchise, the film's first screening in Cannes confirms the worst. There's a brilliant Indy film buried somewhere within, but Star Wars syndrome has stuck and Steven Spielberg and George Lucas just couldn't resist dipping into their box of computer-generated magic.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cannes_film_festival_2008/news/1728901/ UHhhhhhhh why oh why did they have to make this a CGI piece of trash? It seems Indy is going to be running away from cartoons the entire movie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
I predict the movie will out-perform any others for weeks and will make the director, producer, and stars a boat-load of money. You may hold your nose, drag your feet, and kick your heels, but most of you WILL see this film.
 
  • #28
turbo-1 said:
I predict the movie will out-perform any others for weeks and will make the director, producer, and stars a boat-load of money. You may hold your nose, drag your feet, and kick your heels, but most of you WILL see this film.

Not me! Ill watch it online from some vietnamese website.

Though I can't wait for the new batman! I loved batman begins.

I've been watching movies this past week and I saw the following:

3:10 to Yuma: <---Eh, its so so.

Breach <--Really enjoyed that one. Based on the FBI spy Robert Hanssen (all true story).

Michael Clayton <-- Did not like it.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
turbo-1 said:
I predict the movie will out-perform any others for weeks and will make the director, producer, and stars a boat-load of money. You may hold your nose, drag your feet, and kick your heels, but most of you WILL see this film.

Of course it will gross huge amounts of money. Star Wars I and II did, but they were still terrible terrible movies.
 
  • #30
You're going to judge the movie based on a review from Cannes? That's the artsy fartsy film festival for the snobs. They turn their noses up at any normal movie. Must not have had enough subtitles for them. :rolleyes: They like crap like Amelie, which made me nauseous...literally, in a seasick kind of way...from the way the cameras kept moving. I'll wait until real people go to see it.
 
  • #31
Even the trailer that has been running makes it clear that this is a CGI movie with (at least) live actors. The next step will be to do away with the live actors for a total CGI movie. Is that good or bad? Not real clear to me.

YAWN, When do you suppose someone will come up with a movie that is not a sequel or a remake.


Oh, yeah, give The Orphanage a read, unless you speak Spanish then you can listen.
 
  • #32
Moonbear said:
artsy fartsy

Well i never, i thought that was a little known term used only by Brits.
 
  • #33
Moonbear said:
They like crap like Amelie, which made me nauseous...literally, in a seasick kind of way...from the way the cameras kept moving.
Sure you don't mean Cloverfield? :rolleyes:

Funny how tastes differ. Amelie is on my top 100 list. Call me a romantic fool.
 
  • #34
DaveC426913 said:
Sure you don't mean Cloverfield? :rolleyes:

Funny how tastes differ. Amelie is on my top 100 list. Call me a romantic fool.

I too liked Amelie, and it's about time to see it again. I don't remember the camera movement, but ever since Woody Allen's "Husbands and wives," camera motion in any other film is stagnant.
 
  • #35
Cyrus said:
Not me! Ill watch it online from some vietnamese website.

Though I can't wait for the new batman! I loved batman begins.

Here here! Batman begins rocks! I can't wait for "The Dark Knight."

gravenewworld said:
LOL I saw the ads for that garbage too.

Well looks like our worst fears have been confirmed. The movie has been screened at Cannes and has received mostly mixed and negative reviews. Rotten Tomatoes confirms it:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cannes_film_festival_2008/news/1728901/ UHhhhhhhh why oh why did they have to make this a CGI piece of trash? It seems Indy is going to be running away from cartoons the entire movie.
I heard they used less CGI than most action/adventure movies out today. I don't trust artsy people to judge my movies. They probably gave it bad reviews because there wasn't enough plot devices focused on miserable and meaningless death.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
I saw it Sunday (my bf works for LucasArts) and it was awesome. Really up there with the rest, in fact it might place 1st or 2nd in the whole series for some. The only real problem I had was something that you can't really fix - Ford is old and it shows, esp when he talks. But, he was still Indy and it was a great show! I'll be seeing it again this Thursday with friends.

And LaBeouf really isn't bad in this movie. Carrying off that character is a stretch, but it didn't hurt take much away from the movie IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
proton said:
am i the only one who hasnt seen ANY of the indian jones movies :eek:

I even know a blind guy who's seen them. Sheesh.
 
  • #38
Don't be hard on the guy. I haven't seen Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, big whoop.
 
  • #39
Integral said:
Even the trailer that has been running makes it clear that this is a CGI movie with (at least) live actors. The next step will be to do away with the live actors for a total CGI movie. Is that good or bad? Not real clear to me.

Yeah, I'm not sure why people automatically dis a movie just because it has CGI. Did anyone expect such a movie NOT to include special effects? Why not take advantage of the latest tools available for those?
 
  • #40
Using CGI in moderation can make a movie better, but people are afraid that directors go overboard with the CGI.
 
  • #41
proton said:
am i the only one who hasnt seen ANY of the indian jones movies :eek:

I'm in the same group as you. I don't care for these kind of movies. Boring.
 
  • #42
I just saw, over the weekend, a short bit of the third Indiana Jones movie.

Are people saying the new one is worse? How is that possible?
 
  • #43
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Darkiekurdo said:
Using CGI in moderation can make a movie better, but people are afraid that directors go overboard with the CGI.

That's my opinion. Any aspect that's overplayed can ruin a movie. I personally like directors that prefer to use real mock-ups and special effects rather than CGI ones. Just because a tool is available, doesn't mean you should use is at much as possible. Moderation.

A good example is like comparing Aliens with Aliens v. Predator. Too much CGI hurt AvP believability to the eye. If something looks fake or too artificially generated to my eye, it sticks out like a sore thumb. In contrast, Alien and Aliens was perfect. Real suits were used, models were made... people had to improvise. Real hands-on artistic abilities are needed rather than just needing any CGI team who can 'do it'. The artistic and believable aspects are lost when you dump everything for CGI. With the Temple Of Doom, small models were used for the railcar scene and it looks more 'real' to me than ANY CGI generated shot ever could.

Jurassic Park is another excellent example... CGI in moderation. Parts of real Raptors were produced and used for most of the shots, and it shows. I have trouble watching complete CGI movies like Shrek, Cars and Toy Story. I just can't seem to get into them. Funny things happen but they don't seem funny to me, jukes don't come across as funny... just in general the whole move looks... fake... because it is.

When trying to trick the eye and brain into believe something, nothing beats using the real thing.
 
  • #45
B. Elliott said:
That's my opinion. Any aspect that's overplayed can ruin a movie. I personally like directors that prefer to use real mock-ups and special effects rather than CGI ones. Just because a tool is available, doesn't mean you should use is at much as possible. Moderation.

A good example is like comparing Aliens with Aliens v. Predator. Too much CGI hurt AvP believability to the eye. If something looks fake or too artificially generated to my eye, it sticks out like a sore thumb. In contrast, Alien and Aliens was perfect. Real suits were used, models were made... people had to improvise. Real hands-on artistic abilities are needed rather than just needing any CGI team who can 'do it'. The artistic and believable aspects are lost when you dump everything for CGI. With the Temple Of Doom, small models were used for the railcar scene and it looks more 'real' to me than ANY CGI generated shot ever could.

Jurassic Park is another excellent example... CGI in moderation. Parts of real Raptors were produced and used for most of the shots, and it shows. I have trouble watching complete CGI movies like Shrek, Cars and Toy Story. I just can't seem to get into them. Funny things happen but they don't seem funny to me, jukes don't come across as funny... just in general the whole move looks... fake... because it is.

When trying to trick the eye and brain into believe something, nothing beats using the real thing.



I have to agree with this post 100%. Movies like aliens and Starwars 4-6 look WAY MORE real than their later counterparts because they hardly rely on computer animated graphics. Almost all of the aliens in those movies were made from real costumes, not some computer cartoon.


CGI especially hurts actions movies, like Indiana Jones. Explosions, car chases, and gun battles are much more intense when they are done in real life. Take for example the gun battle in the movie Heat vs. something like battle scenes from star wars I or Transformers. Star Wars and Transformers battle scenes don't even come anywhere near the intensity of that shootout scene from Heat, because the scene from Heat looks almost near 100% realistic.
 
  • #46
B. Elliott said:
Any aspect that's overplayed can ruin a movie.

IMO, it's not the excessive use of CGI that ruins a movie, it's that movie-makers (and, apparently, much of the movie-going public) think that CGI is a substitute for good writing.

Jurassic Park could not have been made w/o CGI and yet it's one of my top 10 - because it was a great story.

Movies like aliens and Starwars 4-6 look WAY MORE real than their later counterparts because they hardly rely on computer animated graphics.
It has more to do with the quality of the stories. (I was going to say quality of the writing but if one watches SW IV, one must concede that the dialogue was quaintly awful. "What's that flashing?")

Moonbear said:
Yeah, I'm not sure why people automatically dis a movie just because it has CGI.
Simple: gun shy.
 
  • #47
DaveC426913 said:
IMO, it's not the excessive use of CGI that ruins a movie, it's that movie-makers (and, apparently, much of the movie-going public) think that CGI is a substitute for good writing.

Jurassic Park could not have been made w/o CGI and yet it's one of my top 10 - because it was a great story.

Very true. Like you said there were certain points where they had no choice but to use CGI to get the effect, but at the same time, they didn't use CGI at every point possible. If it didn't require CGI due to modeling constraints, they would use models.

With the way computing power has grown exponentially over the years, it seems like CGI has slowly become the default when needing to create eye-candy intense scenes... as if CGI has opened up a whole new world for movie making... which it has, really. You could also say it's opened up a while new world of art for CGI pictures... and that's where I again become divided. I don't consider CGI images artwork. A painting or a picture, yes. An advanced form of CAD, artwork? no.

I will say that I do have faith in ILM. They've done an overall good job so far, hopefully they'll continue to.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
What I've seen has me disappointed already. I'll probably wait until it's out on dvd. Maybe find some way of watching it for free.
 
  • #49
Chi Meson said:
I just saw, over the weekend, a short bit of the third Indiana Jones movie.

Are people saying the new one is worse? How is that possible?

LOL HAY GUYZ I READ 3 PAGES OF THE ODDYSEE AN DIT SUX0RED. LOL ULECCRSYA? WHAT KIND OF NAME IS THAT?

That's right, I compared Indiana Jones to The Odyssey.
 
  • #50
The first two were epic, but don't let that take away from the last two. They're still very decent quality movies compared to the real utter garbage that's out on the shelves nowadays. I will watch #4 at least once no matter what critics say.

Even Phantom Menace was fun to watch once. At least Anakin was a better actor in that one. I must admit, though, that I was only willing to watch Revenge of the Sith a second time. Either way, there's movies that I can't make it ten minutes into, and this won't be one of them.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top