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

  • Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Movie
In summary: 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
  • #1
gravenewworld
1,132
26
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
  • #2
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:
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
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:
  • #5
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:
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
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:
 
  • #8
gravenewworld said:
Oh and overly dramatic could describe 60% of PFers.
At least in GD. :tongue2:
 
  • #9
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...? :uhh:

: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:

Similar threads

  • Feedback and Announcements
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
Back
Top