MovieChat Forums > Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Discussion > This ruined Indiana Jones forever.

This ruined Indiana Jones forever.

posted 6 years ago by Heisenberg (6317)
55 replies | jump to latest

I'm not just talking about any possible future movies.
I'm talking about the previous ones too, the whole thing is ruined by this crap.

Raiders is my favorite film of all time, so imagine how happy I am with this.

I remember posting on imdb before skull came out that it looked like an awful idea, I predicted the ignorance of casting Shia, the awkwardness of shooting with Ford playing an old man, the weariness of setting this in the fifties, the stupidity of the aliens idea (yeah, I cracked the mistery of the skull before it came out, what a genius I must be right? That was such a super twist!).
So it had all the signs for being a bad project, and I posted my dissent.
But I got a barrage of criticism from the board on imdb saying that I was a naysayer and that it could be good, and if it wasn't, how was this gonna diminish the previous ones? Just skip it and pretend it doesn't exist.
Well, it's been 10 years since this disgrace of a piece of crap, and it does exist, and Indiana Jones is deader than Belloq in the movie world, and I blame this miserable piece of crap for that.

Without skull, Indiana Jones would be regarded as THE greatest film trilogy from the '80s, and a classic one, like back to the future, or even the matrix (with all its faults).
With skull, it's just another movie series gone awry with its protagonist and creators, like die hard or lethal weapon. What a shame, what a waste.
HOLLYWOOD LEAVE THE GOOD STUFF ALONE

[–] hurricane (1908) 6 years ago

Cool.

[–] TandyMan (10364) 6 years ago

Absolutely it did. It's why I want them to make another one. Crazy as it sounds, if they put forth a reasonably decent effort, it could salvage the series' reputation somewhat, and people would just say... "eh, that one sucked. but they went out solid with the next one."

[–] janelsenor (2042) 6 years ago

No.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I agree it tarnished the original trilogy. God knows what youngsters must have thought of the originals reputation if they seen this one first and didn't follow it up.

[–] Strazdas (2328) 5 years ago

There was nothing to ruin. Indy movies are overrated mindless action. They are the 80s pulp fiction versions of, say, Expendables. They are full of horrible video editing, bad jokes, terrible plotlines and magical mcguffins.

[–] strntz (10816) 5 years ago

and magical mcguffins.

Snob. I love those things - especially the ones with sausage.

[–] Theeboon (97) 3 years ago

Horrible editing? Oh my dear boy...

[–] Strazdas (2328) 3 years ago

Indeed. I have rewatched the indy movies recently and they did not age well. The editing is what you would expect in camp horror movie.

[–] Theeboon (97) 3 years ago

OK, that's an interesting opinion. Let's take for example the scene in The Last Crusade where Indy is fighting in and on the tank driving through the desert. That scene alone is a master class in editing.

Not sure what you mean by "camp", the movies are pretty campy by design. That doesn't necessarily mean bad editing.

[–] Strazdas (2328) 3 years ago

Nah, im talking more about parts like in the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom where they get on a ship.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Thanks for pointing out how your appreciation of movies is utter crap.

[–] TheUltimateHippo (2250) 5 years ago

Sorry but last crusade is just as bad if not worse, in fact I actually think I’d rather watch skulls over crusade

[–] looper007 (1126) 5 years ago

Have to disagree with you 100% on this one. Last Crusade in fantastic, great Villains, great set pieces. Sean Connery and Harrison Ford a great double act. Anyone who thinks Skull is better then Last Crusade I feel for them.

[–] TheUltimateHippo (2250) 5 years ago

I disagree with everything you just said, Connery looked awful I felt like he should have done doing movies with paully shore, the acting was some of the worst I’ve ever seen, the set pieces were nothing impressive, John William score was bland, but the worst thing about crusade is that it’s boring

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

1- I agree, last crusade is a bit boring because it's too mundane (locations, action, enemies). But it's still intelligent fun, skull is ludicrous, brainless and uninspired.

2- if you have to name Pauly Shore, I think you'll find a better fit for him with the flying monkeys and the swordfight on a jeep, or the ants, or the gophers, or the fridge...I mean, seriously, that crap would only work in one of his movies, and nowhere else.

3- Even if crusade is not the most exciting, it has a nice atmosphere to it, it fits the period and Indiana Jones' s themes and tradition. Skull instead feels like an off key knockoff made by cheap imitators.

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 3 years ago

Uh no Last Crusade was just as stupid and brainless as Crystal Skull, there is a freaking Mickey Mouse joke for crying out loud. Last Crusade does not have a good atmosphere and it did not fit the period or the themes and traditions. It was a brainless kiddie film that sucked out the maturity, adventure and excitement the first two had

[–] HarlemEagle42 (16175) 5 years ago

It's not that bad. What's the big deal against the fifties setting anyway?

[–] TandyMan (10364) 5 years ago

I think one of the problems was it wasn't enough about Aliens. I mean if you're gonna do aliens, go all out. And then what do we get at the end? They made these aliens bizarre as hell. Do normal Grey anal probing aliens that we all know and love and associate with the decade. Don't go making up your own crazy weird aliens. It's weird enough already.

[–] Heisenberg (6317) 5 years ago

To analyze what's wrong with skull is an exercise as decorous as cleaning a turd.
With your tongue.

But yeah, the aliens were silly and superfluous, if you go by what happens in the end.