Idle Thumbs 191: Not the Greatest, but the Best

[TychoCelchuuu]

Interestingly, the color palette, lighting and cinematography all feel way pulpier to me than what I remember of the first three films (though that could just be because I haven't seen any of them in years).

I think this was totally on purpose, and it's one of the reasons I think that people who complain about the aliens are sort of silly. The first three Indiana Jones movies are pretty clearly based on the early serials from the 1910s to the 1940s, and especially the '30s, because Indiana Jones was set at around this time (30s and 40s). He was roughhousing with Nazis and so on.

But then we move on to the 1950s. The world has changed. We're not watching adventure serials anymore: we're reading pulp novels about aliens, and the villains are the Communists, not the Nazis. Indiana Jones himself is now in this era, so the movie is in this era and the plot is in this era. That's not to say they handled the aliens as well as they could have ("their treasure is knowledge" or whatever the fuck wasn't exactly "he chose... poorly") but the general feel of the movie, which was different from the first three, struck me as a great change.

What didn't strike me as a great change was the stupid goofy bullshit CGI gophers (and the generally terrible CGI all throughout, which was extremely surprising to me - ILM knows its stuff, doesn't it) and all the other tonal missteps, but I think in terms of the really big beats, Jones 4 was on the right track.

[Ben X]

Yeah, the tonal change isn't the issue for me - the previous two sequels already made pretty big ones, and in fact I'd rather they'd made more of it instead of just a poorly made version of Raiders with different villain and MacGuffin wallpaper.

[Udvarnoky]

Most of the people who hate Crystal Skull do a strangely good job of overlooking what actually sucks about the movie, which is the fact that it has no momentum, thrilling action sequences nor narrow escapes of any kind...you know, the tenets of an Indiana Jones movie.  People instead bizarrely point to elements like the 1950s, aliens, implausible set pieces, or Shia Labeouf.  These people are wrong.  The maligned Doom Town sequence is actually one of the movie's closest flirtations with an authentic Indiana Jones movie because at least it's a classic "How's he gonna get outta this one?" scenario.  Where the hell were those?

 

Indiana Jones spends this movie helping the Russians and/or being an indifferent interpreter.  The third act is seriously kicked off when he proclaims "Because it told me tooooo" in response to why they should even bother to proceed to the lost city.  No stakes, no narrative propulsion, they just may as well trudge onward into the climax because hey they're here.  There's a better version of this movie with fewer supporting characters where it's Indy, and not John Hurt, who is forced to look at the skull and goes crazy, and the rest of the protagonists are forced to follow him to Akator because he's possessed by some malevolent alien force while spouting out guttural menace, Sophia Hapgood style.

 

Why isn't Indy allowed to be proactive in this movie, even if he ends up screwing it up?  The warehouse scene was a great opportunity for him to try to outsmart the Russians.  Oh, he's tricking them into giving him their ammunition - he must be up to something!  Nope, turns out he really was just helping them, and his big plan was to drop his rifle on the ground and run away.  And he isn't even allowed to solve the obelisk puzzle toward the end.  It could have been a classic moment where he uses his wits, but instead they just already know what to do, and this nice practical effect is a payoff to nothing.  Wasted opportunities everywhere.  Like the fifty spear-wielding warriors that they do jack shit with.  Or the fact that they had the badass jungle cutter vehicle, which 80s Spielberg would have had a FIELD day with, would have staged some epic fight on ending with a Ruskie falling into the blades.  But in this movie?  They just blow it up right away.  Fuck off!

 

And yes, the lighting choices were terrible.  Let's shoot the movie on film to show how we're going old-school, then completely defeat the point by going with some washed out, diffusion filtered, digitally graded bullshit aesthetic.  Good job; the whole hideous movie looks like it was shot in front of a green-screen.  I also contend that the movie was hurt by not having any principle photography in South America.  They didn't need much - just a little bit of trekking footage to soothe away the loudly declared reality that the characters are just hopping from soundstage to soundstage.  It worked for Temple of Doom.  There's more intrigue and authentic footage of Peru in the first thirty seconds of

than there is in the whole movie. 

 

Fuck bringing Marion back (and obfuscated her name for no reason at the beginning, as if it makes sense and as if she isn't ON THE POSTER) if all they were going to do was have one decent reunion scene, but then keep her around as background fodder for an hour except when she deliberately drives onto a rubber tree knowing that she's going to survive, because she knows she's a character in a movie.  Fuck the fact that this movie brings in a compelling cold war paranoia angle and does nothing with it.  Fuck the fact that Indy happens to be related to everybody for no good reason.  Fuck the fact that they have a talent like Ray Winstone and give him nothing to do.  And fuck the fact that they mothballed a way better script, which for all its silliness actually had memorable dialog, fun characters and thrilling moments.

 

Not bad otherwise.  7/10

[Problem Machine]

For some reason I find people complaining about Crystal Skull, a movie I've never seen, very compelling.

[Ben X]

People instead bizarrely point to elements like the 1950s, aliens, implausible set pieces, or Shia Labeouf.  These people are wrong. 

 

Pretty much the only time I see these getting brought up are when they're described as the common complaints with the film. I don't think any of its detractors on here have complained about that stuff (except Labeouf which I think is a valid complaint if you find his bullish, sarcastic screen persona - also see Constantine, I Robot - irritating). As I said above, I think the 1950s/aliens stuff are cool ideas fumbled by the film. I like the Doom Town set-up but not the cartoony resolution. I agree with all your criticisms and have many more!

 

EDIT: oh, I didn't like that Darabont script, though. It's a huge mess.

[Udvarnoky]

I wasn't really referring to this thread.  When the film came out, those elements were definitely consensus defects among the general reaction I was exposed to.  "Nuked the fridge" became a meme, for some dumb reason.

 

I don't find Shia bad in this movie from a performance standpoint.  It's more: why does Indy need a son?  The movie does an inadequate job of answering that.  The problem is that the movie has six different versions of what it wants to be and does justice to none of them.  There is definitely a decent Indy movie to be made about the character and a greaser sidekick.  Or about him and Marion reuniting (see rejected script).  Or about him and his morally challenged WWII buddy played by Ray Winstone.  Or about him and his old college buddy gone mad.  But at a certain point in its development the movie needed to pick like two of those and do something worthwhile with them.

[Twig]

Why does he need a son? Because that son is a fun character. That's what Indiana Jones is about. Fun!

[Udvarnoky]

If it was fun, my five paragraph rant would have been precluded.  My expectations were tempered when I walked into the theater - I'm brutally aware of the law of diminishing returns.  I was expecting something inferior to Last Crusade.  What I got was something inferior to Always.

[SecretAsianMan]

I complained about Shia because I don't like his acting in any movie.  He annoys me.

 

I think I remember once, long before Crystal Skull, hearing about a theoretical 4th Indy movie with Kevin Costner as his half-brother or something.  I could be making that up though.

[Bjorn]

why does Indy need a son?

 

Because it establishes a canon through which they can continue to make new indy movies/tv shows/games in any time period they want, with the continuing adventures of Mutt Jones, should that be a thing that someone eventually wants to do.

Edited to add: I want a Short Round movie.

[Twig]

If it was fun, my five paragraph rant would have been precluded.

Phew! Well, glad we got that sorted.

[Bjorn]

Good news everybody, Chris Pratt's going to be the new Indiana Jones! 
 

[Twig]

So he's Starlord, Jurassic Park Dude, and now maybe Indiana Jones? Yeah all right sure, bring it on.

[Problem Machine]

Well he already played him in GotG so okay

[TychoCelchuuu]

umm I think Shia is supposed to be the new Indiana Jones. I don't want them to reboot it, I want 1960's Son of Jones. That would be great.

[Twig]

umm I think Shia is supposed to be the new Indiana Jones. I don't want them to reboot it, I want 1960's Son of Jones. That would be great.

I legit want this. Although, I don't know if I actually do. But I'm pretty sure I do.

 

Yeah I do.

 

OR: Do I?

[Bjorn]

I think I'd be a lot happier with a Son of Jones situation than a reboot or just telling more Jones stories set in the 30s with a new actor.  The latter is the safer route that's unlikely to make anything particularly memorable, while the former at least has the opportunity to be great. 

[Twig]

My biggest concern is just Shia. I've said I loved him I Crystal Skull, and I do, but I'm not convinced he could carry an Indy type movie as the lead. Maybe if he had his own Short Round, though... U:

[Bjorn]

Fuck it, retcon it and say Shia had a twin sister that just never got introduced.  Cast Emily Blunt as the new "Indiana" (seems like a name that can go either way).  Mutt realizes all he really ever wanted to do was fix motorcycles, so he does that while his sister flies all over the world being a graverobbing archeological badass.

[Udvarnoky]

I think I'd be a lot happier with a Son of Jones situation than a reboot or just telling more Jones stories set in the 30s with a new actor.  The latter is the safer route that's unlikely to make anything particularly memorable, while the former at least has the opportunity to be great. 

 

The problem with that is Indy is very much tied to a specific era.  It's not like James Bond where you can adapt him to any given time period.  Sure, you can update the decade to accommodate Ford's age and adjust your pulp influences accordingly, as Crystal Skull successfully did with the 50s.  (And I say that sincerely; the movie's failings lie elsewhere.)    But it must always be a period piece.

 

And there's a brutal ceiling there - can you bring Indy to a time more modern than the 50s/60s?  The whole point of Indy is that he lives in a world where places are still uncharted, where a lost city in the jungle still felt plausible.  Beyond a certain era, that would be the wrong kind of ridiculous.  You'd have to start making pretty fundamental changes to make that work, at which point it's probably not Indiana Jones.

 

The best way to handle a reboot is to concoct some storyline that crosscuts between Harrison as old Indy and Pratt (or whomever) as Indy in his prime.  Have old Indy make some discovery that ties into an unresolved adventure he had in the 30s that justifies this structural choice.  (If it was up to me, I'd divide it 50/50 or even give Ford's narrative more focus.)  In this way you get to properly send-off Harrison and organically introduce your new actor, and then you can make new dedicated Pratt movies after that.

[osmosisch]

My biggest concern is just Shia. I've said I loved him I Crystal Skull, and I do, but I'm not convinced he could carry an Indy type movie as the lead. Maybe if he had his own Short Round, though... U:

[TychoCelchuuu]

And there's a brutal ceiling there - can you bring Indy to a time more modern than the 50s/60s?  The whole point of Indy is that he lives in a world where places are still uncharted, where a lost city in the jungle still felt plausible.  Beyond a certain era, that would be the wrong kind of ridiculous.  You'd have to start making pretty fundamental changes to make that work, at which point it's probably not Indiana Jones.

I dunno. If you read the transcript for the conference between Lucas, Spielberg, and Kasdan where they fleshed out Indiana Jones, a lot of what they say in terms of setting the mood for the character doesn't have anything to do with exploration or whatever. Jones is ostensibly an archaeologist, but that's obviously not his actual job. He's an action movie hero. These are action-adventure movies. He doesn't even have to find the things - his whole thing is "it belongs in a museum," and Mutt can still do that even if he doesn't discover the lost city of whatever.

[Twig]

My biggest concern is just Shia. I've said I loved him I Crystal Skull, and I do, but I'm not convinced he could carry an Indy type movie as the lead. Maybe if he had his own Short Round, though... U:

He also might have to shave just a bit!

[Udvarnoky]

I dunno. If you read the transcript for the conference between Lucas, Spielberg, and Kasdan where they fleshed out Indiana Jones, a lot of what they say in terms of setting the mood for the character doesn't have anything to do with exploration or whatever. Jones is ostensibly an archaeologist, but that's obviously not his actual job. He's an action movie hero. These are action-adventure movies. He doesn't even have to find the things - his whole thing is "it belongs in a museum," and Mutt can still do that even if he doesn't discover the lost city of whatever.

 

I wasn't trying to zero in on "discovery" necessarily, but pointing out that the movies couch themselves in the romance of a particular era (or, more accurately, the movie version of a particular era).  Indy was designed for a world of the dogged, square-jawed hero whose hat never falls off.  It's a somewhat specific kind of adventure brand with ties to a specific time period, and I'm not sure it can survive much past what Crystal Skull dragged it to, at least not without being modified to the point where it's unrecognizable. 

 

You can still capture the "spirit" of Indy with a modern day tale, as has been attempted with Romancing the Stone and Sahara and Uncharted, but if you wanna use the name you've got to assume the baggage.  And of course even some of those off-brand Indy movies have chosen the early 1900s, such as The Mummy and that horrifying 1994 Tarzan movie that Disney for some reason called "The Jungle Book."

[Ben X]

Good news everybody, Chris Pratt's going to be the new Indiana Jones! 

 

 

For anyone who didn't click through, there hasn't been an announcement or anything, it's just an unimaginative bit of fan casting turned rumour.