Originally Posted by Serendipity (Post 5875154)

That's how I always felt about William Shatner when he complained about being known as just Capt. Kirk. Are you cashing all those residual checks and enjoying the fruits of being Kirk? You sure are, so stop whining. :p

I'm glad Harrison publicly bashed Shia for knocking the movie. Shia never knows when to keep his mouth shut, which is one of his worst qualities. No wonder people punch him at bars all the time...

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny (Post 5875122)

they have no one to blame but themselves if they were part of a "bad movie." :shrug2:

Originally Posted by bboisvert (Post 5875606)

Isn't that what he's doing in those quotes? Blaming himself...

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny (Post 5875625)

buy why complain about it after the fact.....if it's a bad movie, why not avoid it and not do it??

obviously he wanted the money that would come w/an indiana jones movie but has no problem bad mouthing it after the check has been cashed.

talk about classy!! :D

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny (Post 5875625)

buy why complain about it after the fact.....if it's a bad movie, why not avoid it and not do it??

obviously he wanted the money that would come w/an indiana jones movie but has no problem bad mouthing it after the check has been cashed.

talk about classy!! :D

Originally Posted by Jay444 (Post 5875706)

I think he complained mostly about himself and not being able to sell the audience on a few of his more outrageous scenes (honestly, the monkey thing is a tough sell even for someone like George Clooney...). Keep in mind actors do not see the final product until about the same time as the movie going public. I am pretty sure he thought of the previous 3 Indy movies and thought there was NO WAY they would CGI the biggest scenes in the film... Or would have the good sense to CUT something that didn't work.

Originally Posted by beanham22 (Post 5874675)

A) you failed to read the first line I wrote.

B) the point about the "light sensors" are kind of a staple to the genre and in know way takes you out of the film to the degree of a man surviving an atomic blast in a fridge, followed up by surviving the impact.

So light sensors are a staple to the 30's serial B genre movies but surviving nuclear blasts has no part in the 50's B movie genre? OK Gotcha. Seems the entire point of the series is as lost on you as it is on all the other haters.

C) It is the wrath of god, it destroyed all the evil and furthermore the ones that defiled it. What is so hard about that to understand?

It's the Wrath of God. Pretty much nuff said. KotCS could have had the Easter Bunny pelting the Ruskies with it's chocolate eggs and been as realistic. God is a fairytale, not even close to real. But yeah, just close your eyes and you will be fine. Too bad God did't strike out and kill Hitler while he was at it and save millions of Jews their lives. Guess it was only a locallized power, not something an all might all powerful being could emcompass a quarter of the world with. He's the all mighty, but only under certain circumstance, in certain areas, when he feels like it. For the rest of you 6 million Jews... eh to lazy to get off the couch.

D) Actually I like the movie very much just not as much as the first 3 and I would be "dumb" to deny the stupidity of the fridge scene or the jungle scene.

As "dumb" as it is to rationalize light sensors in the Peruvian cave, which you have already done. But keep hating for the sake of hating.

E) it isn't Mutt fighting between two moving vehicles but that what is added to the rest of the scene that is too much. That scene isn't bad at all. The scene with Indy going under the truck isn't followed up by; a monkey swing, being carried by ants, falling down three huge waterfalls that would kill anyone.

But it was followed up by a guy surviving a ride through the ocean by a guy on top of a sub. And preceeded by the same guy being trapped in a giant tomb, sealed for centuries but full of live snakes (with no fresh air, water or food) hidden in the desert that takes weeks to dig out because everyone just forgot to check out the brick wall next to the air fiield. Oh and I guess you've never seen what ants are capable of for real. But isn't ignorance bliss? And the waterfalls? Really? After all the improbable stuff you support you want to rag on the waterfalls?

F) Overall nothing in the Original 3 is something that is 110% sure to result in death. Yeah there are some improbable things but nothing certain whereas there is no possible way in this word or the next someone can survive a nuclear blast in a fridge. As long as there is that small chance of success most people can suspend enough disbelief for something like Indy holding on to a moving truck OR Mutt sword fighting between two vehicles.

Nothing like falling out of a plane using a raft to save your butt, having a man reach into your chest to pull out your still beating heart and showing it to you before lowering you into a pit of molten lava, holding onto the outside of a sub etc etc. The 4 films are FULL of things that should be completely unsurvivable. Focusing on the fridge is just hatred for the sake of hatred. Ranting about it over and over continues to prove that point. Growing up sure does suck, doesn't it :)

F) Nice feeble attempt at some half-witted ignorant philosophy regarding your last sentence.

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny (Post 5875749)

but there had to of been something in the script about swinging on vines w/monkeys.

so either he a: ignored that part or b: he's a moron to think that it would've worked on film. personally, i'm going w/choice b. :D

Originally Posted by Jay444 (Post 5875810)

I see where you are coming from, but keep in mind when working on a project as big as this, the actors don't get to see the full script until they have signed and started working (i.e. Nolan and the Batman films, and Lucas with most of the Star Wars films, so on and so forth). Honestly, the vine thing probably went something like this on the written page:

Ext. Jungle: Mutt falls off the jeep. Grabs a vine and swings to safety.

That is probably about it. For all we know the Effects guys or whoever said: "Hmm, lets add some monkeys in there... because there isn't enough going on in the frame. Let's make it bigger!"

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny (Post 5875828)

If a 5th movie is made, that could make for an uncomfortable work environment. :lolcry:

Originally Posted by s2mikey (Post 5875843)

No - lets not do a 5th movie. Its fine as is. If they want to start anew with Lebouf being the main guy then fine.... but even then..... ugh. :(

Originally Posted by Imrahil2001 (Post 5876262)

Ugh. You guys suck. I'm getting out of this thread too.

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny (Post 5875133)

EXACTLY!!! :D

if i were a director and heard an actor talk like that, i'd publicly ask them to return their paycheck!! :devil:

Originally Posted by amoergosum (Post 5874881)

Well, at least Shia LaBeouf was honest about it >>>
Source:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movi...spielberg.html

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny (Post 5875625)

buy why complain about it after the fact.....if it's a bad movie, why not avoid it and not do it??

obviously he wanted the money that would come w/an indiana jones movie but has no problem bad mouthing it after the check has been cashed.

talk about classy!! :D

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi (Post 5876493)

Please......no 5th movie. Before (way before) KOTCS came out I remember hearing/reading tons and tons of people saying they wanted another Indy movie. Then KOTCS comes out and I've hardly heard a thing regarding the desire for another film.

Originally Posted by Jay444 (Post 5876705)

Should have ended with Last Crusade, no doubt. I always took the Indy films to be more like James Bond films, ya know? Events in one film had little to no impact on events in follow up films. I guess that is sort of what turned me off about KotCS. It tied directly into Raiders of the Lost Ark, and touched (briefly) on Last Crusade. None of the other Indy movies did that (that I can remember) and KotCS gave Indy all these relationships with characters whom we never met before (Oxley and Mac? Exactly who are they?) Why didn't they use Saul (maybe recast Brody?) or bring back an older Short Round if they were going to go that route with all these connections to the previous films? Would have been much better that way I think. Anyway, its best (imo) to leave the series where it is and call it a day.

Originally Posted by retablo (Post 5876718)

Well, Raiders gave us Marion, with whom Indy had a past relationship... ToD gave Indy a relationship to Short Round, who we'd never met before... and Crusade introduced his father. They've all introduced characters we'd "never met before", yet had previous relationships with Indy.

Originally Posted by Jay444 (Post 5876840)

Yes, but KotCS made a conscious effort to tie into the previous films when those very same previous films didn't even try. For example, ToD takes place before Raiders, there is no mention of Short Round or Willy in Raiders. Marion exists in Raiders, but isn't even mentioned in the Last Crusade. None of the films tied into each other.

That seemed 'off' to me in KotCS, as they tried to tie in things from all the other films. I still don't quite understand the 'double triple agent' thing with Indy and Mac (all things considered, wouldn't Sallah have been better in that role?). Oxley could have easily been subsituted for Brody (in a recast of course). If Indy had such a relationship with both characaters, then maybe they should have been in the earlier films, no? You could even have replaced Mutt with Short Round and gone with a new love interest entirely. Then again, it was like 20 years since the last film and they had to create some new characters to fill the gaps in time so to speak. So, its all good/

I am not complaining, just saying it was a break of formula is all and it sorta didn't 'feel' like Indy to me is all. Sorta like the current Bond films, don't seem very Bond to me (but I like them regardless).