Why not? It was about echoing the prevalent themes of the era reflected in the movie.

The 30's was the classic Action/Adventure serials and the Nazis. The 50's was the Red Scare, Roswell, and Aliens.

The "Aliens"* were no more absurd than a magic box with ghosts that melts faces, magic stones and voodoo, or a magic cup and immortal knight.


* - Inter-dimensional Beings.

Well thats your opinion and if you like the film fine. It just seemed very wrong and out of place to me. The first 3 films were all about religion/archeology, then all of sudden it turns into Event Horizon.

I remember there being talk about the 4th film being about Atlantis, now that would have fit.

The fourth movie seem to be like well enough. The only time I hear anything bad or complaint about it is online.

I like the ideas of the aliens, made well with the setting in the 50's and the type of movies that were popular in that decade, the B movies...the same type that Indiana Jones movies look back on, the B movies.

Atlantis may have been a good subject for the movie as well but I am willing to bet aliens would have been involved as well :)

It's my opinion? Nooooooooooooo... really? ;) - Pretty much the majority of what people post are opinions.

Aliens and Religion are very similar subjects. Nobody can prove either is real, but still people believe. And in fact, there are people who believe that the concept of "Gods" is due to Ancient Astronauts. See the book that inspired the ideas in the film called "Chariots Of The Gods". Also the travelers in the film were revealed to be Archeologists themselves. Plus the Crystal Skulls are based on actual artifacts, even though their authenticity is certainly in question.

And I kinda wonder if you've actually seen Event Horizon with comments like that. Cause it's not at all similar.

Atlantis is as much a departure as the whole Inter-Dimensional Beings thing was. So that doesn't really make sense.

I'm the opposite. I know no one in "real life" that liked it. The movie just had too many issues for me and didn't feel like an Indy movie to me.

Indeed. But I don't think they wanted to retread something already covered elsewhere in Indy canon.

Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis was a point-and-click adventure game by Lucasarts from 1992.

Plus everytime someone mentions Indiana Jones and Atlantis, all that comes to mind is that '94 MacGyver movie.

Such as? Do enlighten us. Cause there's really nothing in the film that isn't comparable to what came before.

I agree. Aliens was the next logical step - Indiana Jones had been all about rare artifacts - The first film dealing with the arc, the second some rare stones, and the third, the holy grail. Well, with Area 51 existing and the whole Roswell thing, why not?

Oddly enough, you are right. I never bothered to look at the reviews as I just assumed it got lukewarm reception from the critics based on what some people have said about the movie online.

I didn't love the fourth movie, but it was still entertaining. I never bothered to add it to my collection, but I likely will at some point once the original trilogy is released.

Still, a 77% rating is kind of low for an Indiana Jones film, isn't it? If you look on the same site, Raiders has 94%, Temple 85%, and Crusade 89%. Even Steven Spielberg himself seems to be aware of the lukewarm response to Indy 4:

(see last 30 seconds)
http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2011/...a-jones-video/

My own sense is that even he has a lesser opinion of it. Just look at how he describes the process of arriving at a story for Indy 4... using phrases such as:

"I'm done with this series!"
"Let's walk away!"
"I don't want to do aliens!"
"George insisted."
"I resisted, I resisted, I resisted"
"I never thought I would be making Indiana Jones 4"
"I kind of humored George by going along with it."

Basically Lucas wore him down and probably reminded him how much money they stood to make. Eventually he decided he needed to be an active "custodian" of the franchise and wanted to be there (rather than only produce) to reintroduce the character to a younger generation.


There is no question, they are inauthentic.

I didn't mind the aliens. My problems with KOTCS are the pacing, the actions scenes, and the characters. I still think the film is a solid one and a fine addition to the Indy franchise, but these problems make it the worst in the franchise IMO. Spoilery details below.

That's the thing right there, it just does not feel right for an Indiana Jones movie, and the whole alien plotline and the ending especially just seemed, atleast to me way off and out of place.

I disagree on that, she was great

In fairness, the "I don't want to do aliens" is not the complete quote. Spielberg wasn't saying he didn't want to do aliens for an Indiana Jones movie, he said he didn't want to do aliens because he felt like he had done enough alien movies. That context is very different from yours. btw, that quote can be found on the behind the scenes of the Blu-ray.

I liked Crystal Skull, but a lot of people I know did not. I've always viewed Indiana Jones as a comic book hero (he certainly performs feats that no human could achieve or survive) so him getting nuked didn't bother me at all. I mean, the man has fought a tank! He jumped out of an airplane in a liferaft, survived a rope bridge collapse, poison, a pit full of snakes, dozens of nazis at a time--he even rode a submarine for hundreds of miles that never submerged and for some reason never posted any lookouts above deck. He even survived the wrath of god's angels!

It is true that Skull is the weakest of the four films, but it's still fun for all the right reasons. I look forward to having all four of these together on blu.

But he supposedly said this to Lucas in the years leading up to the release of Independence Day. So early to mid-nineties. But if Spielberg was saying this to Lucas because he didn't want to do any alien movies AT ALL again, why did he go on to make War of the Worlds in 2005?

It's a convenient excuse isn't it? "But George, I did all these other alien movies!" Sounds like the kind of thing you say to your long-time collaborator and friend when you don't want to tell him straight out that it's bad for this particular series of films. Notice that Spielberg didn't relent until Lucas labeled them "extra-dimensional" and he finally said, "Okay, fine... fine. What are they gonna look like?"

"Aliens."

So, exasperated, he convinced himself that it made it more compelling somehow. I'm sure when War of the Worlds came along, Lucas probably called Spielberg on his, "I don't want to do any more alien movies."

"What was that, Steven? Were they supposed to be illegal aliens?"

You and others can choose to interpret that any way you want. But I stand by what I wrote - Spielberg never said aliens weren't good for an Indiana Jones movie. That's a fact. Any interpretation you come up with is not.

I never claimed he said that. But, consider this...

On page 230 in The Complete Making of Indiana Jones, Spielberg is quoted by Lucas as saying, "I don't know. I've done a lot of these and I don't think we should mix genres." Now, if Lucas is to be believed, this strongly implies Spielberg thought Indiana Jones was one type of genre picture and a movie with aliens was another type. Put another way, sci-fi had never before been a part of the Indiana Jones milieu and he wasn't comfortable with that.

Also, check out this quote from the Raiders Story Conference transcript cira 1978:

HA! Beast resorting to the Rotten Tomatoes score angle...when in the Star Wars thread, I brought up the fact that ZERO of those garbage ass prequels were in IMDB's top 250 list, and he downplayed it, saying, "who cares what critics think" or something to that effect. Laughable. It only matters when its convenient for your argument, huh?

Actually that is in line with many mythological creatures. Not looking at a Gorgon can save your life you know. It does have some merit. Maybe looking at them would offend the spirits? Maybe it wouldn't have mattered at all and only Evil was the target of the spirits? Maybe Indy thought it was worth a shot even if they were still killed? Maybe he couldn't bare to watch and thought the same for Marion? Many explanations can be offered in that scenario unlike the fridge sequence.

I am not saying what is and isn't realistic I am stating what is absurd and isn't, what is difficult to accept as a possibility (in the context of the movie). No explanation can be given about the Fridge scene that will at all make it acceptable, it is simply impossible even in the world of Indy.

For the record I consider the raft scene in ToD to be just as bad.