Indiana Jones 5

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by kylor

It would appear nothing has been learned from Star Wars. If you go into a movie with a story you've already made up in your head beforehand, you're gonna have a bad time with the actual movie.

Nah, Blade Runner is my favorite film of all time and I loved Blade Runner 2049 because it is a great film. Unlike The Star Wars Sequels.

I bet we get a scene in Indy 5 where he pulls out his gun in a callback to Raiders and Doom.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by kylor

It would appear nothing has been learned from Star Wars. If you go into a movie with a story you've already made up in your head beforehand, you're gonna have a bad time with the actual movie.

They are going to have a bad time no matter. And let everyone how bad it is before and after the movie releases for years to come. Especially since they do not want the movie to exist or hope it fails.

[ThulsaMike88]

I hope people are able to at least give it a fair chance. I know I was skeptical of Logan before that came out, and ended up being pleasantly shocked at just how good it was. Hopefully Mangold can do the same for Indy and surprise some people. If it's bad...well, at least we'll still have the first three (or 4 if you like KotCS).

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by Josep5349

On the BIB, haven’t you answered your own point?

I was thinking more smearing the walls with his own feces, bashing his head, soiling himself and talking total gibberish. Stupid plot line is stupid. George Lucas' most overrated movie? I would say so.

[Mikezilla3k]

Originally Posted by kylor

It would appear nothing has been learned from Star Wars. If you go into a movie with a story you've already made up in your head beforehand, you're gonna have a bad time with the actual movie.

Yes, like people had their stories all made up when they saw Empire Strikes Back in theaters.

[CreasyBear]

Originally Posted by kylor

It would appear nothing has been learned from Star Wars. If you go into a movie with a story you've already made up in your head beforehand, you're gonna have a bad time with the actual movie.

I go into films expecting good films. I want a film to surprise and delight and innovate. The Empire Strikes Back is a great example. It both further explores the universe and turns things we knew to be true on their heads in genuinely creative ways that still holds true to what was established previously as a natural extension.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by CreasyBear

Last Crusade is set in 1939, when Nazi's were a threat. As far as we know, this is set in the 1960's, I guess, when Nazi's weren't really a threat.

Lucas used a second Death Star as a metaphor for the Empire's lack of imagination and practically as a way to do the space battle he always wanted to do in ANH. Abrams did it because he wanted to copy ANH and needed a planet killing weapon. It has no purpose, just like the entire ST, but that's another thread...

Nice attempt at rationalizing but no, this is false.

Lucas used a second Death Star because he wasn’t satisfied with the Death Star battle in the original film and wanted another go at it with a bigger budget and improved effects. And that battle pales in comparison because it doesn't have the intensity, stakes, or character drama of the original one, and goes on for far too long.

[spanky87]

I heard on YouTube that this is one of those rogue Lucasfilm productions like The Mandalorian that Kathleen Kennedy is forbidden to oversee. So you know it’s going to be one of the good ones we’re allowed to like.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by spanky87

I heard on YouTube that this is one of those rogue Lucasfilm productions like The Mandalorian that Kathleen Kennedy is forbidden to oversee. So you know it’s going to be one of the good ones we’re allowed to like.

Awesome, youtube gets all the scoops.

[mwynn]

Other reviewers couldn’t quite grasp the film, its basic plot or the nature of returning characters. Published on June 15, 1980, Vincent Canby wrote this in The New York Times:

“The Empire Strikes Back is not a truly terrible movie. It’s a nice movie. It’s not, by any means, as nice as Star Wars. It’s not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it’s also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you’re likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what The Empire Strikes Back most reminds me of. It’s a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation. The Empire Strikes Back is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.”

Surprisingly Cinefantastique was less than enthusiastic about the sequel, condemning Empire as

“A lifeless copy of Star Wars propelled chiefly on the momentum of that earlier film,”

Revisionist history is fun.

[spanky87]

According to the Secret History of Star Wars book, TESB would’ve had a 52 on Rotten Tomatoes if it existed at the time of it’s release.

[Warm Gun]

Somehow, I don't think people will come around on the sequels, especially The Rise of Skywalker, like they came around on The Empire Strikes Back, relatively quickly.

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by spanky87

According to the Secret History of Star Wars book, TESB would’ve had a 52 on Rotten Tomatoes if it existed at the time of it’s release.

Would be interesting to see what scores would have been, with older movies that critics hated and audiences avoided like Dune, Escape from New York, and The Thing. If Rotten Tomatoes existed then, would anyone care about those movies now?

Then find out who flipped the needle for those movies. Who was the first person that said they were good and it spread to the hive minds.

[mwynn]

Yet when The Thing opened in US cinemas on the 25th June 1982, the critical reception was almost as aggressive and seething as the movie’s title monster.

Writing for The New York Times, noted movie critic Vincent Canby described the movie as “

foolish, depressing” with its actors “used merely as props to be hacked, slashed, disembowelled and decapitated, finally to be eaten and then regurgitated […] it is too phony to be disgusting. It qualifies only as instant junk.”

Even reviewers outside the mainstream were hostile towards The Thing. The magazine Cinefantastique ran a cover which asked,

“Is this the most hated movie of all time?”

[Monterey Jack]

Proof that you can't tell what movies will stand the test of time based on their initial box office or critical reception. So many major blockbusters that no one discusses today (who has sat down and watched Twister or Independence Day in the last 25 years?), and yet a flop like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World continues to build a loyal fanbase long after it tanked in theaters eleven years ago.

[Michael24]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Surprisingly Cinefantastique was less than enthusiastic about the sequel, condemning Empire as

My dad was a subscriber to Cinefantastique back then and still has all of his issues from about 1977 to 1985. Looking back through them is a lot of fun ("Batman Aiming For Summer '82 Release," "Janis Joplin To Provide Original Songs For Return of the Jedi"), but it's amazing how negative a majority of their reviews are. I know they gave glowing reviews for Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Road Warrior off the top of my head, but a lot of films were just ripped apart. If I remember correctly (it's been awhile since I've looked), their review of The Empire Strikes Back even spoiled the big twist, which angered a lot of readers.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by Michael24

If I remember correctly (it's been awhile since I've looked), their review of The Empire Strikes Back even spoiled the big twist, which angered a lot of readers.

Imagine needing to read a review to know if you should see the sequel to Star Wars. No sympathy from me.

[Ben_C]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Proof that you can't tell what movies will stand the test of time based on their initial box office or critical reception. So many major blockbusters that no one discusses today (who has sat down and watched Twister or Independence Day in the last 25 years?), and yet a flop like Scott Pilgrim vs. The World continues to build a loyal fanbase long after it tanked in theaters eleven years ago.

I watch Independence Day pretty regularly. Enjoyable blockbuster.

[morris_schaffer]

Originally Posted by Ben_C

I watch Independence Day pretty regularly. Enjoyable blockbuster.

I could watch it too and eagerly awaiting news on twister uhd.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by mwynn

Seems like a few people have already seen the movie.

The thing is, after the movie comes out, people will get very angry and indignant when you mention all the things that are being proscribed, prohibited and prejudged in these comments. - No! It's not because I already had my nickers in a knot before going into the movie. I'm making valid criticisms after seeing the movie and blah blah inane proclamation storytelling, blah bla something equally inane about characters, blah blah..... And, being expert on what everybody thinks, that goes for all the other wildly varying negative takes which nevertheless support my specific preexisting neuroses about the film.