Indiana Jones: The Complete Adventures (1981-2008) + Individual Releases

[amoergosum]

...so what do you guys think about these Spielberg quotes? >>>

https://forum.blu-ray.com/4871645-post253.html

[Jim Purcell]

To hear a director like Spielberg say these things is pretty sad in my opinion. The motivation for making Crystal Skull was just wrong. You can't create something special like that.

Super-Hero comic book writers do it monthly. Why not movie directors?

[Ben_UK]

Originally Posted by bmore007

Crystal Skull is the only time I've ever seriously considered walking out of a theater. I just couldn't believe how bad it was.

Raiders and Last Crusade were awesome.

Completely agree. In fact, all three original films are good, raiders is the best, then Crusade, then Doom, all in my own opinion of course.

I couldn't quite believe how laughably bad some parts of Crystal Skull was.

[gregmasciola]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

Completely agree. In fact, all three original films are good, raiders is the best, then Crusade, then Doom, all in my own opinion of course.

I couldn't quite believe how laughably bad some parts of Crystal Skull was.

I thought the movie was okay.

[Show spoiler]I just didn't like how they put aliens in it. Aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones film, in my opinion. They can say all they want that they're not aliens because they're from "another dimension", not "outer space", but in the end, they look like aliens, and they left in a flying saucer, so yes, they're aliens.

Anyway, I'm excited for this release, but still deciding if I'll buy day one or wait for individual releases. I already own Crystal Skull and don't want to buy it a second time. Also, I've never liked Temple Of Doom, so if the price is a bit high, I'll probably just wait. I'm sure they'll look awesome, though.

[NYorker]

Anyone here saw 'Raiders' in the theater? and how old where you when you saw it? I had the chance to see it in the theater but thought it would be too scary(...) so our family went to see - gulp - 'On Golden Pond.' I regretted that for a long time...

[BarkingGhost]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Anyone here saw 'Raiders' in the theater? and how old where you when you saw it? I had the chance to see it in the theater but thought it would be too scary(...) so our family went to see - gulp - 'On Golden Pond.' I regretted that for a long time...

I did and I was 16. Of course, I also got to see SW in the theater on its original release, too.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Anyone here saw 'Raiders' in the theater? and how old where you when you saw it? I had the chance to see it in the theater but thought it would be too scary(...) so our family went to see - gulp - 'On Golden Pond.' I regretted that for a long time...

I'm hearing Ricky Roma right now - "That's the worst thing that I can confess. You know how long it took me to get there? A long time."

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Considering how many people I run into who don't even understand the "dual narrative" structure of Munich, who can't wrap their minds around the idea that War of the Worlds was a "9/11" film, who think that the advanced beings in the last act of A.I. are aliens, who think the thin, transparent bleached-out image of the American flag that bookends Saving Private Ryan is some sort of statement of rah rah patriotism, who think Spielberg only made Schindler's List so he could win an Oscar, who think Empire of the Sun had no point and cannot grasp the warped-memories subjective shooting stratregy of that film, I'd say most of Spielberg's films are more creative and intelligent than some of the people viewing them...

You gotta explain that one, not saying your wrong, but War of the Worlds was written LONG before 9/11

Originally Posted by gregmasciola

I thought the movie was okay. I just didn't like how they put aliens in it. Aliens don't belong in an Indiana Jones film, in my opinion. They can say all they want that they're not aliens because they're from "another dimension", not "outer space", but in the end, they look like aliens, and they left in a flying saucer, so yes, they're aliens.

Why not? All Indy movies deal with some kinda religion. A lot of ancient religions are based on the theory that humans used to worship aliens, that aliens help to define our species. Also the crystal skulls (which are real artifacts by the way) are link to many alien theorys. I know I have the "unpopular opinion" but I really liked The Crystal Skulls. A lot of people just dont get the science behind the movie, I would encourage anyone to pick up the blu of Ancient Aliens (a history channel series) or google the actual crystal skulls. You find some really interesting stuff

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by BarkingGhost

I did and I was 16. Of course, I also got to see SW in the theater on its original release, too.

I was 11 (and yes I saw Star Wars in it's original form too). It was Spielberg's CE3K though that cemented my love of film at a very young age.

[TruBlu06]

Originally Posted by Ryan0503

Why not? All Indy movies deal with some kinda religion. A lot of ancient religions are based on the theory that humans used to worship aliens, that aliens help to define our species. Also the crystal skulls (which are real artifacts by the way) are link to many alien theorys. I know I have the "unpopular opinion" but I really liked The Crystal Skulls. A lot of people just dont get the science behind the movie, I would encourage anyone to pick up the blu of Ancient Aliens (a history channel series) or google the actual crystal skulls. You find some really interesting stuff

You know, a few years ago right before Crystal Skull was released, they had a special on the SciFi channel about the "crystal skulls". I mean they really laid it on thick with the "can't be made by modern methods" and "solid crystal skulls". It turns out when the Smithsonian tested the skulls they were all just fakes the Mexicans made to be souvenirs for we gullible Americans and an ancient legend to go along with it.

[Cowboy]

Russians, Aliens and the 1950's were not the reasons that Crystal Skull sucked.

I mean when a movie can't even get the Harley Davidson right....it was not even a pan head that would have been correct in 1957. It was based off a new softail. Not that a kid would have even been able to afford a new Harley back in 1957. Then you have the kid dressed up like Brando (The Wild One) hat and all (all of it seemed very forced) "HEY LOOK ITS THE 1950'S..not that we didnt already know that...

would have been more realistic if he just had a Tshirt on and rode an old Triumph or something....and I wont even go into the Refrigerator/Nuclear Explosion/Russians at a base in Nevada, Homage to Caddyshack etc etc. etc..

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Russians, Aliens and the 1950's were not the reasons that Crystal Skull sucked.

I don't think it was abysmal, but it is certainly the weakest of the four films. I would have enjoyed it much more had there not been so much obvious CGI shots (monkeys, ants, etc.), but the overall story was inline with the first three. I think the biggest kick in the teeth to Crystal Skull was Shia LeBouf. I'm sorry but I just can't get behind the kid. He annoyed me to death in Transformers, I, Robot, Eagle Eye, and Crystal Skull. About the only film I have seen where he didn't say "No, no, no, no, no!" over and over was Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, but then the actual story was mediocre at best.

[Maxwell Everett]

Originally Posted by Ryan0503

You gotta explain that one, not saying your wrong, but War of the Worlds was written LONG before 9/11

But the movie screenplay was written after 9/11 and that's what's relevant.

Originally Posted by Ryan0503

Why not? All Indy movies deal with some kinda religion. A lot of ancient religions are based on the theory that humans used to worship aliens, that aliens help to define our species. Also the crystal skulls (which are real artifacts by the way) are link to many alien theorys. I know I have the "unpopular opinion" but I really liked The Crystal Skulls. A lot of people just dont get the science behind the movie, I would encourage anyone to pick up the blu of Ancient Aliens (a history channel series) or google the actual crystal skulls. You find some really interesting stuff

What ancient religion is based on theories that humans worshiped aliens? Those are modern, 20th century ad hoc hypotheses for the mythic, supernatural occurrences in Holy texts... and they have no basis in fact.

Also, I'm afraid that no, crystal skulls are not real artifacts. They are modern forgeries.

Unfortunately, there is no credible science behind the movie, there is only pseudoscience. And Ancient Aliens is arguably the most embarrassing show on the (Pseudo)History Channel. Even if they do give token skeptic Michael Shermer a few seconds near the end of the shows to call it all rubbish. It really belongs on the SyFy Channel, frankly.

[Kpofasho]

Oh this is great news. I've only been a blu Ray full HD tv owner for less than like 5 months but other than the star wars flicks, Indiana jones was a very close 2nd to me in movies that I could not wait to add to my blu ray collection. Even though with both movies I already own the complete set on VHS and recent DVD I will no doubt be adding the magic that is Spielberg and Lucas!!! Can't fricken wait!

[Ryan0503]

Originally Posted by Maxwell Everett

But the movie screenplay was written after 9/11 and that's what's relevant.



What ancient religion is based on theories that humans worshiped aliens? Those are modern, 20th century ad hoc hypotheses for the mythic, supernatural occurrences in Holy texts... and they have no basis in fact.

Also, I'm afraid that no, crystal skulls are not real artifacts. They are modern forgeries.

Unfortunately, there is no credible science behind the movie, there is only pseudoscience. And Ancient Aliens is arguably the most embarrassing show on the (Pseudo)History Channel. Even if they do give token skeptic Michael Shermer a few seconds near the end of the shows to call it all rubbish. It really belongs on the SyFy Channel, frankly.

Thats like saying there is no credable science behind the world being flat when all the science at the time points toward that conclusion ... I see your point of view, however I just see things differently. And I still dont see how War of the Worlds is based on 9/11 ... The screenplay is adapted from a story written LONG ago, I get the similarities but come on!!

EDIT: Just read about the crystal skulls, had no idea the smithsonian had studies the "skulls". very interesting

[Dan_Shane]

Originally Posted by Cowboy

Russians, Aliens and the 1950's were not the reasons that Crystal Skull sucked.

....and I wont even go into the Refrigerator/Nuclear Explosion/Russians at a base in Nevada, Homage to Caddyshack etc etc. etc..

I don't think it "sucked." I was at least entertained in the theatre, and I bought the Blu-ray. And I agree that it had its problems, but expecting every jot and tiddle of a fantasy film to be 100% historically accurate is setting one's self up for certain disappointment.

If we're going to be that picky then we will all have to agree that PATTON "sucked" because all the tanks used in the movie were not from WWII.

I personally rate KotCS one notch higher than ToD. The mile-high fall in the inflatable boat was just asking for too much suspension of disbelief. At that point Indiana Jones became indestructable, and I only buy that in a Superman movie. Having already seen Jones survive that one made the refrigerator gag a little less bitter pill to swallow.

But the one thing in KotCS I will *never* forgive is Indiana Jones's pronunciation of the top-secret "nuke-u-lar" project he had worked on. Come on, Doctor Jones!

[Ernest Rister]

And I still dont see how War of the Worlds is based on 9/11 ...

Science Fiction films typically address current events under the guise of fantasy. It allows the artists to explore hot-button issues in a safe context. Just as fears of the Red Menace informed many 50's sci-fi films such as Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Invaders From Mars, Spielberg made two films in response to the terrorist attack on the United States, and released them both in the same year (namely, the sci-fi thriller War of the Worlds and the 70's political thriller Munich) - Worlds begins with a shot of the Manhattan skyline seen from New Jersey, and Munich ends with a shot of the Manhattan skyline as seen in the 80's. War of the Worlds is heavily informed by media visuals from the 9/11 attacks, Munich heavily informed by the political and military response of the U.S. to those attacks (it uses the Israeli response to the Munich atrocities in the 70's as a method to discuss in veiled allegory the conundrum of the modern U.S. war on terrorism). Review after review of War of the Worlds picked up on all the 9/11 imagery (I think Box Office Mojo even called it a "grisly exploit" of 9/11), and I don't think anyone missed the allegory in Munich (even though it seems many think the terrorist scenes from the 72 Olympics are all Abner flashbacks, when instead, Spielberg is cross-cutting between two stories to tell a twin tragedy. They're not flashbacks, but some people assume they are, leading to confusion as these people think Abner is "flashing back" to the violence and slaughter of the 72 hostage drama while making love to his wife in a later scene in the movie)

Anyhoo, as Mr. Gump would say, that's all I have to say about that.

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by TruBlu06

You know, a few years ago right before Crystal Skull was released, they had a special on the SciFi channel about the "crystal skulls". I mean they really laid it on thick with the "can't be made by modern methods" and "solid crystal skulls". It turns out when the Smithsonian tested the skulls they were all just fakes the Mexicans made to be souvenirs for we gullible Americans and an ancient legend to go along with it.

Spielberg resisted the Crystal Skull idea, reportedly, for a long time. I don't know why Spielberg relented but...I'm not Spielberg.

I must say this - Crystal Skull should stand as absolute irrefutable proof that no director is better than his screenplay. A great director with a bad script can only do so much, and at the end of the day, you have a great looking bad movie. This is why I'm quietly glad Spielberg did not get his way and direct one of the Star Wars prequels...because not even a gene-spliced freak super director created from the DNA of David Lean, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, William Wyler, Douglas Sirk, Nicholas Meyer and Charlie Chaplin could have saved the SW prequels using those scripts.

When Spielberg works with the likes of Gottlieb, Milius, Stoppard, Kushner, Kasdan, Zaillian, etc., you get Jaws, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Munich...when he works with David Koepp (who usually is called in at the last minute, in his defense) you get The Lost World, War of the Worlds, and Crystal Skull.

David Fincher directed a Koepp script, too. It was called Panic Room, and it also stunk up the theater, despite all the talent in front of the lens. As soon as I saw David Koepp's name attatched as writer for Crystal Skull, my head fell. I had already seen Howard the Duck scribes sink Temple, saw the late Jeffrey Boam sink The Last Crusade...Incredible producer plus incredible director plus incredible actors plus bad script? You get a bad movie. You get product moved through the pipeline, and you get contractual obligations out of the way, but you still get a bad movie.

Spielberg's next film is based on a Tony winner, his film after that is written by a Pulitzer winner based on a Pulitzer-winning book. In between, you have Tintin. Here's hoping Tintin has a quality script.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Spielberg resisted the Crystal Skull idea, reportedly, for a long time. I don't know why Spielberg relented but...I'm not Spielberg.

I must say this - Crystal Skull should stand as absolute irrefutable proof that no director is better than his screenplay. A great director with a bad script can only do so much, and at the end of the day, you have a great looking bad movie. This is why I'm quietly glad Spielberg did not get his way and direct one of the Star Wars prequels...because not even a gene-spliced freak super director created from the DNA of David Lean, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, William Wyler, Douglas Sirk, Nicholas Meyer and Charlie Chaplin could have saved the SW prequels using those scripts.

When Spielberg works with the likes of Gottlieb, Milius, Stoppard, Kushner, Kasdan, Zaillian, etc., you get Jaws, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Munich...when he works with David Koepp (who usually is called in at the last minute, in his defense) you get The Lost World, War of the Worlds, and Crystal Skull.

David Fincher directed a Koepp script, too. It was called Panic Room, and it also stunk up the theater, despite all the talent in front of the lens. As soon as I saw David Koepp's name attatched as writer for Crystal Skull, my head fell. I had already seen Howard the Duck scribes sink Temple, saw the late Jeffrey Boam sink The Last Crusade...Incredible producer plus incredible director plus incredible actors plus bad script? You get a bad movie. You get product moved through the pipeline, and you get contractual obligations out of the way, but you still get a bad movie.

Spielberg's next film is based on a Tony winner, his film after that is written by a Pulitzer winner based on a Pulitzer-winning book. In between, you have Tintin. Here's hoping Tintin has a quality script.

Well said and I agree with you...for the most part.
In the case of the Indy movies, I just think the bar was set so high with Raiders that the follow-ups had to hit on all cylinders to match or surpass. Now had Crystal Skull come out all on it's own, I'm sure it would've gotten much more of a better reception.
This is kind of similair to Shyamalan's Sixth Sense. That, his first movie, was so good that all the others just had no realistic chance to surpass it. Although I've really come to appreciate Signs! I hated it in the theatre, but after rewatching a few times I got a lot more out of it.
Any way, good points...and this was just im my humble opinion.
Bottom line: The Indy trilogy(+the 4th film) on blu-ray is good news no matter how you slice/analyze it!

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by rickah88

This is kind of similair to Shyamalan's Sixth Sense. That, his first movie, was so good that all the others just had no realistic chance to surpass it.

See, I think Unbreakable is the best film he ever made...but I hated Signs with some unexpected intensity, and Shamalyan's intense self-promotion seemed to grow in direct proportion to the mediocrity of his later movies...by the time he was kissing his own ass in American Express commercials while releasing tripe like The Happening, I had given up on him. Still have. (And to tie this back to Spielberg, didn't Shamalyan boast at one point that he "knew Spielberg's secret"?)

Although I've really come to appreciate Signs! I hated it in the theatre, but after rewatching a few times I got a lot more out of it.

Well, we can talk about Signs in another thread, because I think the film is an absolute mess...but here's one paragraph...spoilerized

[Show spoiler]The theme of the film is faith (belief in that which cannot be proven), and the conceit of the film is that Gibson's character regains his lost faith. But what actually happens is that Gibson's character is shown irrefutable proof that God exists. The point of the movie is to stick it in the eye of the audience member who has lost their faith. Gibson's character does not gain his lost faith, he gains proof. The end of the film is supposed to play like Gibson has rejoined a cause, but when you stop and think about it (always a bad thing to do in a Shamalyan film) it really plays like a sucker who just lost a bet.