Generation Gap?

• email this story
• read comments (32)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

I wasn't going to say anything and just wait until the 5.18 screening of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in Cannes, but since Ain't It Cool has run a neg review from "ShogunMaster" (and since Hollywood Wiretap has linked to it), the cat is out of the bag and I may as well share something of my own.

Last night I heard from a guy I've known for years who's quite friendly with an exhibitor from the southern region, and this guy passed along some comments after seeing an exhibitor screening two days ago. The exhib's taste in movies tends to be fairly generous and populist (enjoyed Iron Man, even liked Speed Racer), but he wasn't especially taken with Indy 4, my friend says.

The most interesting thing my source passed along was his friend's sense that "the only ones who liked it were the older guys." This ties in to an older-younger, march-of-time theme that is certain to seep through. Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones is obviously older, Steven Spielberg is an older guy who is proud of shooting and cutting action films in a somewhat old-fashioned (i.e., classic, non-Matrix-y) way, and now -- maybe -- a hint that the film itself may play older, or on some level embody older-ness. Cool.

A Hollywood screenwriter guy is telling me that "people" -- he didn't say younger or older, but let's presume the latter -- "are really liking it." He claims there was another exhibitor screening last week, and that some feel "it's the best of the sequels." It has, he's been told, a kind of reflective, summing-up quality that has echoes of Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade.

I love this. Especially having been pummelled by Speed Racer last night. I would love it, I mean to say, if Indy 4 winds up providing a window into the Spielberg- Lucas-Jones mindset -- i.e., we're obviously grappling with the world as it is and giving it hell, but we're still older guys and very comfortable, thank you, with doing things in our own tried-and-true way.

Let's leave it alone for now, but the two downbeat responses suggest that a Da Vinci Code-like mauling could happen -- maybe, possibly -- when Mr. Jones turns up at the Grand Palais on 5.18. I'm thinking again about the statement that producer George Lucas gave to USA Today's Scott Bowles, the one about it "not" being "the Second Coming...it's just a movie, just like the other movies."

This may turn out to be a good thing, in a way. If this talk keeps up expectations will be slightly lowered by the time it shows in Cannes (and in domestic media screenings) on the Sunday after next, and the responses may therefore fall under the heading of "pleasant surprise."

comment #1

Rich S. says ...

Ironic in that Spielberg and Lucas are the two moviemakers most directly responsible for setting in motion the trend leading to today's "movies as video games."

comment #2

Mgmax says ...

I'd be happy if this was The Indiana Jones Who Shot Liberty Valance. I don't really expect that, but even a whiff of it would be all right.

comment #3

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

This sounds like great news to me.

Who cares about satifying some teen dweebs who don't even really care about the whole Indiana Jones mythology. Fuck 'em.

I hope the film really plays to the older crowd and long time fans. We deserve it after Lucas turned Star Wars into a playland for children.

comment #4

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Mgmax: The Indiana Jones Who Shot Liberty Valance -- exactly! I would really love that. I think.

comment #5

Jay T. says ...

Good -- I'm 28, hardly old, but screw the younger crowd's tastes. I'm so sick of this CGI fanboy bullshit. Hearing this makes me want to see it more.

And Rich S -- I strongly disagree lumping Spielberg in with Lucas. Spielberg is a special effects master, but he's always emphasized using real sets over CGI whenever possible.

comment #6

redmond says ...

I'm with Jay T. I'm also 28 and will be very happy if Indy 4 has the same tone and pacing of the originals. CGI is the devil - though we know this movie will be loaded with it but fortunately ILM knows what it's doing (not counting Iron Man or the Star Wars prequels) and it will mostly be for scenery, etc.

That said, my expectations for this one are low and the more negative reviews the better. That way I go into this thing expecting way less and will be pleased when I'm actually entertained.

And, Jeff, my condolences for sitting through Speed Racer.

comment #7

Wrecktum says ...

I'm hearing mixed word too. From "same old same old" to "OK" to "expected better" to "very good." The "very good" comes from an oldster.

comment #8

p.Vice says ...

So in other words, it's a real movie and not a bunch of overpriced special effects tied together with monkeyspeak. Sounds good to me! The more negative buzz I hear the more I want to see this.

comment #9

lazarus says ...

What's interesting about this AICN review is that none of the blame seems directed at Lucas. I think most people (not me) expected a shitty story that was well-executed and here it seems to be the opposite.

Now maybe some less-than-high octane set pieces will only be appreciated by the older crowd, but the reviewer talked about a distinct lack of danger or suspense, and that shouldn't be a generational complaint.

comment #10

lazarus says ...

What's interesting about this AICN review is that none of the blame seems directed at Lucas. I think most people (not me) expected a shitty story that was well-executed and here it seems to be the opposite.

Now maybe some less-than-high octane set pieces will only be appreciated by the older crowd, but the reviewer talked about a distinct lack of danger or suspense, and that shouldn't be a generational complaint.

comment #11

travis b says ...

To be honest, when I was younger, while I enjoyed the Indiana Jones movies, I was never that into them. But, as I've gotten older (which is a strange thing to say, since I'm not that old..I'm only 27), I've come to appreciate the films and what they do, not only a pure storytelling level, but also on the level that it plays homage to the history of both the niche of the action genre and overall film history. To me, this is the definitive trilogy of my short lifetime, shot for shot better than the original Star Wars trilogy and in a lot of ways, the highlight of the careers of both Lucas and Spielberg.

That being said, I don't trust Aint It Cool at all when it comes to their reviews because, to me, they're part of the problem in the hyper-stylized action genre. They're a highly specialized group and while they've done wonders for a specific niche, sometimes I feel their sense of film history is a bit off, to the point that they don't recognize the right things in a movie. It's all about action, not storytelling, craft, or logic. It's telling that Merrick prefaces the review by saying his 14 year old son thought the trailer made the movie look "slow." What the hell does this mean? Does a 14 year old really have the sense to understand what works and what doesn't (from a trailer, no less)? My tastes at the age of 14 were far different than they are today . . . and when I look back at what i was digging then as opposed to now . . well, it's cringeworthy.

That said, this looks like an action movie for adults, for people who loved the original trilogy, not just because of the action, but because of the overall package. We saw what happened when they made a Die Hard movie "for the kids," and I'm glad that Spielberg is sticking to his guns and keeping things in line with what's come before. Is this going to be the greatest movie ever? Probably not, but then again anyone going in with those kind of expectations needs to get out more. But, what I do expect is something on par with what the previous comments have stated: an enjoyable movie that harkens back to a sort of bygone era. In essence, an action movie for adults that doesn't try to pander to an age group that probably doesn't give a shit anyway. And I'll take that any day over a Speed Racer or an Incredible Hulk.

comment #12

actionman says ...

The aint-it-cool review was clearly written by someone with zero love for the series and was probably a youngin'

From what Wells has passed along, I am even more excited for this film than I already was.

comment #13

JVD says ...

Travis B,

You're totally spot on about "Live Free or Die Hard." While I enjoyed the flick as I was watching it, more for a throwback to the character of John McClane and his attitude, I couldn't help but feel every action set piece was shoehorned in from a different kind of movie.

Movies like Die Hard and the Indiana Jones series are driven, not by their action set pieces, but by their characters. If you stray too far out of character within an action sequence -- say John McClane surfing an F18 -- it doesn't fit. I remember when they were talking about a fourth Die Hard years ago that Bruce Willis mentioning they wanted to set it in the jungle with no weapons and just McClane and his wits. That low-tech approach fits the character.

So long story short: It sounds like the action in Crystal Skull remains very true to the character of Indiana Jones, even if it pisses off the Xbox generation. Count me as ten times more excited to see this thing now.

comment #14

nemo says ...

The Indiana Jones Who Shot Liberty Valance - that is the movie I would love to see.

comment #15

Rich S. says ...

Jay T., I'm not talking about CGI (even though that didn't really take off until Jurassic Park). I'm talking about the elevation of the Saturday afternoon serial to legitimacy. It began with Star Wars, and proceeded through Raiders of the Lost Ark in a straight line to the type of stuff we're seeing today.

It's funny that people view Star Wars and Raiders as "old school." They may seem leisurely-paced now, but people who weren't around when they came out forget how revolutionary they were. Big budget sci-fi at the time usually consisted of stuff like Logan's Run or Silent Running. Space opera meant the original Star Trek or Space: 1999.

Then Star Wars came in and changed everything. Jaws probably started the summer blockbuster phenomenon (before that, the studios thought summer was a dumping ground for "kids movies"). But Star Wars started the quick-cutting action-for-action's-sake explosion. The Empire Strikes Back added to the depth and mythology of the series, but the damage had already been done. And Raiders just cemented it.

The old style critics that lament the rise of Iron Man, Transformers and Speed Racer are hearkening back to the simpler time of the 70s, when quality dramas ruled the theater (which had not yet become the cineplex or multiplex). But that's not coming back and Spielberg and Lucas are largely responsible. Whether that's positive or negative is up to you.

comment #16

Bilge says ...

This actually sounds more like Spielberg's HATARI!

comment #17

mutinyco says ...

Has anybody considered the Joker might be behind this? If you follow...

comment #18

KevinTC says ...

Hate to be that guy, but it's Dr. Jones.

comment #19

lazarus says ...

A much more sober and thought-out (but equally negative) review is now up on AICN.

This one targets Lucas a bit more.

comment #20

Richardson says ...

"But that's not coming back and Spielberg and Lucas are largely responsible. Whether that's positive or negative is up to you."

Lucas and Spielberg drew the original picture, but they're not the ones who made low-quality photocopies of the originals, then made low-quality photocopies of those copies, etc. etc. That was the studio execs making the movies without Lucas and Spielberg.

Though, granted, Lucas did something like that, eventually.

comment #21

Jeremy Smith says ...

Did Hollywood Screenwriter Guy see the 140 minute cut?

comment #22

D.Z. says ...

redmond: "fortunately ILM knows what it's doing (not counting Iron Man or the Star Wars prequels) "

You forgot about Transformers.

travis: "To me, this is the definitive trilogy of my short lifetime, shot for shot better than the original Star Wars trilogy and in a lot of ways, the highlight of the careers of both Lucas and Spielberg."

I agree. Star Wars was just a product of the 70s, but the Indiana Jones series raised the bar for action and
adventure.

And Die Hard 4 blew chunks, because it was McClane in a remake of War Games.

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

As for the new Indy 4, I'm just afraid it'll be turned into a "feel-good" family movie like War of the Worlds.

comment #24

actionman says ...

There was nothing "feel good" about War of the Worlds, unless you count the ending, but the film remained faithful to the book so....

And ILM's work on Transformers is the best CGI work ever put on film. Ever.

comment #25

fielding says ...

Well, the fact that it failed to impress a fan of Iron Man is surely a point in its favour.

comment #26

redmond says ...

D.Z., I excluded Transformers because, while the plot was shit, the CGI was unbelievable. It was one of the only times I walked out of a movie saying "Jesus, those effects were amazing!" Say what you will about the rest of the movie and I'm with you, but the CGI was top-notch in my book. Same with POTC 3. Hated hated the movie but I will not fault ILM for some beautiful looking effects.

comment #27

K. Bowen says ...

Has anyone seen anything from this film that would legintiately get someone excited?

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

actionman: Please. The entire film was about a troubled family trying to reunite against a backdrop of alien genocide.
Worst manipulative crap since Titanic.

Also, their best CG work on film was T2.

redmond: I liked the mechs more in Matrix Revolutions, but I guess anything looks good next to that awful Bay script.

Bowen: Racer X laying the smack down on a fellow driver is pretty sweet.

comment #29

actionman says ...

At the time, T2's effects were the best. But please, what was done in Transformers was beyond words. The sequel will be gargantuan.

Yes, WOTW did certainly center upon a troubled family during an alien invasion, but I never once found it to be "feel good" movie.

comment #30

Mgmax says ...

"You're totally spot on about "Live Free or Die Hard." While I enjoyed the flick as I was watching it, more for a throwback to the character of John McClane and his attitude, I couldn't help but feel every action set piece was shoehorned in from a different kind of movie."

You know that it really was, right? The script was developed as a hacker thriller, then rewritten to make it a Die Hard sequel.

comment #31

Aladdin Sane says ...

I grew up on Indy. I'm 26. I love summer action tentpole movies as much as anyone but it'd be nice if Indy IV is a step up from the movies it spawned over the past ten years or so. I hated National Treasure and didn't bother with the 2nd. Each Mummy movie was worse than the last...so yeah, it shouldn't be too hard pressed to at least be more enjoyable than those films...still, the "negative" buzz is good in a way since anything I could have hoped for was based on 20 or so years of Indy love...my expectations have never been through the roof mind you, but I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised.

comment #32

Dellos says ...

Dull care

Post a Comment