Knives and Tongues

• email this story
• read comments (45)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

In his usual perfunctory way, N.Y. Times reporter Michael Cieply has reported on the bad-internet-buzz-chasing-Indy 4 story ("Indiana Jones Is Battling the Long Knives of the Internet"). He's ignored, however, what may turn out to be the most interesting aspect of reactions to the film.

This, as I wrote two days ago, refers to a possible generation gap with older viewers liking it (or at least finding a place in their hearts for it) and younger viewers being less enthused, at least in part because the film has allegedly been infused with an older guy's (i.e., Steven Spielberg's or Indiana Jones' -- take your pick) perspective, which wouldn't be surprising.

According to a good friend of a southern-region exhibitor who passed along some opinions last Wednesday evening, the only viewers at last Tuesday afternoon's exhibitor screening who liked it "were the older guys."

Older vs. younger reactions to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Paramount, 5,.22) is interesting, and also ties in with the subject and theme of the film. Generic "bad buzz," which Ciepley's story says is percolating out there, is a flavor-less story...a yawn.

comment #1

Tim says ...

This is music to my ears actually. The single worst thing they could do with Indy 4 is try to keep up with the Bay's. If it turns out to be "old fashioned" that's a victory for movies as far as I'm concerned.

I'm much more worried that Lucas did irreparable damage during the concept stages.

comment #2

redmond says ...

Tim, I with you. Especially after seeing the shot in the trailer with the ninja-looking guy jumping out of a tree in some sort of cemetery. That has Lucas written all over it. Maybe Indy will strike some special pose before using his whip ala Obi-Wan in Episode 3. Damn, I can just smell that action figure dough!

comment #3

MickTravis says ...

"I'm much more worried that Lucas did irreparable damage during the concept stages."

Word.

I'm betting he did. And I'm also worried about Spielberg's increasing tendency to fumble easy goals by overthinking.

Also: Since DVD makes the trilogy readily available and familiar to younger viewers, does the young guy/old guy argument really hold water? It's not like the younger viewers are completely baffled by the characters and situations.

comment #4

Spacesheik says ...

A favorable INDY 4 review at AICN at last:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36701

The reviewer didn't much like TOD (which I preferred over the campy, light CRUSADE) so I don't know how that bodes...but if he compares it to WRATH OF KHAN then that is good enough for me.

comment #5

nemo says ...

If younger audiences don't like it because it looks like a movie instead of a video game, and because it doesn't treat younger people and their immature concerns as if they're the center of the universe, then that's the first news that makes me want to see this thing.

comment #6

Spacesheik says ...

...but don't mind me...I'm one of the few who actually thought THE LOST WORLD was superior in every way to JP...I guess I like my flicks darker and edgier.

comment #7

JohnCope says ...

Yeah, I agree with most of the above comments. It is not, of course, so much about younger people not having access to the first films but rather that the first films are not stylistically to their taste (or representative of prevailing taste). The thing is, the original trilogy is not really representative of 80's film style anyway. It's classical in that it recalls the tone of its 30's sources but also it's mainly indebted to Spielberg's particular style. Using sustained long shots to measure the action in terms of recognizable spatial orientation has always been something he has been excellent at. When he fails at that, as in Hook, the film can fall apart. Still, having said all that, I don't really care for the originals anymore as they seemed so airless and lacking in spontaneity the last time I watched them (maybe a year or two ago). This is the negative side of Spielberg's gift and the thing which many of his critics confuse with "manipulation". The real problem is that, at his worst (i.e. "Catch me if You Can", "Terminal" and "Raiders") his level of precise execution can result in a product which stifles or suffocates our involvement. That then feels like manipulation. "Catch Me if You Can" is actually his worst offender in this respect as "Terminal" can't be taken seriously from the outset since its whole premise is designed to accentuate what ultimately kills it. But CMiYC was profoundly disappointing for me as I remember struggling with it almost as a physical thing in the theater because Spielberg's devotion to his specific means of telling Frank's story absolutely dictated that we either agree with his sympathies or give up and get out. There is no room in that picture to negotiate your own reading and that's an abysmal experience. Thankfully, and despite some common assumptions, Spielberg generally avoids that and his technical precision does not overflow into absolutist demands upon our responses. "Raiders", for its part, felt to me like I was watching nothing more than a series of inter-connected storyboards.

comment #8

Spacesheik says ...

I remember watching RAIDERS a the Empire Leicester Square, London, a huge theater that still stands to this day - the cinema was packed, the audience ate it up, it was thrilling, dramatic and funny - when Ford shot the swordsman hundreds of audience members erupted in laughter, when the skeletons popped out, the audience jumped, I miss theaters like that and that sort of audience participation.

These little shoebox multiscreens these days...will never be the same again.

A few decent theaters are still standing in the US - the DC Uptown being one of them, they need to be saved.

comment #9

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

Paragraphs John Cope!!! For Christ's love, you people you don't know how to use paragraphs give me a goddamn headache.

If you don't break up your thoughts with paragraphs, your thoughts appear and read like one long, nonsensical run-on sentence.

What are you in fourth grade? Your comments probably arn't worth reading anyways.

comment #10

MickTravis says ...

"It is not, of course, so much about younger people not having access to the first films but rather that the first films are not stylistically to their taste."

Of course, John Cope. Kids hate explosions and snakes and machine guns and Nazis and booby traps and action and curses and narrow escapes.

Just the other day I was talking to a 13-year-old who bore your argument out. He said he found the Indy trilogy "too refined and stately" and that he "much preferred the aesthetic of Michael Bay."

comment #11

MattyC says ...

Actually, JK, John's comments were surprisingly readable, unlike that other spurner-of-paragraphs, the indomitable MiraJeff.

However, when he got to the part where he casually listed Spielberg's "Worst", and included not Always, 1941, or Hook, but RAIDERS OF THE MOTHERFUCKING LOST ARK, I sort of tuned out.

comment #12

JohnCope says ...

Oh, I agree, Hook is certainly one of his worst. And Raiders should probably not be included in that list, you're right. My reaction is based primarily on the disappointment I had a couple years back. Back in the day I watched the Indy movies almost every weekend and Spielberg's iron clad approach didn't bother me at all. It's just a change in attitude that came over time.

comment #13

Pelham123 says ...

God help me, but I find "1941" compulsively watchable. I've seen it several times, once in the theater, and since on VHS & DVD, and yet, I know it is not a good movie, but I can't ever turn it off. Nothing ever really works in it except maybe, maybe the spectacle (I love the planes zooming over 1940's Hollywood Blvd.) My friends shoot daggers at me for even mentioning it and I can't say I blame them. I just can't bring myself to hate it like I do "Hook" which I think is the absolute nadir of Spielberg's moviemaking.

All these early pans of the new Indiana Jones is exactly why Spielberg was bitching about the internet in his interviews a few weeks ago. Get the movie out and let everyone judge for themselves instead of giving credibility to a couple of AICN geeks looking for an easy headline.

comment #14

Jay T. says ...

LOL - I love the complaint about not breaking posts up into paragraphs. I always just skip those comments...

comment #15

MathewM says ...

I loved Temple of Doom as a kid. I was the perfect age of course (10) but as I got older I started going with the flow and dissing it. I had tried watching it once again back about ten years ago on a 20" tv (this is before WS DVDs) and thought it was crap. However last year I sat down and watched it again with my mom and brother on a 110" HDTV screen and had a great time with it. Whatever that's worth.

comment #16

Spacesheik says ...

HOOK and that 'Kick The Can' episode of TWILIGHT ZONE THE MOVIE are among the worst pieces of shiite Spielberg has ever directed but the previous poster placing RAIDERS on the list..TSK TSK young man...

comment #17

Spacesheik says ...

I always judge how good a movie is by the replayability factor:

Would I want to watch it again?
Would I want to buy it on DVD?

And TEMPLE OF DOOM in glorious 70mm did have a great replayability factor - okay so the dinner sequence was racist and unfunny and the raft flying out of the plane and hitting the mountain was ludicrous but it was an edgy, kinetic ride, some great setpieces in that flick.

I loved the opening of LAST CRUSADE (the River Phoenix-circus train action sequence) but thought the villain (Julian Glover) was weak and the action scenes were lightweight, too much camp in the film for my taste (plane skidding through tunnel, 3 Nazis getting shot with one bullit, etc) - plus the Templar ending was anticlimactic.

comment #18

CinemaPhreek says ...

This hasn't been my experience. It's the younger ones I've come across who seem to be more up for this one than the older ones. My feeling is that we older types are leery, with Ford, Lucas and Spielberg each not exactly in top form these days.

But those who were five (or not even born) when CRUSADE came out are digging this chance to see an Indy film as it comes out.

Also, keep in mind that Ford hasn't done a film that appeals so directly to the younger set in a very long time.

comment #19

Spacesheik says ...

Last thing Ford did which was remotely mainstream *and* popular was WHAT LIES BELOW. His last action hit was AIR FORCE ONE.

He's had way too many RANDOM HEARTS since then - let's hope this flick put him back on the map albeit temporarily at least.

Problem with Ford he strikes me as an actor who'd rather not work.

comment #20

CinemaPhreek says ...

Anyone else think that someone who considers RAIDERS one of Speilberg's worst probably shouldn't even be allowed to post to this thread?

I guess we can tolerate those who insist on singing the praises of TEMPLE OF DOOM because, well, everyone has their quirks.

But slamming RAIDERS? Think that disqualifies you from having a valid opinion about the franchise. Said with a smile, but seriously...

comment #21

swordandpen says ...

I always thought the Indiana Jones sequels missed the point of the character. In "Raiders", Jones wanted as much pride and glory as Belloq (the other movies' villains were never as good as him), but he used slightly less underhanded ways to achieve them and had more of a conscience.

The sequels turned him into a swashbuckling, noble hero that made him less interesting. Sort of how they clipped the balls of Han Solo by the third Star Wars movie.

This movie looks like a sad trip back to recapture the glory days, especially for Ford and Lucas. And it looks like it will consist of endless references to the old movies, much like the Star Wars prequels did. This new movie still feels like it's about a cynical Lucas cashing in on old properties rather than daring to make anything original.

comment #22

dangovich says ...

That plucky Asian kid ruined TOD for me. If fact, plucky kids are the bane of Spielberg family movies. I was praying the dinosaurs would eat those two kids in Jurassic Park. The apparent lack of kids in the new Indiana Jones is a good start.

comment #23

Walter Sobchak says ...

"...but don't mind me...I'm one of the few who actually thought THE LOST WORLD was superior in every way to JP...I guess I like my flicks darker and edgier."

Apparently you like them shittier, too.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

Sheik: "I'm one of the few who actually thought THE LOST WORLD was superior in every way to JP...I guess I like my flicks darker and edgier."

I do, occasionally, too, which is why I find it weird how you consider it to be darker and edgier than the original JP.

comment #25

D.Z. says ...

BTW, http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2008/IJKLM/Indiana-Jones/trailer.php
updated with a different #2 trailer.

comment #26

Spacesheik says ...

If the Wells doesn't like the flick, we're all in trouble.

comment #27

markj says ...

I'm loving the old school approach to Indy IV. If the young ones are hating it then it must be good, given the crap they enjoy, Pirates, Spiderman etc.

I too think TOD is far superior to Crusade, which was just a weak retread of Raiders. At least TOD is doing something different, and I love the darkness of it all. It also has the most exciting last half hour in cinema.

comment #28

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

Spacesheik:

"If the Wells doesn't like the flick, we're all in trouble."

Hahaha. I completely agree. If Wells doesn't approve, HE is going to erupt into chaos and cause a black hole rupture in the space/time continuum.

comment #29

Mgmax says ...

The Lost World is an Aliens in which they're not allowed to shoot the aliens.

comment #30

Rich S. says ...

On a totally unrelated note, I caught Speed Racer on IMAX this afternoon. What most critics are missing are that it's almost a carbon copy of the anime, right down to some of the vocal stylization of the characters. After what the critics have done to it, I was expecting the worst. But I thought it was flat-out terrific.

I have a feeling that it's going to be one of those movies that in five or ten years, a lot of people are going to be saying, "boy, the critics really missed the boat on that one."

First, Iron Man, then Speed. Until I find otherwise, I'm going to assume that indy is going to keep the streak going. This could be the best genre summer since '82.

comment #31

storymark says ...

"I always thought the Indiana Jones sequels missed the point of the character. In "Raiders", Jones wanted as much pride and glory as Belloq (the other movies' villains were never as good as him), but he used slightly less underhanded ways to achieve them and had more of a conscience.

The sequels turned him into a swashbuckling, noble hero that made him less interesting."

I have to assume your havn't seen Temple of Doom in a while, with Indy's frequently repeated "fortune and glory" routine.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Rich: "What most critics are missing are that it's almost a carbon copy of the anime, right down to some of the vocal stylization of the characters."

Except the anime didn't spend about an hour discussing the history of racing and corporate sponsorship.

"I have a feeling that it's going to be one of those movies that in five or ten years, a lot of people are going to be saying, "boy, the critics really missed the boat on that one."'

No, it's not, because other than the neon, it's been done before, and better.

comment #33

Pelham123 says ...

I agree with Rich S. on "Speed Racer". I just got back from the Chinese and the critics, once again, completely missed the point of the movie. After reading some of the write-ups, I, too, was expecting the worst and the first 1/2 hour or so convinced me it was gonna be a real drag to the end and then the pieces started falling into place. It is the original cartoon/anime turned into a live action movie turned back into a cartoon/anime. The movie is a lot more heartfelt than I expected, too. A family movie about family. I hope it finds an audience. Extra points for casting the real "Shaft", Richard Roundtree.

comment #34

corey3rd says ...

The indiana jones films were video games. - escape the boulder, zip around the mine and fight the tanks.

comment #35

LYT says ...

Corey - except that video games weren't that sophisticated back then. It'd be more accurate to say that video games are like Indiana Jones movies (especially Tomb Raider).

Love that Harrison's doing his trademark "Finger of Doom" in the picture Jeff selected...even though cameras presumably aren't even rolling when it was taken!

comment #36

Filmsnob says ...

but don't mind me...I'm one of the few who actually thought THE LOST WORLD was superior in every way to JP...I guess I like my flicks darker and edgier.

So true!

comment #37

storymark says ...

Darker and edgier doesn't always equal better.

comment #38

markj says ...

The Lost World was pretty underwhelming at the time. Everything is relative though, looking at the film recently it's head and shoulders above most of todays blockbusters.

comment #39

CinemaPhreek says ...

Hate to kill this "critics are wrong" take on the summer of '08, but most critics are giving good marks to IRON MAN. Not that I see it, it's a movie-of-the-week with better casting and MARGINALLY better effects.

I expect, in fact, the critics will fall all over themselves praising INDY IV.

Man, it's gonna be a long wait for DARK KNIGHT unless HANCOCK is better than it looks....

comment #40

Josh Massey says ...

Do I have to remind everyone that The Lost World had a girl escape from a raptor by doing freakin' gymnastics?

Dark and edgy, my patoot.

comment #41

Spacesheik says ...

"Do I have to remind everyone that The Lost World had a girl escape from a raptor by doing freakin' gymnastics?"

I can't argue with that, it's an infamous scene, as bad as the peanut-butter-sandwich-thrown-at-wall-tantrum sequence of WAR OF THE WORLDS.

Nevertheless, I loved the Pete Postlewaithe hunter character (and the whole HATARI-like hunting expedition motif) the graphic T-Rex sequence involving the trailer on the cliff, the velicoraptor sequences, and yes even the Godzilla-like homage in San Diego (which many loathed).

The brooding John Williams score didn't hurt either.

comment #42

Zwiebel says ...

This whole Crystal Skull negativity campaign seems inherently odd. If you’re sitting on a turkey, why on earth would you want to dial down the expectations? If the movie stinks and won’t have legs due to bad word-of-mouth, you need the biggest opening weekend you can possibly get.

Considering the backend deals that recently surfaced it’s hard to believe Lucas would be willing to piss away some of his share by telling people to not get their hopes up. He seems rather fond of money and more money, so it wouldn’t make sense for him to speak up if the movie truly sucked.

Living up to the sky-high expectations people had would have been difficult even for a great movie a couple months ago. But then came the Vanity Fair article (or was it EW?) and after that Lucas’s comments to USA Today. It continued with people “inside” supposedly being disappointed which also seem weird. Why would the movie be screened for people that couldn’t keep their trap shut? Why would Spielberg suddenly be showing everybody and their mother the movie after being so secretive in the beginning?

Now the movie has apparently been screened for exhibitors. Two full weeks before the release. What? They wouldn’t take on the movie otherwise? And one of them of course sent a report to AICN which resulted in some piss-poor NY Times article. It’s seems a bit strange that Spielberg, Lucas and Viacom with all their contacts and clout wouldn’t have been able to stop that article, or at least somewhat changed its tone. Instead we got Spielberg’s publicist barely saying anything.

The expectations are surely lower now. And that can only result in positive word-of-mouth if the movie is good and people are surprised. If it sucks, I just can’t believe Lucas would have opened his mouth it in the first place.

comment #43

bb says ...

The problem I always had with the sequels was that they took all the real danger out of the equation. The first one was thrilling because you never knew what was going to happen next. In the latter films, you kind of did.

The biggest concern I have with this one is in the trailer with Indy missing his target as he swings down on a rope and then swings back to land in an enemy truck. The fact that he takes his time for a one liner BEFORE punching the bad guys makes it clear that he's having fun, not in actual danger.

An yes I realize that is all silliness since it is only a movie.

comment #44

D.Z. says ...

Zwieb: Lucas only cares about Star Wars, apparently. Indy is just a hobby he shares with his friend. We've known that since Temple of Doom.

comment #45

Bob Violence says ...

Now the movie has apparently been screened for exhibitors. Two full weeks before the release. What? They wouldn't take on the movie otherwise?

Blind booking is illegal in many jurisdictions. The distributor has to hold exhibitor screenings.

Post a Comment