Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[chaseter]

sometimes the truth can be unsettling

look at it this way... believable or not.. it's quite obvious theres an abundance of people who have a problem with it and don't have a damn problem with any of the other past events.. and many have been huge indy fans.. and still call it ridiculous. So whether you have a problem with it or not, if this many people do... then theres something wrong, and it probably wasn't a smart thing to put in the film

You don't hear about obese nerds complain today about the Death Star's firing beam as lasers will not merge onto one point without a condenser. So believable or not...it's quite obvious that the Death Star couldn't use that weapon What about Indy surviving a long @ss journey on submerged submarine? What about a guy pulling another's beating heart out and they still live? What about Indy pushing over an Egyptian statue that weighed 10 tons? Come on This double standard is ridiculous.

 

[last_life]

Did you not read what I said People can survive being tossed or dropping from hundreds, even thousands of feet and people have even survived falling out of planes with no parachute. It was just luck and it was Indiana Jones. Look in Crusade, the ignition of the gas in the sewers would have caused an explosion Look in TOD, the odds of surviving from a raft are slim to none...it can happen but it required luck. Look also in TOD, carts going that fast could not handle turns seeing as the wheels were not locked onto the tracks...they were just sitting on top. Also, why would someone construct a mining track like a roller coaster ride This is an Indiana Jones movie, you want realistic...go watch National Treasure.




Read the above.

First off, I think you are confused on what it means to "survive" something. Those people who have lived after jumping out of a plane...did you ever seen the medical reports? They would be paralised from the waste or neck down, fractured every bone in their body, have major internal bleading and possibly brain damage. However, once put on life suport they are still alive. Thus they have "survived".

Survived =/= Unscathed

And the people who rode down Niagara, stop using them as excuses. The ones who survived were engineers who designed there pods and procedures to not drown or get injured during the fall plus water when fallen correctly offers better support than a hard rocky cliff side. Look up Houdini next time bucko.

The lead lined refrigerators are the same bi-product of the "duck and cover" method...it was invented to keep a paranoid society from breaking apart. A comfort blanket, they did not actually work. The only way to survive is to wait a maximum two weeks in and underground bunker fortified with hard/shock absorbent materials.

In fact, it would have been more believable if Indy happened to find a home made bunker in the test town. That would have been in character too, because Indy is skilled at looking for secret passages in the first place.

But overall, this whole thing is a bi-product of a new age of society that has grown up on science and skepticism. (Note I am not condemning it, in fact I support it.) You cannot show us stuff anymore, you have to at least explain it to us that would make sense in a believable way. Then we will accept the spectacle.

Its one of the reasons why the recent Batman and James Bond films are doing so well in the first place!

 

[chaseter]

again... everyone brings this up... just because a theme happened in a certain genre doesn't mean it needs to be in an indy movie.. i dont see whats wrong with keeping all the indy movies based on nothing but 30's and 40's adventure serials, rather then expanding them.. what's next? indy in the 60's battling a mutation into a mutant due to being too close to the atomic bomb? theres some things that fit, somethings that don't and some things that are just meh... sorta works but coulda been better. this was exactly that... it's a bit to out there from what it could have been.

Yea...we can keep these movies in the 40's as long as nobody pays attention to his age Better yet, recast him...everyone will love it

 

[chaseter]

First off, I think you are confused on what it means to "survive" something. Those people who have lived after jumping out of a plane...did you ever seen the medical reports? They would be paralised from the waste or neck down, fractured every bone in their body, have major internal bleading and possibly brain damage. However, once put on life suport they are still alive. Thus they have "survived".

Survived =/= Unscathed

And the people who rode down Niagara, stop using them as excuses. The ones who survived were engineers who designed there pods and procedures to not drown or get injured during the fall plus water when fallen correctly offers better support than a hard rocky cliff side. Look up Houdini next time bucko.

The lead lined refrigerators are the same bi-product of the "duck and cover" method...it was invented to keep a paranoid society from breaking apart. A comfort blanket, they did not actually work. The only way to survive is to wait a maximum two weeks in and underground bunker fortified with hard/shock absorbent materials.

In fact, it would have been more believable if Indy happened to find a home made bunker in the test town. That would have been in character too, because Indy is skilled at looking for secret passages in the first place.

But overall, this whole thing is a bi-product of a new age of society that has grown up on science. (Note I am not condemning it, in fact I support it.) You cannot show us stuff anymore, you have to at least explain it to us that would make sense in a believable way. Then we will accept the spectacle.

Its one of the reasons why the recent Batman and James Bond films are doing so well in the first place!

There was actually a gunner pilot in WWI or WWII that survived a 5000 foot fall or so. He was a gunner and they didn't have parachutes due to the confined space. His plane was shot down, the pilot bailed and having no parachute, he jumped anyways. He fell and hit a snow bank and walked away Sure others have had life changing injuries but that is still nothing to cough at as they survived. Indy was bruised and disoriented after his ordeal.

I am not saying that in a real life situation, someone would survive this. But this is an Indiana Jones movie for f-k's sake

As for the fridges...no sh** they wouldn't have worked but we were never nucked to try them out personally now were we You can be the first

If you want to dissect the physics, probabilities, and experimental data to 100% prove that this event could never happen, then be my guest. While you are at it, please explain the other 3 movies' events for me in a logical, scientific manner that can clarify why they happened. Thanks.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Um Indy was never about future SCi-Fi stuff. Indy was a relic hunter that took place in real times and Indy theme is what ever was happening in that period of time. No one is picking on the Nazi's but put in Area 51 and its not an Indy film. It is no diffreant then the other movies except for better written stories. Its Indiana Jones just he is in a stage of alien consperacy and government developments. You gotta see its a matter of the times here. If not then i am sorry.

you do realize you just further proved my point. plus... how can you say "iny's theme was about whatever was happening in that period of time" you do realize the previous 3 movies were pretty much all in the same time frame right? so you can't really back that up with anything, its not valid proof since this is the first movie since the originals and has pretty much a 20 year gap

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Yea...we can keep these movies in the 40's as long as nobody pays attention to his age Better yet, recast him...everyone will love it

did i say that? no. Romancing the stone (while not a great movie) is a perfect example of a 30's serial being set in the 80's (i believe it was the 80's?) either way it was modern times. Yet it still had a very 30's adventure serial element to it. Just because a movie takes place decades before doesn't mean it has to be based off of adventure movies from that time frame either.

 

[Majik1387]

did i say that? no. Romancing the stone (while not a great movie) is a perfect example of a 30's serial being set in the 80's (i believe it was the 80's?) either way it was modern times. Yet it still had a very 30's adventure serial element to it. Just because a movie takes place decades before doesn't mean it has to be based off of adventure movies from that time frame either.

But the Indy movies have always been made that way.

 

[cerealkiller182]

and your example is based in the time frame it was filmed, its a flawed example

 

[chaseter]

You know what would have been cooler IMO?

A fortune telling artifact like the Cup of Jamshid or the Urim and Thummim.

Now that is extremely interesting. Never heard of those but damn I am sure some Russians would love a fortune telling device. It would also be awesome for Indy or one of the gang to see their fortune as in a horrible demise.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

You don't hear about obese nerds complain today about the Death Star's firing beam as lasers will not merge onto one point without a condenser. So believable or not...it's quite obvious that the Death Star couldn't use that weapon What about Indy surviving a long @ss journey on submerged submarine? What about a guy pulling another's beating heart out and they still live? What about Indy pushing over an Egyptian statue that weighed 10 tons? Come on This double standard is ridiculous.

dude... a nuke is a nuke.. the rest are very passable when 1 is mystic and the others we see in adventure/action movies every day and are VERY use to... bond and jackie chan have been doing stuff like that for decades. Surviving a nuke though? thats on a whole new level of the spectrum. You might as well have indy survive being dragged to the bottom of the ocean floor in the deepest part without being crushed to death from the pressure, or throw him in lava and have him walk out barely burned

 

[spideyboy_1111]

and your example is based in the time frame it was filmed, its a flawed example

based in that time frame yes.. but the feel of it and the story was all based off of a 30's adventure serial.. its the genre it'd fit in. did you see them dealing with all the events or themes of the 80's? no... so why would indy have to? Yet people say "indy has always done that" psh.. the first 3 movies all took place with only a couple years apart..................................

 

[chaseter]

dude... a nuke is a nuke.. the rest are very passable when 1 is mystic and the others we see in adventure/action movies every day and are VERY use to... bond and jackie chan have been doing stuff like that for decades. Surviving a nuke though? thats on a whole new level of the spectrum. You might as well have indy survive being dragged to the bottom of the ocean floor in the deepest part without being crushed to death from the pressure, or throw him in lava and have him walk out barely burned

We have lasers and know how they work...just as much as we do if not more than the atomic bomb Do you really try to win an argument or are you just so fed up with this movie that you will try to poke a hole in it anywhere? I am not trying to be rude, I didn't think this movie was perfect, but your rebuttals (see others' responses to your Romancing the Stone) seem to be quick and without thought.

I would love to dig through decade old news prints of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to see if someone actually survived but alas I am too lazy.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

We have lasers and know how they work...just as much as we do if not more than the atomic bomb Do you really try to win an argument or are you just so fed up with this movie that you will try to poke a hole in it anywhere? I am not trying to be rude, I didn't think this movie was perfect, but your rebuttals (see others' responses to your Romancing the Stone) seem to be quick and without thought.

ok again fed up with this movie? no... the movie was good. not great, and no where near what it should have been. I never once said i did not enjoy the movie. Just because i complain about it doesn't mean i hate it. i gave the movie a 6.5 out of 10.... its above average.

and what the hell does "we have lasers and know how they work" have anything to do with surviving a nuke?

 

[cerealkiller182]

based in that time frame yes.. but the feel of it and the story was all based off of a 30's adventure serial.. its the genre it'd fit in. did you see them dealing with all the events or themes of the 80's? no... so why would indy have to? Yet people say "indy has always done that" psh.. the first 3 movies all took place with only a couple years apart..................................

Romancing the Stone took place in the 80s but was inspired by 30s serials, so it works in the 80 but feels like the old serials.

Indiana Jones was based on 30s serials and took place in the 30s, so it was basically a 30s serial.

KOTCS was based on 50s serials and took place in the 50s, so it was basically a 50s serial

This is the forumla that you are implying. Your example doesnt work for you case.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

But the Indy movies have always been made that way.

see above posts. you can't really say "always" when the 3 movies were all in the same time frame

 

[chaseter]

and what the hell does "we have lasers and know how they work" have anything to do with surviving a nuke?

It has just as much to do as you saying that nobody could ever survive that and it doesn't belong in an Indy movie

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Romancing the Stone took place in the 80s but was inspired by 30s serials, so it works in the 80 but feels like the old serials.

Indiana Jones was based on 30s serials and took place in the 30s, so it was basically a 30s serial.

KOTCS was based on 50s serials and took place in the 50s, so it was basically a 50s serial

This is the forumla that you are implying. Your example doesnt work for you case.

actually it does...

I understand and know completely that KOTCS (for some stupid reason) was based on a 50's serial...

what i'm saying is why couldn't it of done exactly what Romancing the stone did.... and have it be based of a 30's serial.. but be in another decade? why couldnt Indy be a 30's serial set in the 50's? thus making it feel more like and indy movie, and making it connect better with the other 3? the whole fact it "feels different" is the fact all indy movies have been a 30's serial where this one is 20 years later and for some reason a 50's serial set in the 50's. i dont see why it could be a 30's serial set in the 50's like romancing the stone was a 30's serial set in the 80's.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

It has just as much to do as you saying that nobody could ever survive that and it doesn't belong in an Indy movie

what? where did lasers come from anyway? james bond? please.. like he hasn't been doing that forever... star wars? thats a bad example, now saying "explosions in space" that'd be a better example since fire can't happen. But surviving a friggin nuke is sooooooooo far fetch'd compared to anything in an indy movie... it's a nuke. you might as well have indy diced up into billions of pieces and be put back together. and come alive

 

[cerealkiller182]

actually it does...

I understand and know completely that KOTCS (for some stupid reason) was based on a 50's serial...

what i'm saying is why couldn't it of done exactly what Romancing the stone did.... and have it be based of a 30's serial.. but be in another decade? why couldnt Indy be a 30's serial set in the 50's? thus making it feel more like and indy movie, and making it connect better with the other 3? the whole fact it "feels different" is the fact all indy movies have been a 30's serial where this one is 20 years later and for some reason a 50's serial set in the 50's. i dont see why it could be a 30's serial set in the 50's like romancing the stone was a 30's serial set in the 80's.

It could have been definitely, but it wasnt. The 50s elements thus work, including nuke the fridge (which is what ithought we were arguing).

 

[chaseter]

I respect everybody's opinions on movies if they actually sit down, analyze the themes and meaning, and go to enjoy themselves. I have problems with this movie as well, 2 big ones, but I don't sit in a thread and b**** about the same thing over and over to try and poison other people's possible experiences for this movie. Not every plot detail, character nuance, event, etc...is explained in detail as to allow the patron to use his/her own imagination a bit as well. That dealt with my huge live alien problem. I still loathe Mutt and the monkeys but do I come in here every other day to profess my undying hate for that part and subsequently rate this movie a 2/10? No.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

It could have been definitely, but it wasnt. The 50s elements thus work, including nuke the fridge.

obviously they don't work if this many people have been complaining about it

 

[chaseter]

what? where did lasers come from anyway? james bond? please.. like he hasn't been doing that forever... star wars? thats a bad example, now saying "explosions in space" that'd be a better example since fire can't happen. But surviving a friggin nuke is sooooooooo far fetch'd compared to anything in an indy movie... it's a nuke. you might as well have indy diced up into billions of pieces and be put back together. and come alive

I was giving a good example from a hugely loved franchise (the original Star Wars trilogy) with huge flaws yet you don't see fanboys sitting in a thread b****ing about it Yes, explosions in space is another good example.

 

[cerealkiller182]

obviously they don't work if this many people have been complaining about it

Complaining about it over ignorance that it doesnt meet some sense of realism that has never been a big factor in Indiana Jones

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I respect everybody's opinions on movies if they actually sit down, analyze the themes and meaning, and go to enjoy themselves. I have problems with this movie as well, 2 big ones, but I don't sit in a thread and b**** about the same thing over and over to try and poison other people's possible experiences for this movie. Not every plot detail, character nuance, event, etc...is explained in detail as to allow the patron to use his/her own imagination a bit as well. That dealt with my huge live alien problem. I still loathe Mutt and the monkeys but do I come in here every other day to profess my undying hate for that part and subsequently rate this movie a 2/10? No.

i'm not tryin to "poison" anyone.. i have no agenda here other then to speak my feelings. And i have said some good things about the movie and joined in on interesting and intelligent conversations. i have just as much right to "still be here" as the people who loved it completely and have constantly spoke there love for it and the positives just as much as i've spoke about what i didn't like

 

[chaseter]

obviously they don't work if this many people have been complaining about it

You are the first I have heard or seen complaining about the 50's serial theme The only complaints largely voiced from this movie are the fridge, the Mutt swinging, the prairie dogs, and the alien.