Early Review Calls New Indiana Jones Film Dreadful

That, my friends, is... by sheepoo · 2008-05-15 05:04 · Score: 0, Redundant

heartbreaking!

Re:That, my friends, is... by paganizer · 2008-05-15 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Not for me. I'm going to enjoy it.
I saw temple of doom, hoping it would be as good, if not better, than raiders. It didn't even come close. But it didn't "suck", it wasn't heartbreaking, it just wasn't as good as Raiders. How exactly could it have been? Raiders, and Star Wars (yes, just Star Wars. that was what was on the theater marquee when I sat through it 6 times on the weekend it came out), are Masterpieces; expecting a sequel to even be a tenth as good would be silly.
Taken by itself, if Raiders or Star Wars had never been made, what do you think the worlds reaction to Temple of Doom would have been? or the Phantom Menace? they surely are not in the same league as the prior 2, but they are still great movies.
So, I'll watch Indy at the theater on May 22nd, my Birthday, and I really, really, really doubt it will be as good as Raiders. or even Last Crusade. if it's as good as Temple of Doom, I'll consider myself lucky.

--
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Re:That, my friends, is... by sm62704 · 2008-05-15 05:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

No, a bad review is good news - for me. It seems that I absolutely HATE most movies that the reviewers love, and LOVE the ones reviewers hate.

I mean, how did the original Star Wars movie fare? Not well. How about Dirty Harry? Again, they hated it. The Terminator? Of course, if the movie turns out to make tons of money they somehow start giving it good reviews... funny, that.

If the reviewers gave this new movie kudos, I'd wait until a human being told me it was good before wasting my hard earned money on it. So hooray for the critics and their bad but predictable reviews! I'll probably be in line on opening day, thanks to the critics.

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Re:That, my friends, is... by mark72005 · 2008-05-15 05:39 · Score: 5, Funny

There is no standard in the universe by which the Phantom Menace can be judged a 'great movie'.
Re:That, my friends, is... by uniquename72 · 2008-05-15 05:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

You seem to be submitting your opinion as fact so I'll do the same. I thought Temple of Doom was a horrible, horrible piece of crap. Like too many Spielberg projects from the '80s, it tried was too hard to be funny, with the girl playing a slapstick character that didn't work at all in the context of the movie.

Spielberg in recent interviews repeatedly refers to these movies as "comedies," which I think is the root of the problem. Raiders was not a comedy, although it had some comedic elements (but they were occasional).

Your main argument seems to be that these movies didn't suck, but only paled in comparison to the vastly superior first installments. To rebut this (and strengthen my own point), I point to Empire Strikes Back. It is often considered BETTER than Star Wars, and is almost completely lacking in the unfunny "humor" that killed Temple, Last Crusade, and most of the Amazing Stories installments.
Re:That, my friends, is... by JimDaGeek · 2008-05-15 05:57 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Sure there is:

1). The "midichlorian" standard.
2). The "Marklar" standard.

--
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
Re:That, my friends, is... by badasscat · 2008-05-15 05:59 · Score: 5, Funny

Indeed, I could almost guarantee that without the original Star Wars pedigree, Phantom Menace would never have been greenlit in the first place and would *certainly* not have been released in its existing form. It would have been reworked, re-shot and probably still eventually shelved, then dumped straight to DVD assuming it was greenlit in the first place.

Can you see the pitch now?

Lucas: "It's a film about trade disputes and tax reform... in space!"

Studio: "Next!"
Re:That, my friends, is... by cp.tar · 2008-05-15 06:02 · Score: 1

Yes, there is.

Just compare it with Troy.

(Disclaimer: I saw Troy shortly after reading Simmons' Ilium.)

--
Ignore this signature. By order.
Re:That, my friends, is... by tmtm · 2008-05-15 06:31 · Score: 1

I share the same feelings. It will not be Raiders or StarWars, but I will enjoy it. Moreover, I will go on May 22th and it is also my birthday. Did I post the previous post? A dupe post by myself? ;)
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:45 · Score: 0

Compare it with Highlander 2.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Hatta · 2008-05-15 06:48 · Score: 1

Raiders, and Star Wars (yes, just Star Wars. that was what was on the theater marquee when I sat through it 6 times on the weekend it came out), are Masterpieces; expecting a sequel to even be a tenth as good would be silly.

The sequal to Star Wars was better than the original. Also note, it was not directed by George Lucas.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:That, my friends, is... by badasscat · 2008-05-15 06:48 · Score: 5, Informative

I mean, how did the original Star Wars movie fare? Not well. How about Dirty Harry? Again, they hated it.

Who hated these movies? Neither film was recognized as the classic that they'd eventually become - most future classics aren't at the time they're released - but I don't recall many scathingly bad reviews and I can't find many at the moment either. Star Wars was considered an exciting popcorn movie - ineffectual, but fun. Dirty Harry was criticized a bit for its politics but was still called an effective thriller.

Here are Rottentomatoes' "top critics" pages on both of these films, you can read some of the original reviews there (ignore the dates, most of these were written on the movies' release):

Dirty Harry
Star Wars

I mean, I dunno what your standards are, but an 88% positive rating from the top critics in the land seems pretty good to me for a film that was never intended to be anything but a light-hearted space romp.

I think you need to re-evaluate what you think of movie critics. Your stance is similar to one that I think a lot of people take, and it's based on this false premise that critics like bad movies and hate good ones. I would bet that 90% of the time, critics like the same movies you do. Where I think this idea that critics are somehow out of touch with the public comes from is the fact that they do not buy into hype. If a summer blockbuster has a $100 million marketing budget, a lot of people are going to be excited about that. Some of those people will even try to convince themselves that they liked the final product, so as not to feel they've wasted all this time and energy on anticipation. (This is the same phenomenon that's been observed in studies whereby the longer someone stands in line, the longer they're willing to keep standing in line, so as not to have wasted their time standing in line.)

Critics are trained specifically to ignore hype and judge a film purely on its merits. That means *good* blockbuster films, like the original Star Wars, do get good reviews. It also means *bad* blockbuster films, like, say, Wild Wild West, get bad reviews - even if they make hundreds of millions of dollars in box office and garner their share of fans at the time of their release. We all know that film's crap now, but the critics were ahead of the public in figuring it out. That's their job.

I'd also argue that not all classic films are really great films by any objective or even most subjective measures - go watch Dirty Harry again and tell me what's good about it. I'll tell you what's good about it: Clint Eastwood and the character that he creates. That's why the film endures today. Without him and without that character, the film would be just another cookie-cutter thriller. But critics don't review characters; they review films.

Anyway, enough of my rant. You should listen to critics if they don't like the latest Indiana Jones film, because they're looking past how cool it is to have Indiana Jones back on screen and instead reviewing the film. And they've generally got pretty much the same tastes as everybody else.
Re:That, my friends, is... by indytx · 2008-05-15 06:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

Lucas: "It's a film about trade disputes and tax reform... in space!"
Studio: "Next!"
Doesn't Lucas bankroll his own stuff? It was going to get made irrespective of what the whole of fandom thought. Phantom Menace was the movie Lucas wanted to make, and he made it because he was paying for it. The End.

--
Make love, not reality television.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Sentry21 · 2008-05-15 06:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I saw temple of doom, hoping it would be as good, if not better, than raiders. It didn't even come close. But it didn't "suck", it wasn't heartbreaking, it just wasn't as good as Raiders. One thing that sort of 'fixed' my appreciation of the Indiana Jones moves is remembering that Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders. While this doesn't make it a better movie, it does sort of make the movies fit together better.

If you consider Temple of Doom to be the first movie, Indiana Jones is playing more of the mercenary lifestyle, digging up treasure for a Shanghai mobster. After the events of Temple occurs Raiders and Crusade - both of which are similar in style and formula (globetrotting adventure).

After Indy's experience in India and becoming a believer of Hinduism, he goes back to the states and alternates between teaching and rescuing artifacts for the museum (which happens in Raiders, which proves Judaism, and Crusade, which proves Christianity).

It doesn't make Temple a better movie, but for me, it made it fit better in the grand scheme.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

the longer someone stands in line, the longer they're willing to keep standing in line, so as not to have wasted their time standing in line.
Or the longer a country fights a war (and the more people die) the longer they must continue to fight that war so that the dead will not have "died in vain".
Re:That, my friends, is... by MindlessAutomata · 2008-05-15 07:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unfortunately, it was also a movie nobody else wanted him to have made, after they saw it.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Ucklak · 2008-05-15 07:20 · Score: 0

Personally, I love Temple of Doom.
When I first saw it, I liked it but didn't love it, it was just another sequel that wasn't Empire Strikes Back.

Upon review, It's easier to sit through multiple viewings (at least for me) than Raiders. It's the only one of the trilogy that I bought on VHS (remember when you could get Raiders from McDonalds on VHS?)

The music is more pleasing to me, it's the only one that had a cabinet video game built, the hindu angle was new to me and I liked the darkness of it.
I used to hate the character of Willy Scott but you're supposed to hate her, she's not in her element. She was baggage from the start only because she happened to have the antidote.
Marion was in her element which makes her extremely likable.

Overall, I think Raiders is the better movie with Temple of Doom a close second. Last Crusade seemed to break the fourth wall; interesting and fun but not very compelling.

I'll miss Pat Roach in the new one.

--
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
Re:That, my friends, is... by halber_mensch · 2008-05-15 07:21 · Score: 1

Taken by itself, if Raiders or Star Wars had never been made, what do you think the worlds reaction to Temple of Doom would have been? or the Phantom Menace? they surely are not in the same league as the prior 2, but they are still great movies. Mee-sah thinkin' you be full o' dat bantha poo-doo, okie-day?

--
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Re:That, my friends, is... by bigstrat2003 · 2008-05-15 07:33 · Score: 1

Not really. Unless you're going to not see the movie based on this review, you won't enjoy it more or less after having read this. So go see it (come on, it's Indiana Jones, it's worth it), and reserve judgement for when you've seen it.
Besides, anyone who claims that a sequel is so bad it taints the originals is an utter moron, and probably isn't worth listening to anyway. It is quite impossible for a movie to be that bad.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:That, my friends, is... by sm62704 · 2008-05-15 07:53 · Score: 1

//www.rottentomatoes.com/m/dirty_harry/?critic=creamcrop#mo Dirty Harry

You notice that these reviews for a thirty year old movie are from this century? "Ignore the dates" indeed! Siskel and Ebert both savagaed it when it was new, as did most critics who even mentioned it at all. In fact, I seldom liked cop movies, but one of the two things that got me to the theater for that one was the negative reviews.

this false premise that critics like bad movies and hate good ones.

No, on the premise that critics' tastes are not the same as my tastes.

I would bet that 90% of the time, critics like the same movies you do

And I would bet that they often critically savage a movie they really like. One of my art instructors was fond of saying "I don't know what I like, but I know what art is."

Without him and without that character, the film would be just another cookie-cutter thriller.

That film IS the cookie cutter, not a cookie the cutter cut.

--
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Re:That, my friends, is... by ShatteredArm · 2008-05-15 08:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Would he have been able to bankroll it without the original Star Wars pedigree?
Re:That, my friends, is... by snuf23 · 2008-05-15 08:12 · Score: 0

I think the opening scene of Temple of Doom is brilliantly done. The one, two punch of whining Willy and Short Round shouting "No time for love Dr. Jones!" I could have done without.
I think Temple of Doom is much better than Last Crusade. Raiders on the other hand is probably a better overall story and movie but I agree with your point about Temple of Doom and multiple viewings.

--
Sometimes my arms bend back.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-15 08:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Taken by itself, if Raiders or Star Wars had never been made, what do you think the worlds reaction to Temple of Doom would have been? or the Phantom Menace?

Um, without Star Wars, the reaction to Phantom Menace would have been a lambasting in the press, poor box office sales, and it quickly being forgotten among the huge pile of mediocre CGI drivel that has been produced at break neck speed in the last decade? It would have been to pop sci-fi what Eragon was for fantasy. Which is to say, not much.

Seriously, without the connection to Star Wars I wouldn't have given a rats ass about Phantom Menace at all. The only reason I could stand that annoying little prat Anakin was because I knew that someday he would grow up to be Darth Vader, and I was seeing how it happened. The only reason I could stand all the pointless and ham-fisted politics was knowing that it was all part of a plan to create The Empire. Hell would Obi-Wan have even been an interesting character if it didn't evoke memories of Sir Alec Guinness' performance in Star Wars?

No, PM isn't a victim of nostalgia. It leaned on nostalgia to make the audience care about the characters when otherwise they wouldn't have.

Temple of Doom without Raiders? B-grade comedy/action flick nobody remembers at best.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:That, my friends, is... by WingedEarth · 2008-05-15 08:25 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yousa people gonna try...to write and direct a good film? No, Mr. Lucas, you'll just keep cashing in on the original fandom and rush out more crap films so you can afford to keep stuffing your face with more fois gras. So much for the American vision. Are there any real artists left in this country?
Re:That, my friends, is... by OrangeTide · 2008-05-15 08:29 · Score: 1

Temple of Doom is a terrible movie. They show it edited on the TV networks for Sunday night for a reason.

People who think a list of good movies would include the Phantom Menace are themselves a menace!

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Re:That, my friends, is... by sammy+baby · 2008-05-15 08:32 · Score: 1

Lucas: "It's a film about trade disputes and tax reform... in space!"

Studio: "Next!" Okay - I thought that the prequels sucked too. But you've touched on one of the things that sorta bugs me about some of the reviews I've seen.

Phantom Menace isn't about a trade dispute. The trade dispute is a MacGuffin. It's not even that big of a MacGuffin - compare it with, say, The Maltese Falcon from the movie of the same name, which dominates the whole plot.

What the prequels are about (at least partially) are the way in which one man was able to blow a completely unimportant issue (the trade dispute) on some jerkwater nobody really cared about (Naboo) into a way to anoint himself Emperor and consolidate power. And put like that, it's probably the only thing about the prequels that I genuinely liked.

In fact, if I hadn't seen them, and you told me "that's what the prequels are about", I'd probably be excited about them. Feh. Makes the fact that they stunk all the worse.
Re:That, my friends, is... by skuzzlebutt · 2008-05-15 08:40 · Score: 1

Same here: it's my daughter's bday on the 22nd, and we just so happen to be in Disneyland that day, so we're seeing it there.

Happy b-day, btw

--
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:41 · Score: 0

You're an idiot. The GP told you to ignore the dates on rotten tomatoes because those are the dates that the reviews were added to rottentomatoes.com, not that dates that they were written.

For example, click on the Roger Ebert review of Dirty Harry which is dated 10/23/04 on rotten tomatoes. It links to his orginal review from 1971. The others are similar. If you had spent 30 seconds actually checking it out, you would know that.

I don't care at all about your movie preferences, but at least use a little intellect while posting, yeah?
Re:That, my friends, is... by zippthorne · 2008-05-15 08:48 · Score: 1

We all knew Wild Wild West was crap then as well. We just thought it would *also* be a fun piece of crap. And it sort of was. If you don't think too hard, and were drunk.

But keep in mind that these same critics thought "Pan's Labyrinth" and "Fountain" were good films. Blessedly, the critics have finally come around on "Fountain" but critics are why I went to see both of those films and they were sadly disappointing.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:52 · Score: 0

Star Wars Holiday Special?
Re:That, my friends, is... by dgatwood · 2008-05-15 08:55 · Score: 2

Indeed, I could almost guarantee that without the original Star Wars pedigree, Phantom Menace would never have been greenlit in the first place and would *certainly* not have been released in its existing form. It would have been reworked, re-shot and probably still eventually shelved, then dumped straight to DVD assuming it was greenlit in the first place.

You haven't seen many movies lately, have you? I suspect it would have gone more like this:

Lucas: It's a film about trade disputes and tax reform... in space!

Studio: Ooh! Can we put in an alien with a really annoying voice to make it funny?

Lucas: Uh... I guess so.

Studio: Great! I think we've found ourselves the next Last Action Hero!

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Theoboley · 2008-05-15 08:56 · Score: 0

But it had Jar Jar Binks... That MUST make it "Great"

--
Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
Re:That, my friends, is... by catmistake · 2008-05-15 09:07 · Score: 1

Slight correction there... Last Crusade was both the earliest prequel (remember River Phoenix) and the latest sequel.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:That, my friends, is... by PieceofLavalamp · 2008-05-15 09:36 · Score: 1

I'm sorry but i have a hard time respecting Rotten Tomatoes for the simple reason it rated Dragon wars above Wild Wild West, your epitomy of bad moviedom. I'd watch WWW again if there was nothing else to watch, you'd have to threaten me with actual physical violence to watch D-wars again
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 09:41 · Score: 0

He was talking about Spielberg, not Lucas. Spielberg had nothing to do with Phantom Menace...other than he said he liked it after a preview.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Fallingcow · 2008-05-15 09:49 · Score: 1

Hey, I liked Pan's Labyrinth :)

The Fountain, though... ugh. You know a movie sucks when you're hoping it'll suddenly and without warning turn into a space thriller with giant space-sharks and alien zombies halfway through, killing all the existing characters in less than a minute's time and introducing Bruce Campbell as the swashbuckling space-pirate lead.
Re:That, my friends, is... by SmokeyTheBalrog · 2008-05-15 10:16 · Score: 1

Bravo and ouch, the Phantom Menace actually wins that round.

Though the delta between Highland 1 and 2 is smaller than between Star Wars and Phantom Menace.

Phantom gets extra points for crapping on a major part of my childhood, but it's still a better movie than Highlander 2. On the other hand, if you rewatch Highland 1, you might notice it's a pretty dumb film (Though it does have it moments).
Re:That, my friends, is... by SmokeyTheBalrog · 2008-05-15 10:27 · Score: 1

I think everyone I talked to (who cares) firmly supports Empire as the best Star Wars movie. This is my view as well.

Then Georgie, skunk head, Lucas had a great idea for the 3rd movie. A bunch of teddy/care bears take out a legion of the The Empire's best Storm Troopers? ...wtf?
(When I was a kid this didn't bother... I feel dirty when I think of that.)

Now if I watch Return of the Jedi I skip most of the Endor battle, stopping only for the Ewoke deaths, and the Space Battle. (Still one of the best space battles of all time.)
Re:That, my friends, is... by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 10:31 · Score: 1

Empire had a lot of well-written humor though, mostly in the interactions of the droids with everyone else and Luke and Yoda.

It was, however, humor used appropriately, not excessively.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 10:38 · Score: 1

I think most of the people who went into Pan's Labyrinth with the right expectations were not disappointed with it. It IS a very good film and is the reason I'm excited about a non-Jackson-directed Hobbit.

One of Pan's Labyrinth's biggest problems is that it was sold as something it was not. Looking at the commercials only you would get the impression that it was another fantasy movie, possibly a kid's fantasy movie (since it starred a young girl). The fantasy elements were only a small part of the overall story though, which was certainly not aimed at kids. Very different from what it was marketed as in the States, but that's hardly the movie's fault.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 10:39 · Score: 1

That's pretty much what I was hoping for in the Village. The problem was that the movie was steering you into that direction before it took a retarded 180 degree turn.
Re:That, my friends, is... by niktemadur · 2008-05-15 10:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

If you consider Temple of Doom to be the first movie, Indiana Jones is playing more of the mercenary lifestyle. Mod this guy all the way up. How did this slip by me for a quarter of a century?

"Too bad the Hovitos don't know you the way I do, Belloq" - That's right, Indy and Belloq used to be fellow travelers, then after the events of Temple, they developed a "difference of opinion". Belloq is Indy five years before.
This also ties in the Crusade teaser, in a broader sense. See Indy the idealist in full force, living the first experience that will turn him cynical. Then back to Raiders, look at the way Marion receives him, with a sucker punch to the mouth - Indiana the cynical bastard we see at the beginning of Temple getting a taste of his just desserts.

As for personal taste, I found the action in Temple to be more than passable, while I found myself grimacing during several points in Crusade, a wholly unsatisfactory experience, as compared to the monumental achievement that was Raiders.

--
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Re:That, my friends, is... by JackieBrown · 2008-05-15 11:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

There was no Highlander 2....

Keep repeating that.
Re:That, my friends, is... by electrosoccertux · 2008-05-15 11:13 · Score: 1

What was so good about ESB?

I grew up on Star Wars and am thus too old to remember the initial infatuation; and didn't have the knowledge of films to be able to pick out superiority. I've gone back and watched them again, but they're both just a long emotionless ride for me. Don't see what was so great about #5.

I, for one, will keep my kids from watching Star Wars until they're old enough to REALLY appreciate it.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 11:35 · Score: 0

Clerks reference in 5...
4...
3...
2...
And, go!

Randal Graves: Which did you like better? Return of the Jedi or The Empire Strikes Back?
Dante Hicks: Empire.
Randal: Blasphemy.
Dante: Empire had the better ending. I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All Jedi had was a bunch of Muppets.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 11:42 · Score: 0

I think you mean The Empire Strikes Back is considered better than A New Hope
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 11:53 · Score: 0

The Star Wars prequels DID ruin the originals, if you bought them on DVD.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 12:06 · Score: 0

The Empire Strikes back is the best one of the bunch, because it was filmed by George Lucas's teacher, who was a damn awesome director. And like you, I also submit my opinion as fact: the worst Indiana Jones film is better than the average Starwars movie.
Re:That, my friends, is... by thebonafortuna · 2008-05-15 14:17 · Score: 1

...and George Lucas didn't write it. Or direct it...
Re:That, my friends, is... by Dun+Malg · 2008-05-15 16:07 · Score: 1

If you consider Temple of Doom to be the first movie, Indiana Jones is playing more of the mercenary lifestyle, digging up treasure for a Shanghai mobster. Doesn't work. That wouldn't fit with The Last Crusade, which establishes him as an "it belongs in a museum" archaeologist from the time he was a young man and looked like River Phoenix. He just can't plausibly "convert" from a mercenary treasure hunter without totally controverting the first 20 minutes of Crusade. No, Temple of Doom is (to me) just a weird bit of non-canon Indiana Jones storytelling, like some of the more awful Star Wars novels...

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Dun+Malg · 2008-05-15 16:15 · Score: 1

That's right, Indy and Belloq used to be fellow travelers, then after the events of Temple, they developed a "difference of opinion". Belloq is Indy five years before. Where did you get that idea? The only (semi)canon on their past relationship is from the novelization of Raiders. Rene Belloq and Indy were arch-enemies from grad school. Nowhere does it indicate that they were ever "fellow travelers". The entire point of the Belloq character was to present the polar opposite of Indy.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:That, my friends, is... by zippthorne · 2008-05-15 16:18 · Score: 1

Oh, I knew what it was. I just thought it was overbearingly cliche. Granted, I would have accepted stunning visuals as a mitigating factor, but they weren't in any way stunning. In fact, they, too were horribly cliche.

I mean, we get it. War sucks, especially if there's Nazis. And Francisco Franco was a very bad guy. (or.. he was a good guy? It's even hard to tell who's resisting whom in the movie) But Pan's Labyrinth was no "Guernica."

*spoiler alert*

Not to mention that the fantasy bits didn't meld at all into the greater story: it was, apparently, a dying girl's final hallucination. But it was also the *cause* of hear death. So.. it was real? But then.. how can it be a metaphor?

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:That, my friends, is... by Dun+Malg · 2008-05-15 16:27 · Score: 1

go watch Dirty Harry again and tell me what's good about it. I'll tell you what's good about it: Clint Eastwood and the character that he creates. I think some credit is due to Andrew Robinson. His portrayal of the Scorpio Killer is just balls-out great. He totally nails the character as a creepy, despicable worm!

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 16:37 · Score: 0

That's crap. If anyone ever tries that reasoning on you, you say "They died for the United States of America, not for Iraq. Winning or losing doesn't make their sacrifice any more or less noble. Would they really want their comrades to follow them into death?"
Re:That, my friends, is... by Dun+Malg · 2008-05-15 16:40 · Score: 1

I'm sorry but i have a hard time respecting Rotten Tomatoes for the simple reason it rated Dragon wars above Wild Wild West Rotten Tomatoes doesn't rate anything, man. They're an aggregator of other people's reviews. You can't compare aggregate ratings between 2 different movies directly. Aggregate data sets won't contain the same reviewers for each movie. Some movies--- like Dragon Wars--- are so obviously bad that many reviewers won't even bother to see it. A blockbuster like WWW, on the other hand, will actually score lower because more people saw it and wrote scathing reviews. The ratings are only useful to show whether a movie is likely to be "good" or "bad", not whether one movie is "better" or "worse" than another.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:That, my friends, is... by squidfood · 2008-05-15 16:53 · Score: 2, Informative

Spielberg in recent interviews repeatedly refers to these movies as "comedies," which I think is the root of the problem.
I'll defend Spielberg on a point here. From DVD interviews, of the three, Temple was Spielberg's least favorite and Lucas's most favorite. That says it all. It's amusing watching Spielberg in those interviews as he keeps tiptoes around calling Lucas's opinion and style a pile of crap (which he clearly wants to say).
Re:That, my friends, is... by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 19:35 · Score: 1

And it was a shame they stunk too - Ian McDiarmid put in a fantastic performance in all three films, and for me was the real star of the prequels.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:That, my friends, is... by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 20:05 · Score: 1

Lucas wrote the story, though others wrote the screenplay.
Re:That, my friends, is... by pionzypher · 2008-05-15 20:57 · Score: 1

Are there any real artists left in this country?

There is just one.... Uwe Boll can tell you who the distinguished gentleman / arteest is.

--
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
Re:That, my friends, is... by Pecisk · 2008-05-15 23:35 · Score: 1

You got me there until poor box office sales: in fact, kids *loved* Phantom Menance and *that* sold movie (race was just worth that). Ohh, your childhood memories are ruined. How pitty. Your problem :)

It was entertaining if you didn't took it too seriously. Obviously, for fans who have imagined their own version of Star Wars that was huge problem.

--
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Re:That, my friends, is... by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-16 01:58 · Score: 1

You got me there until poor box office sales: in fact, kids *loved* Phantom Menance and *that* sold movie (race was just worth that). Ohh, your childhood memories are ruined. How pitty. Your problem :)

You're right, it would have at least made money. Compared to the box office sales it got being a Star Wars prequel? No, not even close, and you know it. The name Star Wars was the reason so many parents took their kids. Otherwise, pick your mediocre for-kids CGI summer movie whose name you can't even remember, and PM would have done no better.

But if you "got me", then you understand that I'm not saying my childhood memories are ruined. No, indeed, those memories are the only thing that elevated this movie above complete crap, but they also put the difference in quality into sharp relief.

It was entertaining if you didn't took it too seriously.

So is 90% of CGI schlock. But not very entertaining; most of that movie is boring, and would be doubly so without Star Wars backing up those scenes. The pod race and light saber battle are the only things in that movie that are worth watching.

Obviously, for fans who have imagined their own version of Star Wars that was huge problem.

And for fans with low standards it was no problem, but they're unwilling to admit that had this not been Star Wars, they wouldn't be defending it because they wouldn't have cared about this movie at all because it was not a good movie.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:That, my friends, is... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 02:50 · Score: 0

getting a taste of his just desserts. Deserts. Yes, really.
Re:That, my friends, is... by DrXym · 2008-05-16 04:59 · Score: 1

You're forgetting all of the Indiana Jones Chronicles. Indy was a do-gooding jerk throughout his life, meeting famous people and affecting events through a series of highly improbable globe hopping adventures.
Re:That, my friends, is... by Squozen · 2008-05-16 11:33 · Score: 1

I loved both of those films. Guess I must be a critic.
Re:That, my friends, is... by alnapp · 2008-05-21 01:47 · Score: 1

No, that makes it grate

--
Get the EULA T-shirt

This ONE is dreadful by iamhigh · 2008-05-15 05:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Weren't they all? Well, at least I haven't been counting down the days to see the next IJ movie. they certainly weren't that good.

--
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...

Re:This ONE is dreadful by InlawBiker · 2008-05-15 06:14 · Score: 2

The original Raiders was so good everybody was willing to overlook what a terrible, steaming pile of terribleness Temple of Doom was. Then they sort of redeemed themselves with Last Crusade, but River Phoenix inconveniently torpedoed the rebirth of the franchise, and the result is we get an ancient Harrison Ford back in the original role an eon later. I wonder how they're going to hide the fact that he's around 70 years old. But no matter... if they can re-create a portion of the magic that made Raiders a classic I'll be breaking out the fedora and bull whip in celebration... er, figuratively.

I'd like to make up my own mind by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:06 · Score: 4, Funny

So, torrent plz so I can see for myself?

No lack of tension at all! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:07 · Score: 5, Funny

The opening scene is a total heart attack. Indy barely escapes a huge stone ball despite being slowed by his walker. He pulls his colostomy bag out of the way just in time. It was a real heart pounding experience. But that was easily fixed with an emergency room visit and some clot-busting drugs.

Re:No lack of tension at all! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:00 · Score: 0

By comparison, the female lead, Karen Allen, is a mere sprat of 56. Cradle robber.
Re:No lack of tension at all! by ScreamingCactus · 2008-05-15 06:11 · Score: 1

Aren't they already working on another one, called "Indiana Jones and the Wheel of Fortune" (where he sits around and watches Wheel of Fortune all day)? Whose idea was it to do a sequel to a successful series starring the same actor who is now too old to be the slightest bit believable? Perhaps it was the same person who had the idea to make another Rambo movie. Seriously, the only old people who can believably kick this much ass are old Chinese monks.

--
The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
Re:No lack of tension at all! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:43 · Score: 0

The opening scene is a total heart attack. Indy barely escapes a huge stone ball despite being slowed by his walker. He pulls his colostomy bag out of the way just in time. It was a real heart pounding experience. But that was easily fixed with an emergency room visit and some clot-busting drugs. LOVE IT!! -- this comment just made my day :)
Re:No lack of tension at all! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:10 · Score: 0

Aren't they already working on another one, called "Indiana Jones and the Wheel of Fortune" (where he sits around and watches Wheel of Fortune all day)? I watch The Colbert Report too.
Re:No lack of tension at all! by skuzzlebutt · 2008-05-15 08:44 · Score: 4, Funny

I read that the giant stone was lodged in his kidney this time, and that the quest was for the Prune Drink of Asimoth, which would then lead him to the Throne of Eventual Relief.

--
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
Re:No lack of tension at all! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 23:20 · Score: 0

Congrats...you can rip off lines from Colbert and pretend like you're just as witty.

A good trailer by Rurik · 2008-05-15 05:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

The trailer I saw (before Iron Man) actually looked great to me, so I'm taking this with a grain of salt.

Unfortunately, trailers have little to do with movies anymore. Trailer designers and technicians have made an art out of what they do: making the most boring movies look exciting and fun. Honestly, they're good at what they do! By just changing transition graphics, music score, sound clips, and some of the shots, they can make an action movie look like a: comedy, drama, or documentary.

Re:A good trailer by L+Boom · 2008-05-15 05:13 · Score: 5, Funny

Absolutely. I'm at work so I can't actually check the link, but this should be a link to a great clip job. They took scenes from The Shining trailer and recut it to look like a romantic comedy. Really excellent job.
Re:A good trailer by peipas · 2008-05-15 05:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

Not to mention the inclusion of scenes not actually in the movie. Take Spiderman's trailer with the helicopter getting stuck in the web between the twin towers-- this was created explicitly for promotion and was never intended to be a part of the movie (not a cut scene or anything). The Negotiator sold itself using a line in the trailer that wasn't in the actual movie, "Now you have to deal with both of us." I wanted to know how that would work into the plot and it wasn't there.
Re:A good trailer by Rurik · 2008-05-15 05:17 · Score: 1

Or, you could be rick-rolling us :)

No, that's the real clip.
Re:A good trailer by Splab · 2008-05-15 05:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Or you could be aiding in rick rolling us.

The plot thickens! //crawls under his table and puts on his tin-foil hat
Re:A good trailer by Mr.+Slippery · 2008-05-15 05:19 · Score: 4, Informative

Yes, that's the brilliant recut "Shining" trailer. If you haven't see it yet, go click now.
Here's an interview with the guy behind it.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:A good trailer by L+Boom · 2008-05-15 05:24 · Score: 5, Funny

I would never rick-roll you. Also, I would never give you up, let you down, never ever run around, or turn around and hurt you.
Re:A good trailer by Anarke_Incarnate · 2008-05-15 05:27 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually, I believe that scene was cut from the movie due to the collapse of said towers and the implications of that.
Re:A good trailer by Maximum+Prophet · 2008-05-15 05:30 · Score: 1

So why don't they put the trailer designers and technicians in charge of making the actual movie? (:-)

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Re:A good trailer by ColdWetDog · 2008-05-15 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

So why don't they put the trailer designers and technicians in charge of making the actual movie? (:-)

Great idea! Movies would be only 3 minutes long and completely filled with explosions. You would of course, charge full price.
Then think of all the trailers you could put on the DVD!
Brilliant!

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:A good trailer by boris111 · 2008-05-15 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Depends.. the IJ trailer was good. Many other trailers give away the whole movie making me have no interest in seeing it. I find this way too much in comedies.

BTW that new Mike Myers movie looks horrible! In this case I'm glad they gave the whole movie away so I know not to see it.
Re:A good trailer by gstoddart · 2008-05-15 05:35 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, trailers have little to do with movies anymore. Trailer designers and technicians have made an art out of what they do: making the most boring movies look exciting and fun.

Indeed!! A lot of work goes into making some crappy movies look good in 45 seconds.

I have seen movies in which all of the good scenes make it into the trailer. And, I've seen trailers with footage I'd swear never actually made it into the film.

Cheers

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:37 · Score: 0

Uh, the Spiderman clip you are referencing was taken out of the movie for a good reason... They had a similar situation that is in the movie where spiderman has to choose between the tourists and MJ... they were going to do that with the twin towers and it was taken out after 911 happened...
Re:A good trailer by somersault · 2008-05-15 05:39 · Score: 1

Yep, the trailer is okay if you let it wash over you, but if you watch carefully you can really tell how old Harrison is, and the whole thing seems like it might be a bit of a farce. Of course the other Indy films had farcical moments too, I didn't realise how funny the kid beating up adults was in the Temple of Doom when I was a kid, but watching it more recently I realise how over the top it is. Not that it's a bad thing :)

--
which is totally what she said
Re:A good trailer by cyphercell · 2008-05-15 05:49 · Score: 1

I was thinking of "What Happens in Vegas", yup, I'm pretty sure they've put all the best punch lines in the trailers. You can tell when a movie hits about four different trailers that, yup, you've watched the best fifteen minutes of the movie already.

--
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:50 · Score: 4, Funny

ACK! I've been rick-rolled by text!
Re:A good trailer by tompaulco · 2008-05-15 05:51 · Score: 1

I agree with you there. When I went to see "I Am Legend", I was not aware that there were mutated humans in it at all. In fact, I got next to nothing about the movie from the trailer except there was wildlife and fields of grass in NYC. That and Will Smith was enough to make it worth checking out for me.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:A good trailer by just_forget_it · 2008-05-15 05:52 · Score: 1

And a Whopper looks like the tastiest burger known to man until you get the real life slapped-together-by-a-minimum-wage-slave version.
Re:A good trailer by twistedsymphony · 2008-05-15 05:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Great idea! Movies would be only 3 minutes long and completely filled with explosions. You would of course, charge full price.
So... it's like a Michael Bay flick?

--
Collector's Edition
Re:A good trailer by IronChef · 2008-05-15 05:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

That part of The Negotiator trailer, as I recall, could NOT have been in the final cut because it would have blown the secret. I always suspected that the movie was at first very different, and then changed for release--but the trailer never was updated.
Re:A good trailer by DeadDecoy · 2008-05-15 06:02 · Score: 1

Personally, I think the trailer designers are slowly taking over the movie industry with their work. I mean, have you seen a movie that didn't have at least 30 minutes worth of trailers. Soon, they'll be longer than the actual movie. The funny thing is, after seeing a trailer, I know I've seen all the entire story and all of the best parts. I don't even need to shell out money for a movie ticket anymore :).
Re:A good trailer by BotnetZombie · 2008-05-15 06:08 · Score: 1

Thank you. My neurons just fired associated pictures from that time. Samantha Fox was first up.
Re:A good trailer by jollyreaper · 2008-05-15 06:11 · Score: 1

Absolutely. I'm at work so I can't actually check the link, but this [youtube.com] should be a link to a great clip job. They took scenes from The Shining trailer and recut it to look like a romantic comedy. Really excellent job. That was fucking brilliant. Almost as good is the recut Mary Poppins, I think they called it Scary Poppins. It would make for one hell of a good horror movie, Satan's Nanny!

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Re:A good trailer by chromatic · 2008-05-15 06:11 · Score: 5, Funny

I wish Michael Bay movies were only three minutes long!

--
how to invest, a novice's guide
Re:A good trailer by Touvan · 2008-05-15 06:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

I actually saw that trailer, and if you watch closely, you can see that they have completely changed the formula of Indiana Jones movies, and even in the trailer showed the kind of humor they will have in the movie - completely out of character for Indiana (far too many quips during the operation), and really off the wall in terms of scenario - kinda watered down Jar Jar style slapstick - none of the humorous Indiana stuff.

He basically makes a stupid quip, pulls a rocket launcher out of the back seat of the truck he's in (he's in the back seat) makes another stupid quip, then fires the rocket through the front wind shield at the bad guys - all with bad timing.

If it was old style Indiana, he would have skipped the quips, scrambled frantically for something that would get them out of their predicament, found the rocket laungher, gotten dragged out of the window of the truck, losing the rocket launcher in the process, used the elephant (they were in a jungle) running next to the truck from 3 scenes earlier to help kick himself back onto the roof of the truck, grabbed the rocket launcher, lost the rocket launcher to the nazi, and had the nazi accidentally shoot the rocket at the bad guys after he got knocked off the truck by a tree branch or a vine or something. Then after it was all done, Indiana would have had some kind of one liner to seal the deal.

This movie is going to be bad.

--
http://www.unfocus.com/
Re:A good trailer by boris111 · 2008-05-15 06:21 · Score: 1

I was well aware of how old Harrison looked. I'm hoping he does the grumpy old, somewhat senile at times, brilliant professor. Although I did see him in a fist fight with a man half his age. Old men need to cheat in some kind of clever fashion to make it convincing.
Re:A good trailer by Anarke_Incarnate · 2008-05-15 06:23 · Score: 1

Perhaps you are not close enough to the NYC area to realize that many people are upset by the whole thing and SAW people falling to their deaths. The movie did not want to be associated with the negative issue, so they removed the scene.
Re:A good trailer by Quiet_Desperation · 2008-05-15 06:33 · Score: 1

Search YouTube for "Scary Mary" where they did a Mary Poppins trailer making it look like a horror film. Genius. Genius, I say!
Re:A good trailer by Alzheimers · 2008-05-15 06:35 · Score: 1

Umm, Zohan anyone?

When was the last time Adam Sandler had a good movie? The Waterboy?
Re:A good trailer by fireboy1919 · 2008-05-15 06:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sometimes they flat-out lie.

Strange that truth in advertising doesn't seem to apply to films.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Re:A good trailer by fishbowl · 2008-05-15 06:37 · Score: 1

>And a Whopper looks like the tastiest burger known to man until you get the real life
>slapped-together-by-a-minimum-wage-slave version.

Ummm... Burger King pays fairly well, for food service. I think starting pay there is $9.50/hr.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:A good trailer by silverpig · 2008-05-15 06:41 · Score: 1

Kind of like "Dude, Where's My Car?". Sure, it looked kinda funny in the trailer, and while I can't speak for the last 30 minutes of the movie, my thankfully waning memories of the experience suggest that the trailer consisted of the only funny parts in that entire movie.
Re:A good trailer by Deag · 2008-05-15 06:59 · Score: 1

And they are completely ruining films also. They really devalue the film. So many of the best jokes in films have the punch line shown in the trailer. And the best part of the action films is also shown. I find more and more that I just sit watching films where I recognize the scene from the trailer and so know what is going to happen.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:11 · Score: 0

And some trailers aren't even IN the movie they are for. Specifically the one trailer for Monsters Inc where the joke is about not being able to read a map with his 1 EYE!
Re:A good trailer by luder · 2008-05-15 07:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Excellent job, indeed. Here are some more great recuts:

THE ORIGINAL Scary 'Mary Poppins' Recut Trailer
Must Love Jaws
10 Things I Hate About Commandments

These would make pretty interesting movies! But seriously, though, pimpified trailers are one of the reasons I don't go to the theaters so often. It really infuriates me to be deceived that way. Nowadays, I either rent or ________...
Re:A good trailer by Bryan+Ischo · 2008-05-15 07:19 · Score: 1

As others have pointed out, there was a bigger reason why that scene was not included in the Spiderman movie.

However, to this day I still feel deeply cheated by the movie 'Twister'. It came out when movie CG was just getting exciting and the trailers included some brief clips of (at the time) amazing scenes that could not have been done without CG. One in particular had a tractor or some other large vehicle getting ripped up by the tornado in the distance and in first person view we see a giant wheel (I think it was) get thrown towards us and smash through the window, ostensibly destroying the vehicle that we are shown to be in and us as well. It looked really cool to me at the time and I went to the movie expecting to see lots of cool stuff like that. Not only was the movie lame, but that scene from the trailer WAS NOT IN THE MOVIE! At the time I almost wanted to write to the studio and ask for my money back because I felt like I had been cheated.

I still wonder about the legal implications of showing scenes in trailers that aren't actually in the movie. At the time I didn't even realize that anyone would do such a thing, but now I expect it's pretty common.

Oh, and to stay on topic, I have had a very bad feeling about the new Indiana Jones movie for a while, and the trailer I saw before Iron Man reinforced that feeling. I suspect it's a typical modern Hollywood movie - just a thin veneer of CG and action on top of the empty shell of a formulaic and uninteresting plot. I don't have any intention of going to watch it in the theatres. I still can't believe that I let my wife talk me into going to see Die Hard 4. We should just let these old actors and their franchises retire in peace.
Re:A good trailer by Bryan+Ischo · 2008-05-15 07:23 · Score: 1

I found the Twister trailer on YouTube, at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKSIdx11DnE

The scene in question ends the trailer, it's at 1:98. That clip is not in the movie.
Re:A good trailer by stubob · 2008-05-15 07:24 · Score: 1

Is this anything like "Why don't they make the whole plane out of the black box?"

--
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
Re:A good trailer by Spudds · 2008-05-15 07:26 · Score: 4, Informative

I was actually IN NYC during that time.
The release of Spider Man was delayed (it was supposed to come out very shortly after sept. 11th) specifically so they could re-write the ending involving the towers. It was quite a conversation topic for New Yorkers at the time. Myself and quite a lot of people were pissed at the idea of changing the ending as we saw it as a sort of memorial for the towers.

Instead we got the mediocre ending that exists for the movie now. That explains the trailer though.

I would have loved to see the original ending. And of course, I'd love to live in a country where big corporate entities don't pander to every little politically correct agenda and maintain some sort of integrity.
Re:A good trailer by bdraschk · 2008-05-15 07:35 · Score: 1

You're so totally right! Shining Recut was great, but i really laughed my ass of on "Top Gun Recut". And i wasn't convinced yet, watching "The Ring Recut" would have done it. Turning one of the scariest movies i've seen in recent years into a romantic drama about a dying mother ... Hilarious.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:37 · Score: 0

You might be interested to know that they're adapting that great Iron Man trailer into a full-length film.
Re:A good trailer by ultranova · 2008-05-15 07:42 · Score: 1

Trailer designers and technicians have made an art out of what they do: making the most boring movies look exciting and fun. Honestly, they're good at what they do!

So maybe Hollywood should simply give them random clips and let them put the whole movie together. Hey, it worked for AMV Hell. AMV Hell 3: The Motion Picture II: AMV Hell 4: The Last One :).

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:45 · Score: 0

I would pay full price _not_ to see that.
Re:A good trailer by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-15 07:49 · Score: 1

I wish Michael Bay movies were only three minutes long!

They are, they just get looped to pad out the film to two hours.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:A good trailer by just_forget_it · 2008-05-15 07:53 · Score: 1

Depends on the market. The pay is lower in poorer areas.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:55 · Score: 0

I would never rick-roll you. Also, I would never give you up, let you down, never ever run around, or turn around and hurt you. slow clap, rolling into thunderous applause
Re:A good trailer by R2.0 · 2008-05-15 07:57 · Score: 1

Funny, I think it IS the tastiest burger on earth. Perhaps that's because my taste buds haven't developed a liberal social consciousness yet.

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:A good trailer by residieu · 2008-05-15 07:57 · Score: 1

I'm more annoyed by the quantity and volume of commercials (not movie trailers, commercials for unrelated products) that they play before the movie... I miss the old days, with the slideshow of ads for local businesses, then a few trailers then the movie
Re:A good trailer by Tribbin · 2008-05-15 07:59 · Score: 1

I remember the great theme-songs from Godzilla; Puff Daddy - Come with me, and Jamiroquai - Deeper Underground.

They made the trailers look so cool.

Those songs were absent during the movie.

They should hire the trailer-makers for music-score selection.

--
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
Re:A good trailer by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2008-05-15 08:03 · Score: 1

Don't miss the "West Side Story" remix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x25jVzVP1bY
Re:A good trailer by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2008-05-15 08:18 · Score: 1

> I still wonder about the legal implications of showing scenes in trailers that aren't actually in the movie. At the time I didn't even realize that anyone would do such a thing, but now I expect it's pretty common.

Don't assume malicious intent when there's a much more rational explanation. Editors and assistant editors (not "trailer designers" - I have no idea who came up with that term) are cutting trailers for movies long before the film has reached final cut stage. Also, they have access to *all* the footage shot for a film, not just the things that end up in the final cut. Because of the overlapping process sometimes footage gets used that's eventually cut, sometimes footage gets used that's altered in the final cut (better CG, different take of the scene, changes in color timing, etc.), or other tweaks.

Perfect example: In the trailer for "Freddy Got Fingered" there was a gag where a boat got dropped on the house, and the scene was nowhere to be seen in the actual movie. Why? The movie was so bad that there was no way to cut the scene in and still have it make sense. Of course, that was incompetence, but the lesson is the same. It's pretty rare that a production is going to spend time and money filming something that they never intend to use.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:25 · Score: 0

Apparently they want to forget that the towers were ever there. That's the only explanation why 7 years later they've barely even started building the unimpressive replacement.
Re:A good trailer by chromatic · 2008-05-15 08:30 · Score: 1

That part doesn't bother me. It's all the yapping that gets in the way of giant robots fighting. If I wanted to see giant robots not fight, I'd go downtown and look at all the construction cranes. I want to see giant robots fight!

--
how to invest, a novice's guide
Re:A good trailer by just_forget_it · 2008-05-15 08:31 · Score: 1

It is tasty. My point is it doesn't look as good as it does in the commercial.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:35 · Score: 0

So... it's like a Michael Bay flick? Those are usually longer. About 117 minutes longer.
Re:A good trailer by Minwee · 2008-05-15 08:46 · Score: 1

Then think of all the trailers you could put on the DVD!

Okay, how about all of these trailers?
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:49 · Score: 0

>far too many quips during the operation
I thought he was an archaeologist, not a surgeon?

Captcha: artifact
Re:A good trailer by neocrono · 2008-05-15 08:51 · Score: 1

Here is one that's under a minute long.

I actually gained a bit of respect for him after seeing that commercial.
Re:A good trailer by slapout · 2008-05-15 08:54 · Score: 1

Sounds like "Danny Hillcrest's 2008 Pre-Summer Summer Movie Preview 2008"

http://media.blubrry.com/comedy/http://www.comedy4cast.com/podcasts/comedy4cast-138.mp3

--
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Re:A good trailer by neocrono · 2008-05-15 08:58 · Score: 1

Oh man. I hate to reply twice, but I didn't even notice the related video in my other post, which is even more on-topic.

This is exactly what is being proposed.
Re:A good trailer by ashmon · 2008-05-15 09:06 · Score: 1

Ummm, I beg to differ.

The "Dude!," "Sweet!" tattoo scene was brilliant. And Jennifer Garner was hot back then.
Re:A good trailer by peipas · 2008-05-15 09:10 · Score: 3, Informative

In this interview director Sam Raimi indicates that the footage was shot specifically for the teaser. He wanted to use the image but in a different context for a key part of the final reel. Hence they manufactured the bank heist story for the teaser, but the clip showing the web would have been used at a more pivotal point in the movie as opposed to a bank heist unrelated to the rest of the plot.
Re:A good trailer by corbettw · 2008-05-15 09:19 · Score: 2, Funny

Great, now I had to explain to my non-nerdy wife what the hell "rick rolling" is, so she could understand my loud outburst of laughter.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:A good trailer by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-15 09:56 · Score: 1

I'm with you 100% on that. I only want one thing out of a Michael Bay film -- actions and explosions. Not ten thousand bit characters nobody cares about.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:A good trailer by grammar+fascist · 2008-05-15 10:08 · Score: 1

Don't forget the awesome Marry Poppins horror ("Scary Mary") trailer.

Hide your children!

--
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
Re:A good trailer by Captain+Splendid · 2008-05-15 10:09 · Score: 1

I think starting pay there is $9.50/hr.

Man, but inflation's a bitch. I was making half that at Mickey D's 20 years ago. And that was Canadian dollars!

Cries a little after re-reading '20 years ago'...

--
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Re:A good trailer by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-15 10:16 · Score: 1

Great, now I had to explain to my non-nerdy wife what the hell "rick rolling" is, so she could understand my loud outburst of laughter.

I can only assume you did so by lying and saying it was like a special kind of pastry or something, and had her click a youtube link to see how it was made...

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:A good trailer by antdude · 2008-05-15 10:41 · Score: 1

The Trailer Mash has a collection of these.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:A good trailer by LordVader717 · 2008-05-15 10:43 · Score: 1

It doesn't even have to be one Movie Love how it finishes off with a cheesy dance mix at the end
Re:A good trailer by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 10:44 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, trailers have little to do with movies anymore.

The very best trailer I had ever seen (to this date) was the trailer for Star Wars: Episode I released several months before the movie premiered. It looked incredible.
Re:A good trailer by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 10:53 · Score: 1

My wife didn't know what Rick'Roll'in was, but you can't Rick Roll someone by saying you'll do it, then actually do it. So I said I'd show her the Rick'Roll video, then sent her a link to goatse.cx instead. And afterwards said real Rick'Rolling was funny, not traumatic.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 11:45 · Score: 0

How is that NOT identical to how Jar-Jar manages to take down huge enemies on a couple of occasions in Phantom Menace?
Re:A good trailer by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 11:46 · Score: 1

Great idea! Movies would be only 3 minutes long and completely filled with explosions. You would of course, charge full price.

So... it's like a Michael Bay flick?

The best part about the movies is the good 3 minutes from a Michael Bay movie. The worst part of the movies is the other 117 minutes from the Michael Bay movie.
Re:A good trailer by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 12:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

The release of Spider Man was delayed (it was supposed to come out very shortly after sept. 11th) specifically so they could re-write the ending involving the towers.

I think you're combining a few events here. First, Spider-Man was always intended for a May, 2002 release date. These dates are set over a year in advance, and the movie was not delayed due to the September 11 attacks, nor was the World Trade Center involved in the plotline. It was Men in Black 2 which had this problem. According to its IMDB trivia section: "The original ending of the film included a scene in which the World Trade Center towers opened up, releasing a swarm of UFOs into the air. Following the towers' destruction, the film's ending was changed." I've seen such mentions of this elsewhere as well.

Now, the Spider-Man producers needed to rework and yank some of their promotional material after Sept 11. One character-shot poster was yanked (Spider-Man looking at New York with the WTC reflected in his eye visors). The second was a teaser trailer (search for Spider-Man World Trade Center on Youtube) that showed scenes unrelated to the movie (very common for teaser trailers). It was created for the trailer, though Raimi had toyed with the idea of finding a place for the web between the WTC towers in the final movie. That never moved past the planning stages, though. You can probably blame screenwriter David Koepp for the mediocre ending.. he's written a number of action movies that haven't really been strong on plot or character (Spider-Man, the Lost World: Jurassic Park, The Shadow, War of the Worlds). Look forward to his work in the next Indiana Jones movie. I'm excited about Spielburg, so-so on Koepp, and bleh on Lucas.

A few months after September 11 I was watching a movie at a university shown by their Friday night campus cinema. One of the things they did was acquire trailers for films they were going to show soon, and Spider-Man was on the slate. The Campus Cinema folks acquired a Spider-Man trailer but apparently never viewed it. Most of the audience didn't recognize it off the bat, though I did. I knew the reaction would be ugly.. and it was! Probably the most entertainment I've gotten from a trailer though.
Re:A good trailer by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 12:15 · Score: 1

What I thought strange was how.. un-MichaelBay-like the last half of Transformers seemed. Shia LaBouf and Peter Cullins actually made that movie watchable. The giant robots were so poorly designed that scenes of two robots fighting were just.. boring. You couldn't understand what was happening, you couldn't tell where one robot ended and the other began, even looking at them separately it was hard to tell if that was Jazz or Bumblebee, or one of those other forgettable robots.. The action there was muddy which was very un-Bay-like. The early action scenes with the helicopter Decepticon destroying the military base, and the Scorpion-like decepticon getting destroyed by the US military are fantastic. Bay's best work, IMO.
Re:A good trailer by farker+haiku · 2008-05-15 12:18 · Score: 1

You think that's something... how about the Silence of the Lambs recut!

--
Your sig(k) has been stolen. There is a puff of smoke!
Re:A good trailer by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 12:18 · Score: 1

When was the last time Adam Sandler had a good movie? The Waterboy?

Punch Drunk Love, maybe? Some people liked Spanglish and 50 First Dates. IE, movies that weren't featuring Sandler-like characters.
Re:A good trailer by groovelator · 2008-05-15 12:22 · Score: 1

So, the director of that trailer says that "assembling it only took a weekend and a couple of weeknights"

Does he mean that a pair of armour-clad scottish midgets were his assistants?

Take my mother-in-law... please.
Re:A good trailer by yotto · 2008-05-15 12:28 · Score: 1

If it was old style Indiana, he would have skipped the quips, scrambled frantically for something that would get them out of their predicament, found the rocket laungher, gotten dragged out of the window of the truck, losing the rocket launcher in the process, used the elephant (they were in a jungle) running next to the truck from 3 scenes earlier to help kick himself back onto the roof of the truck, grabbed the rocket launcher, lost the rocket launcher to the nazi, and had the nazi accidentally shoot the rocket at the bad guys after he got knocked off the truck by a tree branch or a vine or something. Then after it was all done, Indiana would have had some kind of one liner to seal the deal.

You're hired.

--
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
Re:A good trailer by Nephilium · 2008-05-15 12:29 · Score: 1

The biggest memory of this I have was for the movie Spaced Invaders. Pretty much every line in the trailer wasn't in the movie, even though the scenes from the trailer were. They just changed all of the dialog...

Nephilium
Re:A good trailer by somersault · 2008-05-15 15:17 · Score: 1

Aye, his punches were pretty pathetic. Just flailing his arm round rather than driving his fist using his chest muscles and body rotation. Me and my brother sometimes do the flaily arm thing just for fun - you're probably more likely to hurt yourself doing that than someone else, I think I managed to hit myself in the face before :P

For some reason the thing that I dislike most about the ads is the style of the writing of the title at the end. It just looks so fake/computer generated compared to the originals. Perhaps it is in 3D or something, I can't remember. Whatever it is, they were trying a bit too hard!

--
which is totally what she said
Re:A good trailer by corbettw · 2008-05-15 16:22 · Score: 1

I have a number to a good divorce lawyer, now that you need one. If you're interested.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:A good trailer by Chris+Mattern · 2008-05-15 17:00 · Score: 1

Cute, but in my opinion, they cheated by photoshopping frames.
Re:A good trailer by greyhueofdoubt · 2008-05-15 17:19 · Score: 1

>>making the most boring movies look exciting and fun.

Let me preface this by saying that I watch a lot of movies. Seriously, a lot.

I noticed something a few years back about trailers: depending on the movie you were trying to watch, the intro trailers would spin the advertised movies to match the genre. Let me just pick a movie that might work for this, since I can't remember a specific example right now.

Let's say you're watching, um... Meet the Fockers. Stupid movie, right? Stupid, slapstick, sitcom-type jokes. In the intro trailers, you see School of Rock. The scenes are all the wacky Jack Black screaming and dancing around, etc.

Now you go to watch Hope Floats with your imaginary girlfriend. In the intro trailers, you see School of Rock- and they turned it into a romantic, touching comedy about a couple who are lost and trying to find love as well as a coming of age story about a 13-year-old saxophonist who is angry at his absentee father.

This happens ALL the time. It can be frustrating, too- Oftentimes I will recommend a good movie to a friend and as soon as they say, "wellll... I don't really like that kind of movie," I know that they saw the 'wrong' trailer.

And that's what I have to say about that.
-b

--
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Re:A good trailer by dookiesan · 2008-05-15 18:17 · Score: 1

Fortunately that movie was better than the previews would lead you to believe.
Re:A good trailer by Doggabone · 2008-05-15 19:20 · Score: 1

Also, Sleepless In Seattle: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frUPnZMxr08 - Shining is still my favourite. It's the first recut trailer I saw, and it seems so very genuine.
Re:A good trailer by savuporo · 2008-05-15 19:47 · Score: 1

Dude, you can't just start a slow clap at any time and expect everyone to join in. You have to wait for the right moment.

--
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Re:A good trailer by mgblst · 2008-05-15 20:00 · Score: 1

Cool, where can I see that movie.
Re:A good trailer by andi75 · 2008-05-15 20:44 · Score: 1

This proves beyond doubt that you're only pretending to be married.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 21:42 · Score: 0

Did you just.... No, no, no you didn't just troll your wife. Ouch. =)
Re:A good trailer by pionzypher · 2008-05-15 21:46 · Score: 1

That had a related video named Let Me Borrow Your Top, Dorrothy. Honey Bunches of Oats under my spacebar now. What a weird but sickly funny vid. Link

--
I'll believe in corporations having personhood when Texas executes one... - advocate_one
Re:A good trailer by the_arrow · 2008-05-15 23:41 · Score: 1

And, I've seen trailers with footage I'd swear never actually made it into the film.
Heck, I have rented movies with cover photos not from the movie.

--
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 23:47 · Score: 0

They were actually going to do it that way but the elephant got sick.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 23:49 · Score: 0

When I saw the trailer for Phantom Menace I told myself (and my friends): "No chance in hell this movie will be bad!"

Hmmm...

- Peder
Re:A good trailer by The+Ultimate+Fartkno · 2008-05-16 00:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, they did break the unwritten rules of the trailer remix game, but I still love that one.
Re:A good trailer by h4rm0ny · 2008-05-16 00:22 · Score: 1

Cries a little after re-reading '20 years ago'...

Cheer up. You only need to cry if those 20 years were spent working at Mickey D's. I'm assuming you've made some progress since then. :)

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:A good trailer by h4rm0ny · 2008-05-16 00:29 · Score: 1

I never considered that possibility. That's devious. I'll be on my guard for that in future - cheers. I think however, I've developed a bit of an intuition for film trailers. I sometimes see ones where the trailer makers have obviously struggled a little to convey what the movie is about or to take something funny in context and show it out of context... and this is often a sign that the film is a bit more original and hard to define than other genre movies.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:A good trailer by Captain+Splendid · 2008-05-16 02:43 · Score: 1

LOL, thanks for that. After just dealing with clueless replies and modbombing in another thread, your comment really cheered me up. Thanks again.

--
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 03:08 · Score: 0

Just FYI, you can find a lot of trailers like that at http://www.thetrailermash.com... Everything from the 10 Commandments as a teen comedy (10 Things I Hate About Commandments) to Back to the Future as a gay romance (Brokeback to the Future)... some of those are friggin hilarious and extremely well done :)
Re:A good trailer by Touvan · 2008-05-16 03:14 · Score: 1

In my version there was one slapstick moment at the end, after a lot of tough situations for Indiana that were outside of his control (the Nazi's showing up and constantly interrupting what he was doing, the threat of the stampeding elephant). The inclussion of the loaded weapon that he's struggling to get a hold of, and the fact that the Nazi ends up holding it at the end, if only for a brief moment, adds to the tension.

In the case of Jar Jar he just bumbled around the whole time and shot everything around him randomly. No tension, no real danger, since all he really had to do was screw up over and over (way more than one time) and he would clearly be safe because he would kill the entire apposing army, never really facing an individual or any real group threat.

It's quite different. Compare the tank scene in the third Indiana film with the Jar Jar garbage, and you'll get the picture. Indiana struggles hard, and usually just happens to get lucky in the end. Jar Jar just screws up, end to end. Totally different.

--
http://www.unfocus.com/
Re:A good trailer by h4rm0ny · 2008-05-16 03:41 · Score: 1

Oh, you're welcome. Have fun.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Re:A good trailer by Dun+Malg · 2008-05-16 03:47 · Score: 1

How is that NOT identical to how Jar-Jar manages to take down huge enemies on a couple of occasions in Phantom Menace? There's a distinct difference between Jar-Jar bumbling all by himself and winning due to his own clumsiness and Indiana Jones and a Nazi fighting over a rocket launcher. The latter is classic cliffhanger fare. The former is just idiotic.

--
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Re:A good trailer by bemo56 · 2008-05-16 23:33 · Score: 0

Depends.. the IJ trailer was good. Many other trailers give away the whole movie making me have no interest in seeing it. I find this way too much in comedies. I had the twist in "The Island" given away by an aggressive ad campaign, ruined a good movie to a point. Also "Deja Vu"'s Ad made me think it was something else that was actually a better idea than the actual movie. I hate that
Re:A good trailer by fishbowl · 2008-05-17 12:45 · Score: 1

>Depends on the market. The pay is lower in poorer areas.

You do not cite a poorer area in particular, where Burger King in particular,
pays only minimum wage.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:A good trailer by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-17 15:51 · Score: 0

That's right, Touvan. I heard there's a scene where Indiana Jones and Marion, to a rollicking and Disney-like passage, are attacked in a Cairo marketplace. Half a dozen thugs assault the pair and, in slapstick choreography, dispatch each other instead. Marion knocks out one snaggletoothed buffoon with an iron pan. When she finds her way into a woven basket, Indy rushes to free her only to find -- wait for it -- an entire square of traders carrying the same make of basket.

Oh, wait: that's from Raiders, the best movie of the first three.

Crystal Skull may be bad but Lord Almighty, could some of you return to the source material and remind yourselves how corny Indiana Jones really is?
Re:A good trailer by 24-bit+Voxel · 2008-05-17 18:22 · Score: 1

There surely was a lot of yapping. I know it's petty but two things also bothered me quite a bit. 1) The highway scene the robots run/skate with grace and precision, yet they can't walk around a flowerpot. I know it's comedic relief but c'mon. 2) Energon? Hello? Ya know, the whole point if it all? Can't imagine why this wasn't important. Imagine how cool to watch the deceptacons raiding power plants and cities going dark. So many possibilities but no, we get the mega cube. I know, I'm petty.

This singular review on aintitcool needs to die. by Darth+Maul · 2008-05-15 05:08 · Score: 5, Interesting

This one guy rants about the movie, but there have been several other positive reviews. Just now media is picking up on this one aintitcool review and running with it. The original poster, ShogunMaster, just wanted a lot of attention and he got it.

It's an odd phenomenon we're seeing: One original poor review, then it gets written *about* in several other places, now all of a sudden people think there are lots of bad reviews. Huh?

--
--- witty signature

Is Anyone Surprised? by sexconker · 2008-05-15 05:08 · Score: 1

Anyone?

Also - early review syndrome strikes again.

Re:Is Anyone Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:22 · Score: 0

Not surprising, we knew it was another story by George Lucas.

complete BS by ILuvRamen · 2008-05-15 05:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Critics are morons. Every movie I've ever done to see and checked Yahoo Movies for, the critic and users ratings have been opposite. IMDB is the same way if you consider the ratings before it actually comes out. Epic movie had an 8.6 by opening day! And a 2.3 a week later. Yahoo critics rated Epic movie like a B- or something and users gave it a D-. And they had the balls to give other movies I and other really liked really low ratings. They watch too many movies and they're douchebags so people should really stop listening to critics.

--
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'

Re:complete BS by maxume · 2008-05-15 05:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

You just need to find a critic or two that you usually agree with. Much better than random fan reviews, because you also know where you are likely to disagree with them when reading their new reviews.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:complete BS by slapmastered · 2008-05-15 05:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

I completely agree with you. During College, every time my (now) wife and I saw a teaser/trailer for a movie that we thought looked interesting, we scanned the local papers and school paper for the reviews of the movie, and if the critics all hated it, we went and saw it. 9 times in 10 we were glad we did. The people who write those reviews are almost always elitist movie snobs, who are missing the point that it's a *movie*, not high art. People go to the movies to be entertained for 2 hours. A simple popcorn-muncher is sometimes all you really want. I'm personally looking forward to the new Indy. The other thing that ruins reviews like this is a fanboy gets his crush on, and waits in anticipation for 10-20 years, and has all these grandiose ideas of what the movie should or shouldn't look/feel/smell like, and then there's no possible way for the movie to live up to that much internal-hype. That's what happened with the new Star Wars trilogy (although Jar-Jar made me want to stab Lucas in the throat...) and it's apparently going to happen to more than a few people on the new Indy. If they want to be upset, let them be upset. Any review is just someone's opinion. And you know what they say about opinions...They're like armpits; everyone's got a couple, and they all stink.
Re:complete BS by businessnerd · 2008-05-15 05:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Agreed. I suggest the Wall Street Journal for movie reviews. Usually they hate everything, so if they actually like something, you should probably see it.

--
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
Re:complete BS by maxume · 2008-05-15 05:26 · Score: 1

I don't really read that many reviews, but when I am on the fence, I go look at what Ebert has to say. He's probably overly sentimental for a lot of people.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:complete BS by Psmylie · 2008-05-15 05:30 · Score: 1

I have a friend who is my movie Guinea pig... He's a movie buff, and sees almost everything that comes out, and his taste pretty much matches mine. If he really likes a movie, I'll go see it. If he doesn't, I won't. It works pretty well for me.

--

psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
Re:complete BS by SCHecklerX · 2008-05-15 05:37 · Score: 1

Critics are morons. Every movie I've ever done to see and checked Yahoo Movies for, the critic and users ratings have been opposite. IMDB is the same way if you consider the ratings before it actually comes out. Epic movie had an 8.6 by opening day! And a 2.3 a week later. Yahoo critics rated Epic movie like a B- or something and users gave it a D-. And they had the balls to give other movies I and other really liked really low ratings. They watch too many movies and they're douchebags so people should really stop listening to critics.

You obviously didn't go to see ultraviolet...
Re:complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:39 · Score: 0

Maybe because most people have terrible taste.
Re:complete BS by BunnyClaws · 2008-05-15 05:42 · Score: 1

Good point. The only rating I ever go by is the Yahoo user rating. Movie critics all have different opinions on movies and we all know what opinions are like. I prefer the Yahoo user rating due to it being based on a large set of opinions and the most common opinion (mode) tends to show up as the rating.

I'll take a conglomeration of everyones opinion as opposed to a few critics butt-hole smell, I mean opinion.

--
"Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
Re:complete BS by veganboyjosh · 2008-05-15 05:43 · Score: 1

I would extend that to say that if you can find a critic that you consistently dis agree with, then you can stick with them as well. The fleeting, random internet reviews are about useless. That is, unless you can find a site that has consistent reviews that you either agree or disagree with.
Re:complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:44 · Score: 0

Interestingly look at the movie recommendations at imdb for Epic Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0799949/
Re:complete BS by MightyYar · 2008-05-15 05:47 · Score: 1

Ugh, my wife trusts him too. I put more faith in his dead friend.

I can't tell you how many bad movies I've had to sit through because of his undiscerning thumb.

And then on the other hand, he gave "Beerfest" a thumbs down. My god, man... it's a silly movie... review things in context. Beerfest was the funniest in it's genre that I've seen in a long time.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:complete BS by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2008-05-15 05:48 · Score: 1

... or Vanilla Sky

--

---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Re:complete BS by jfengel · 2008-05-15 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are very few good critics, but they do exist.

A good critic is somebody capable of explaining what it is they're seeing, why they liked it and why they didn't. It's much more useful than "I liked it so you will to." Few reviewers even try. Most reviews are:

* 1 paragraph of introduction, usually with a "clever" hook to keep the reader reading
* N paragraphs of plot summary
* 1 paragraph of review for the actors, writer, and director.
* 1 paragraph of review for the tech

The N paragraphs of plot summary have no business in a critique. If there's any value, it's in the last two paragraphs, but few reviewers have the vaguest idea how a movie is made, so they can't tell you what it is they're looking at.

They regularly ding actors for bad dialogue or bad sound, and praise mediocre but flashy performances. They don't know how the music, lighting, editing, etc. interact to make a moment work or fail. They don't know how movies influence each other or the dialogue that creates between directors and intended audiences.

For a critic who can actually do all that, such as the late Pauline Kael, it hardly matters whether they recommend the film or not, and it certainly doesn't matter how many stars they give it. Read the review and you'll know if you're seeing skilled filmmaking, and whether it's likely to appeal to you.

And that's NEVER the guy in your local paper.
Re:complete BS by ThisIsAnonymous · 2008-05-15 05:50 · Score: 0

Use a better site than Yahoo Movies.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/epic_movie/
http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/epicmovie

According to Rotten Tomatoes, 2% of Critics liked Epic Movie. It got a 17 out of a 100 on MetaCritic ("Extreme dislike or disgust")

Use a better site than Yahoo Movies.
Re:complete BS by maxume · 2008-05-15 05:56 · Score: 1

To clarify, I'm talking about his written reviews:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/

He hasn't reviewed Beerfest there, as far as I can tell.

I don't think I even have access to the TV show.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:complete BS by vux984 · 2008-05-15 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

The people who write those reviews are almost always elitist movie snobs, who are missing the point that it's a *movie*, not high art.

They aren't missing the point. You are. There's only so much information you can pack into a 'star rating'

Movie Critics are rating movies by how good they are on a multitude of levels. A 4 star movie has to be entertaining, interesting, thought provoking, well written, well directed, well acted, etc, etc, etc.

The Phantom Menace might hit the entertaining button but its a dismal fail on most other criteria. Its poorly acted, poorly written, poorly directed...

People go to the movies to be entertained for 2 hours. A simple popcorn-muncher is sometimes all you really want.

You are practically admitting it right here, that you KNOW and AGREE they are crappy movies!! But you like watching them anyway. That's fine... I do too... a one or two star rating doesn't mean you won't enjoy the movie and shouldn't go see it, but rather you shouldn't expect it be a 'Godfather II'.

I'm personally looking forward to the new Indy.

Me too. However I'm now expecting it to be 'summer popcorn fun' not 'groundbreaking brilliant'. (Which if you'd seen the previous 3, 'summer popcorn fun' is really what you should have been expecting all along.)

The other thing that ruins reviews like this is a fanboy gets his crush on, and waits in anticipation for 10-20 years, and has all these grandiose ideas of what the movie should or shouldn't look/feel/smell like, and then there's no possible way for the movie to live up to that much internal-hype.

To a point, but I don't think it affects the movie's rating overall as much as all that. The last crusade came out in 89. Anyone under 25 is pretty much immune to that effect and will see the movie for its own merit. A lot of people under 30 haven't even seen the first 3.

That's what happened with the new Star Wars trilogy (although Jar-Jar made me want to stab Lucas in the throat...)

No. The new Star Wars was just shit. The originals were defining movies for a generation. Most kids today have already forgotten the new trilogy. They had no pent up expectations, and they still couldn't care less about them. Face it, they just weren't that good.

None of the new star wars movies made the imdb top 250. All 3 of the Lord of the Rings movies made the top 30. Both trilogies had MASSIVE fanboy followings and pent up expectations and both movies faced the wrath of the screaming fanboys. But at the end of it all Star Wars competely sucked. LotR didn't. It's just that simple.
Re:complete BS by WeeLad · 2008-05-15 06:06 · Score: 1

Has Filthy ever steered us wrong?

--
Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
Re:complete BS by twistedsymphony · 2008-05-15 06:09 · Score: 1

I would extend that to say that if you can find a critic that you consistently dis agree with, then you can stick with them as well. The fleeting, random internet reviews are about useless. That is, unless you can find a site that has consistent reviews that you either agree or disagree with.
The problem with finding a critic that you consistently disagree with is that you wind up seeing lots of movies that EVERYONE can agree are really bad... You really have to pay attention as to WHY they disliked it if you want to find something you'll actually like...

--
Collector's Edition
Re:complete BS by bogjobber · 2008-05-15 06:20 · Score: 2, Interesting

They had the balls to disagree with you? Wow, they really are douchebags.

How about instead of being a "populist snob," just find critics who you agree with. There are plenty of people out there writing about movies that judge movies based on "common people's" judgements. Some of us want to watch movies that are beautiful and express themselves eloquently about life, some of us just want mindless entertainment. And there are *gasp* people that actually like both and a little bit of everything in between.

Open your mind a little. Everyone that disagrees with you is not a moron. If you always disagree with Yahoo Movies, you should stop reading Yahoo Movies!
Re:complete BS by Pojut · 2008-05-15 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is one thing you aren't considering though: critics tend to treat all movies as if they are from the same genre. You wouldn't compare Half-Baked to The Shawshank Redemption...they are entirely different movies with completely different messages. And yet, they are both awesome movies, for different reasons.

I wouldn't say that Half-Baked presented a milestone in script writing, or was an acting disaster...I would say that it was hilarious and a well done stoner-movie. I wouldn't say Shawshank Redemption sucked because there wasn't enough comedy in it, or because it was insanely slow paced...I would say that it was amazing because the actors truly were the characters and even though nothing much really happens throughout it, somehow they manage to keep you very pulled in to the story for hours on end.

It's just like Speed Racer. SO many critics have said Speed Racer is dull, empty, devoid of meaning...ARE YOU SERIOUS? It's a movie based on a series that practically INVENTED the word cheesy...it isn't supposed to be Citizen Cane. It's just supposed to be entertaining. And you know what? It did a damn fine job of entertaining me. I wasn't looking for some underlying reasoning behind it, or for Oscar winning performances, or for some new level of thinking...I was looking to simply be entertained by a bunch of crazy coloured race tracks with cars slamming into each other.

You can't judge all movies by the same metric. That is, unfortunately, why so many critics hate so many movies. You shouldn't expect Dumb and Dumber to have the same nuance and impact as Jane Eyre. It doesn't work that way.

--
Living With a Nerd
Re:complete BS by grahamd0 · 2008-05-15 06:27 · Score: 1

The Onion AV Club is another good one.
They pretty much hate everything. The first (and only, thus far) review I've read there that didn't say anything bad about the movie was Batman Begins, and I'd stick that one on my short list of the best movies ever made.
Re:complete BS by ikshields · 2008-05-15 06:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

...or perhaps, you think it might be possible that critics generally have the most memory and passion for movies -- since they see a ton of them (duh) -- and actually assemble reviews based on that memory and passion, whereas most people just munch their popcorn and toss off an unthinking knee-jerk reaction?

"Impossible", you say?

"The People are of infinite wisdom, especially large numbers of them"?

Well, look around the room, and try to find anyone with the insight and breadth of movie knowledge of a Richard Corliss, Roger Ebert, or even a Rex Reed. Go ahead, take your time.

Nothing yet? Okay, maybe I should check back with you later.

In the meantime, for blessed once, give education some credit, will ya? When you really know movies, you react differently to them, and THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM!! IT'S A GOOD THING!

Thanks for letting me vent. :)
Re:complete BS by milatchi · 2008-05-15 06:42 · Score: 0

I'm personally looking forward to the new Indy.
I know, I know. It's about time SGI put out a new IRIX workstation.

--
Slashdot = -1 Redundant, Asperger, kdawson FUD, Libertarian, and Linux
Re:complete BS by ikshields · 2008-05-15 06:54 · Score: 1

Note my earlier reply to "Complete BS".

And, what exactly is an "elitist snob", in your book? (Besides me. I know you're not going to like this reaction, and I'm asking for it.)

Is it just anyone who knows a lot about something, gives a damn, and has the nerve to write about it?

Further, since when is moviemaking not high art, whenever it damn well wants to be? Are you against that? You think we're all airheads out here, just looking for candy candy candy all the time?

Gee, I guess we're all supposed to just throw our education in the garbage when we enter the theatre, and regress to 12 years old! Wow.

Wish I'd known that earlier, so I wouldn't have enjoyed so many great films on such an adult level for so many years, and found so many of these "elitist snob" reviewers so refreshingly smart...

In conclusion -- Education: Bad. Mindless: Good.

Got it.
Re:complete BS by maxume · 2008-05-15 06:56 · Score: 1

Right up until the elevated train of doom.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:complete BS by grahamd0 · 2008-05-15 06:59 · Score: 1

Okay, it's a little hokey, I'll grant you that.
Still, you gotta give props to any movie that can take the concept of a billionaire ninja in a cape seriously and pull it off.
Re:complete BS by ikshields · 2008-05-15 06:59 · Score: 1

You called Citizen Kane "Citizen Cane".

Thanks for the telltale signal.

:)
Re:complete BS by MightyYar · 2008-05-15 07:00 · Score: 1

I don't think I even have access to the TV show. Doesn't matter - she picks up anything with his horrid thumb on it at Blockbuster.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:complete BS by ikshields · 2008-05-15 07:05 · Score: 1

... or, he could start enjoying the alternative viewpoints, but I know we'd be pushing our luck to the extreme to suggest such a thing.

Thanks for defending adulthood in the movies anyway.

:)
Re:complete BS by mdu · 2008-05-15 07:06 · Score: 1

In a lot of cases it depends on how good bad the critics think the movie is. If they rate it an "A", it likely isn't worth seeing because the director is playing to the critics not to the audience (SpiderMan is a definite exception to that rule). These days if a movie is nominated for "Best Picture" (or similar awards), I tend to avoid it like the plague because I will probably fall asleep watching it. "Sideways" won several awards, but I hated everything about it. OTOH, "Shakespeare In Love" is one of my favorite movies and it won a bunch of awards. If the critics rate a movie really low most of the time there is a good reason. Even if I think a movie sounds good, if it is rated a "D" or lower, unless somebody tells me otherwise, I will wait until it comes out on DVD and then maybe I will see it. If the movie is rated as average ("B" or "C"), I will ignore the critics and decide for myself because a lot of times they just don't get it. Most critics either don't like or don't understand scifi and they are almost always rated lower than they should be.
Re:complete BS by Jesus_666 · 2008-05-15 07:08 · Score: 1

You called Citizen Kane "Citizen Cane". Thanks for the telltale signal.
What? I thought everyone likes a good birching flick.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:complete BS by oahazmatt · 2008-05-15 07:09 · Score: 1

You just need to find a critic or two that you usually agree with. Much better than random fan reviews, because you also know where you are likely to disagree with them when reading their new reviews. That's sort of a good idea, but no one is going to be in complete agreement with you, not every time.

Plus some movies are horribly mismarketed to gain a wider audience opening day. The trailers for Mr. & Mrs. Smith made it look like an action film when it really had the making of a dark comedy with some violence thrown in. Speed Racer was marketed (in my opinion) as an action film instead of what it was, a simple little movie where Neo is a playable character in Mario Kart.

Then, once the movie has been marketed to gain a wider opening day, rather than appealing to its true audience, then you have to deal with critics who may or many not have honest opinions about the movies they review. Like Earl Ditman (sp?). If I see a movie commercial crediting him as praising a movie, I avoid it, as it's a last ditch promotional effort. Mind you that's from personal experience.

Too many people rely on reviews before they see a movie these days. Sometimes you just have to take a chance, go see a movie, and expect nothing more than to have a little fun.

--
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Re:complete BS by Pojut · 2008-05-15 07:10 · Score: 1

GAHHH!!!

I have dishonered those who have come before me...to my father, my brother, and all those that made me into the movie buff that I am today, I am deeply and truly sorry.

That being said, Citizen Kane was crap :-) I love old movies, but man...I just could not get into it. Never really understood why it was voted as greatest movie of all time in AFI's list...

--
Living With a Nerd
Re:complete BS by maxume · 2008-05-15 07:14 · Score: 1

because you also know where you are likely to disagree with them when reading their new reviews. That's sort of a good idea, but no one is going to be in complete agreement with you, not every time.
...

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:complete BS by prockcore · 2008-05-15 07:15 · Score: 1

However I'm now expecting it to be 'summer popcorn fun' not 'groundbreaking brilliant'.

I'm expecting it to be horrible dreck. Brought to you by the two people who brought you jar jar and replaced guns with flashlights.
Re:complete BS by Bryan+Ischo · 2008-05-15 07:25 · Score: 1

I guess I should be a movie critic then. I dislike 9 out of 10 movies, and most of them are movies that other people I know really like. Honestly I can't understand how people are willing to waste their time with the most banal crap and come out with a smile on your face. I guess all I have to say is, if you have no standards, then don't bother reading critical reviews of movies, just go watch any old crap and be happy.
Re:complete BS by bigstrat2003 · 2008-05-15 07:27 · Score: 1

You are practically admitting it right here, that you KNOW and AGREE they are crappy movies!! Bull. If a movie entertains you, it's good. If it doesn't, it's crappy. There is ONE axis, no more, no less. A movie which is revolutionary or thought-provoking is just providing icing on the cake.
No. The new Star Wars was just shit. You're entitled to your (extremely wrong) opinion. The new Star Wars movies were quite good, with the first one being the worst in the saga, the second being somewhere in the middle, and the most recent being easily better than any of the originals. I mean, my God, it had everything you could ask for from Star Wars. It had cool battle scenes. That's what Star Wars is about! As an added bonus, it had an actual (interesting) PLOT, not the pile of shit that passed for a plot in the original Star Wars trilogy!

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:complete BS by mobby_6kl · 2008-05-15 07:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you're consistently of the opposite opinion of movies with Ebert, it just might be that you have no taste.

It also looks like he didn't even review Beerfest. It's not on his written review pages, and the review on the show is done by Roeper and some chick.
Re:complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:48 · Score: 0

Mmh, well... no one will probably read this Anonymous Coward stuff anyway, but I would like to take the opportunity to say that "There Will Be Blood," which was hyped by absolutly everyone and even got some Oscars is the worst movie I have ever seen and it included the worst soundtrack I have ever heard.
Recently I even saw it on one of those Top100 films of all time lists ranked #2 and the author wrote like 6 paragraphs about how fluids like blood, oil, tears and water are so important in this film... wtf Oo
Re:complete BS by Sciros · 2008-05-15 07:51 · Score: 1

I mean, my God, it had everything you could ask for from Star Wars. It had cool battle scenes. That's what Star Wars is about! As an added bonus, it had an actual (interesting) PLOT, not the pile of shit that passed for a plot in the original Star Wars trilogy! Ok seriously George we know it's you, the screen name fools nobody. Your jedi mind tricks don't work on /.

--
I like basketball!!1!
Re:complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:05 · Score: 0

it isn't supposed to be Citizen Cane. Citizen Cane? Bastinado pr0n?

captcha: sarcasm
Re:complete BS by p0tat03 · 2008-05-15 08:21 · Score: 1

They aren't missing the point. You are. There's only so much information you can pack into a 'star rating'
IMHO the problem is that critics ask the question "is this movie groundbreakingly brilliant?" whereas the average news reader is more interested in "is this movie entertaining and fun?". It's a fundamental disconnect between the two, and the fact that movie critics sell their reviews as good gauges for seeing a movie it just doesn't work out.
Re:complete BS by Samizdata · 2008-05-15 08:25 · Score: 1

I like Ebert too, but specifically because I know how to read him as he applies to my opinion of movies. I have a very clear picture of what he and I disagree on.

I, however, pay no attention to any of his opposable digits.

--
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Re:complete BS by trytoguess · 2008-05-15 08:59 · Score: 1

You seem to under the impression that critics only like pretentious "deep" movies or judge things with that as a metric. Actually most mainstream critics (like the ones on RottenTomatoes) enjoy a wide variety of movies ranging from "deep" to fantasy to chick flick to horror to action to etc. Most people disliked SR because they got bored with the flashy graphics after 30mins or so, and after that the movie didn't offer them anything else they liked. After watching hundreds of movies I suppose it's rather difficult to wow that person with visuals, or crude acting alone, it's pretty much the same with books and video games afterall. Course some folks like niche genres no matter how good or bad it is... I do envy them.
Re:complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 09:03 · Score: 0

>Critics are morons.

A brief jaunt through your posting history reveals that you're not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, Sparky.

Captcha: epistle

I'd write one about glass houses and stone-throwing, but I fear it would be wasted on you.
Re:complete BS by Pojut · 2008-05-15 09:08 · Score: 1

What kept me entertained with Speed Racer was the creativity of the whole thing...the colour palette, the design of the various cars, the ingenuity of how various sequences were shot and shown...not to mention how good of a job they did making it look like those drivers really were in that environment, as opposed to being in CG land. ::shrug:: different folks for different folks, I suppose.

--
Living With a Nerd
Re:complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 09:09 · Score: 0

actually i the point that movie critics dont get it is correct. take kung pow for example, they did not understand that the english dub was part of the movie. critics actually believed that the lips and words were supposed to be in sync and that they didnt line it up correctly and gave it some horrible reviews because of that.
Re:complete BS by Pojut · 2008-05-15 09:12 · Score: 1

I was always rather attached to Bamboo...it makes for a much more satisfying "thwack" XD

--
Living With a Nerd
Re:complete BS by riceboy50 · 2008-05-15 09:30 · Score: 1

This is one of the reasons I enjoy At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper. On that show they discuss the movies and usually I get the sense that they are considering the genre aspect of them. Ebert has been ill and not on the show for quite some time, but Roeper has a guest critic every week. Check it out online.

--
~ I am logged on, therefore I am.
Re:complete BS by vux984 · 2008-05-15 09:34 · Score: 1

Bull. If a movie entertains you, it's good. If it doesn't, it's crappy. There is ONE axis, no more, no less. A movie which is revolutionary or thought-provoking is just providing icing on the cake.

That's just defining good and crappy according to how much you liked it, but ultimately not very useful when talking about movies with anyone else. When a professional critic gives a movies 4 stars its still subjective, but its at least grounded in some basis of objective comparison.

When I read a critics review I want and expect that critical perspective. If I want to know how much YOU liked the movie, I'll ask you.

I enjoy lots of movies that met with 0 critical acclaim, and in most cases I agree with the critics. I still like the movie though.

You're entitled to your (extremely wrong) opinion. The new Star Wars movies were quite good, with the first one being the worst in the saga, the second being somewhere in the middle, and the most recent being easily better than any of the originals.

And you are entitled to your opinion. And I'm glad someone enjoyed them. But they were terrible movies. The acting was wooden, the direction was terrible, the character development was LAUGHABLE.

I mean, my God, it had everything you could ask for from Star Wars. It had cool battle scenes. That's what Star Wars is about!

Except most of them managed to incorporate being meaningless and boring into their amazing visual effects. Half of them simply didn't matter. The only bettle scenes in the entire series that were even slightly compelling were the ones between Obi-Wan and Anakin at the end of the 3rd episode, the sand-people slaughter, and the implied jedi children slaughter... the rest... pointless.

Yoda vs Dooku pointless. Yoda vs Palpatine pointless. Quigon/Obiwan vs Maul -- hell... the whole Maul character was pointless, so killing him was pointless. Mace Windu -- another pointless character. Jango Fett? I guess you could count how it might affect little Boba... but then that's not in this trilogy and lets face it Boba isn't really in the other one either... so Pointless. General Grevious? Completely Pointless character, completely pointless battle. The battle against the pit monsters? Pointless and stupid in a classic James Bond villain sort of way.

As an added bonus, it had an actual (interesting) PLOT

The plot was diarrhea. Most of the stuff they did hinged on the characters behaving in ways that was largely irrational and completely unjustified by what happened previously.

Slasher films have better plots.
Re:complete BS by zippthorne · 2008-05-15 09:44 · Score: 1

Ultraviolet was fun. I suppose there might have been a comic book or something that you could get snobby about. But at it's heart, it was just yet another vehicle for Milla Jovovich to prance about in skin-tight outfits waving around a sword.

So all-in-all, I'd call it a success.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:complete BS by Paltin · 2008-05-15 09:53 · Score: 1

You are, unfortunately, completely wrong.

Epic movie received a total score of 17 (out of 100) from Metacritic. That is a dreadful score. Metacritic takes every critic review they can find and combine them into one metric. This means that your thesis is completely wrong, and that critics, on the whole, have the same opinion you do.

The irony is that while you're as good as the critics at reviewing movies, you're not good at reviewing critics.
Re:complete BS by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-15 10:07 · Score: 1

Lisa: And there's the cane from Citizen Kane. Wait, there was no cane in Citizen Kane.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 10:08 · Score: 0

Actually, all three new Star Wars movies made the imdb top 250. Believe it or not, The Phantom Menace reached as high as place 137 according to http://www.timo-schreiter.de/imdb/
Re:complete BS by bigstrat2003 · 2008-05-15 10:26 · Score: 1

its at least grounded in some basis of objective comparison. That's the problem. There is no possible basis of objective comparison which is meaningful. The point of a movie is to be enjoyed, and enjoyment is impossible to measure objectively. A review is simply an opinion, which means no more than yours or mine. The only difference is that some critic is getting paid to give his opinion for some reason. Maybe lots of people tend to agree with him, maybe he's capable of delivering his opinion in an entertaining way... it doesn't really matter, nor does it change the fact that he's just a guy giving an opinion.

--
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Re:complete BS by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-15 10:26 · Score: 1

Most people disliked SR because they got bored with the flashy graphics after 30mins or so, and after that the movie didn't offer them anything else they liked.

Hell, I got bored with SR halfway through the trailer.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:complete BS by pimpimpim · 2008-05-15 10:37 · Score: 1

The originals were defining movies for a generation.
Correct, but along with that these "originals" also weren't very good from a film critic perspective. They were just the right kind of movies at the right kind of time. If any if them would have been released 5-10 years later than they were, they would have gotten poor reviews and had marginal response by the public as well. I convinced my gf to watch "A new hope", she had never seen a star wars movie before, nor known about the story, etc. If you watch it without all that luggage, it really is a thin little story. Face it, people, George Lucas always did what he did, make simple entertaining movies for a large public. Except maybe thx 1138. Not per se a good movie, but at least not entertaining to anyone ;)

--
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
Re:complete BS by geekoid · 2008-05-15 10:47 · Score: 1

or maybe you are the moron? I mean when everyone around you seem crazy, maybe it's not them~

Heh, sorry, easy shot.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:complete BS by niktemadur · 2008-05-15 11:09 · Score: 1

Here's a guy who hates almost everything - Duncan Shepherd of the San Diego Reader:
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/movies/reviews/

--
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Re:complete BS by MightyYar · 2008-05-15 11:32 · Score: 1

I'm the opposite. I find that reading (or seeing, hearing, etc) a review prior to a movie makes it less enjoyable for me. I basically want to know what the general genre is and if it is a good example. I don't like trailers, either - and I avoid them like the plague.

When I saw "American Pie", I thought it was going to be "American Beauty"... and let's just I never laughed so hard at a theater since I was completely surprised.

My current method relies on IMDB scores. An 8 is a must see drama, a 6 is a must-see non-romantic comedy, and a 5 or 6 probably means a pretty "good" horror movie. Of course, the rankings have to be ignored when the movie first comes out, as the hype machine seems to overwhelm the actual ratings. Ratings for independent and foreign films are also inflated for some reason.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:complete BS by MightyYar · 2008-05-15 11:37 · Score: 1

If it were consistent that would be fine. The problem with Ebert IMHO is that he reviews movies based on what he LIKES, as opposed to trying to rate the movie based on its merit.

Though I have to admit that this would be very hard to do with comedies. He likes the romantic comedy, I like ridiculous or dark comedies. It would be hard for me to write a review saying, "Though predictable and incredibly tiring, I do have to admit that a person with a completely different sense of humor from mine might have found the scene with all of the catty women complaining about men very funny... after all, someone is reading 'Cathy'."

I got the rating for Beerfest from here: Ebert and Roeper.

But now that I look at it, I think you might be right and that rating might be his fill-in and not Ebert. Like I said, I don't pay much attention to him! :)

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:complete BS by MightyYar · 2008-05-15 11:44 · Score: 1

Ugh... let me just add that I listened to the review on the site that I linked above. Wow, now I really hate both of them. She didn't really use the "I lost 110 minutes of my life" thing, did she? Ugh... occupational hazard - find another line of work.

And then he wants a movie called "Beerfest" to be like a "Woody Allen classic comedy"? Oy, vey! I'm glad Broken Lizard knows their audience, even if these nit-wits don't.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 12:34 · Score: 0

They watch too many movies and they're douchebags so people should really stop listening to critics.

The problem with critics is... they watch too many movies?!

Yeah... 'cause you wouldn't want experts talking about things. We should never listen to people who pay a lot of attention to their chosen field.

And this is labeled +5, Informative?
Re:complete BS by vux984 · 2008-05-15 13:33 · Score: 1

That's the problem. There is no possible basis of objective comparison which is meaningful.

Strictly speaking your right. In practical terms there are objective comparisons which are meaningful.

You can talk about the quality of the acting, costuming, set design, and so forth with *some* objectivity. You can also talk about the plot itself, in terms of depth, complexity, consistency, novelty, with *some* objectivity.

Contrast "Maximum Overdrive" to "Trucks" for a trivial example.

A review is simply an opinion, which means no more than yours or mine.

The difference is that a professional reviewer is, in theory at least, if he's actually being professional will do his best to judge the movie's merits as objectively as possible according to a set of criteria. Sure 'objectively as possible' is still subjective, and the selection of criteria can also color things, but its not nearly as subjective as some random twit's 'opinion'.

Consider journalism vs. editorial. People can't write anything without imparting bias and subjectivity into it... but a decent journalist is at least trying to be objective. Whereas an editorialist isn't.
Re:complete BS by timoguin · 2008-05-15 14:59 · Score: 1

Epic Movie wasn't even screened for critics, so that makes it kind of hard to have a proper rating on opening day. Try rottentomatoes; it gives Epic Movie a not-so-epic 2%.
Re:complete BS by mwigmani · 2008-05-15 17:01 · Score: 1

Well said, and to reiterate what someone said in a post above, your best bet for critic reviews, is to find a critic who shares a similar taste in movies as you. For me, that would be Ty Burr of the Boston Globe, and this is an interesting article he wrote a few years ago about the problems with star ratings.

The promise and peril of movie ratings
Writing movie reviews is simple. Translating their nuances and subtleties into a one-dimensional star rating is where things get tricky
By Ty Burr, Globe Staff | January 4, 2004
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves."-- "Julius Caesar" (Act 1, Scene 2)
Pace Cassius, sometimes the fault seems very much in the stars. I speak of the movie critics' bane: the star rating that sits atop each film review in this newspaper and that functions as a neon-green directional signal diverting the reader away from thought.
It's not an exact science, those stars. I gave "Mystic River" three, but maybe that was low; in my heart of hearts it felt like three and a quarter and perhaps I should have graded on the curve. That no-star rating for "Gigli" back in August? Too easy, I agree; I mistook the total absence of pleasure for the presence of the actively toxic.
Every reviewer I know hates the fiendish things, for the same reasons readers, editors, and publicists like them. Star ratings boil down critical analysis -- the careful weighing of pro and con, the appreciation for the nuances of camerawork and performance, the baited hook of scorn -- into a snap judgment that can be instantly grokked by a harried parent or slapped across a two-page ad spread. Gripe though critics may, unless we're one of the dainty pashas at The New York Times or The New Yorker, the stars -- or some system of dingbats like them -- are a fact of the workplace, like spam or carpal tunnel.
Here at the Globe we use a system of no stars through four, in increments of half-stars, depending on whether a movie is slow death with overpriced popcorn, average twaddle, or "The Godfather." Some newspapers use five stars. The San Francisco Chronicle has a cartoon of a little man -- called, inventively, "the little man" -- who reacts in five stages of enthusiasm, including comatose, bemused, and erupting out of his seat in hyperactive movie-geek rapture. I'd suggest something similar to represent the Boston moviegoing public in the pages of the Globe, but I'm afraid our little man would just sit there, dour as a parson, even if he were happy.
There are other ways to go. Ebert and Roeper (formerly Siskel and Ebert) have their famous thumbs, waggling in phases from down to "way, way, way up!" Clearly, they need to consider other digits. Before I arrived at the Globe, I spent many years working at a national entertainment magazine that you may have come across in the fancier airports and dentists' offices. We used grades -- nay, we pioneered the use of grades. (Oh, all right, the magazine's founding editor stole the idea from "People.") The nicest aspect of this approach is that it puts the whole exercise back in school, where it belongs.
Iconic ratings are a utility, in other words -- a pure service play. Just as a poor grade alerts parents that their child is dogging it in math class -- no matter the cause -- so one or two stars advertises a movie's failure. Whether that's a failure of nerve ("The Human Stain"), of skill ("Party Monster"), or of concept ("Beyond Borders") isn't important unless you read the review -- and who wants to read a lousy review? Who in this coddling media culture wants to willingly hear the bad news?
That's the genius of the star ratings: They spare readers the pain of negativity, be it subjective or deserved. They're like a doctor who says, "This is going to hurt," and then points out the available exits. They're there so you don't
Re:complete BS by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 17:42 · Score: 0

Also George, I've seen your 'big' strat, and in reality, it's pretty small. You should really use some of those billions you've made on enhancement products...
Re:complete BS by TheLink · 2008-05-15 18:30 · Score: 1

"you wind up seeing lots of movies that EVERYONE can agree are really bad"

Not really, usually those critics don't even bother reviewing those, and once you figure out what genre it is, that's often good enough to figure out why the critic didn't like it.

While I'm not a big fan of "so bad that it becomes good" movies, I believe there are a fair number of people who like that sort of stuff - they have a few beers (I don't like beer either ;) ), watch it with friends etc.

There's no accounting for taste. I mean just look at some of the stuff that comes out of Hollywood - when they are so surprised it bombs. Sometimes they seem so surprised why something is a success too. Those hollywood bunch just have rather different tastes from their audience I guess- so they're just shooting in the dark. Either that or they have some sort of agenda to not give the masses what they want.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:complete BS by mgblst · 2008-05-15 20:09 · Score: 1

Critics are a bunch of different people. There seems to be this disease where people can't differentiate between a group of people with different opinions and a single person. Find a critic that you agree with, and read their reviews. Critics don't replace you having to do some work.

Or do what I do, read the review, find out why they hated the movie and see if you would agree with them. Or don't go see the movie straight away. I find rottentomatoes a good guide.

But even then, there are still bad movies every now and again that I enjoy. I know they are bad movies, but I have a low level sense of humour.
Re:complete BS by mgblst · 2008-05-15 20:18 · Score: 1

I have a mate that does that, but enjoys EVERY single movie he sees...everything. I can't believe it somehow. Maybe he just likes getting out of the house.

But then, I would probably be happier if I had his disease. Sort of explains why he goes out with a fat chick as well.
Re:complete BS by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 20:54 · Score: 1

I mean, my God, it had everything you could ask for from Star Wars. It had cool battle scenes. That's what Star Wars is about! As an added bonus, it had an actual (interesting) PLOT, not the pile of shit that passed for a plot in the original Star Wars trilogy!

And it had a Darth Vader that had so much sand in his vagina that it strains belief that he could get it all out in the years between RotS and ANH.

The CGI space battles were okay in the new films, but they often seemed kind of over-the-top, and I didn't find them nearly as engaging as the X-wing vs. TIE fighter mixups. One of the bright shining points was the Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan/Darth Maul saber battle near the end of PM, which was completely, totally, and utterly amazing. It made it very disappointing that the Darth Maul character wasn't explored more, and didn't get the opportunity to show more of his prodigious talent with a lightsaber.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:complete BS by segedunum · 2008-05-16 02:19 · Score: 1

But at the end of it all Star Wars competely sucked. LotR didn't. It's just that simple.
Never understood the Lord of the Rings worship. I found them cold and dark, with none of the joviality and fun that you get from the hobbits in the book, and full of its own self-fucking importance because they thought they were making a Classic Trilogy(tm). The music was an exceptionally poor 'The Mission' rip-off by Howard Shore and the dialogue was enough to put you to sleep for days on end, nevermind three hours.
Re:complete BS by OnlySlightly · 2008-05-16 06:04 · Score: 1

They aren't missing the point. You are. There's only so much information you can pack into a 'star rating'

Movie Critics are rating movies by how good they are on a multitude of levels. A 4 star movie has to be entertaining, interesting, thought provoking, well written, well directed, well acted, etc, etc, etc. Well said. I find myself having this problem when doing something as simple as rating my Netflix movies. There are some movies that are extremely well executed, and an excellent example of the genre, but it doesn't necessarily appeal to me from the entertainment value standpoint. So, how do I rate it? Based on personal taste, or based on the quality of the movie?

I tend to rate based on quality of the movie. This often leads to "interesting" Netflix recommendations, but I like to keep track of those ratings so I can recommend them to other folks who are more interested in those movie genres.
Re:complete BS by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 06:30 · Score: 1

Also, many reviews on his site are written by Jim Emerson, his fellow Chicago Sun-Times writer. He doesn't see as many movies since his cancer surgery, and I have no hope that he'll ever return to Ebert and Roeper At the Movies on TV.
Re:complete BS by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 06:54 · Score: 1

Unfortunately I don't trust Ebert's tastes anymore. He used to be, by far, my favorite movie reviewer, and I read his columns with great enjoyment. I didn't always agree, but more often-than-not I did.

And then came his cancer and various treatments and convalescence. After a long break he returned to reviewing movies, but I noticed a change. He suddenly seemed a lot easier on bad or mediocre movies, and the four-star reviews were given out like candy. I don't agree with his assertion that late 2007 was simply an incredible time for movies, I really feel that something has changed with him and he's more generous than he used to be, or even should be as a movie reviewer. I think the point that really hit home for me was when he gave the Golden Compass and proclaimed it the best fantasy film in ages, better than Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etcetc. It is clearly a film with good, albeit wasted potential, one that starts strong and contains a very very poor third act. Given all the Ebert columns I've read over the years, I am convinced that had the Golden Compass come out three years ago, it would have gotten a 2 or a 2.5 (out of four) star review. Now, if Ebert likes a movie, I still have no idea if it's good or if I'll like it.
Re:complete BS by maxume · 2008-05-16 06:54 · Score: 1

Yeah I noticed that when I was looking for Beerfest. I don't really check his reviews that often, I mostly just don't bother going to the theater.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:complete BS by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 06:56 · Score: 1

Sorry, typo. "was when he gave the Golden Compass and proclaimed it the best fantasy film in ages" should read: "was when he gave the Golden Compass four stars and proclaimed it the best fantasy film in ages."
Re:complete BS by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 06:57 · Score: 1

He's the Paula Abdul of movie reviewers?
Re:complete BS by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 07:03 · Score: 1

There is one thing you aren't considering though: critics tend to treat all movies as if they are from the same genre. You wouldn't compare Half-Baked to The Shawshank Redemption...

Reviewers may disagree with you on that. Roger Ebert explicitly states that the star system is more useful when comparing movies in a certain genre, not across genres. He admits that when he gives, say, Lawrence of Arabia four stars and Scream four stars, those rating cannot be compared because they difference genres and thus the reviews use different criteria. For him, Scream was a four-star horror/thriller movie, but it's had to rate it against other genres.

It's one reason I don't like the Oscar's "Best Movie of the Year" designation because a lot of genres simply aren't allowed to compete.

#4, PG-13.... by weston · 2008-05-15 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

Well, this fits two patterns with the previous movies:

(1) Odd numbers good, even numbers bad
(2) PG good, PG-13 bad

So I suppose now the question is -- how does Crystal Skull compare with the Temple of Doom?

--
Tweet, tweet.

Re:#4, PG-13.... by bsDaemon · 2008-05-15 05:12 · Score: 2, Funny

Well, Temple of Doom sucked hell-a bad. Frankly, I blame it on "short stuff" and trying to be campy.

Putting that Shai LaBuff (spelling) kid in this one is probably what did it in. The success formula for Indiana Jones movies is number of nazis > number of kids. Nazis are exciting and mysterious, kids are just obnoxious and don't belong in an adventure film anyway... except for Goonies.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by holden+caufield · 2008-05-15 05:14 · Score: 1

If memory serves, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" was among the first, if not the biggest among the first of the PG-13 movies released. In other words, claiming "Raiders" was better because it was a "PG"-rated film isn't really a fair comparison. Well, it's not fair for many reasons, but that's just one.

--
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by morgan_greywolf · 2008-05-15 05:22 · Score: 1

Odd numbers good, even numbers bad
Same as the Star Trek movies. I sometimes wonder if there is some underlying cause ... /me dons tinfoil hat.

--
My blog
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Splab · 2008-05-15 05:22 · Score: 1

While I do agree it wasn't on par with the rest of them, calling it hell-a bad isn't fair. Watched it the other day, while the special effects wasn't anything to write home about these days, I do remember back then finding it really cool and convincing - and I still enjoyed watching it.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by morgan_greywolf · 2008-05-15 05:23 · Score: 1

Well, okay, same as the Star Trek movies, only the OPPOSITE. Sorry.

--
My blog
Re:#4, PG-13.... by evilphish_mi · 2008-05-15 05:25 · Score: 1

Short round didn't bug me. But the damn women screaming every 5 seconds did. To me she was that movies Jar-Jar.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:35 · Score: 0

Well, it doesn't have former Spielberg squeeze Kate Capshaw screaming her head off every other scene, or yelling, "OH MY GOD!" every other other scene, so that's a plus in favor of Crystal Skull. On the negative side, Harrison Ford is a geezer.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Cowclops · 2008-05-15 05:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Temple of Doom is the reason PG-13 was created. There was no PG-13 rating at the time but the heart-ripping-out sequence was just a bit too gory for the PG rating so somebody yelled THINK OF THE CHILDREN and thus PG-13 was created. Which means Temple of Doom itself is, in fact, PG.

Last Crusade is PG-13.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Darfeld · 2008-05-15 05:38 · Score: 1

Jar Jar is just the two mixed in one...

--
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Mr.+Beatdown · 2008-05-15 05:49 · Score: 1

Putting that Shai LaBuff (spelling) kid in this one is probably what did it in. The success formula for Indiana Jones movies is number of nazis > number of kids. Nazis are exciting and mysterious, kids are just obnoxious and don't belong in an adventure film anyway... except for Goonies. So you're saying they should have cast Corey Feldman in the new Indiana Jones?

--
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by somersault · 2008-05-15 05:52 · Score: 2, Funny

Yeah, I don't see why Indy found her attractive, but I guess when you're stuck out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by creepy bald guys painted in blood, you get desperate.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:#4, PG-13.... by somersault · 2008-05-15 05:53 · Score: 1

If we somehow combined the two then we could make all of the movies mediocre!

--
which is totally what she said
Re:#4, PG-13.... by loafula · 2008-05-15 05:57 · Score: 1

In my opinion, Temple of Doom was the best of the three old Indy movies.

--
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
Re:#4, PG-13.... by just_forget_it · 2008-05-15 05:57 · Score: 1

You're telling me The Search for Spock and The Final Frontier were better than Wrath of Khan?
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:40 · Score: 1, Informative

Spielberg was the reason PG-13 was created. Both Gremlins (which he produced) and Temple of Doom ultimately led to the new rating. But I think the seeds were sown back in '75 with Jaws. He barely won a PG rating for it by placating the MPAA with the words "May be too intense for younger children" written beneath the rating. Even then, there was considerable grumbling from parents who had unwittingly ruined the summer beach vacation for their preteens by letting Spielberg traumatize their kids with a PG film that was, for its time, as gory and frightening as any R-rated horror movie. Note that it has since been re-rated PG-13.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by geminidomino · 2008-05-15 06:42 · Score: 1

Well, okay, same as the Star Trek movies, only the OPPOSITE. Sorry. That doesn't hold either... "The Voyage Home"

DO NOT WANT.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by denzacar · 2008-05-15 06:48 · Score: 1

Nah... Short Round was OK. Indy would have ended up a zombie if not for Short Round.
Incidentally, everyone loved the kid as Data in The Goonies next year.

Its the annoying blond the movie could have done without.
I mean... after a asskickin' chick like Marion we get a scream queen diva.
No wonder Indy never mentioned here in other movies.

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Sporkinum · 2008-05-15 06:49 · Score: 2, Informative

If I remember correctly, that screaming women is Mrs. Spielberg.

--
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Re:#4, PG-13.... by morgan_greywolf · 2008-05-15 06:56 · Score: 1

Well, it beats the hell out of "The Final Frontier". The campfire scene was just, well, campy. Great writing from that Shatner fellow, huh?

--
My blog
Re:#4, PG-13.... by maxume · 2008-05-15 07:04 · Score: 1

The dude melting in Raiders is pretty graphic. What was more graphic than that in Last Crusade?

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Norwell+Bob · 2008-05-15 08:45 · Score: 1

Actually, unless I'm mistaken, the first two PG-13 movies were Red Dawn and Lady in Red. TOD's theatrical release was PG, but the home release may have been given the "new" PG-13 rating. But I could be wrong. Too lazy to look, so I'm just going by memory.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 09:31 · Score: 0

Speaking from experience there?
Re:#4, PG-13.... by geekoid · 2008-05-15 10:52 · Score: 1

I thought you were wrong because that was in 1984, then I looked it up and you are correct, and I feel old.

I don't even remember it happening until much later, weird.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:#4, PG-13.... by niktemadur · 2008-05-15 11:18 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure you're right, Red Dawn was the first, and that was in August of 1984, while Temple was May or June of that same year, hence the confusion, due to proximity.

--
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Re:#4, PG-13.... by niktemadur · 2008-05-15 11:21 · Score: 1

Row, row, row your boat,
Gently down the stream,
Merrily merrily merrily merrily,
Life is but a dream.

Aaaaaaargh!

--
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Re:#4, PG-13.... by phaunt · 2008-05-15 11:47 · Score: 1

I got a pretty good scare out of Donovan's aging to death.

He chose... poorly.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by lightversusdark · 2008-05-15 12:26 · Score: 1

Interesting.
In the UK it was the first Keaton/Burton Batman film that led to the creation of our "12" rating. This was replaced for cinemas screenings by the "12A" (accompanied/advisory) rating, introduced for The Bourne Identity after cinemas flouted the law under pressure from the industry (sound familiar?) when launching the first Spiderman movie.
Crystal Skull is 12A rated. All the previous Indiana Jones films have been classified PG, although Temple Of Doom was subjected to some editing to pass the censors.

--
"There is nothing nice about Steve Jobs and nothing evil about Bill Gates." - Chuck Peddle
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Norwell+Bob · 2008-05-15 13:49 · Score: 1

Well, as it turns out, this thread got me in the mood to watch ToD with my sons tonight... and my DVD is also rated PG. I also feel old, so you're not alone. :^|
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 10:15 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, that screaming women is Mrs. Spielberg.

True, though her audition for Temple of Doom is where they first met.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 10:17 · Score: 1

Another Spielburg movie which was a big impetus for creating PG-13: Poltergeist.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 10:23 · Score: 1

That doesn't hold either... "The Voyage Home"

A lot of people will disagree with you about it. I personally feel it was one of the better entries in the series, and it was one of the few mainstream crossover entries. Star Trek had a very good run of the even-numbered movies until the very last one:
II. Wrath of Khan: Doesn't get better than this.
IV. The Voyage Home: More lighthearted, crew comradery at its best.
VI. The Undiscovered Country: Another good action/adventure.
VIII. First Contact: By far the best movie (I would say the only good movie) featuring the TNG crew.
X. Nemesis: BLEEEEUURURRRRGG.
Re:#4, PG-13.... by FrancoMcNeil · 2008-05-16 17:13 · Score: 1

Temple of Doom is the reason PG-13 was created... No, "Gremlins" was the reason PG-13 was created.

Wait for years and years? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:08 · Score: 0

Star Wars was one thing. Indiana Jones was another. Nowhere near as epic.

Nothing compares to original Anything by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

Any new media can never compare to the beloved originals. Stuff from the past grows mythical in its goodness inside our aging minds, and the current stuff doesn't have a chance.

Re:Nothing compares to original Anything by Guppy06 · 2008-05-15 05:52 · Score: 1

"Any new media can never compare to the beloved originals."

Yeah, nothing can improve on the original Rai--HOLY SHIT, SEAN FUCKING CONNERY!!!11!!11!!ONE
Re:Nothing compares to original Anything by somersault · 2008-05-15 06:01 · Score: 1

I think plenty of Battlestar Galactica fans would disagree. Then there's Batman, Spiderman, Iron Man.. just because Star Wars was bad doesn't mean any new stuff will be bad. It does mean that Indiana Jones could be bad though, as Lucas seems to be an idiot. But Steven Spielberg is back on board too so that gives it a chance :)

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Nothing compares to original Anything by niktemadur · 2008-05-15 11:39 · Score: 1

Then there's the older stuff that one discovers in later years, blowing most of the newer stuff out of the water:

- Excalibur (1981) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082348/
- Get Carter (1971) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067128/
- Le Samourai (1968) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062229/
- The Wicker Man (1973) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070917/
- The Day Of The Jackal (1973) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069947/
- Performance (1971) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066214/

And for popcorn, violent rock n' roll sci-fi action, there's
- The Hidden (1987) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093185/

The list can go on and on, it is long and distinguished.

--
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Re:Nothing compares to original Anything by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 21:06 · Score: 1

I have the "Cylon head" boxed set of the original Galactica series, but let's not kid anyone here - it's because I enjoyed the series as a kid, and looking at it now I can find all kinds of things that just are just truly awful about it. I *loved* the original series when I was a kid, but the new series eclipses it in pretty much every way possible.

Too bad the Star Wars prequels didn't turn out the same way.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:Nothing compares to original Anything by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 21:09 · Score: 1

"Excalibur" rocks for sure, but I still have trouble getting past the aluminum armor that everyone seems to be wearing.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

I doubt that.. by Cinnamon+Whirl · 2008-05-15 05:09 · Score: 3, Funny

..the reviewer is the master of any Shoguns either. So I'm not too worried.

Re:I doubt that.. by LynnwoodRooster · 2008-05-15 05:17 · Score: 1

Now you've done it! Keep a lookout for his friends.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:I doubt that.. by Minwee · 2008-05-15 08:48 · Score: 1

But is he master of his domain?
I'll go ask the fishermen.

star wars previews by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:10 · Score: 2, Funny

i remember seeing the episode 1 teaser preview for the first time and thought OMG yes! this is gonna be sweet. as we all know hindsight is 20/20.

do you like darth vader?
oh god yes! i love darth vader!
well in the first one you get to see him as a little kid.
is he evil like damien?
no he's just a little kid then he leaves his mom and gets sad.

do you like bobba fett?
hell yeah i like bobba fett.
well in the second movie you get to see him as a little kid.
is he like a badass bounty hunter in training?
no, his died dies and he gets sad.

Re:star wars previews by Guppy06 · 2008-05-15 05:55 · Score: 1

"he leaves his mom and gets sad."
"his (dad) dies and he gets sad."

So... Lucas remade it into Emo Wars? Vader is dressed in black to match the darkness in his soul? When he had his helmet off and chilling in his chamber in "Empire..." he was busy blogging?
Re:star wars previews by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:11 · Score: 1, Funny

So... Lucas remade it into Emo Wars? Vader is dressed in black to match the darkness in his soul? When he had his helmet off and chilling in his chamber in "Empire..." he was busy blogging? No he wasn't blogging.
He was redoing his mascara and eyeliner.
Re:star wars previews by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:22 · Score: 0

Star Wars was a reasonably special case. The trailer could have been a black screen with the star wars theme music, the star wars logo appears and receeds back, then some scrolling text appears starting "Episode I".

Just that would have a bunch of people thinking "OMG yes!" (well not any more, but before they saw the film...)

Superman and Indiana Jones probably both fall into that case...
Re:star wars previews by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:46 · Score: 0

Leave Darth Vader alooone!!!
Re:star wars previews by geminidomino · 2008-05-15 06:50 · Score: 1

That explains the black suit. The whole fire-planet bit was revisionist history...

The real story is that it's really stupid to be a cutter with your lightsaber...
Re:star wars previews by FishWithAHammer · 2008-05-15 06:59 · Score: 1

When he had his helmet off and chilling in his chamber in "Empire..." he was busy blogging? Yup.

--
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Re:star wars previews by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 18:06 · Score: 0

I dunno, I'm still waiting for the scenes where Palpatine turned Vader to the 'dark side' using black leather and who knows what else, maybe leading to having Vader call him daddy :D

Of course it will be true... by amstrad · 2008-05-15 05:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

Business decisions do not good art make....

If it makes money, the studio will do it. This movie will make money. If you want this nonsense to stop, we need to get people to stop going to see them. I pretty much flat out refuse to see anything with less than a 50% on the tomato meter (in the theater, I'll probably watch it when it comes on TNT).

Re:Of course it will be true... by Annorax · 2008-05-23 00:17 · Score: 1

This makes about as much sense as the chain letter emails that darken the internet that tell everyone not to buy gasoline on a certain day in order to "send a message" to the petroleum companies.

As a man who... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · 2008-05-15 05:12 · Score: 3, Funny

As a man who finds himself occasionally yelling out "INDY!!" in imitation of John Rhys-Davies, all I have to say is...

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Re:As a man who... by jollyreaper · 2008-05-15 06:17 · Score: 3, Funny

As a man who finds himself occasionally yelling out "INDY!!" in imitation of John Rhys-Davies, all I have to say is...

NOOOOOOOOOO!!! You fail.

Your choices should have been:

(a) Do not want!!!!!

or

(b) Sequels, why did it have to be sequels?

or honorable mention:

(c) I have had it with these motherfucking sequels to these motherfucking classics!

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Re:As a man who... by DwightSchrute · 2008-05-15 06:22 · Score: 1

As a man who finds himself occasionally yelling out "INDY!!" in imitation of John Rhys-Davies, all I have to say is... NONONONONONO!!! Since this is a Shia LaBeouf movie :)
Re:As a man who... by InvisblePinkUnicorn · 2008-05-15 06:23 · Score: 1

That would only be true if my sense of humor was limited to repeating the same random idiotic lines over and over again. Fortunately it is not, so those lines did not even come to mind.
Re:As a man who... by Bombria · 2008-05-15 07:07 · Score: 1

As a man who finds himself occasionally yelling out "INDY!!"... You call him Dr. Jones, doll!
Re:As a man who... by Minwee · 2008-05-15 08:50 · Score: 1

You're missing the obvious line.
"It is a sequel. Very dangerous.
"You go first."
Re:As a man who... by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-15 10:21 · Score: 1

Well if "NOOOOOOO!" wasn't a reference to the end of Ep. III, then the tiny bit of humor created by repetition of idiotic lines is gone, leaving nothing. Hm.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:As a man who... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 13:09 · Score: 0

Better than yelling "INDY!!" in imitation of that stupid kid... Short Round, was it?

Seeing that brat whining and screaming in the movie's trailer ensured that I would never, ever, in a million years, go see the actual film. And I never did, not on TV or DVD either.

For me, Indiana Jones began and ended with the first film and that's where it will always stay.

The first Indy film was one of my happiest movie memories; one of the first times I was allowed to go to the movies without a parent in tow. All good stuff. I see no reason to taint those memories with the brat movie or this new one.
Re:As a man who... by lord+merlin · 2008-05-15 16:15 · Score: 1

Critics! I hate those guys!
(Upon hearing a bad review) It happens to me all he time.
[through his teeth] It tells me, that goose-stepping morons like yourself should try *watching* movies instead of *reviewing* them!
[Grail Knight to Critic] He chose....poorly.

Hold up by ilovegeorgebush · 2008-05-15 05:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

The reason these films are so bad is because people hype them up in their minds for years. Granted, The Phantom Menace was pretty poor, but it's largely to do with the excessive expectations of people and their over-hyped ideals.

Who listens to critics, anyway?

--
ilovegeorgebush

Re:Hold up by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:26 · Score: 0

They aren't bad because people expect them to be good. They aren't bad because critics say they are bad (or good, or whatever).

No, the real reason these films (Indy, Starwars) are so bad is that... THEY REALLY ARE BAD!

Simple as that.
Re:Hold up by ilovegeorgebush · 2008-05-15 05:51 · Score: 1

I'm both a cynic and an optomist ;p

--
ilovegeorgebush
Re:Hold up by MightyYar · 2008-05-15 05:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Phantom Menace is poor because Lucas valued the marketability and technical impressiveness of Jar Jar Binks more than the film itself. The ridiculous Anakan character didn't help. The fan-edited "The Phantom Edit" is actually not a bad film.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Hold up by r_jensen11 · 2008-05-15 06:47 · Score: 1

The ridiculous Anakan character didn't help. I could never figure out if the Anakin character was supposed to be that emotionless, or if the actor was just that bad.... I'm banking on the actor being that bad, since nobody can be emotionless wrt Natalie....
Re:Hold up by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:57 · Score: 0

The Phantom Menace was pretty poor, but it's largely to do with the excessive expectations of people and their over-hyped ideals. Bullshit, the Phantom Menace was utter tripe... If it were not called Star Wars there would be no episode #2, #3, etc, it was so bad that if it were not for seeing how it bridged to the good Star Wars trilogy no one would have gone to see 2 or 3.
Re:Hold up by StormReaver · 2008-05-15 08:15 · Score: 2, Funny

"The Phantom Menace was pretty poor, but it's largely to do with the excessive expectations of people and their over-hyped ideals."

No, The Phantom Menace sucked on it's own merits (yes, that's a double, maybe triple, entendre).
Re:Hold up by trytoguess · 2008-05-15 09:05 · Score: 1

I believe "Lord of the Rings" is a good counter argument. That also had a crapload of hype, but how many people truly HATED them?

I always liked glancing at rottentomatoes to get a sense of what people/critics were thinking and whether or not I'd agree with them.
Re:Hold up by jsebrech · 2008-05-15 09:35 · Score: 1

The reason these films are so bad is because people hype them up in their minds for years.

I wonder sometimes how people would rate these movies if they somehow could forget they had ever seen them and would be able to turn a fresh eye to them.

For example, the original Star Wars is dull, and has a lot of bad acting. The only movie in the entire Star Wars saga that is truly, objectively, a good movie is Empire. IMHO ofcourse.
Re:Hold up by corbettw · 2008-05-15 09:44 · Score: 1

Are you saying the kid was petrified around Natalie Portman?

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Hold up by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-15 10:14 · Score: 1

Well I'm not going to defend his acting ability, but even Natalie Portman gave bad performances in those movies, and I know she can act. I blame bad directing.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Hold up by niktemadur · 2008-05-15 11:53 · Score: 1

Watch the re-edit again, with the audio commentary on. It's a great insight into how a story should be told on film, as well as an accurate critique of George Lucas breaking most of the rules that he himself publicly swore by, back in the Original Trilogy days.

Case in point, on several occasions The Phantom Menace repeats itself three times - "Let's split up and meet back up on the surface", then they proceed to split up and meet back up on the surface, then the Federation guys say "They probably split up and met back up on the surface". Was that last sentence tedious reading? Well that's what you saw on film! And made it drag on much longer than it should, or at least left out room for character development and/or subplots that could have given us a broader view of the Star Wars universe.

Then there's the gratuitous Jar Jar slapstick, always happening in the background, distracting from the story trying to be told and advanced.

There are many more examples. The re-edit was a great piece of work on several levels.

--
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Re:Hold up by dcam · 2008-05-15 12:57 · Score: 1

I haven't seen phantom menace. I didn't see attack of the clones. I did see the third one (whatever it is called), that is supposed to be the best of the 3 new ones.

That was crap because:
- The script sucked
- The characters were wooden and unconvincing. Given that some of the actors are actually good actors (Ewan McGregor & Natalie Portman). That suggests poor direction

--
meh
Re:Hold up by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 21:24 · Score: 1

I wonder sometimes how people would rate these movies if they somehow could forget they had ever seen them and would be able to turn a fresh eye to them.

Most fans of the original "Battlestar Galactica" agree that the new series is *far* superior, even after the initial grumbling about the sweeping changes such as Starbuck and Boomer being women when the rumors first started going around. Nostalgia doesn't have to be the only factor that determines whether or not someone can judge a new work on its own merits - I believe the scathing judgement passed down on the Star Wars prequels is due to them simply not being good movies rather than a general sentiment of, "it's messing with my childhood, so it must suck!"

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

Not a bit afraid by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:15 · Score: 0

It's directed by Steven Spielberg for christsake! Not a chance in hell of it being anything less then good.

Re:Not a bit afraid by lilfields · 2008-05-15 05:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

I back this poster, as cowardice as he/she is...Spielberg has hardly ever made a film that was just completely awful...A.I. was kind of weird, but it was pretty good. Anyhow, I can't think of a single Spielberg film I didn't get some enjoyment from, so I doubt Indiana Jones 4 will be any different
Re:Not a bit afraid by cbart387 · 2008-05-15 06:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

A.I. was kind of weird, but it was pretty good. Just as a little tidbit, Kubrick worked on A.I. before Spielberg and it wasn't until Kubrick died that Spielberg actually became involved. I'd like to believe that the weirdness came from Kubrick. :)

--
Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.
Re:Not a bit afraid by freedumb2000 · 2008-05-15 07:18 · Score: 1

Funny, that fact alone makes me come to the completely opposite conclusion.
Re:Not a bit afraid by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:30 · Score: 0

A.I was awful, you could almost see the sticky tape between the sections Kubrick had a hand in and the rest of the film.

Basically, any Steven Spielberg film is about how much he hates his Dad and when confronted with a film about something else, he makes it into a film about his Dad.
Re:Not a bit afraid by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 10:13 · Score: 0

Have you seen 1941 or Always? He directed both of those, and they were both crap.
Re:Not a bit afraid by immcintosh · 2008-05-15 10:47 · Score: 1

I have to admit that A.I. is one of the few movies I've ever actually fallen asleep during. I don't really remember whether I was really tired or whether I found it boring at the time, but my pillow (read: girlfriend) tells me I missed the best parts at the end. Oh well.
Re:Not a bit afraid by dcam · 2008-05-15 13:14 · Score: 1

.A.I. was kind of weird, but it was pretty good....

Wash your mouth out. I paid to see that movie and that is $12 and 2 hours I am a never getting back.

--
meh
Re:Not a bit afraid by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 13:47 · Score: 0

I back this poster, as cowardice as he/she is...Spielberg has hardly ever made a film that was just completely awful...A.I. was kind of weird, but it was pretty good. Anyhow, I can't think of a single Spielberg film I didn't get some enjoyment from, so I doubt Indiana Jones 4 will be any different Try watching Hook while tied to a chair. It's enough to make Peter Pan into a disillusioned middle aged alcoholic. If you included produced by JP3 is pretty embarrassing. The actors seemed as confused as the script. He's had quite a few that were yawn worthy but given the volume of films that's not too shocking. He's usually a sure thing for making money but Hook tanked and Always laid there even though there were redeeming parts.
Re:Not a bit afraid by Dripdry · 2008-05-16 04:01 · Score: 1

Yeah, but you're not taking into account the Lucas Factor. As long as Spielberg reigned him in (ie kept him on a steady IV drip of valium the whole time) I think there's hope.

--
-

The streak continues. by UnknowingFool · 2008-05-15 05:15 · Score: 5, Funny

So far this has been the pattern:

1st film: Groundbreaking
2nd film: Great
3rd film: Ok
4th film: WTF was everyone thinking?

So help me if one character utters something like "Me-sa gonna get the skull, Indy?", I'm going to have kill myself right there in the theater. Maybe I'll humanley spare some fellow movie patrons by taking them out first. :P

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

Re:The streak continues. by Osurak · 2008-05-15 05:19 · Score: 1

1st film: Groundbreaking 2nd film: Great 3rd film: Ok 4th film: WTF was everyone thinking?
Counterargument: Rocky IV.

Although, in this case, Rocky V was the stinker.
Re:The streak continues. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:22 · Score: 0

Uhhh, temple of doom wasnt great. It was good. And it also had its jar jar binks in the name of Short Round. Better character, similar idea, I think. Im still gonna see Indy #4, I dont care. I also happen to like the 3rd movie, whateve anyone else thinks.
Re:The streak continues. by geekoid · 2008-05-15 05:24 · Score: 0

the 2nd one was great? g'ah.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:The streak continues. by morgan_greywolf · 2008-05-15 05:28 · Score: 2, Funny

This just in ... from the original script:

(Finale Scene: In the cave. Indiana Jones and company are surrounded by villains while the cave is collapsing.)

Jones (fighting off villains): HEY! Don't just stand there, DO SOMETHING!!!
Binks: Meesa gonna get the skull, Indy!!!

--
My blog
Re:The streak continues. by k_187 · 2008-05-15 05:32 · Score: 1

I think he was comparing it to Lucas' other trilogy that got updated. Which doesn't count because Empire was better than New Hope, but Temple of Doom was not better than raiders of the lost ark.

--
11 was a racehorse
12 was 12
1111 Race
12112
Re:The streak continues. by Darfeld · 2008-05-15 05:51 · Score: 1

I would aclaim you for what you say, to bad your an anonymous coward.

And I will wait until I saw the film, I won't rely on even general agreement to choose if I like it or not.

--
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
Re:The streak continues. by Usekh · 2008-05-15 06:29 · Score: 1

Maybe I'll humanley spare some fellow movie patrons by taking them out first. :P

God bless you kind sir!
Re:The streak continues. by Blakey+Rat · 2008-05-15 08:17 · Score: 1

That pattern fits Star Wars pretty well.

For Aliens, it's more like:

1: Great
2: Better
3: WTF!!
4: Passable
5: Just pretend it doesn't exist.

For Godzilla movies it's kind of like:

1) Groundbreaking
2) Good
3) What's going on?
4) The hell!?
5) WTF!
6) Is he actually fighting SMOG!? The evil monster is SMOG?!
etc.

--
Comment of the year
Re:The streak continues. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 09:53 · Score: 0

I think IJ already broke the pattern, the first was just good, the second was absolutely horrible, the third was great, by far the best of the three, I will reserve judgment on 4.
Re:The streak continues. by sootman · 2008-05-15 14:10 · Score: 1

I'm a big maker-of-lists and someday I'll make a list of trilogies (and more-ogies) and see how they relate. While many movies follow the slide downward (like the Lethal Weapon series, though I never personally saw #4), I felt the second Indy wasn't that good and the third was great, maybe even better than the first. For Die Hard, It was Great, Very Good, Total Crap, and Very Good.

Overall, movie series are probably evenly split between Great, So-So, and Bad; and Great, Bad, Good. Then there's also Great, Pretend It Didn't Happen, Pretend It Didn't Happen, like The Matrix. :-)

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:The streak continues. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 17:14 · Score: 0

2nd film: Temple of Doom = Great?
Re:The streak continues. by bigmouth_strikes · 2008-05-15 18:50 · Score: 1

Well they say that you can find everything on the Internets, and this proves it: never, ever, ever did I expect to find a person that would call the Temple of Doom trainwreck "Great"...

--
Oh, I can't help quoting you because everything that you said rings true

Aliens. by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:16 · Score: 1, Funny

Movies about aliens just ain't that popular anymore...

Well.... by Burnhard · 2008-05-15 05:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

I must be the only one who didn't think the first prequel star-wars movie was awful. I thought it was well put together and entertaining. I suppose those who did were expecting something genre defining and ground-breaking. You can't do that twice. The same goes for the Indiana movies.

Re:Well.... by jo7hs2 · 2008-05-15 05:25 · Score: 1

If you subtract the Jar-Jar Binks crap, and deleted some of the kid's dialog, it certainly would be better than either of the two movies that followed it. It isn't that it was awful, I my mind the problem was that it was even more childish than the originals. The originals were at the teenage level, whereas the first prequel was at the Kindergarten level. Hey, at least the kid who played Skywalker was a better actor than the teenage version...
Re:Well.... by Splab · 2008-05-15 05:27 · Score: 1

depends, if we talk about it compared to the original movies, the first prequel sucked and I wanted to kill myself - however, if we are considering the movie as it self without comparing it to the stories to follow it, it was entertaining, had some nice fights and "car" chases. The problem is I went to see the first part of the star wars saga and was seriously let down.
Re:Well.... by Lord_Frederick · 2008-05-15 05:28 · Score: 4, Informative

There just isn't any excuse for Jar-Jar.
Re:Well.... by Wylfing · 2008-05-15 05:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'm foregoing modding you up to reply. I completely agree with you. Although I really wish some things had been done differently for Phantom Menace, I found the movie quite enjoyable, and it's the film I like best among the three prequels.

Veering off-topic: the things I wish had been different include having Obi-Wan first meet Anakin as a young adult hot-shot pilot during the Clone Wars (c.f. A New Hope, "When I met your father..."), never revealing the origins of C-3PO and R2-D2 nor revealing why they are always together, and an expanded/more intelligent role for Darth Maul (we never needed to see Sidious during that movie, Maul was all the villain we needed, just like we only needed Dooku in the 2nd movie -- actually both Maul and Dooku are FAR more interesting characters than Sidious and should have featured large in all 3 movies).
(At this point you probably wish I had modded you instead. I'm sorry!)

--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Re:Well.... by onkelonkel · 2008-05-15 05:37 · Score: 1

I almost agree. I saw "Phantom Menace" first in the theater and there was enough whiz bang special effects to keep me entertained. I figured "not as good as the first three, but more or less ok"

Then I saw it at home on a small bedroom tv. No special effects to distract me this time. Instead I got to notice the bad acting, wretched, disjointed plot full of holes, achingly awful dialog and ridiculous scenes crammed in because they were "kewl" (pod race, flight through planet, etc). This time I thought "giant mountain of suck"

--
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Re:Well.... by Burnhard · 2008-05-15 05:43 · Score: 1

Fair enough onkel. Sometimes you can't suspend your disbelief and then you do notice all those things.
Re:Well.... by jollyreaper · 2008-05-15 06:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Veering off-topic: the things I wish had been different include having Obi-Wan first meet Anakin as a young adult hot-shot pilot during the Clone Wars (c.f. A New Hope, "When I met your father..."), never revealing the origins of C-3PO and R2-D2 nor revealing why they are always together, and an expanded/more intelligent role for Darth Maul (we never needed to see Sidious during that movie, Maul was all the villain we needed, just like we only needed Dooku in the 2nd movie -- actually both Maul and Dooku are FAR more interesting characters than Sidious and should have featured large in all 3 movies). The other point is that there's absolutely no way to view Star Wars in order without ruining all of the surprises.

Aside from the fact that we, the fans, know Anakin = Vader, what should have been done is have Anakin turn to the Dark Side, Kenobi fights the duel with him and he's left for dead. He should be left for dead in such a fashion that we can all assume he's dead and gone. Then when Palpatine is moving openly, his new lieutenant is 6'5" of scary black menace, this Vader dude. We are left to assume he'd been in the wings all the while but, being the titanic cloud of scary-ass doom that he is, Palpy couldn't have afforded to have him out in the open so easily. All we should have seen of Vader is leading the Jedi slaughter in III. Then we see IV and can assume that Kenobi's explanation of Anakin's seduction to the Dark Side is selectively edited. Kenobi doesn't know who the true Dark Side master was, assumes that there's Palpy, Vader, maybe a few others, knows Vader lead the slaughter of the Jedi and that Anakin turned at some point and it was probably through contact with the Sith, however many there actually were. While it was Kenobi who killed Anakin (or so he thought), Anakin was sent on that path by the Sith so it was convenient to say that Vader seduced and killed Anakin. So through all this, the big reveal at the end of V becomes so shocking. Anakin ain't dead? He's Vader? Oh, shit!

Reading back over that, it does seem overly convoluted but that's the corner Lucas wrote himself into with the constantly morphing background of the original trilogy.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Re:Well.... by somersault · 2008-05-15 06:32 · Score: 1

Stupid things like C3PO belonging to Anakin just spoiled it though. It was totally unecessary. They were going too much for trying to link everything together or to 'explain' everything in the other movies, even half-hearted Star Wars fans like me already knew how Darth ended up wearing his life support machine and such. Oh and the 'romance' dialogs in the 2nd or 3rd movie was terrible.. Lucas by himself is awful, he needs someone like Spielberg to keep things interesting.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:Well.... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2008-05-15 06:35 · Score: 1

I suppose those who did were expecting something genre defining and ground-breaking. No, I wasn't, for the very reason you described. However, I did expect something at least a bit more interesting than "kid with medical scans that say he's special accidentally saves a planet from a trade blockade led by aliens that would have been criticized in a Godzilla movie for being unconvincing." You don't need to hold the prequels up to really good movies to see how terrible they were.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:42 · Score: 0

I found the movie quite enjoyable, and it's the film I like best among the three prequels.

After seeing the train wreck of "Phantom" I couldn't bring myself to watch the other two, despite hearing that one or the other is better. Thank you for giving me just a tiny bit more resolve in my beliefs, although the experience of "PM" and clips of a CGI Yoda somersaulting around were probably more than enough to keep me away from the prequels forever.
Re:Well.... by grahamd0 · 2008-05-15 06:45 · Score: 1

If you ignore Jar-Jar and midichlorians, it was the best of the prequel trilogy.
(NOTE: Revenge of the Sith was the most *awesome* of them, but it wasn't as good a movie as the first one. The second one really has no redeeming value.)
Re:Well.... by asylum_street_blues · 2008-05-15 07:15 · Score: 1

A true indication of the pathetic eye-candy-only nature of those films for me was having my kids watch them in the back of my van so that all I could do was listen to the dialog and sound effects. The same experience with, say, "Shrek" or "Monsters, Inc." is MUCH less painful.

--
Just because the universe could be a simulation doesn't mean that we're the point of the simulation.
Re:Well.... by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2008-05-15 07:16 · Score: 1

I don't mind it, and think the second film is far worse. There's at least 3 "WTF?" moments in it and Hayden whatisname is bloody awful.
Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:20 · Score: 0

Because there is for Ewoks? Let's be honest, the worst Star Wars movie was Return of the Jedi.
Re:Well.... by dotancohen · 2008-05-15 08:26 · Score: 1

If you subtract the Jar-Jar Binks crap, and deleted some of the kid's dialog, it certainly would be better than either of the two movies that followed it. Someone did that. Google "The Phanom Edit".

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:Well.... by Jesus_666 · 2008-05-15 09:46 · Score: 1

A fair bit of that is that everyone was super excited about them and they completely failed to do any of the things people expected.

Let me go on a tangent for a bit. There is a turn-based tactics game for the original Playstation, Final Fantasy Tactics. I like it, mostly for two reasons: The game's story is dark and gritty, full of backstabbing and corruption. And if you accept that magic exists it's also entirely believable, especially for a Final Fantasy game. It feels like you're playing through a particularly dark Shakespearean play.
Also, the game's combat system forces you to think in advance, as (for example) magic users have to charge for a while before casting a spell, leaving them completely vulnerable - and as most spells have an area of effect, if you want to zap someone and he uses the charge time to move right next to the caster you end up with a fried caster. The result was a game that, unlike most other Final Fantasy games, very much appealed to me.

A few years later Final Fantasy Tactics Advance for the GBA came out. While most people seem to think it's a perfectly agreeable GBA game I think it's awful. The dark, gritty story is replaced with a little boy who finds a magical book that takes him to a candy-colored wonderland where he immediately becomes a mercenary. Uh-huh. And they dumbed down the combat so even the most powerful spells have no charge time. But because things got too easy, they added a referee who randomly declares items or skills you may not use during combat.

To me, FFTA is an insult. To its predecessor and probably also to me as a gamer. Not because it doesn't work as a game; it does, more or less. But because it doesn't work as a worthy successor to FFT. It completely ignores all the things that made the first part great and instead goes into the other direction at full speed. Where the first part made sense the second part is random and arbitrary. Where the first part was geared towards adults the second one is a coloring book.

The Shadow Menace and its two sequels did exactly that: They delivered exactly what people didn't want in a way they didn't like. All the big questions people had after Return of the Jedi are answered within five minutes and with as little suspense as possible. An annoying in-your-face comic relief character makes one feel as if the movie targets a lower age bracket (the early twenties being too old already). The marvel of the force gets destroyed in favor of technobabel, something Star Wars doesn't really thrive on.

The prequels gave people things they didn't want (Backstroke reference semi-intended). Their merit as movies aside, as successors to the original trilogy they don't quite hold up - and as prequels they completely fall flat because much of the suspense of the original trilogy relies on mysteries that are solved in the first three movies.

Of course it doesn't help that George Lucas isn't exactly the best writer out there.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Re:Well.... by corbettw · 2008-05-15 09:52 · Score: 1

Nah, wouldn't have worked. Obi Wan knew who Vader really was. He implied that with the I-don't-want-to-answer-these-questions look in the first one, and said it openly in the third.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:Well.... by OzRoy · 2008-05-15 10:26 · Score: 1

This how I think things should have gone down in the prequels. I haven't really thought things through properly but anyway here goes.

There needed to be two Sith lords in this, Palpatine and another (Palpatine's master?)

These two Sith lords need to go to war against each other with Palpatine tricking the Senate and the Jedis into fighting for him. Obviously this is the clone wars.

Somehow Obi Wan needs to be going somewhere escorted by some other pilots. One of these is Anakin a young teenager who possibly lied about his age to get in. The two of them need to be stranded on a planet together where Obi Wan discoveres his talent and starts training him. This combined with the Jedi being slaughtered in the Clone Wars means Anakin is not properly trained and eventually turns to the dark side lusting after more power.

There needs to be some artifact thingy which contains long lost knowledge about how to become a ghost after you die. The other Sith Lord needs to find it and attempt to master it. Yoda and the Sith Lord have it out on that swampy planet with Yoda winning but being stranded. The other Sith, not having properly mastered it, maybe he can't because he is too angry blah blah, becomes that area that is strong in the dark side that Yoda tests Luke with.

There needed to be a greater focus on the non-Jedi characters. Lets face it, the Jedis are cool with all the powers etc, but quite boring otherwise and have a rod up their arse.

Oh well, can always dream.
Re:Well.... by YodaYid · 2008-05-15 15:27 · Score: 1

The point is, the *audience* would not have known that Vader was Anakin if Lucas had written Ep 3 differently, which would have made for a more interesting experience for people watching it 1-6.
Re:Well.... by mr_matticus · 2008-05-15 16:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

The only problem is that the "audience" has known who Darth Vader is for about 30 years. Even people who have never seen the films know the "Luke, I am your father!" line from parodies and other pop culture sources.

It's not a secret, and once the first trilogy was out of the bag, it will never BE a secret ever again.

For people in the future who watch the films in order, they will know the truth. The implications of Obi-wan's lies in Ep. IV will strike a deeper chord with the audience, knowing the back story. The reveal in Ep. V will still have its effect on the characters and the story will still unfold. Viewers will relate to the dual impact of finding out this evil guy who has tried to kill you and your friends is your father, and the father-figure Jedi legend lied to you. These are the tradeoffs of an omniscient audience.

If Star Wars hadn't become a pop culture icon, then maybe a more ambiguous Episode III would have been called for.
Re:Well.... by GodfatherofSoul · 2008-05-15 18:51 · Score: 1

Damn glad to see some love for Phantom Menace. Take out Jar Jar, and I call it the best of the three myself (Anakin's fall was too good to beat it out otherwise though). TPM stood on it's own ground, I don't think the acting was that bad (nowhere near as bad as Hans and Natalie together), had the coolest light saber fight at the end, and subtly set up the next two.
I'm not an uber Star Wars geek, so the slight anachronisms didn't bug. I walked out of that movie loving it. I love politics, so the Trade Union machinations and Palpatine's ingenious power grab was icing for me, not drudgery.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 19:30 · Score: 0

"Vader seduced Anakin ..."

Isn't that called masturbation?
Re:Well.... by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 21:42 · Score: 1

Maul was all the villain we needed, just like we only needed Dooku in the 2nd movie

I'd argue that Maul was all the villain we needed throughout all three movies. Obviously Sidious needed to have some kind of subtle presence in the first and second films, but I felt that the Dooku character was pretty much pointless and Christopher Lee was wasted on him. I think it would have made for an awesome scene if Palpatine openly betrayed Maul by offering Anakin the Sith apprenticeship by killing Maul once he'd learned of Palpatine's true identity.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:Well.... by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 21:44 · Score: 1

You mean you didn't totally and unconditionally buy the midichlorians?!?!

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 23:58 · Score: 0

I had had final cut on Revenge of the Sith I would have had the final shot being the one with Vader drawing his first breath.

That ending would have been awwwwsome!

- Peder
Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 00:02 · Score: 0

what should have been done is have Anakin turn to the Dark Side, Kenobi fights the duel with him and he's left for dead. ...Then when Palpatine is moving openly, his new lieutenant is 6'5" of scary black menace, this Vader dude...All we should have seen of Vader is leading the Jedi slaughter in III.

So if the Jedi slaughter doesn't happen until after Kenobi "kills" Anakin, then in what way does Anakin turn to the dark side that is so horrible it makes Kenobi want to kill Anakin (who is like a brother to him)?
Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 04:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Yes, there just isn't any excuse for a comical non-human sidekick to follow the heroes around in a Star Wars movie and talk funny.

bah by lurgyman · 2008-05-15 05:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

The *TRAILER* looked good, so you're going to ignore the opinion of someone who's actually seen it in hopes that a piece of marketing will be a better reflection of what it is? What? "Yeah, the marketing was good, so it gets my $8-$10 for a ticket." On a site that focuses on technical detail, that should ring alarm bells. Who would respect an engineer who went and bought equipment based entirely on marketing hype without reading the specs? That sort of attitude encourages engineering companies to sell shitty products. Why would the same approach bring about a different result applied to the entertainment industry? Grumble..

Re:bah by hansamurai · 2008-05-15 06:47 · Score: 1

The same reason why when I read a review about a certain programming language, platform, or any other technology, I usually like to try it out for myself before I make any final decisions. Though I admit $10 is too much for me to be so carefree about every movie that comes out, I'll spend it on ones that match my criteria and interest. I'm not too concerned about reviews, some of my favorite movies are the Bill and Ted series and the Transporter series.

--
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.

And? by Enahs · 2008-05-15 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

The original three are "dreadful" by critics' standards. They're ALL predictable. Predictable is what made them funny, imho. They're supposed to be SERIALS, for Pete's sake.

The second one is dreadful by MY standards.

--
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.

Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:38 · Score: 0, Troll

You have fucked up standards.
Re:And? by Cheapy · 2008-05-15 06:41 · Score: 2, Funny

Congratulations sir. This post was your 1337th.

--
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Re:And? by dotancohen · 2008-05-15 08:29 · Score: 1

Congratulations sir. This post was your 1337th. How do you know that? Is it a subscriber-only feature?

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:And? by Cheapy · 2008-05-17 13:46 · Score: 1

I saw his low user ID and I checked out his posting history. It said "Viewing 24 of 1337 posts." or something to the effect.

--
Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
Re:And? by dotancohen · 2008-05-17 20:35 · Score: 1

Ah, nice. Thanks.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by ElrondHubbard · 2008-05-15 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Don't buy the media echo-chamber effect, especially when the thing being echoed is a fanboy "review" off AICN. Almost everyone who reads /. already knows if they are going to see the new Indy Jones movie or not (I am), so why bother?

But then again, my favourite Matrix movie was the second one, so what do I know... For what it's worth, Ebert agrees with me.

--
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet

If it's not a success... by ShinySteelRobot · 2008-05-15 05:21 · Score: 4, Funny

...then I'm sure we can look forward to a multitude of Special Editions with various tweaks. Guns will be digitally replaced with walkie talkies, walkie talkies will be replaced with guns, and eventually Shia LaBeouf will be digitally replaced with an character that's more universally loved and admired, such as Jar Jar Binks.

Re:If it's not a success... by Guppy06 · 2008-05-15 05:58 · Score: 1

"then I'm sure we can look forward to a multitude of Special Editions with various tweaks."

The title will be digitally altered to read "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark."

(Seriously, WTF is up with that?)
Re:If it's not a success... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:08 · Score: 0

I was irritated to no end that they edited out the snakes' reflections in Raiders for the DVDs. That is an all-time classic movie blooper, and they removed it.
Re:If it's not a success... by sharkey · 2008-05-15 11:03 · Score: 1

We're here to free Hat!

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by putch · 2008-05-15 05:22 · Score: 5, Interesting

not to mention that the guy is a theater executive and has a vested financial interest in de-hyping this movie before it opens. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/movies/10indy.html?bl&ex=1210564800&en=3ce1b1dc8e8ec160&ei=5087%0A

--
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!

media hype versus reality by circletimessquare · 2008-05-15 05:22 · Score: 3, Informative

media hype:

OMFG there's a negative review of indy 4!

reality:

negative

neutral

neutral

positive

the nyt has the real story: studios are required by law to show movies to exhibitors before they buy films (which is how the party pooper reviewer shogunmaster got to see it), which in today's internet age means that studios (especially control-freak spielberg on this specific issue) are losing the ability to control pre-release media buzz

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Mod parent funny . . . by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:22 · Score: 0

. . . because, obviously he can't be serious!!

no by JeanBaptiste · 2008-05-15 05:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

temple of doom was too over the top but Raiders of the Lost Ark was a damn good movie. the grail one wasn't terrible either.

bear in mind by geekoid · 2008-05-15 05:23 · Score: 1

Since they're are recognizing his age and not ignoring it, it will have a slightly different dynamic.

Plus, this was ONE review, others have been positive.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

How many bunnies? by terrywin · 2008-05-15 05:25 · Score: 1

Until I see how many bunnies are given by Playboy I'll consider this a lopsided review ;-)

Re:How many bunnies? by geekoid · 2008-05-15 10:56 · Score: 1

If it is lopsided, it isn't in playboy~

giggity!

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Modern Cash-In of Classic Film Series "Dreadful"? by morari · 2008-05-15 05:25 · Score: 3, Funny

Well no shit.

--
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune

To be honest ... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:27 · Score: 0

Harrison Ford and Stephen Spielberg are overdue for a stinker. Despite what we like (and don't like) about directors and actors, they don't always make good movies every single time.

Disclaimer: I have not RTFM or watched the flick yet.

Re:To be honest ... by beckerist · 2008-05-15 06:31 · Score: 4, Informative

I read this on AICN earlier this week. If you read the reviews coming in (there are now at least 3) the first seemed to slam the movie. It was supposed to be an executive who saw the movie, and just wasn't impressed. Personally, I felt he was just trying to review it to sway the tide. The next two reviews that came in were both fairly positive. The second said that it was basically "just like the first two, just add 20 years to the characters." The third said "seems hollow, but still true to the Indiana Jones universe."

Basically, I feel that the first review was some guy either pissed off at the studios, pissed at GL or SS, OR, knew that a crapload of people who have been hanging on the edge of their seats for any word of this movie would hear HIS first, and for whatever reason he decided to hate on it.

Personally, I'm going to see it. I am too young to remember the others in the theater, though I have seen every one multiple times, and it just seems like the theater experience is the REASON to see a blockbuster like this.

---my 10 cents
Re:To be honest ... by kaellinn18 · 2008-05-15 16:03 · Score: 1

I was going to write something about how the phrase is "my 2 cents," but then I remembered that there are 10 kinds of people in this world...

--

--------
This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
Re:To be honest ... by Mountaineer1024 · 2008-05-16 13:36 · Score: 1

Nah, he's just allowing for inflation.
US 10c is only worth US 2c from 5 years ago.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by elwinc · 2008-05-15 05:29 · Score: 1

I hate the kind of review that tries to imply "if I [the reviewer] had made this movie, I could have fixed X,Y, and Z." I mean, if s/he's so smart and all, why isn't s/he making movies? I think Harrison Ford brings lots to any movie he makes. It'll take more than one silly 2nd-hand anonymous review to convince me he phoned this one in. For all we know, some other studio planning to release on the same weekend could be playing dirty tricks!

--
--- Often in error; never in doubt!

Old Movie - Krull by Dareth · 2008-05-15 05:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

I had this strange idea that this was one of the greatest movies of all time. Unfortunately, I completely ruined my memory of it by watching it again 15+ years after the original viewing. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085811/

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

Re:Old Movie - Krull by Gouka · 2008-05-15 05:50 · Score: 1

I know exactly what you mean.
Re:Old Movie - Krull by Trogre · 2008-05-15 14:01 · Score: 1

I had similar feelings. I still find it mildly watchable though.

We had no time...

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Old Movie - Krull by initialE · 2008-05-15 14:57 · Score: 1

Yeah watching the Dark Crystal http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083791/ again was kinda like that. It was a fantastic movie... in it's day. Some movies have lasting power, some don't. I wonder what I would feel about Labyrinth about now.

--
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Re:Old Movie - Krull by lusiphur69 · 2008-05-15 16:02 · Score: 1

Kindred spirits.

The first Conan movie, not the second which was trash. Krull. Dark Crystal. Labyrinth. Legend. Loved these movies as a child.

Now..well, let's just say you notice the quirks - like Bowie's super-tight-crotch pants, or how lifeless the aelfs in Dark Crystal look, or how earnest some of the acting is in Krull. Special effects do not age well.

Slagging things off by Rik+Sweeney · 2008-05-15 05:32 · Score: 1

is the "in" thing to do at the moment. Why give something 9 or 10 out of 10 when you can go against the grain, give it a 4 and triple the amount of traffic (and therefore ad hits) to your site?

That said, if it turns out to be The Phantom Menace* of the Indy movies, I think I'll cry.

*On a second watch, I actually think Attack Of The Clones was worse

--
Summation 2

Re:Slagging things off by Jesus_666 · 2008-05-15 09:59 · Score: 1

Actually, a 4 is potentialy still pretty decent. Depending on your frame of reference, a 10 means "everything I could expect from this movie" or "the absolute best the movie industry can conceivably* create at the moment". In the first case a 4 isn't that good, but then again if you follow this kind of scoring scheme you will be considered to have panned something if the score comes out below 8.5. This kind of scoring is usually found in video game magazines.

If you use the other scoring method, a 4 is still quite reasonable and most probably fairly standard. 40% of the best Hollywood can get sounds about right for a decent summer blockbuster. Of course nobody reviews like that because after a while companies will show up and casually note that they're advertising in your magazine/show/whatever, especially since you give their latest work a 9.5 rating, wink, wink. And then you silently adjust your scoring method.

* I know what that word means. I'm not from Sicily.

--
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2008-05-15 05:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Classics by willyhill · 2008-05-15 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

Many of the movies we consider "classics" of the 80s and 90s were panned by critics. Aliens? Check. The second and third Indy flicks? Check. Episode IV and V? Check.

I stopped listening to movie critics a long time ago. I prefer to make up my own mind. And if I have ny doubt whatsoever about a film, I'll just wait for it to come out on DVD and see it for free (basically) by exchanging it at Blockbuster for one of the ones I get in the mail from my eclectic-but-steady movie list (takes time to go through 350 movies...)

--
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.

Re:Classics by amRadioHed · 2008-05-15 05:53 · Score: 1

Alien was the classic. Aliens was just an average action movie, nothing special at all.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:Classics by Spy+der+Mann · 2008-05-15 06:40 · Score: 1

I wasn't old enough to watch Alien. I got to watch Aliens first, and I loved it.
And definitely it wasn't an "average" action movie. It was one of the best action movies ever made.
Re:Classics by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:50 · Score: 0

Aliens was just an average action movie, nothing special at all.

You, sir, are insane.

(or perhaps ma'am. Still insane.)
Re:Classics by grahamd0 · 2008-05-15 06:52 · Score: 1

Aliens was just an average action movie, nothing special at all.
Pop culture, two sequels and the entire video game industry would seem to contradict you.
Re:Classics by onkelonkel · 2008-05-15 06:53 · Score: 1

Alien was a better than average horror movie set in space. Aliens was possibly the best action movie ever made.

--
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Re:Classics by jeremyp · 2008-05-15 08:05 · Score: 1

Alien is one of the best sci fi movies ever made and one of the best horror moves. In some ways it was truly ground breaking. Aliens is the same but with more action, more aliens and more survivors. For that reason, I rate Alien better.

When judging those two films, however, you always have to take into account that without them, Aliens 3 and 4 would never have been made.

The greatest action movie ever made was Die Hard.

--
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Re:Classics by amRadioHed · 2008-05-15 10:38 · Score: 1

All of the same could be said about Alien except it had three sequels, thus it is better.

At least that's what I would say if I though those external factors meant anything regarding the quality of the film itself.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:Classics by grahamd0 · 2008-05-15 11:06 · Score: 1

All of the same could be said about Alien except it had three sequels, thus it is better. At least that's what I would say if I though those external factors meant anything regarding the quality of the film itself.
You can have any opinion you want about the quality of the film. If all you had said was that Alien was the better movie, I would agree.
However, you said:
Aliens was just an average action movie, nothing special at all.
To say that it was "nothing special" is to deny the influence that Aliens, not Alien, had on popular culture. Aliens established the now archetypal "space marine", spawned comics, novels, video games, spinoff movies, classic nerd quotes, etc. Sure, you can trace that all back to Alien, but only through Aliens.
Re:Classics by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 11:18 · Score: 0

Well, Episodes IV and V were in the 70's...
Re:Classics by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 10:29 · Score: 1

I can't rate Alien or Aliens against each other because they're two different genres, two different types of movies but set in the same universe. I consider them to be best of breed in their own genres and I refuse to pit genres against one another.

What the hell? by NeutronCowboy · 2008-05-15 05:32 · Score: 1

The third Indy movie was complete awesomeness. The third SW movie was actually great (I refuse to acknowledge the existence of Ewoks. Sue me). The second GodFather movie was apparently better than the first (never seen either one, speaking from hearsay).

I'd say there isn't much of a pattern, unless you're looking for one.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.

Re:What the hell? by somersault · 2008-05-15 06:21 · Score: 1

I agree that Return of the Jedi was awesome, we recorded it and watched it a zillion times when I was a kid. Why would you have to ignore the Ewoks for it to be good? I used to love the Ewoks cartoon series as a kid too :D

Even now the original Star Wars are good. If they released them on Blu-ray I'd get them straight away. Currently I only have the Special Edition VHS box-set, probably as I was waiting for them to finish making the new ones before getting a DVD box-set.

--
which is totally what she said
Re:What the hell? by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2008-05-15 07:14 · Score: 1

Someone once explained that the point of the ewoks was about the smallest creatures with the least technology defeating a mighty empire.
Ewoks aside, there's a lot to love in ROTJ. The stuff with Jabba is great, the attack "it's a trap!", and all the stuff going on on the death star with the Emperor.
One of my favourite moments in the trilogy is the lightsabre battle between Luke and Vader which is just beautiful.
Re:What the hell? by Scudsucker · 2008-05-15 07:19 · Score: 1

Why would you have to ignore the Ewoks for it to be good? I used to love the Ewoks cartoon series as a kid too :D

Sure, because we were kids at the time. The problem wasn't that the Ewoks were cute. The problem wasn't that the Ewoks diverted the Stormtroopers. The problem was that frikkin teddy bears fighting an entire legion of the Emperors best troops to a standoff was complete BUUUUUULSHIT.

If Lucas had gone with his original plan and used Wookies instead of Ewoks it would have been cool instead of total bullshit. It would have even made sense for a bunch of Wookies to be there since the Empire used them as slaves.
Re:What the hell? by niktemadur · 2008-05-15 12:07 · Score: 1

Every once in a while, when I'm drunk at 3 in the morning and everyone else has gone to sleep, I pop Return Of The Jedi into the DVD player and watch the final battle, keeping the remote handy to skip the Ewok sequences, and damn if it isn't an unrelenting, sublimely dark piece of mythology and parable of redemption, even though I have to bypass Leia, Solo and Chewie's participation in the proceedings.

What, did Lucas insert some teddy bears because he thought it would be "too intense" for us? I beg to disagree, intensity taken up a few notches is exactly what Empire Strikes Back demanded of the next film!

--
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
Re:What the hell? by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 21:29 · Score: 1

And there's Leia in a bikini.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

Fear not... by owlnation · 2008-05-15 05:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

In the special edition Indy will whip first.

Seriously though, anyone with high expectations of this movie hasn't seen a movie made by George Lucas in the past 20 years. It'll make a ton of cash, regardless -- that's the really tragic thing.

For all the money spent on this movie you could fast-track the careers of at least one thousand, really talented, new filmmakers.

Re:Fear not... by mark72005 · 2008-05-15 05:53 · Score: 1

Other than Revenge of the Sith, which I found to be passable though not great, when was the last quality work that Lucas put out?

Wouldn't you have to go back to Last Crusade?

Of course it does by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

Of course it does, because if an early review didn't generate controversy, it wouldn't get as much press and instead people would want to avoid the spoilers.

YOINKS! = Boring by joocemann · 2008-05-15 05:35 · Score: 1

When I grew up watching Indiana Jones, I was into the adventure, the action, and RIPPING A GUYS HEART OUT OF HIS CHEST! Then I saw the previews for this new one and it looks like a disney ride. It looks like a Scooby Doo episode! Its as if they took the adult-material and trimmed it down to "slappy's ghost house surprise" or something. I am afraid to spend $9 on a movie ticket with the current implications of the movie. I think I will have to wait for a trusted friend to tell me what they think. I just can't convince myself to do it with the chance that I'd have to walk out pissed.

Well... by Is0m0rph · 2008-05-15 05:35 · Score: 1

It's Ain't it Cool News. It inspired Kevin Smith's MoviePoopShoot.com for Jay and Silent Bob for a reason.

Save us from crystal skulls!!! by FooAtWFU · 2008-05-15 05:36 · Score: 4, Funny

There was also an episode of The A-Team towards the end of its run about a crystal skull. It, too, was widely regarded as the worst episode ever, a fan's nightmare, and such.

The lesson: if it says "crystal skull" anywhere, avoid it like the plague.

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.

Re:Save us from crystal skulls!!! by Sentry21 · 2008-05-15 07:30 · Score: 1

I dunno, the Crystal Skull episode of Stargate: SG-1 wasn't that bad.

Incidentally, if anyone is wondering, the 'crystal skull' idea is from contemporary archaeology; they were claimed to be pre-Columbian, but in actuality seem to have been forgeries manufactured in the 19th century. Still, they've been quite popular in fiction.
Re:Save us from crystal skulls!!! by NotBornYesterday · 2008-05-15 07:49 · Score: 1

It's the occult version of jumping a shark, I guess.

--
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Re:Save us from crystal skulls!!! by Abcd1234 · 2008-05-15 08:47 · Score: 1

So, what you're saying is:

If crystal skulls you see
Shark jumping there will be
Re:Save us from crystal skulls!!! by Chuffpole · 2008-05-16 03:32 · Score: 1

Unless it's Arthur C Clarke, remember.

Shia LaBeouf co-stars... by MSTCrow5429 · 2008-05-15 05:37 · Score: 0, Flamebait

...of course it's going to suck.

--
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997

High hopes? by Torinaga-Sama · 2008-05-15 05:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

Okay, it's probably going to suck.

George Lucas has given up creativity in order to wring every possible cent out of his franchises. Star Wars had begun to take a beating due to poor product quality and overexposure so he is switching horses.

The new Indy flick will probably make a mega-shit-ton of money. I will probably watch it (on DVD), I am just hoping that if I tell myself it is going to suck, then when I see it I might be able to walk away from it and say "It was better than my expectations".

--
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9

Why... by idontgno · 2008-05-15 05:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

does anyone pretend that the critics matter?

Anyone who takes any critic's word for it deserves what he gets.

As for me, I can't really nail down my decision criteria for what movies I want to see, but I can assure you that the words "critic review" don't enter into it in the slightest.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Way to steal Patton Oswalt's bit without citiation by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 05:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Douchebag.

To the mods: That whole bit is by Patton Oswalt, not the anonymous coward.

You Can't Satisfy Nostalgia by llZENll · 2008-05-15 05:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

No movie can live up to what your brain remembers as one of the best movies ever made. If you go into the movie expecting it to be no less than the best of the first movie, then guess what, you will say it sucked. If you have realistic expectations though and are hoping it to be a decent movie without destroying the franchise then you at least are giving the movie a fair chance. It takes a lot of guts to revisit old and successful franchises such as Star Wars and Indiana Jones because you can't satisfy peoples nostalgia, even if the movie is one of the best ever made.

Nothing can match the feeling of seeing the movie with friends and family who may be gone now, or remembering a time in your life when things were better, we tend to forget the bad and remember the good, anything current simply can't compete with your memories all else being equal.

Re:You Can't Satisfy Nostalgia by greyhueofdoubt · 2008-05-15 17:42 · Score: 1

I may be biased since I didn't see Alien when it was first released, but upon watching the whole series within a few years, it seemed to me to work well (at least 1 and 4). Sometimes changing directors can be a good thing.

I am too tired to think of other series where the sequels were as good as the original, but there are a few. I think the drop in quality is a result of a money grab more than it being due to our unrealistic perceptions. FX2 really was just a terrible movie, for example.

-b

--
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.

20 years too late by Dillenger69 · 2008-05-15 05:42 · Score: 1

This movie is 20 years too late.
I would have gladly seen it in 1988.
Now, I'll wait for it to come on cable.

--
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Re:20 years too late by letxa2000 · 2008-05-15 06:57 · Score: 3, Funny

This movie is 20 years too late. I would have gladly seen it in 1988.

Oh, come on... I admit it should've been done sooner. But even Spielberg isn't good enough to be able to release the fourth installment before the third!
Re:20 years too late by julesh · 2008-05-15 23:22 · Score: 1

Oh, come on... I admit it should've been done sooner. But even Spielberg isn't good enough to be able to release the fourth installment before the third!

No, but to Lucas it's childs play.

The trailer for the Phantom Menace looked great by Werthless5 · 2008-05-15 05:43 · Score: 1

If I go in expecting the 4th Indiana Jones movie to suck, then at least I won't feel disappointed.

It's only about money by Raven737 · 2008-05-15 05:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

Movies today are never made to make a (possibly small) fan base happy,
they are only made to make a lot of money and for that it only has to be (mildly) appealing to the masses.
All those 'fans' will see it anyhow and chances are 90% of them will hate it regardless how 'good' others think it is.

Big Money means:

the movie is made so a 6 year old can watch it with his parents, nothing too brutal & funny scenes for kids (remember jar jar binks?)
nothing complicated, keep good and evil clearly separated, you have to know whos evil when you see them, otherwise the kids get confused
don't take any chances, avoid anything controversial, use the known formula (happy ending, nobody likable gets killed)
it doesn't have to be good as long as it has a well known name (sequel sequel sequel & why Bush got elected after all)
a mediocre movie made for the masses makes more money then a excellent movie for insiders

So with that in mind, i expect it to be watchable but nothing special.

Re:It's only about money by himself · 2008-05-15 06:37 · Score: 1

Speaking as the parent of a six-year-old (and a 9-y.o. and a 3-y.o. and a new baby), there's lots of stuff in moves that Big Money knows will bring in the viewers but which isn't suitable for a six-year-old. Waaaay too much overt sex (as opposed to the more interesting tension created by, you know, *good dialogue* in older movies, like Lauren Bacall's, "You know how to whistle, don't you, Steve?"). Waaay too much casual violence. And abominably bad examples for little girls.

I'm hardly a puritan, but life is hard enough for a little kid these days without giving them adult questions that they lack the tools to contextualize, much less answer and integrate. Let them watch "How It's Made" or "Dirty Jobs" ("remember kids, do your homework or you'll end up mucking out the New York City municipal bus garage grease pit sump like these guys"!) but keep them away from the trash being thrown on movie screens these days.

And my kids have got a better sense of humor -- irony, understatement, timing, the whole nine yards -- than the majority of the scripts I've seen lately, too.

But on this statement, "a mediocre movie made for the masses makes more money then a excellent movie for insiders," I am with you 100%.
Re:It's only about money by Stevecrox · 2008-05-15 07:10 · Score: 1

Films
Serenity
Stargate: The Ark of Truth

TV Films
Frank Herberts Dune
Farscape the Peacekeeper War

I enjoyed all of these and it can be said all of them were made by producers/director's who really wanted to finish a story rather than make a profit.
Re:It's only about money by GodfatherofSoul · 2008-05-15 18:57 · Score: 1

I don't agree with you on the age thing. I think "blockbuster" movies are a grab bag with as much adult content as they think they can get away with. Take Transformers (which I didn't like). Some humor was juvenile and intended for 8 year olds, while content was very adult (Megan Fox jiggling about and the 10 minute masturbation gag). I'm a childless adult, and I was annoyed at the adult situations thrown into a cartoon's remake about giant robots. Heck, I still think the 1980's movie was better.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:It's only about money by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 03:23 · Score: 0

You are pretty much on the ball. It's backfired as far as I am concerned though, I hardly ever go to the cinema now.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by somersault · 2008-05-15 05:47 · Score: 1

I'd like to hear what /.ers think about the Speed Racer movie now - there were lots of people complaining how awful and confusing it looked from the trailers, but I quite liked it when I saw the actual movie. The plot was fairly standard, though what can you expect from a film based on a children's wacky racing cartoon from the 70s, really. The action and racing was good even for someone interested in cars like me, and it even had a few twists despite me reading about Racer X here on /. Previously I didn't know anything about Speed Racer, I thought it was something new! They could have had a little more Christina Ricci, but overall it was very entertaining :)

--
which is totally what she said

wait, a 65 year old wont work as indy? by 192939495969798999 · 2008-05-15 05:48 · Score: 1

I don't get it, are you saying that 65-year olds don't make for good action heroes? Why, that's preposterous! Oh wait, no it's not, it makes total sense. Meesa smell the Lucas-4th-movie curse!

--
stuff |

It's worth waiting for Ffilthy's review by thewils · 2008-05-15 05:48 · Score: 1

I always enjoy his reviews, even if I don't agree with them.

The Filthy Archives

--
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.

All of the original movies were dreadful by bushboy · 2008-05-15 05:48 · Score: 1

All of the original movies were dreadful - at least when your past a certain age.

The way I see it, the original movies were for a younger audience, this new movie is simply a nostalgia cash-in - basically, they finally convinced Harrison Ford to do another, which is the key to raking in huge wads of cash from aging nostalgia ridden geeks.

--
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !

Highlander II: The Sickening by Dunx · 2008-05-15 05:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Am I surprised that this fourth film, decades after the last, is no good? Of course not - 'twas ever thus.

I still haven't got over my disappointment at the utter pile of poo that was the second Highlander film, when the original was (and still is) one of my favourite films.

Creative people lose the original vision, the original enthusiasm, over time. It's difficult to do anything else. It doesn't make me happy, but it happens.

--
Dunx
Converting caffeine into code since 1982

Re:Highlander II: The Sickening by mark72005 · 2008-05-15 06:08 · Score: 2, Funny

I still haven't got over my disappointment at the utter pile of poo that was the second Highlander film</quote>

THERE (should have been) ONLY ONE!

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Guppy06 · 2008-05-15 05:50 · Score: 1

"a theater executive and has a vested financial interest in de-hyping this movie"

Because people buying tickets to watch the movie loses the theater executives money?

Are we talking about the movie industry or video games?

Ain't it Cool News? Please... by jjh37997 · 2008-05-15 05:55 · Score: 1

Ain't it Cool News? Please.... these are the same people who raved about Daredevil. Personally, if the people at Ain't it Cool News hate it I'm sure I'm going to love it.

Just about the exact same thing occurred to me too by filthpickle · 2008-05-15 05:56 · Score: 1

I can remember leaving that movie at around 2 in the morning and talking about it with friends. We wanted it to be good so badly that none of us wanted to admit that it sucked.

Looking back, the only good storyline in any of those movies was the Obi wan/Boba Fett's dad one.

I have absolutely no expectation that the new IJ would be anything other than another steaming pile of shit. I am going to dl a screener of it, watch the first 20 minutes, and then decide if I want to pony up $10 to go to the theater to see the rest.

Don't you mean... by Icarium · 2008-05-15 05:57 · Score: 1

"Do not waaaaaaaaant!" ?

It's Easy to Spot The Stinker by mpapet · 2008-05-15 05:58 · Score: 5, Interesting

Really, it is.

The wikipedia reference spells it out.

-The film was in development hell since the 1989 release of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because Spielberg and Ford initially disagreed over Lucas's choice of the skull as the plot device.

You've got an actor with creative input into the movie plot. Very rarely does that ever work. Yes, the actors have input, it is most successful when it's improv within the filming of the movie.

- ...rom a story co-written by executive producer George Lucas..... Screenwriters Jeb Stuart, Jeffrey Boam, M. Night Shyamalan, Frank Darabont and Jeff Nathanson wrote drafts, before David Koepp's script satisfied all three men.

Multiple treatments of the same premise, few of which actually materialize. This suggests the amount of vetting, oversized-personalities, and plain old stupidity was committee-style approval hell.

--
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html

Re:It's Easy to Spot The Stinker by curmudgeous · 2008-05-15 07:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

M. Night Shyamalan

The kiss of death. I still haven't forgiven him for having aliens that are allergic to water attempt to invade a planet whose surface is 70% water.
Re:It's Easy to Spot The Stinker by Abcd1234 · 2008-05-15 08:32 · Score: 1

Ignoring the fact that the movie relies on the wonderfully new-agey BS that "everything happens for a reason!" Honestly, one of the worst movie endings in the history of movie endings...
Re:It's Easy to Spot The Stinker by khallow · 2008-05-15 08:53 · Score: 1

What alien invasion? I assume you are refering to "Signs". Didn't look like an invasion to me at the time I watched the movie. Instead it looks like what would would happen when some of the more liberal parts of the world, say the Peoples' Republic of Berkeley (but with flying saucers and an allergy to water) attempts to contact a more xenophobic region, say the mysterious natives of Iowa - complete with the arts & crafts communication project at the end.
Re:It's Easy to Spot The Stinker by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 09:32 · Score: 0

Just because it takes a long time to get the script for a movie right, doesn't necessarily make for a bad movie.

The Peter Jackson remake of King Kong took a long time to get green-lit, for instance.

And if anything, David Koepp writes _great_ screenplays, in my opinion.
Re:It's Easy to Spot The Stinker by Khaed · 2008-05-15 10:40 · Score: 1

I must correct you, sir.

The kiss of death is Uwe Boll.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:01 · Score: 1, Informative

It means theaters owners haggle with the distribution companies. If an movie expected to do incredibly well is downplayed, they might be able to get the copies of the films for the projectors for a slight discount.

heh. CAPTCHA was "procure"

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by falcon5768 · 2008-05-15 06:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

The percentage of revenue a theater makes from ticket sales is directly reflected in hype. If its a much hyped movie, the studios will demand more money from ticket sales and thus lower the theaters revenue. If the movie looks like its going to suck, the studios wont demand nearly as much money in the hopes of getting it played.

This is why a lot of decent to good movies get bad reviews. Because the theater groups are trying to force the studios to lower their demand in price.

--

"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

Re:Just about the exact same thing occurred to me by mark72005 · 2008-05-15 06:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

I had the same experience. Went to a midnight showing, was pretty pumped, trailers looked good. And less than halfway through I was thinking, "What a pile of shet this is". On the way out I gave a tepid "It was ok" to someone waiting in the next line who asked if it was good. I didn't want to take a dump on their anticipation in case they had some perverse personality and would like it.

There was a pall in the theater you could sense. Everyone knew it was crap, but there was still light applause at the end. Why? Because we hoped we hadn't seen what we'd just seen. And because for some reason the franchise got credit for having been good once.

That doesn't make it Episode 1 into anything other than it was, however. A big, stupid, pointless special effects debacle.

JarJar would have said... "theesa movie suuuuucks ballce!"

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by twistedsymphony · 2008-05-15 06:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I heard that the brother's W were making a Speed Racer movie quite some time ago... honestly it puzzled me how anyone could make a movie worth watching with Speed Racer as the source material.

I had also heard that they were using an experimental new HD camera tech that allowed all object in frame to be in focus at all times unlike traditional cameras that have a set focal distance. So this aspect really intrigued me.

Basically I didn't know what to think and I was increadibly impressed by what I saw in the trailer. I didn't get any idea of what the plot was about (but all of 30 seconds on imdb fixed that.) Visually it looks stunning and after V for Vendetta I have faith in the creators to make it something worth watching...

Now if I could only find someone else who's interested in going to the theater to see it with me...

--
Collector's Edition

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Mix+Master+Nixon · 2008-05-15 06:04 · Score: 1

What gives anybody the right to talk about anything they're not getting paid to do themselves? Ripping on Ain't It Cool reviews is like setting a quadruple amputee on fire - there's nothing remotely challenging or impressive about it, and it tends to stink up the room. If you're such an expert film critic*, why are you posting on /. instead of writing movie reviews for some reputable** film related website? All things considered it seems a fair, um, criticism.

*Not that that applies to the majority of reviewers on Ain't It Cool
**Not that that applies to Ain't It Cool

--
Oppressing an entire population is never cheap.
--Jeckler (/. Beta IS GARBAGE!)

on and on and on by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:06 · Score: 0

first rocky then rambo then 88 minutes and now this. whats going on in Hollywood.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by notneverwired · 2008-05-15 06:07 · Score: 1

i loved it

The Sad Truth by His+Shadow · 2008-05-15 06:08 · Score: 0, Troll

If Lucas had a huge amount to do with the movie, there is no way it won't suck ass. But I'm sure it will chock full of little animals being eaten by progressively bigger animals, and lots of apocryphal nonsense.

--

Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos

Re:The Sad Truth by His+Shadow · 2008-05-16 02:25 · Score: 1

Troll, Eh? You wish. Or didn't you see the Star Wars 'prequels"?

--
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by grahamd0 · 2008-05-15 06:15 · Score: 1

But then again, my favourite Matrix movie was the second one, so what do I know...

I thought the second one was really good until I saw the third one.

That scene with the Architect was brilliant, it really made the movie for me. Then the third one happened and you find out that that everything in the second was totally irrelevant.

It blows my mind why anyone would want to take a okay movie (the only one I'd call "good" was the first one) and plunge it into irrelevancy with a steaming shit-pile of a sequel. (I'm still referring to the second and third movies there, btw.)

cluelessness by fragbait · 2008-05-15 06:21 · Score: 4, Informative

From the review:

... I found it funny that they mentioned the Lost City of Gold as it accidentally referenced the old Allen Quartermaine days (a crappy knockoff of Indy Movies incase you missed them) ... Huh? Quatermain was first from the book King Soloman's Mines written in 1885.

At any rate, take AICN stuff as you would with any critic. For those that have never visited the site, read only the first paragraph or two and then skip to the last paragraph or two of Harry's reviews. In between, he's going to expound about a recent mundane task he did which has no bearing on the review, such as his numerous trips to take his grandma to the vet or whatever. STFU, Harry, and get on the with the review. Sheesh.

-fragbait

Re:cluelessness by Alzheimers · 2008-05-15 06:44 · Score: 1

The Richard Chamberlain "Allen Quatermain" movies of the 80s weren't half bad, considering the camp material they had. But apparently there's going to be another shameless cash grab out soon: Allan Quatermain and the Temple of Skulls

But nothing could be worse than Firewalker

(I know, I blaspheme!)

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by grahamd0 · 2008-05-15 06:21 · Score: 1

Because people buying tickets to watch the movie loses the theater executives money?

No, because low expectations reduce the prices the theaters have to pay for it. It's Indianna Jones, people will see it anyway.

I don't know which is more upsetting by Dan667 · 2008-05-15 06:24 · Score: 1

That Indiana Jones 4 might be terrible or the constant discussion that the Phantom Menace is fantastic cinema.

Lucas ruined it by Dracos · 2008-05-15 06:28 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I remember sometime last year when the script was given to Lucas for review. He hated it, and demanded a lot of rewrites. For whatever reason, Spielberg capitulated.

How many more movies does Lucas need to ruin before he's labeled with the obvious anti-Midas touch?

More rehashes by Animats · 2008-05-15 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

In 2007, as Harper's points out, most of the top 10 movies were not only sequels, but sequels where "version > 2". Since Hollywood management does fads, we have to expect a run of more such sequels. Hence Indy #4.

As I've remarked before, Hollywood has a major idea shortage. History has been mined out. Comic book resources have been drained; the big franchises are done, and productions are digging deep into obscure comics for material. Hollywood is now down to recycling 1960s TV shows. Are there any up and coming directors with new ideas? Who's the next Spielberg?

Incidentally, the trailer for "Clone Wars" looks like a video game ad for a bad video game, one with a low poly and keyframe budget.

Entertainment may be a depletable resource. When everything ever made is easily available, anything new has to be better than anything done before. Everybody has already seen the best of everything. This makes it hard to excel. Consider music. Nobody has done a major new symphony for decades. Rock music peaked decades ago. House music is stuck. Rap doesn't shock anybody any more. No wonder the RIAA is in trouble.

Film got a "midlife kicker" - computer graphics. At last, you could film anything you could imagine. After about a decade, most of the backlog of things directors always wanted to do, but couldn't afford, have been done. Big shots of alien or historical cities, nonhuman actors, and massive war scenes, have all been competently put on the big screen. Viewers are no longer impressed.

Desperate hacks, like playing with color saturation, have been tried. There's the under-saturated look ("Sky Captain") and the over-saturated look ("Speed Racer"). There's the high-contrast black and white look ("Sin City"). There's the high-contrast black and white look with a bit of color ("The Shadow"). OK, been there, done that.

Finally, there's the trick the movie industry tried the last time things got really desperate, back in the 1950s - stereoscopic 3D. It didn't work last time.

Re:More rehashes by glwtta · 2008-05-15 08:25 · Score: 1

Incidentally, the trailer for "Clone Wars" looks like a video game ad for a bad video game, one with a low poly and keyframe budget.

Wait, that trailer wasn't for a video game?

Dang, that's just pathetic.

--
sic transit gloria mundi
Re:More rehashes by CodeBuster · 2008-05-15 08:42 · Score: 1

Finally, there's the trick the movie industry tried the last time things got really desperate, back in the 1950s - stereoscopic 3D. It didn't work last time. You forgot about Cinerama
Re:More rehashes by Maxo-Texas · 2008-05-15 08:44 · Score: 1

Also... sorry but knowing that a computer animated guy fell off a cliff doesn't cut it compared to knowing a real guy really did fall off the cliff and was at real risk. Or if they really did jump 30' in a car.

So that means, you need to have better writing and the "big stunts" and "money shots" are really just backdrops for the story instead of being the experience. I can see those "big scenes" in a computer game now. No emotional impact.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:More rehashes by swordgeek · 2008-05-15 09:02 · Score: 1

"Entertainment may be a depletable resource."

Nah. Volume masquerading as entertainment (i.e. bigger explosions, more blood, more sex, more MORE) has a finite limit--sooner or later, everything becomes noise. One could make a direct analogy to excessive dynamic range compression in audio recording--eventually the range reduces to zero.

However, good entertainment is infinite. Maybe there are a finite number of story themes, but there are an infinite way of telling them. There may be a limited number of ways to combine the 12 notes in a scale, but as the time axis gets longer, the possibilities increase without bound.

Symphonies are still being created, but they're not major events because symphonic music is no longer dominant. There's still great rock music out there--some of it even genuinely original music--but the 'neo-classic rock' isn't all that popular, because something else is popular. (Note: Arcade Fire is one of the best rock bands in ages--and it's very cleaerly 21st century rock.)

"When everything ever made is easily available, anything new has to be better than anything done before. "

Not necessarily _better_, but different. New. Innovative. Fixing an old idea or work is definitely and end-of-the-road task, but also the path of least resistance. Creating a new work is much more difficult, and more expensive.

There are a lot of stories out there ready to be told in the movies, and CGI has the ability to bring them to life if used as a tool rather than a shiny toy. (Personally, I want to see Ellison's screenplay of I Robot.)

--

"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Re:More rehashes by Dasein23 · 2008-05-15 16:40 · Score: 1

> History has been mined out
Are you being remotely serious here? If you think there are no interesting events in history that haven't been done in movies, words cannot even begin to describe how wrong you are.

> Hollywood is now down to recycling 1960s TV shows
True, but that seems to be more caused by laziness and commercial conservatism. There are plenty of independent filmmakers out there coming up with new ideas. Go to a local film festival instead of your local popcorn movie franchise and have a look.

>Consider music.
>Nobody has done a major new symphony for decades
Lots of people are writing symphonies. You or I or somebody else might not consider them "major". Maybe that's because that style of music isn't very popular any more? Last time I checked, not many people were doing cave paintings either. Does that mean humanity's creative spirit is exhausted? Of course not.

>Rock music peaked decades ago
Utter rubbish. Block Party's "Silent Alarm" is worlds better than any of the meandering crap filling the airwaves a few decades ago. Faith No More's "Angel Dust" is still one of the most groundbreaking and powerful rock albums ever released. Pull your head out.

>House music is stuck
OK this is actually true, but that's largely because house music was "stuck" when it started. It was always meant to be fairly brainless dancefloor filler. It has changed little since then, and thus possesses roughly the same creative relevance now than it did then, i.e. extremely little.

>Rap doesn't shock anybody any more
It shocks some people. Maybe fewer than it once did. But is that all it was designed to do? And again, how on earth is that evidence of the lack of creative ideas and/or potential? Rockabilly music completely died in 70s. Now it is enjoying a resurgance. So what? Things go in cycles. Deal with it.

There is so much amazing music coming out at the moment that it is just embarassing (especially in the underground electronic scene; I could easily name literally hundreds of artists making awesome groundbreaking music, right now). Plenty of great films too. I haven't even gotten started on Asian cinema (which is enormously strong at the moment). It's just that mainstream film / book / music publishers (especially in the West) have become dominated by bean-counters, accountants and risk managers. That is a contingent fact concerning certain companies, and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not we have explored all possible creative avenues. Of course we haven't. It just sounds like you've given up looking.
Re:More rehashes by giuntag · 2008-05-15 20:53 · Score: 1

Your description really looks like the plot for the Ranxerox comic - where a few years in the future this huge, exceedingly brutal, dope addict robot is called in to hollywood to play Fred Astaire in what is planned to be the biggest remake of all time...

BTW hey, nobody ever made a Ranxerox comic! Studios, do you hear me? Here's the next movie idea served to you on a plate!
Re:More rehashes by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 03:55 · Score: 0

"Rock music peaked decades ago."

What planet are you living on?

If by "rock" you mean the hair metal cross-dressers of the 80's, then yes - and thank god for it.

If you can't find good music, that's simply because you're a market level consumer. You go into a store and if nothing good is RIGHT THERE and being hyped, then there 'isn't any good music'. Hell there's even lots of GOOD mainstream rock - as long as you don't go looking for Butt Metal or Synth Pop.

The RIAA is in trouble because they're greedy corporate overfiends who truly can't see that they are killing themselves.

You make good points about the movie studios rehashing all the old stuff out there, but the rest of your post has all the forethought of an after-dinner belch.
Re:More rehashes by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-18 07:47 · Score: 0

HOLLYWOOD may have an idea shortage, but that doesn't mean all the ideas are gone. There are still plenty of good movies being made by folks that don't need to rely on old/recycled plots and f/x. They just aren't being made by Hollywood studios. Same with music - I can name plenty of new rock that's good AND original - but it's almost all in Europe, and usually by bands on their own labels.

Your whole rant is almost an apology for the corporate entertainment world - when the only justification for the crap they keep serving up is because so many people keep buying it - even though they don't like it!
Re:More rehashes by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-20 17:03 · Score: 0

"Everything that can be invented has been invented" --some patent asshat in the 1890s

Re:Way to steal Patton Oswalt's bit without citiat by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:28 · Score: 0

I don't know who the fuck "Patton Oswalt" is, nor do I care, but maybe that's him posting anonymously. He can't steal from himself.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Huntr · 2008-05-15 06:33 · Score: 1

Ever hear "if it bleeds, it leads"? Same difference. Bad news gets press, good news gets pushed aside.

How can a sequel be bad? by realinvalidname · 2008-05-15 06:34 · Score: 1

First the "Star Wars" prequels suck, then "Star Trek" falls apart in its 10th installment, now "Indiana Jones" might be bad?

Why, it's enough to make you want to see something new!

Re:How can a sequel be bad? by neminem · 2008-05-16 07:51 · Score: 1

Something new? Yeah, that'd be nice. If only such things still existed.

Re:The time period is way way too late by Blue+Stone · 2008-05-15 06:34 · Score: 1

> Indy needs to fight the Nazis. That's the point. The Nazis make the movies good because they're his enemy.

Spielberg had some religious experience and declared that Nazis would nolonger appear in any of his movies as baddies (probably not as goodies, either ... just a guess). So the Ruskies became the bad guys ... and a really bad artistic decision was made for non-artistic reasons.

I guess if we're especially unlucky, we can expect the original movies to be 'reworked' ala ET (and the guns/walkie talkies) or Lucas's Greedo shoots first fiasco (Greedo Fiasco is a good name for a band): Raiders of the Lost Ark: The Director's Cut - where Indy tries to prevent the Ark of the Covenant getting into the hands of the Taliban.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce

It really doesn't matter. by schlick · 2008-05-15 06:36 · Score: 1

For me it doesn't matter if the movie is bad. I am an Indian Jones fan, and I'm going to see it. I am not so fanatic that I will call it good when it isn't, but I will still pay to see it.

I'm a Star Wars fan too, yes Fantom Menace sucked, but that really doesn't matter. It's like collecting. I see it because it is part of the set and without it the set isn't complete.

I'm a Star Trek fan too and lord knows there have been some stinkers in that franchise. But the same applies, I'm going to see every Star Trek Movie that is shown on the big screen, and I'm going to watch every episode of every series I can.

The only exception to this for me was/is Highlander. The first movie was the only movie. To tweak a phrase, "THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ONLY ONE!"

Yes I'm a computer geek, currently single, but I moved out of my parents' house at 19 (over 15 years ago) and make lots of money being a computer geek.

--
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson

AICN: A Bizarro Universe? by nobodyman · 2008-05-15 06:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's worth noting that Star Wars: Episode I got great reviews from Aint It Cool News. So if they are panning Crystal Skull it may actually be a great movie!

Re:The time period is way way too late by Spy+der+Mann · 2008-05-15 06:37 · Score: 1

When the videogame "Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis" came out, I was hoping SO SO SO MUCH that they adapted this to a movie.

The script was PERFECT. But who am I, a mere fan, to criticize the all-mighty movie producers, huh?

Anyway let's hope Crystal Skull pleases me at least as half as much as the Last Crusade, which was my favorite.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 06:39 · Score: 0

why are you posting on /. instead of writing movie reviews for some reputable** film related website? All things considered it seems a fair, um, criticism.

Oh yeah, tough guy? Well if you're so good at posting on Slashdot criticizing other people's criticisms, why don't you post a meta-critical criticism on Slashdot yourself?

Umm. Hang on. Let me rethink that...

Predictable? by Alzheimers · 2008-05-15 06:39 · Score: 1

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that at some point, Indiana Jones is going to have to find a Crystal Skull. I bet it's probably in some far away kingdom, too.

Case in point by GameboyRMH · 2008-05-15 06:42 · Score: 1

I have seen movies in which all of the good scenes make it into the trailer. Case in point: the previous Hulk movie. I've had news shoved down my throat that they're taking another stab at it this summer, maybe they'll get it right this time. The previous one wasn't really a bad movie, it's just that all of the good scenes were in the trailer.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel

Re:Case in point by R2.0 · 2008-05-15 07:54 · Score: 1

No, it was a bad movie - the result of a director wanting to put his own "stamp" on material manifestly not suited for it.

I mean, Ang Lee? That's like putting Michaelangelo in charge of the paint-by-numbers class at the local community college.

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:Case in point by Hubbell · 2008-05-15 09:50 · Score: 1

Marvel is making the movie this time. So far no comic book to movie adaptation has been good simply because the big studios don't give a shit about the movie, whereas the owners of the material, aka the comic book companies, have an inherent love for their superheroes/characters, case in point was the iron man movie, which was epic fucking win. And it was marvel's first attempt at making amovie.
Re:Case in point by Nephilium · 2008-05-15 12:33 · Score: 1

I'll disagree on the "no comic book to movie adaptation has been good" part. The list isn't a really long one... but I'd say that:

Batman
Batman Begins
Spider-Man (1/2)
Sin City
Road to Perdition
From Hell
X-Men (1/2)

Were all good comic book movies...

Nephilium
Re:Case in point by Hubbell · 2008-05-15 13:07 · Score: 1

Comic book implying super hero. Xmen sucked, Sin city wasn't super heroes, and Spiderman could have been MUCH better. Watch Iron Man and compare it to all the super hero comic book movies, and you will see that they all suffer from Epic Fail (tm) compared to it.
Re:Case in point by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 13:41 · Score: 0

So I guess the Spiderman and X-Men movies were made without Marvel's consent, then? None of the movies proper -- nor their sequels -- even remotely did justice to the comic book (or cartoon, for that matter) worlds. If Iron Man is a cut above, yay for that, but all of the films are simply a money-grab on a dying franchise. The really sad thing is that movie interpretations of comic books that hit their prime 20 years ago are being lauded as this summer's blockbuster. I am not sure whether that speaks more negatively of the pulp-fiction comic books, or the sorry state of modern moviemmaking.
Re:Case in point by Chris+Mattern · 2008-05-15 17:05 · Score: 1

No good comic book to movie adaptions?

I have one word to say to that: Hellboy.
Re:Case in point by TeraCo · 2008-05-15 17:41 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure 'comic book' was implying 'comic book', not whatever arbitary definition you're using to put your case forward.

--
Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
Re:Case in point by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 18:00 · Score: 0

You've gotten your accounts confused again. "Epic fail" is for when you're astroturfing at 4chan. HTH :-)
Re:Case in point by h4rm0ny · 2008-05-16 00:09 · Score: 1

Movie taste is always going to be subjective (I met someone who enjoyed Titanic, once), but Hulk was a very good film, to me. I did a complete double-take when I saw that Ang Lee was going to direct it, for the same reasons you did, but what he brought to the film was a lot of energy and innovation. The little touches, such as the way Nick Nolte's eyes linger over the split screen of him being escorted from prison to meet his son... they really lifted the film out of the ordinary superhero muck. And Ang Lee understood what was needed to get the audience to suspend their disbelief to accept a big green man hurling tanks about - THAT impressed me. It was the same unapologetic "here's something fantastic and I don't care" that they pulled in Silver Surfer (though that's more of a kid's film).

The only other superhero movies I've seen that really got the level of reality that Hulk achieved were Hellboy (in a weird sort of way) and X-Men 1, maybe 2. Usually in this genre, you're just watching people playing roles in the plot, rather than real characters.

--

Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.

Lucas to fans: Open wide.... by damburger · 2008-05-15 06:46 · Score: 1

Is anybody even shocked any more when George Lucas chugs down his favourite diuretic and lets rip on the fan base that made him a millionaire? The man, however talented he may have been 30 years ago, is an utter cretin. We should've boycotted the mongloid when he was doing the Star Wars prequels. The fact people paid to see them only encouraged him.

--
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?

Indiana Jones & the Depends Underwear Emergenc by jab9990 · 2008-05-15 06:46 · Score: 1

Harrison Ford should be starring in depends commercials, not action movies. If he had put his enormous ego aside and played Grandad to a younger Indiana, this might have had a chance.

Re:The time period is way way too late by Scudsucker · 2008-05-15 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you look at movies like Back to the Future, they did a very convincing job of making Christopher Lloyd appear as different ages.

Say what? They made several tongue-in-cheek references on how Doc ("thank god I've still got my hair") and Strickland ("didn't that guy ever have hair") looked exactly the same. Especially in the 2nd movie where Doc shows Marty that he had plastic surgery...except he looks exactly the same.

What's wrong with Russians? by SuperKendall · 2008-05-15 06:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

I remember thinking the movie was likely not that good when I heard that it was set in the 1950's and that the Soviets had become the villains along with some Nazi hold-overs in South America. Indy needs to fight the Nazis. That's the point. The Nazis make the movies good because they're his enemy.

I don't see that at all - Indy's "enemy", if you must put a definition to it, is someone seeking to use a powerful artifact for evil.

Well the Russians fit the bill quite well. Around that time they were doing some horrific things to their own people. Shipping people off to siberia, or forced labor camps mining uranium, etc. They also had similar fascinations with mysticism that Hitler had so they even keep that element alive.

The Russians of that time to me seem to be a fine stand-in for Nazis which just would not be practical for the time frame of this movie, at least not as such a major force.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:What's wrong with Russians? by Peter+H.S. · 2008-05-15 10:42 · Score: 1

Well the Russians fit the bill quite well. Around that time they were doing some horrific things to their own people. Shipping people off to siberia, or forced labor camps mining uranium, etc. They also had similar fascinations with mysticism that Hitler had so they even keep that element alive. Huh? Hitler never cared about occultism and even spoke out against it, it was Himmler that was driving force behind all that. The nazi archaeologist in the Indiana Jones movie was as also spoof/reference to Himmlers "Ahnenerbe" organisation. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahnenerbe/
It was fun and "believable" since there had been so many "Ahnenerbe"-like mystic conspiracy tales floating around since the war. Eg.Trevor Ravenscroft's Spear of Destiny etc.

That the Soviet Union (i.e the party cadre) was known to have streaks of mysticism is a new one for me. I really don't think one can find a soviet corresponding organisation like Ahnenerbe.

--
Regards
Re:What's wrong with Russians? by SuperKendall · 2008-05-15 12:58 · Score: 1

Ok, not Hitler but Himmler as you say.

However the Soviets were very interested in things like ESP...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:What's wrong with Russians? by Peter+H.S. · 2008-05-15 13:56 · Score: 1

However the Soviets were very interested in things like ESP... Not really I think. The CIA also researched parapsychic phenomenas like remote-viewing, but that hardly makes the US government/CIA to organisations that believed in paranormal and acted from them, unlike the Ahnenerbe organisation.
Back to the topic; If there really is a plot device with a "crystal skull" with magic powers that Stalin and the KGB are after, then I think the film will be really, really lame. Just isn't "believable" as the Ark of Covenant device was. Well, just have to wait for the film to see.

--
Regards

Re:Just about the exact same thing occurred to me by maxume · 2008-05-15 06:51 · Score: 1

Spielberg.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.

My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by BTWR · 2008-05-15 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! Sorry guys, but I'm a medical student in pediatrics, and I can tell youI see kids everyday, and every boy (and a lot of girls too, let's not discriminate) LOOOOOOVES Star Wars. And guess what? They LOOOOVE Jar Jar too. They get Jar Jar bookbags, folder, binders, etc. Star Wars is cool to them. And you know what? Being born in 1979, I notice a huge difference between the people who were 5 when ROTJ came out and the people who were 25. The difference? My friends and I love the Ewoks. Kids love the Ewoks. Star Wars is a movie made FOR KIDS! Or... at least, people with the imagination of a kid. I read some of these complaints, and some are valid (even if I disagree). Don't like Hayden? Fine (I did). Don't like Jar Jar? OK, big deal. But holy moly... you people are complaining about "Landing a Star Cruiser on a landing strip! Lame!" You people are just way too old (in your mind I guess) to enjoy these movies. Not to say not liking them is illogical or stupid, but most of the complaints here to me are disproven by those points being exactly what kids love about them.

Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Mister+Whirly · 2008-05-15 07:09 · Score: 4, Funny

My Answer: you are too young. Too young to actually remember when Hollywood had the ability to crank out thoughtful, meaningful, entertaining, and relevant films. Now movies are just vehicles for selling tie-in merchandise, and count on the bar being set so low that even crap like JarJar and Mannequin Skywalker's bad acting are perfectly acceptable to the younger generations. Ewoks? If I wanted fucking Muppets in a movie, I would go see one of the Muppet Movies (which were great - at least the first 2)- but don't mess up my Star Wars movies with them.

Now you damn kids GET OFF MY LAWN!!

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by dtolman · 2008-05-15 07:22 · Score: 0

Exactly - its one marketing flick after another now a days. First the Red Cross puts out There Will be Blood, then the Obama campaign releases No Country for Old Men, and now AARP comes out with INDY 4.

Well F*** off Hollywood marketers - the $ stops here - we're not buying the crap you're pushing!
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by smaddox · 2008-05-15 07:28 · Score: 1

I don't know where you got this idea of Hollywood being some source of intelligent art, but it never was. Sure, every once in a while one of the movie studios will re-release a thoughtful, meaningful, entertaining, and relevant indi film that everyone loved, but it wasn't made in hollywood.

Hollywood is, and always has been, nothing but a place for people to profit off movies.
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Mister+Whirly · 2008-05-15 07:35 · Score: 1

You are aware that Hollywood existed before the 1970s, right? And I never claimed Hollywood wasn't a place where profit came first and foremost - just that at times, meaningful art and profit occupied the same space there. (Yes, it is the exception to the rule, but it DID happen occasionally)

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by sakonofie · 2008-05-15 08:22 · Score: 5, Funny

If I wanted fucking Muppets in a movie, I would go see one of the Muppet Movies Offended Yoda is.
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by corbettw · 2008-05-15 08:59 · Score: 0, Troll

My Answer: you are too young. Too young to actually remember when Hollywood had the ability to crank out thoughtful, meaningful, entertaining, and relevant films. Yeah, Buster Keaton and the Marx Brothers were extremely thoughtful. Not to mention Birth of a Nation, some seriously thought provoking stuff there.

--
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Mister+Whirly · 2008-05-15 09:20 · Score: 1

I think you may have been trying to be funny (FAIL!), but Birth of a Nation does have some thought provoking stuff. Unless you are one of those types that can't possible consider that a controversial topic may actually "provoke thoughts" among some people. I took a film class in college, and all the dumb un-intellectuals in there spent about 2 weeks discussing Birth of a Nation. But don't worry, it certainly wasn't "thought provoking".
Apparently you have never heard of 2001:A Space Oddesey, or Blade Runner. Pure entertainment there, no serious thinking required. Just watch the pretty pictures moving across the screen...

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by thestreetmeat · 2008-05-15 09:51 · Score: 1

It's funny that you bring up muppets. When I was a young kid I loved the first 3 muppet movies. (I'll add Muppets take Manhattan because I liked it) But when I saw Muppet Treasure Island when I was in high school, it didn't have the same effect. It all seemed so juvenile somehow. I won't forgive Brian Henson for violating my childhood like that.
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Mab_Mass · 2008-05-15 10:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Although the anecdote may be apocryphal, I feel compelled to jump in here with a story from the time when filmmaker Luis Bunuel was working in the early days of Hollywood, circa 1940.
From what he describes in his autobiography, even way back then, things were so formulaic, he got disgusted. He then took this disgust to the next step, plotting out charts of characters, plot, era, etc., so that with this system and a few basic facts, the whole story could be told.
Then, a while later, he went to a premiere of a spy film where the heroine is shot at the end (I forget the title). Upon leaving the theater his companion was going on and on about how original the film was, so Bunuel simply states that he could tell what was going to happen from the opening shot. Naturally, the companion didn't believe him, so to prove his point, they went back to Bunuel's apartment to ask his roommate.
Upon describing some of the opening scenes, Bunuel's roommate just waved his hands, saying, "Don't bother - they shoot her in the end."
So, this past history when Hollywood had the ability to crank out thoughtful, meaningful, entertaining, and relevant films - when was that, exactly?
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Mister+Whirly · 2008-05-15 10:33 · Score: 1

Funny how you can come up with one anecdote that somehow invalidates EVERY other Hollywood movie ever made. Talk about your basic "Strawman Defense". Great, so one person figured out the plot to a Hollywood movie without seeing it. Care to explain how that means that not a single thoughtful, meaningful, entertaining, and relevant was ever made?
Ever seen a Kubrik film? How about Hitchcock? Just because SOME directors make bad, formula films in Hollywood doesn't mean EVERY director does. Sheesh!

P.S. Luis Bunuel was kind of "out there". The film he made with Dali with the sheep's eyeball being sliced by the razor still gives me the willies when I see it.

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by martinX · 2008-05-15 10:59 · Score: 1

My Answer: you are too young. Too young to actually remember when Hollywood had the ability to crank out thoughtful, meaningful, entertaining, and relevant films.

Never happened. You are looking back through the backwards telescope of time. Waaaay down that tube, all you can see are the bright shiny things. The dark dross is invisible.

As time goes on, we forget the OK ones made just for entertainment (and video shops don't carry them)and remember the standouts.

--
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Mab_Mass · 2008-05-15 11:10 · Score: 1

I wasn't trying to make the claim that nothing good ever came out of Hollywood, more the statement that the majority of Hollywood has sucked since the medium ever started. I clearly recognize that making generalizations isn't a good idea. After all, every single generalization and absolute statement ever made is false in some way (this one included).
Keep in mind that Hollywood is, primarily, a big business. As such, they are interested not in producing the best, most insightful films ever made. Instead, they are more focused on films that sell well, which are easy to watch and offer some great escapism.
That isn't to say that there are zero great films from Hollywood, only that there are few, which isn't a new thing.
As for your counter-examples of good Hollywood films from Kubrick and Hitchcock, yes I have seen several of their films. You do know, however, that most of Kubrick's work came out of London, right? You also know that Hitchcock began his career in the UK?
I'm just saying....
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Oktober+Sunset · 2008-05-15 12:15 · Score: 1

Ewoks are a thousand times more preferable to Jar Jar Stinks.

--
What if Tetris was invented by Nazis?
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Doctor_Jest · 2008-05-15 15:20 · Score: 1

That's the trouble with the past... we tend to forget the turds and remember the gems.

The same thing will happen when I'm 70... Hell, I already think quite a few of the movies I loved when I was a kid are shallow now.

It's called old age... and you're right... but like every period in history, Hollywood cranked out just as many moronic crapfests as they did thoughtful, meaningful, and relevant films.

And with the passage of time, the movies that were better stick around. The movies that suck are part of local programming at 3am now.

We still talk about IJ movies and Star Wars movies, but we don't talk about Bikini Car Wash or Hard Ticket to Hawaii... (well, there might be some fans of those movies, and who's not a fan of boobies? Hooray for boobies!)

Entertainment is just that... entertainment. I don't need a history/civics lesson every time I go to the theater. Those are nice, but sometimes I just want to see titties and explosions (in that order... and sometimes just titties...)

We wax nostalgic for the "good old days" all the time, but if we are objective about it, the good old days weren't as good as we remember... Not that they were horrid and we're just projecting good on our memories, but we have in our memories the ability to filter out the bad... which isn't wrong, just something we need to take into account when we wax nostalgic for "the good old days" ;)

Now Get off my Lawn!! :P

--
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Mister+Whirly · 2008-05-16 02:57 · Score: 1

Yeah, but that is like saying "Herpes are a thousand times more preferable than AIDS."

--
"But this one goes to 11!"
Re:My Answer: YOU'RE ALL TOO OLD!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 04:39 · Score: 0

That past history is currently in pre-production.

The trailer looked great? by skyhawker · 2008-05-15 06:58 · Score: 1

The trailer I saw (before Iron Man) actually looked great to me, so I'm taking this with a grain of salt.

I have only three words for you: Mortal Kombat: Annihilation. ;)

--

The best diplomat I know is a fully activated phaser bank.
-- Scotty.

Indiana Jones and the Liver Spots of Doom! by jpellino · 2008-05-15 07:01 · Score: 1

Gotta say, from the TV ad, this is not the Indy we first saw...

Harrison Ford's a great actor, but in the poster he simply looks weary and bored.

The word "enough" doesn't seem to be in George Lucas' vocabulary and may not be in Spielberg's either.

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."

critics schmitics by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:02 · Score: 0

Movie critics are worthless. They take themselves too seriously and believe cinema is some high academic artform. Anything that's actually, oh I dunno', entertaining, they piss all over. In order for them to lavish praise on anything it has to insult people and promote some reprobate agenda and depict normal people are dumb assholes. For example, a film about two guys spiritually married to the same goat, fighting for custody of a Sudanese orphan with no toes, with lots of tears and quiet poignant moments but nothing really happens for two hours, would receive 5 stars from all critics for its eye-opening and progressive message. Anything even remotely fun to watch or actually made for entertainment is beneath them, except to sneer at. The Indy movie doesn't have to be perfect, its just some random escapism to watch and then go on with your life.

duh by dodgedodge · 2008-05-15 07:09 · Score: 1

Trailers always look good. You can't judge jack squat using them.

Re:duh by DaveCBio · 2008-05-15 07:28 · Score: 1

Agreed. Trailers can change the tone, can make a comedy look funnier than it is, can even change genre as evidenced by movies marketed as thigh slapping comedies that end up being mostly drama with a few chuckles. Trailers are cool, but meaningless marketing tools.
Re:duh by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 18:19 · Score: 0

Want a great example of this? Snow Falling on Cedar. I went to that movie with a girl thinking it was a romance movie. It had maybe 10 minutes of romance, and turned out to actually be a murder mystery.

X.X

Last time I payed any attention to a movie trailer, except as an example of special effects.

get the f@ck out please by unity100 · 2008-05-15 07:10 · Score: 1

"'The Phantom Menace' was awful" - says who ? im not a star wars fanatic, im way too picky with everything when it comes to realism, storyline, acceptability, and even i dont think that it was 'awful'.

why should my opinion matter ? well, exactly the same reason the poster of the article thought his/hers was.

dont embed such sweeping statements into your summaries when posting articles please, people.

--
Read radical news here

Disagreeing works well too by Xtifr · 2008-05-15 07:11 · Score: 1

I so thoroughly disagreed with one local newspaper critic that I actually found his reviews useful: if he hated it, I was in line the next day; if he loved it, I avoided it like the plague.

OK, I'm exaggerating a little. Nevertheless, if you learn something about a critic's tastes, the reviews can be useful even if those tastes don't match your own. Aside from that quibble, I agree with you. I find random reviews on the web to be all-but useless, since I usually know little about the reviewer.

If its a review on AICN... you can ignore it by dtolman · 2008-05-15 07:14 · Score: 0

The dude has NO taste whatsover. Remember that pile of crap called Daredevil? AICN called it almost perfect. In a positive way.

If he thinks Indy sucks, then thats a GOOD sign.

Re:Way to steal Patton Oswalt's bit without citiat by prockcore · 2008-05-15 07:22 · Score: 1

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HIMEYe5WLJ8

there's the bit.

An era gone by... by catdevnull · 2008-05-15 07:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

The great Sci-Fi and Action movies of the late 70s and early 80s are an era gone by. Those of us who remember the first offerings of Star Wars, ET, and Raiders were completely dazzled by a new breed of cinema. Lucas, Spielberg, and the like were young up-and-comers who were shaking up the industry.

Now, those guys ARE the establishment. They are offering pretty much the same production values they originally brought to us but we, as the audience, are, dare I say, bored with their filmmaking. If not bored, we have very high expectations because of the impression the original movies left on us.

It's kind of like going back to a place you haven't been to since you were a kid and it's much smaller and less interesting than you had it in your mind.

This isn't to say that these guys are terrible filmmakers or that their craft is not up to par. I'm saying that the hype created by the media in ourselves only makes one feel disappointed when the movie is just that--another movie.

I think the industry itself is in a pretty bad place right now. Movies are made that really shouldn't have been made so the overall quality from the corporate movie studios is just abysmal.

Story is king. Unfortunately, visual effects and spectacle have become the story supported by the script. They keep trying to make blockbusters instead of focusing on the craft of filmmaking. The indie films are doing so well because they have to have good scripts--there's no budget for Michael Bay/Brett Ratner/Roland Emerich epically expensive multi-million dollar set pieces.

Unfortunately, like all corporations, the studios are most interested in delivering profits to shareholders. The just don't understand that if you "build it, they will come"--a good movie with good special and visual effects that serve the story will do well. They just want to make gimmicky pieces that will turn into money makers.

So, don't be surprised if Raiders is disappointing. It's just a cog in the wheel of the dark machine that is Hollywood.

--

I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...

Re:An era gone by... by catdevnull · 2008-05-15 07:32 · Score: 1

OK, just to be fair. The trailer looked really kick-ass and I am looking forward to seeing the movie. It's a great franchise but I hope it doesn't go the way of Lucas's Star Wars where he had way too much say in the production (he was too deep into it to know what should have been cut from the film--the best Star Wars episodes are the ones Lucas did NOT direct).

For this film, my expectations are simple: to be entertained. I don't expect the film to break any new ground with regard to visual effects and the story seems very unoriginal if not similar to the previous offerings.

On a similar note: I am looking forward to the next offering from Pixar: Wall-E. These guys are slaves to story--their films are amazingly in both technical quality and story. Andrew Stanton, John Lassetter, and Brad Bird know what they're doing. If there's anyone in the Hollywood system that is in touch how to strike a balance between the story and spectacle, it's Pixar.

--

I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Re:An era gone by... by GodfatherofSoul · 2008-05-15 19:06 · Score: 1

This has been a long, slow trend. But, I think it's more of an issue of movies becoming so expensive that producers don't want to take risks. They've become very formulaic and very polished. This insane trend of desperate sequels we're seeing, to me, is an artifact of timid producers looking to hedge their bets with a respected brand name.
Some context; I've been on an 80s movie binge over the last year. What blows me away is how many good movies Hollywood used to crank out on obviously shoestring budgets. Not all were great mind you, but there are a ton of 80s movies I can watch and enjoy and not have the feeling afterwards that someone just assaulted my intelligence.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by D+Ninja · 2008-05-15 07:27 · Score: 1

Please be quiet and keep your opinions to yourself, Mr. D. Maul. You're just bitter that you're movie got a crappy review.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:41 · Score: 0

Because most would-be theater-goers are become avid movie watchers so at the end of the month when they are going over their expenses say, "oh damn, I spent all my money on Bring It On VI and Indiana Jones IV so now I cannot go see the new ultra-modern take on Les Mis... Blast!"

Actually I think it's just a person familiar with acting critiquing a blockbuster movie and (surprise!) being disappointed.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Mongoose+Disciple · 2008-05-15 07:42 · Score: 1

I went to the theatre expecting to hate it (a bunch of my friends were going to see it and I thought, it'll probably be stupid but with this crowd that'll probably still be fun), but I actually really enjoyed it. I started off the movie thinking it was all pretty ridiculous, and somehow maybe twenty minutes into the movie I went straight past ridiculousness overload into just accepting it for what it was and enjoying it.

It's probably as good of a movie as could have been made out of the source material.

Also, one of the people in our group either started crying during the final race or had an eyegasm from the preposterous, yet somehow enjoyable, visuals. I've decided I don't want to know which or why.

Take your by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 07:44 · Score: 0

meds.

One man's opinion does not a film make or break by TigerPlish · 2008-05-15 07:48 · Score: 1

It greatly amuses me how sheeple must obey what they're told, and think what they're told to think.

Just because some crank somewhere deems a film to be dreadful doesn't make it so.

If it winds up in the discount bin at Walmart the week after it hit the theaters, *then* it is a dreadful film.

Translation: WTF is this article doing in /.?! It ain't news, and I'm not sure it's all that nerdish either.

okies, rant over.

--
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.

SW Prequel trailers by phorm · 2008-05-15 07:54 · Score: 1

And, IMHO, in a lot of ways the Star-Wars prequels had good trailers too, it was the stilted acting and thin plot that disappointed in the end.

Critics be damned. by fahrbot-bot · 2008-05-15 08:01 · Score: 1

You just need to find a critic or two that you usually agree with.

Or one who can simply describe the movie and let me decide if I think I'll enjoy it. More often the critic gets caught up in debating what the movie is vs. what it should have been - blah wasn't realistic, etc...

Sometimes you simply have to accept the movie as it is and decide if you like the story and characters as they are without regard to any expectations. Suspend your disbelief and dive it.

For example: "Iron Man" wasn't believable on many levels and several critics disliked Paltrow's performance as weak, but I really enjoyed the movie and liked her as Pepper Potts none-the-less.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

It's been almost 10 years, let it go people! by chill182 · 2008-05-15 08:02 · Score: 1

Do you realize if you worked a minimum wage job the same number of hours you've spent bitching about phantom menace you could have MORE than made up for the $8 you lost watching that movie?

Bitsmack.com

Re:Way to steal Patton Oswalt's bit without citiat by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:08 · Score: 0

how do you know the poster is not Patton Oswalt?

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Quikah · 2008-05-15 08:18 · Score: 1

Generally the deals that theaters make with the studios is that they get 0% of the ticket sales the first week or two, they make all their money on concessions. After the opening weeks the theaters get an ever increasing portion of the tickets sales. A negative review could dampen the opening gross, but if it IS good then the word of mouth will get people into the theaters a week or two after opening, when the theaters will actually make some money on ticket sales.

--
Q.

Jar Jar strikes again by heroine · 2008-05-15 08:28 · Score: 1

Sounds like George is still trying to make Jar Jar a superstar.

Since we're doing sequels... by CompMD · 2008-05-15 08:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm waiting for the second Buckaroo Banzai movie. Come on, people, get to it. It would probably be very helpful for Jeff Goldblum's career.

Re:Since we're doing sequels... by GodfatherofSoul · 2008-05-15 19:00 · Score: 1

LOL, that movie popped into my head a few weeks ago when I was watching Robocop (I'm on a 80s movie binge). My name is John Bigbootay!

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Re:Since we're doing sequels... by CompMD · 2008-05-16 03:29 · Score: 1

Sheesh, I was serious about bringing back Buckaroo Banzai and I got modded "funny." If you're on an 80's movie binge, perhaps you could cross a movie with slashdot and end up with a nerd's adventure across Africa in the summer blockbuster hit, "The Mods Must Be Crazy."

Re:Way to steal Patton Oswalt's bit... by Pascoea · 2008-05-15 08:54 · Score: 1

Maybe the AC is Patton Oswald! After all, he could be a closet /. fan.

Disturbia, Transformers... by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 08:55 · Score: 0

Shia Lebouf will ruin this like he ruined the 1980s for me.

Re:Disturbia, Transformers... by Rakarra · 2008-05-19 07:13 · Score: 1

Shia Lebouf was the only good thing about the Transformers. Well, him and Peter Cullen.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by flyingsquid · 2008-05-15 08:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

It blows my mind why anyone would want to take a okay movie (the only one I'd call "good" was the first one) and plunge it into irrelevancy with a steaming shit-pile of a sequel. (I'm still referring to the second and third movies there, btw.)

Simple. People get successful and it goes to their heads. When they start out, they have to break their backs, to fight, to compromise, to take criticism... and then they get successful, and they take away the wrong less from that. Instead of crediting hard work, compromise, and criticism, they say, "I'm just brilliant, and everyone who ever criticized me doesn't get that, and if people would let me do whatever I wanted, my work would be even better".

They forget that quality doesn't come from being brilliant so much as hard work, taking criticism, and compromising with people who may know more than you about certain issues, and working with others. Because they are successful and powerful, they have the power to ignore or silence your critics, instead of listening to legitimate criticism. They can take shortcuts, instead of doing hard work, and people will let them get away with it. They can surround yourself with sycophants, yes-men, and hangers-on who just tell them how wonderful you are, instead of telling them the truth. They can get away with half-assed work. It takes discipline and humility to survive being a success and to still produce good work.

Re:The time period is way way too late by khallow · 2008-05-15 09:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Indy needs to fight the Nazis.

I disagree. I mean, come on, Indy got Hilter to sign his book last time. What's next? The trope would be overused (and given Spielberg's history, the Nazis are overused).

Gee, I like your movie better by Prototerm · 2008-05-15 09:08 · Score: 1

To quote characters in another Lucas movie "I've got a bad feeling about this".

Or, perhaps a better one would be: "Like a million voices cried out in horror and were silenced."

--
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Senator Carl Schurz (1872)

Re:Gee, I like your movie better by sesshomaru · 2008-05-15 10:07 · Score: 1

Did you ever see the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles?
It can't possibly be worse than that... can it?

--
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."

Which part of critic you can't spell? by jotaeleemeese · 2008-05-15 09:10 · Score: 1

A critic is obliged to give an opinion and perhaps a rating to a movie, his position is of judge, to nick pick the bads and to praise the goods. That is the job description for bunnies sakes, not pointing out the flaws of a movie would be a critic's dereliction of duty.

If you want a description, then look for reviews. Normally the websites of the movies will give you enough information, and even the IMDB and similar sites have a plot outline that does not go into judging the merits of a movie.

Don't blame the critics about your personal confusion about their function, the name of the profession should be a major give away about what one can expect, but some folks have a twisted version of the Universe in which critics should not criticize, which is frankly baffling...

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Re:Which part of critic you can't spell? by fahrbot-bot · 2008-05-15 09:36 · Score: 1

folks have a twisted version of the Universe in which critics should not criticize
Actually I agree with your sentiment and perhaps I should have been more clear. There's a difference between the story, how well it's told and how well it's produced. I've seen many movies with good stories, but poor mechanics and as well as crappy stories with good eye candy.
Ideally, you'd want a good story that's been told and shot well. Push to shove, I prefer good stories and characters over production quality. Usually you get a mix.
What I'd like is for critics to separate the story and characters from whether it's realistic or not and how well the movie's been made and critique them separately. While I'm asking, I'd like critics to keep their personal feelings about an actor (or director) out of the critique as well.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

fake by thinsoldier · 2008-05-15 09:12 · Score: 1

Actually, the 3 new star wars movies helped me to more clearly identify what I liked about the older movies. After watching the older movies again it's even MORE clear to me why the new movies sucked. I watch at least one of the three Indiana Jones movies every year (not always intentionally) and every time, I enjoy them. The first thing that JUMPS out at me when I see the new Indiana Jones trailer is that, just like Star Wars, it doesn't "look" the same. Either someone ran some dumb post processing color unbalancing on it or a lot of it was shot against a green screen or something. In the original films the environments look "normal" like real life. They might not have actually gone to India, Egypt, or South America but it sure looked like they did. I don't get that same vibe from the new trailer. Consider the part of the trailer where they're being chanced down a stone staircase by tribal warriors. Now think back to the first movie where he was being chased through the jungle by tribal warriors. Ok, now think about Mel Gibson's Apocalypto where the prisoners were being marched through the city and when they guy was being chaced by tribal warriors. One of these things is not like the other.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by dgatwood · 2008-05-15 09:14 · Score: 1

I had also heard that they were using an experimental new HD camera tech that allowed all object in frame to be in focus at all times unlike traditional cameras that have a set focal distance. So this aspect really intrigued me.

Just use the tiny lens off a camera phone. Instantly near-infinite depth of field. :-D

--

Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

WHAT! by The+Neck · 2008-05-15 09:15 · Score: 0

Ok I only have one thing to say here.

"BEAN" got 3 out of 4 stars....BEAN!

The Neck
.

How idiotic. by jotaeleemeese · 2008-05-15 09:18 · Score: 1

Surely you would also be against a food critic that gives a bad rating to your local McDonalds.

You are in your right to go and watch rubbish and enjoy it, the job of the critic is to point out why something is rubbish, irrespective of how much a crowd is pleased by it.

That blockbuster movies are not normally high art is not the fault of the critic, it is the fault of the movie producers and the majority of the movie goer public, who are always happy to watch "popcorn-munchers" without ever attempting to watch anything else.

If the majority of the public wants banal low brow art most of the time, movie critics (the fucking experts in the field) should not pat the public in the back for their lack of good taste.

Any expertise carries an obvious degree of snobbery (we could say that techies and nerds are snob when it comes to technology) but that does not mean that you let the fools start running the asylum...

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Yeah, let s not tlisten to the experts. by jotaeleemeese · 2008-05-15 09:24 · Score: 1

We, the ignorant public, know better.

Next thing you are going to say is that global warming is a scam and that humankind has never landed in the Moon ....

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Re:Yeah, let s not tlisten to the experts. by ShadowsHawk · 2008-05-16 04:32 · Score: 1

What qualifies a movie critic (especially this one) as an expert? Critiquing certainly isn't a science as you imply.
Re:Yeah, let s not tlisten to the experts. by idontgno · 2008-05-16 10:44 · Score: 1

Well...
I'm certainly not taking your word for it, although I applaud your honesty in admitting your ignorance.
I think the point, lost among your off-topic borderline ad-hominem, is "Make up your own mind." You know, "critical thinking"? (I assume you've heard of it.)
Delegating the individual's inalienable decision process to a self-proclaimed expert has been the source of innumerable persistent fallacies, errors, and even terrible evils.
But that's stretching the principle a bit further than called for, in context. Let's just leave it at De gustibus non est disputandum.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

You are already in the backfoot.... by jotaeleemeese · 2008-05-15 09:26 · Score: 1

... when start talking about franchises.

We all know that the aim of a franchise is to make as much money as you can following a well understood formula, normally delivering predictable, mediocre goods or services.

The name franchise could not be more aptly applied to the serials we are force fed each summer nowadays.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Picky? by jotaeleemeese · 2008-05-15 09:31 · Score: 1

So you are fine with a movie that for 1/3 of the screen time is just a big advertisement for a bad video game ?

Your kind of pickiness is, uhm, baffling.

--
IANAL but write like a drunk one.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by MrNiceguy_KS · 2008-05-15 09:42 · Score: 1

Another agreement on Matrix Reloaded. Really, the worst part about it was that it had so much potential that was completely flushed in the third movie. Loved the Architect, loved the concept of rogue programs running inside the Matrix, thought the French guy had potential to be really interesting. Great buildup to Smith waking up in the real world. And then we follow it up with a bad war movie that throws it all away.

--
Redundancy is good And also good.

Overused Nazis by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2008-05-15 09:48 · Score: 1

Yeah, you'd think after having a couple of Indiana Jones movies with them in that he'd pick some different bad guys for Schindler's List.

Re:Overused Nazis by khallow · 2008-05-15 15:41 · Score: 1

And Saving Private Ryan. I think the Soviets would have been a good choice for those two movies.

what were you expecting ? by unity100 · 2008-05-15 10:00 · Score: 1

a blowjob from Padme ?

--
Read radical news here

Re:what were you expecting ? by ShadowsHawk · 2008-05-16 04:48 · Score: 1

While that would have been nice, I agree with the GP. Why does a movie require realism? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'acceptability'.
Re:what were you expecting ? by unity100 · 2008-05-16 06:15 · Score: 1

acceptability = the status a movie attains when it satisfies enough bitchy expectations. like realism.

--
Read radical news here

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by skimitar · 2008-05-15 10:11 · Score: 1

So theaters make money by people *not* going to theater? It's a wonder they all didn't retire after Gigli.

Plot spoiler follows by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 10:24 · Score: 0

The big intimidating guy swinging the sword shoots first.

:-P

Re:Just about the exact same thing occurred to me by Rakarra · 2008-05-15 10:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Spielburg has had his share of excellent movies as well as his substandard movies. Many of 'meh'-quality movies had a screenplay penned by David Koepp, who also wrote this newest Indiana Jones movie.

Raiders of the Lost cat by mgabrys_sf · 2008-05-15 10:37 · Score: 1

Don Asmussen did a send up pretty much exactly as you described. Mondo is no longer hosting it so I mirrored it on YouTube with credit to the author his previous host.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ8a-1z2cQE

I had to convert the ancient .swf file (farmed from an equally ancient link from the wayback archive cache circa 2003) using SnapzXpro - then convert it to Divx to avoid sound synch BS from YouTube and upload the whole 20 meg mess. Fuck RickRolls.

Enjoy.

Don't denigrate Ebert that way! by Chris+Burke · 2008-05-15 11:01 · Score: 1

But then again, my favourite Matrix movie was the second one, so what do I know... For what it's worth, Ebert agrees with me.

Comparing that review to his review of The Matrix, it seems to me more like that by the time he watched the second movie, the things that bothered him with the first one like the lack of an answer to all the intriguing questions presented and settling everything through a kung-fu and gun battle cliche that's effectively just a video game fight, simply stopped bothering him and he went along for the ride. Doesn't mean he actually likes the movie more, and he never says he does. He chides The Matrix by comparing it to similar films like Dark City that go all the way and provide a transformative ending, saying that he wants a "Third Act", something which Reloaded certainly doesn't provide.

But hey, let's find out what he really thinks in his review of Matrix Revolutions. Therein he says:

The first "Matrix" was the best because it really did toy with the conflict between illusion and reality -- between the world we think we inhabit, and its underlying nature. The problem of "Matrix Reloaded" and "Matrix Revolutions" is that they are action pictures that are forced to exist in a world that undercuts the reality of the action. So there we go. Ebert, like most of us, found The Matrix to be the best and most intriguing film, with Reloaded a fun action romp whose philosophical "speeches provide not meaning, but the effect of meaning", and with Revolutions a pretty CGI fest but ultimately disappointing.

I knew he had better taste than that. :)

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:The time period is way way too late by AeroIllini · 2008-05-15 11:05 · Score: 1

Spielberg has said in an interview (I don't have a link to the original interview, which was several years ago, but there is an interview in Entertainment Weekly from April that says the same thing) that he purposely did not want to include the Nazis in the new movie. After his experience making Schindler's List, and all the emotional baggage the film brought along for him, he simply could not portray the Nazis as campy cartoonish bad guys anymore. During the making of that movie, he interviewed a lot of holocaust survivors and faced his own demons about the war, the holocaust, and the systematic extermination of an entire culture.

Once you've stared real evil in the face, I suspect that a caricature just doesn't seem appealing anymore.

--
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.

Re:The time period is way way too late by Hannah+E.+Davis · 2008-05-15 11:16 · Score: 1

I agree that there should have been Nazis, but I see no problem with it being set in the 50s -- after all, it's not like there was any lack of escaped high-ranking Nazis bumming around in South America after the war, pining for the good old days.

And if those Nazis learnt of an ancient artifact that they could use to resurrect the Reich, well... it would make a much better movie than anything involving the Soviets (much as I love those guys in spy movies).

Reeks of bad CGI by icepick72 · 2008-05-15 11:48 · Score: 1

The trailer I saw (before Iron Man) actually looked great to me, so I'm taking this with a grain of salt.

When I watch the new Indianna J trailers I see a lot of bad CGI effects that discourage me. And it's the bad kind of bad CGI, where everything looks just slightly off. Even Jurassic Park in the '90s was more realistic than what I see being promoted.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 12:02 · Score: 0

Actually, this is an old and time-tested ploy by lazy academics toiling under 'publish-or-perish' retention of tenure regimes - one just picks a star in one's field, say, Einstein, then makes a savage, totally contrarian attack on the star's work in a letter-to-the editor to some high-visibility but typically second-or-third string venue, and waits for the flood of 'You blithering idiot' responses to hoist one's citation statistics into the stratosphere...

Kate Capshaw's character was worse by jesterzog · 2008-05-15 12:36 · Score: 1

Putting that Shai LaBuff (spelling) kid in this one is probably what did it in.

Short Round was annoying, but nowhere near as irritating as a moronic woman who was screaming and being mocked by the other characters every 10 minutes.

Raiders was an awesome movie and it was one of the few action movies ever to have had a really strong supporting female character who could actually stand up for herself on her own merits, often challenging the main character. When Lucas and the studios tried to capitalise on the first movie's popularity, the Marion character was dropped and much of the really good stuff that made Raiders' was thrown out the window in favour of stupid 1980's movie cliches that were popular at the time. (Notably the annoying kid, and the annoying lady who can't look after herself and needs rescuing by more intelligent, stronger and more competent male characters, including the 10 year old annoying kid at times.)

It looks as if they've re-cast Karen Allen as Marion in the new film (even third on the IMDB list), so I'm hoping there might be something more than a cameo and that it's actually done well. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by dcam · 2008-05-15 12:50 · Score: 1

Almost everyone who reads /. already knows if they are going to see the new Indy Jones movie or not (I am), so why bother?

I'm going to read some more reviews before I make a decision.

But then again, my favourite Matrix movie was the second one, so what do I know...

I'd be mildly interested to know what your criteria for a good movie is.

--
meh

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by DarkProphet · 2008-05-15 14:06 · Score: 1

I don't doubt that you are right, but this seems to me to be a terribly antiquated and broken model. If movie-makers REALLY wanted to do it right, they'd offer new releases via on-demand digital TV. Why would any of us bother to go to the theater when we can make our own popcorn and view the movie from the comfort of our own homes? With the ability to pause for pee-breaks, no less? The big-screen experience is far overrated, given the affordability of home surround-sound systems and big-screen HD-TVs.

OTOH, I can't make cherry Icees at home...

--
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by somersault · 2008-05-15 15:07 · Score: 1

Also, one of the people in our group either started crying during the final race or had an eyegasm from the preposterous, yet somehow enjoyable, visuals. I've decided I don't want to know which or why. I actually find that pretty easy to believe, I strangely felt very emotional at a couple of the scenes where the family was breaking up/making up. Heh. I had had pretty messed up sleep patterns in the week before though, so it was probably just a result of tiredness :p

--
which is totally what she said

Its not stealing by patio11 · 2008-05-15 15:49 · Score: 1

Its copyright infringement.

*rimshot*

--
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.

ANOTHER Crystal Skull?! by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 16:16 · Score: 0

Hasn't the Stargate SG-1 series already done a 'crystal skull' episode? ...wait, so did the Phantom movie (not the best but watchable..once..twice at the most).

Thick plots in Hollywood seem to be thinning at an alarming rate.

no need for agreement by TheLink · 2008-05-15 16:38 · Score: 1

You don't need a critic you usually agree with. It could be a critic you usually disagree with. So you just watch what that critic hates :).

I'd say all you really need from reviewers is a list of movies that reviewer likes, a list of those he hates and which movies he thinks "this" movie is like and whether he hates it or likes it.

That way, no spoiler, but you still know whether you want to watch it or not, as long as that reviewer is consistent, and has good correlation with your preferences (whether negative or positive).

Of course reviewers won't get paid very much for doing stuff like this :).

--

Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Stop it by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-15 18:44 · Score: 0

These sequels are killing it for me
Miami Vice
Die hard 4.0
Rambo

now Indiana Jones

Whats next Crocodile Dundee.
Man these sequels are killing my childhood heroes.

Re:Just about the exact same thing occurred to me by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 19:30 · Score: 1

And it's partly because of the crappiness of the newer Star Wars movies (RotS wasn't awful, but it wasn't on par with the originals) that I will be taking great pleasure in shaking the hand of David Prowse next month at Disney's Star Wars Weekends. He is, was, and will always be the REAL Darth Vader. (along with James Earl Jones and Sebastian Shaw, of course) I was somewhat disgusted when I learned that he'd asked Lucas to wear the Vader suit for the end of RotS, but was turned down in favor of Hayden (Whiny Vader) Christiansen.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 20:19 · Score: 1

It blows my mind why anyone would want to take a okay movie (the only one I'd call "good" was the first one) and plunge it into irrelevancy with a steaming shit-pile of a sequel.

A check with lots of zeros, of course.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by NormalVisual · 2008-05-15 20:28 · Score: 1

OTOH, I can't make cherry Icees at home...

Sure you can, it'll just cost you $15 grand or so to do it, not including consumables.

--
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Steve001 · 2008-05-15 22:12 · Score: 1

twistedsymphony wrote as part of a post:

I heard that the brother's W were making a Speed Racer movie quite some time ago... honestly it puzzled me how anyone could make a movie worth watching with Speed Racer as the source material.

Actually, a movie version of Speed Racer has been in work for a very long time, long before "The Matrix" was released. When I first heard about a movie version, Johnny Depp was one of the actors being considered for the role of Speed. If I remember correctly, it was soon after he was on the series "21 Jump Street."

Our era lacks inspiration. by master_p · 2008-05-15 23:35 · Score: 1

Those big movies of yesteryear (the first Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Star Trek etc) were all products of inspiration. People put their heart in them, and the result was tremendous.

Nowadays, it's all about profit. And the outcome is bad, because it lacks any sort of love put into it.

I haven't seen a really good film for a long time now. Even Lord Of The Rings was very mediocre (especially since I've read the books before seeing the movies).

I fear that the next Star Trek movie will be just as bad as Indy 4 will be...

OOF! by MoeDumb · 2008-05-16 01:17 · Score: 0

I saw Indy throw a punch in a preview. His arm was so slow it was embarrassing. Especially as the bad guy oversold the reaction of the 'impact.' It was like Harrison's arm was tied down with weights. Arthritis?

--
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by segedunum · 2008-05-16 01:32 · Score: 1

I really hope you're right and the review is crap, but the trouble is that the review matches up to the trailer and what has happened surrounding the filming of the movie. ShogunMaster describes some convoluted bullshit plot regarding aliens and Roswell, and what do I see on the trailer? A container with Roswell on it. Shit.

In addition, they have also cancelled the release party at Cannes and John Hurt has basically come out and said that the film is a vehicle for George Lucas to make another billion in merchandise and expand his ego still further (no change there). This film is going to blow bricks made out of solid, constipated shit and as a someone who has enjoyed IJ films immensely from about eight years old, this is going to scar me for life.

One Name by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 01:57 · Score: 0

Uwe Boll

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by mzs · 2008-05-16 03:14 · Score: 1

I went, with my kids. If there is anything wrong it is a little long for kids. My oldest son had to "go pee so badly" but he just would not leave the theater because the movies was "so awesome." For me any film that makes me feel like I am 8 years old again is a good one. This morning my youngest son called me at work and basically his whole conversation was about the movie and how he was playing with little cars, one of which his older brother painted to look like the #5 car. With all the bvroom-brvooms over the phone I realized what a great movie that was. It is a family movie like no other before.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by ShadowsHawk · 2008-05-16 03:16 · Score: 1

Ouch. I know someone that just picked up a commercial grade margarita machine for $300. I'm wondering if you could use something like that for Icees.. Oh, blue-raspberry FTW!

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 04:21 · Score: 0

The cheapest I've seen used carbonated slush machines on eBay is about $3000 or so. The margarita machine probably would not work very well with carbonated drinks - frozen carbonated beverage machines (FCBs) have a pressurized chamber to keep the fizziness in the drink.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 04:29 · Score: 0

Also, theaters keep a larger percentage of the ticket sales the longer the movie runs in theaters. A heavily-hyped movie that opens big and everyone hates won't make the theaters very much at all since they get very little from the opening weekend and after that people stop going to see it. But if the movie gets panned by reviewers and everyone waits a couple of weeks before deciding to go see it based on word-of-mouth from friends that saw it, the theaters will see a larger percentage of the ticket sales.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by Rakarra · 2008-05-16 06:21 · Score: 1

*SPOILER ALERT*

I totally agree. I liked the ideas presented in the second movie, and the ending raised so many interesting possibilities. Was the 'real world' where they really were? Or were they in another section of the Matrix? Or better yet was the 'real world' really just another matrix? Was it like an onion, with layer after layer of matrices? Maybe that's how the machines dealt with that small percentage of humans who rebelled against the Matrix world -- put them in the matrix outside of that matrix but let them think they were fighting against that system when they were just another part of it. Those were the really cool concepts that I and others were thinking when we came out of Matrix Reloaded. Then we saw the third movie and saw what the Brothers W came up with wasn't -nearly- as interesting as what the fans came up with. "Oh, all that stuff? Forget about it. Neo has powers in the real world now." Fucking cop-out. Plus, a fight with CG Neo versus a bunch of CG Smiths is just not very interesting.

Oh yeah, and Trinity, you know, the character that Neo spends pretty much the entire second movie sacrificing so much to save, even willing to choose her over Zion (that's another thing, the Architect gives him a choice and he makes his decision.. a decision that ended up having no consequence)? Yeah, she ends up dying anyway. Pretty pointlessly too. I hate it when later movies just crap over the themes of earlier ones. For me it's why the Alien franchise ended after Aliens. There was no Alien 3 or Alien 4. "You know the little girl you risked everything to save? She dies off-screen in the first five minutes in the next movie."

worst critic i've read: by WangChunky · 2008-05-16 07:47 · Score: 1

so far, that is... http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/

How I learned to stop worrying and love Indy 4 by Anonymous Coward · 2008-05-16 11:05 · Score: 0

You think about things far too much. The bottom line is Indy is back. Read that part again. Remember how fun it was to watch the first films, go watch this one and have that same fun again. Then thank Mr Spielberg, Mr. Lucas and Mr. Ford for doing it for you.

Best Regards

Anonymous Coward.

Re:This singular review on aintitcool needs to die by falcon5768 · 2008-05-17 04:39 · Score: 1

no not exactly, you did understand what I said. Theaters make more money if the movie isnt thought to be good all that good, and people go to see it anyway. A bomb is a bomb for eveyone, those are the ones that barely make it a week. They are looking for films that have legs to stay in the theaters for a bit, but are not super blockbusters that will cost the theaters gobs of money just to show. This is also the reason why your small town theaters are getting beat up. Only the bigger players can even afford to show your Star Wars and your LotR's for long stretches of time unless the movie players make a deal to "rerelease" the film a few weeks down the line.

--

"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

from an indy fan; the movie is awful by wrongopinions · 2008-05-21 18:54 · Score: 1

I just got back from the Indiana Jones 4 movie. I must say I am SEVERELY disappointed. If you are fond of the original trilogy on a level more than just enjoying a good action flick, I guarantee you will also be devastated by this movie. They have strayed so far from the amazing mix of realism, fantasy and excitement. Now it is pure fantasy (maybe some excitement) but no ground in realism WHAT SO EVER. I find it almost such a lack of reality that they must have deliberately intended to give that impression. Its not cute, its not funny, its not Indiana Jones. To me, there is still only a trilogy. Everyone will still go see it, especially the fans. I just feel so terrible about it. I am sure many of you fans out there will agree... unfortunately

Slashdot Mirror

Early Review Calls New Indiana Jones Film Dreadful

643 comments