comment #1

AndrewOwens says ...

# Spoilers #

I'm just having a hard time believing that it borrowed the "duplicitous supporting character almost escapes but is killed by going back for treasure" bit from the end of The Mummy and the "secret pyramid is sucked into tornado-esque vortex" bit from the end of The Mummy Returns. Was that a deliberate bit of post ironic tomfoolery or just lazy scriptwriting?

I'm being too harsh - I enjoyed the film - but for me you've got "Raiders"; which stands alone, and then you have the just completed "Indiana Jones" trilogy, which is something else entirely. All of the sequels have the same problems, and none of them nail that sense of gritty reality and "being there" that Raiders has.

LeBouf was good, but that Tarzan scene stands next to the gymnastics scene from "The Lost World" as one of Spielberg's most blatant "WTF!?" moments.

comment #2

rockne says ...

I'm sure Sith's numbers included strong midnight and Thursday numbers. Just as many people will probably want to check this out, but aren't going to rush the first few nights to see it. I don't know Sith's Friday or Saturday numbers, but the word-of-mouth seemed to be the same for Sith...some love it no matter what, some see the childish and ridiculous moments as Lucas hitting a low point...(He was just getting started) So I think it will do at least 160 million for the weekend...IMO.

comment #3

MathewM says ...

With Episode 3 fans were chomping at the bit for the film. Even after two lackluster prequels it was the one everyone was waiting to see. Indy 4 doesn't have the same level of "need to see it opening night or I won't be able to sleep..." hype. Also most of us have regular jobs and going to see a midnight or even Thursday show is difficult. Me and my wife plan on seeing it tonight at a later show on the biggest screen. I'm sure the film will do well it's just the jobless movie geek prognosticators need to take a chill pill and realize that most people out there have a life and can't stay up until 2am during a week night watching a movie.

comment #4

MadCrazyMovieHouse says ...

I don't think this is a very big surprise. Indy's a big franchise, but it was never as big as STAR WARS (people love Indy, but I don't think he's anyone's religion), and I never thought it had a chance to top SITH's opening weekend. Look for an opening closer to $100 million - $160 seems too high to me.

comment #5

rockne says ...

"...people love Indy, but I don't think he's anyone's religion."

Very well said, sir...very well said.

comment #6

K. Bowen says ...

"All of the sequels have the same problems, and none of them nail that sense of gritty reality and "being there" that Raiders has."

The way I put it in my review is this .... Do you remember that little speech that Belloq gives, where he persuades Jones not to fire his weapon on the ark? "This is history," etc. Who would give that speech in this film? When would they do it? What would it be about? That shows the missing element from the film.

comment #7

DavidF says ...

It makes more sense to compare Indy 4 to Phantom Menace.
Revenge of the Sith wasn't coming off a 20 year break - it was coming off of two films which had been preceded by that break, building up to the finale.

Really - the film will make money, it will end up being one of the biggest earners of the year and (though I'm not seeing it until tomorrow) it sounds like most people agree it's pretty fun.

Beyond all that, who gives a crap?

comment #8

robbiefantastic says ...

saw it last night and i have to say i was some what disappointed......i didn't hate it and it had glimmers of hope in the first two acts but the third act was george lucas raping my childhood yet again........it's ok, i'll watch "raiders" on dvd this weekend and everything will be right with the world........i will say that the motorcycle chase scene was great fun though.......overall pretty ripe cheese......

comment #9

storymark says ...

I think there should be anew rule: That anytime someone mentions any variation of "Raping my childhood" when discussing a film, that it should be considered the film discussion equivalent of Godwin's Law.

comment #10

Howlingman says ...

My creepy next-door neighbor raped my childhood. And bought me ice cream.

comment #11

Mr. Muckle says ...

I only paid $5.50 to get in, at 11 AM, and I wish I had even that back. Of course, maybe it's only me, but I found it to be a mirthless, graceless cataract sucking in everything plus the kitchen sink. Now how am I gonna wash my dishes? It has much more of the idiot, disconnected, mechanical flavor of a Lucas than the sometimes genius of Spielberg. Poor Shia having to play a preening, ducktailed avatar of the chinless one, and how he wishes to remember himself. AndrewOwens is right, above. Raiders stands alone. The rest is monkey crap.

comment #12

Jeffrey Kunze says ...

What was Spielberg talking about when he said Indy 4 wasn't gonna be CGI-ridden like most summer blockbuster. What a lying whore. I'm now on the anti-Spielberg bandwagon, like Wells was and I believe still secretly is...

And what the fuck was up with the groundhogs?! Completely unnecessay. All the jokes and attempts at humor fell flat at my screening. The only real laugh was the snake moment.

This movie did not feel like a continuation of the original trilogy at all. 19 years is just too long. They should have concieved another one back in the 90s, if at all.

Why would Wells call Crystal Skull better than Temple of Doom?!

comment #13

K. Bowen says ...

Agree. Shoot the groundhog.

comment #14

Roman says ...

Jeffrey Kunze, don't be ridiculous. The movie didn't have that much CGI. Most importantly, it didn't have that much CGI in the SCENES THAT MATTERED. It's wasn't LOTR or Speed Racer for Pete's sake. Anyway, I'm not going to go into that debate.

By the way, this movie is going to have a different pattern of attendance than most other films, it will have a much bigger raise over Saturday and much stronger legs overall. Trust me, we wil start seeing major increases over the next few days.

Only an idiot could have thought this movie would be as frontloaded as "Star Wars".

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Jeff: I told you the SW fans would one day pay George in kind for the prequels.

Andrew: "I'm just having a hard time believing that it borrowed the "duplicitous supporting character almost escapes but is killed by going back for treasure" bit from the end of The Mummy and the "secret pyramid is sucked into tornado-esque vortex" bit from the end of The Mummy Returns."

I'm pissed that Lucas swiped Donner's cross-country Americana scene from Superman.

rockne: "I'm sure Sith's numbers included strong midnight and Thursday numbers. Just as many people will probably want to check this out, but aren't going to rush the first few nights to see it. I don't know Sith's Friday or Saturday numbers, but the word-of-mouth seemed to be the same for Sith...some love it no matter what, some see the childish and ridiculous moments as Lucas hitting a low point...(He was just getting started)"

Sith was touted as a must-see which would up the ante, while Indy 4 comes off as more of the same.

David: "Really - the film will make money, it will end up being one of the biggest earners of the year "

Agree with the former, not the latter.

Muckle: "It has much more of the idiot, disconnected, mechanical flavor of a Lucas than the sometimes genius of Spielberg."

George did pick the screenwriter, so that's not surprising. Darabont will get his revenge yet.

Jeffrey: "And what the fuck was up with the groundhogs?!"

A tribute to Caddyshack, maybe?

comment #16

DarthCorleone says ...

This movie is a dungheap.

comment #17

Richardson says ...

"David: "Really - the film will make money, it will end up being one of the biggest earners of the year "

Agree with the former, not the latter."

Whew. That's a relief. I was worried it might not be. But I know one iron-clad rule of H-E: If DZ predicts anything, you can bet the farm on it going the other way.

comment #18

D.Z. says ...

Rich, I told you. If Rambo 4 can't make the big world-wide bucks it used to, the same will be the case for Indy 4. The last Die Hard had to be about hackers for people to care.

comment #19

Richardson says ...

"Rich, I told you"

Just one of many things you're wrong about.

But I love the bizarre rules you set in your mind -- Die Hard was a hit because it was about hackers?

Please stop sniffing glue while you still have enough brain cells to actually type. It's really bad for you.

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: I'm wrong here, and yet it's already doing worse than Phantom Menace? And yes, if they didn't include some hi-tech nonsense in the plot-line, DH4 would probably have done as well as Willis' last few non-Sin City outings.

comment #21

MDOC says ...

Thursday box office reporting is fickle. The early word from Iron Man's Thursday reporting was "underperformer". Did we forget that lesson so soon?

DZ, I asked you this question in another forum and you ducked it. I want a number out of you for Indy's domestic. You said that The Da Vinci Code had a greater pre release interest due to the controversy buzz. I of course think that's silly. Let's quantify it with figures. Da Vinci grossed 217 in the US. What do you think Indy will gross?

comment #22

Richardson says ...

"I'm wrong here"

You're wrong when you say we've had this conversation before, yes.

"yet it's already doing worse than Phantom Menace?"

Doing worse than the 5th most popular movie of all time? STOP THE PRESSES! INDY 4 IS NOT ONE OF THE FIVE MOST POPULAR MOVIES OF ALL TIME!

People rush out to see 'Star Wars' a lot quicker than to see 'Indiana Jones'. The least popular 'Star Wars' movie outgrossed the highest grossing 'Indy' movie by at least $50 mil. So the comparison is silly to begin with.

"And yes, if they didn't include some hi-tech nonsense in the plot-line, DH4 would probably have done as well as Willis' last few non-Sin City outings."

Oh, I understand what you're saying. It's not confusing. It's just stupid and ridiculous, that's all.

comment #23

Richardson says ...

The sad thing is, I think most Hollywood execs think exactly like DZ.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

MDOC: "The early word from Iron Man's Thursday reporting was "underperformer". Did we forget that lesson so soon?"

Iron Man had a younger lead who appealed to guys and gals and better CG.

"DZ, I asked you this question in another forum and you ducked it. I want a number out of you for Indy's domestic. "

I doubt I ducked it as much as it ended up being pushed down to the bottom of the page.

"You said that The Da Vinci Code had a greater pre release interest due to the controversy buzz. I of course think that's silly."

You may think it's silly, but it helped that Mel Jesus movie and Dogma.

"Let's quantify it with figures. Da Vinci grossed 217 in the US. What do you think Indy will gross?"

I imagine $180 million, and that's being generous.

Richardson: "You're wrong when you say we've had this conversation before, yes."

Not with you, anyway.

"Doing worse than the 5th most popular movie of all time?"

There's a difference between successful and popular.

"The least popular 'Star Wars' movie outgrossed the highest grossing 'Indy' movie by at least $50 mil. So the comparison is silly to begin with."

If you adjust for inflation for the older Indy films, it's about even.

"Oh, I understand what you're saying. It's not confusing. It's just stupid and ridiculous, that's all."

Did anyone see Hollywood Homicide? No. That's basically what Die Hard 4 would be if they didn't have the terrorist hacker idea.

comment #25

Richardson says ...

"If you adjust for inflation for the older Indy films, it's about even."

If you adjust for inflation? Least popular (or, excuse me, "successful" -- like anybody doubted what I meant) 'Star Wars' movie was in 1980. Most popular 'Indy' movie was in 1981. Admit it, you don't know what words mean, do you?

"Did anyone see Hollywood Homicide? No. That's basically what Die Hard 4 would be if they didn't have the terrorist hacker idea."

Fool. 'Hollywood Homicide' + terrorist hackers = 'Firewall'. Which also failed.

Learn to think.

comment #26

Richardson says ...

"Not with you, anyway."

Which is why I said you're wrong when you say we had this conversation before.

If anybody thinks that DZ can ever contribute anything worthwhile to a conversation, witness the thread where he claims that Michael Bay badly cast a movie and then, when called out on the fact that Michael Bay wasn't mentioned in the article, defended (!) his statement as not incorrect because Michael Bay had once been attached to the film.

comment #27

Stephe96 says ...

"Crystal Skull" is a terrible movie. The whole thing is a mess and I couldn't believe that THIS is the script everyone was waiting 19 years for! There was absolutely no sense of danger, zero suspense and the attempts at humor were so lame that my jaw dropped about five minutes in to the movie and stayed there for the next two hours. And was anyone even paying ATTENTION to Karen Allen's atrocious acting? There she is, surrounded by Russians who are willing to torture and kill everyone she loves to get what they want, and in her introduction scene she strolls up the camera with a big silly grin plastered on her face! Ugh. This wasn't just a hugely disappointing experience...it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I'm stunned it's near 80% on Rotten Tomatoes, too.

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "If you adjust for inflation? Least popular (or, excuse me, "successful" -- like anybody doubted what I meant) 'Star Wars' movie was in 1980. Most popular 'Indy' movie was in 1981."

Technically, adjusted for inflation, the least popular in the series would be Attack of the Clones. And even The Last Crusade would kick its arse, if you use modern-day totals.

"Fool. 'Hollywood Homicide' + terrorist hackers = 'Firewall'. Which also failed."

Firewall was about cyber-theft, not cyber-terrorism.

"If anybody thinks that DZ can ever contribute anything worthwhile to a conversation, witness the thread where he claims that Michael Bay badly cast a movie and then, when called out on the fact that Michael Bay wasn't mentioned in the article, defended (!) his statement as not incorrect because Michael Bay had once been attached to the film."

Bay was originally attached to the project, so he might have suggested said cast-member.

Stephe: It sucks because it *wasn't* the script the studio waited nearly 20 years to adapt. That one was chucked by Lucas.

comment #29

storymark says ...

I never ceased to be amazed by the immense stupidity DZ seems so eager to flaunt.

comment #30

Richardson says ...

DZ: "a bunch of stupid nonsense crap"

The point is, DZ, you don't HAVE to adjust for inflation when comparing movies in roughly the same years. The original Star Wars series, the movies leading up to the movie you are comparing 'Crystal Skull' to, were significantly more popular than the original 'Indiana Jones' movies.

DZ: "Firewall was about cyber-theft, not cyber-terrorism."

I can't imagine what you get out of coming here, where nobody respects you and most people insult you, so let me say, sincerely, thank you for your endlessly entertaining boundless idiocy.

"Bay was originally attached to the project, so he might have suggested said cast-member."

That *still* doesn't make him responsible for actually casting the part, and that's even assuming that you're correct that he was ever attached to the film, and I don't really trust you as a source of information.

comment #31

shermy says ...

If your problem with the film is the fact that it attempts to be a 1950s B movie- then you can blame Lucas.

But personally, I think he may have been in the right on this one. The film he wanted to make back in 1993 had Indy getting mixed up with Roswell, and the things I enjoyed most about Kingdom were all present in that early concept.

Where I think the movie got into trouble was its decision to try and throw in too many extraneous elements. Indy and a son would've been fine. Or Indy seeking a missing professor. Or Marion. But all three tends to be a bit much, and all were added to the mix long afterwards.

Ford and Spielberg reportedly weren't excited over the prospect of Indy encountering aliens, and admittedly, much of those early drafts weren't what I'd call great. But the core idea was still a very ballsy one, and had they attempted its "go-for-broke" attitude- it may have resulted in a more respected film.

Even so, I did enjoy the film for what it was- particularly the first half.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Richard: "The original Star Wars series, the movies leading up to the movie you are comparing 'Crystal Skull' to, were significantly more popular than the original 'Indiana Jones' movies."

Two of them were; one went down pretty fast next to Spider-Man.

"and I don't really trust you as a source of information."

Do you trust http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070415g.php ?

shermy: "But personally, I think he may have been in the right on this one. The film he wanted to make back in 1993 had Indy getting mixed up with Roswell,"

It might have worked if there was no X-Files.

comment #33

Richardson says ...

"Two of them were; one went down pretty fast next to Spider-Man."

Congratulations for losing sight of any point you were trying to make, or any cohesive argument AT ALL, you fucking moron.

Empire Strikes Back (1980) outgrossed Raiders of the Lost Ark by more than $50 million 1980 dollars which, adjusted for inflation, is $140 million in today dollars.*

Therefore, to suggest that 'Crystal Skull' is a failure because it is not living up to 'Phantom Menace's opening is stupid. You are stupid. Not specifically for doing so, just in a general sort of way.

* = http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

comment #34

Richardson says ...

"Do you trust http://www.darkhorizons.com/news07/070415g.php ?"

Even though this is actually dodging the point I made, I'll bite.

I checked that link which said, a year ago, that Michael Bay was signed to do 'Prince of Persia'. Interestingly, that article linked directly to it's source. Here is what the source said:
"The IESB was able to confirm with Disney Studios that they are hopeful that Michael Bay will indeed direct the picture right after he is done with this Summer's blockbuster, Transformers."

So I am forced to conclude that no, I don't trust them, if they are taking that vague assurance as confirmation that it is a fact. And the fact that you are using a rumor from a year ago about a possibility rather than just saying, "Yeah, I made a silly mistake," is a perfect example of why you're a fucking idiot.

comment #35

D.Z. says ...

Richardson "Therefore, to suggest that 'Crystal Skull' is a failure because it is not living up to 'Phantom Menace's opening is stupid."

Indy 4's got the guy whose last hit was War of the Worlds directing and the guy whose last hit was Sith producing.
It might be a smaller fanbase than SW, but theoretically, we should be seeing numbers in the direction of Phantom Menace, not MI3.

comment #36

Richardson says ...

"Indy 4's got the guy whose last hit was War of the Worlds directing and the guy whose last hit was Sith producing. "

You love to break things down to non sequitur components, don't you? 'War of the Worlds' was a hit because it's Spielberg making a movie about scary aliens. The biggest movies Spielberg has made in recent years are the two he made with Cruise; this is because Tom Cruise is a HUGE movie star. Nobody expects present day Harrison Ford to gross as much as present day Tom Cruise.

And *nobody* sees a movie for who is producing it. That's just stupid. So nobody is saying, "Boy, I wouldn't want to see Indy, except that George Lucas produced it!" Nobody cares.

"theoretically, we should be seeing numbers in the direction of Phantom Menace, not MI3."

Indy has already, by the end of Friday, made more money than MI3 did its opening weekend.

Again, it is simply STUPID to set the bar at the fifth highest grossing movie of all time and declare the movie a failure if it can't reach that bar.

But, ok, let's do it:
Phantom Menace opens on Wednesday, gets $28 mil with Tuesday at midnight.
Indy opens on Thursday, gets $25 mil with Wed at midnight. Actually, that's much closer than I expected.
Phantom Menace's second day is $12 mil, bringing the total to $40.
Indy's second day is $31 mil. Wait a minute -- Indy is beating Phantom Menace? Wow, $51 - $40.

But, surely, Phantom Menace's Friday will be as good as Indy's Friday, right? ... $18 mil? So the three day total for Phantom Menace is only $59 mil, and Indy already has $51 in two days?

Wow, I'm glad you harped on that point and made me look into it. I wouldn't have realized how stupid you were. Your point is directly contradicted by evidence, you foolish piece of shit.

comment #37

PaleMoon says ...

I purposely have been avoiding all websites for spoilers on this movie and saw it last night at Arclight. Almost everyone was around my age and all I heard afterwards was the grumblings about going home to see the first Indy movie...but the motorcycle in the lobby was cool! I also watched the special features disc from the box set from the first three movies earlier in the day to get pumped up...but it left me feeling like anyone on this movie didn't remember they were the first to do this and knew how to make this type of movie-like 20 years too long of time and they forgot how. P. S. Thanks AndrewOwens...I said the very same things last night about The Mummy and The Lost World! Glad I'm not the only one thinking those same thoughts.

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

Richardson: "'War of the Worlds' was a hit because it's Spielberg making a movie about scary aliens."

And this movie has scary aliens, too.

"The biggest movies Spielberg has made in recent years are the two he made with Cruise; this is because Tom Cruise is a HUGE movie star."

You mean *was* huge. And if Cruise had anything to do with it, then Minority Report wouldn't have made less than The Matrix.

"And *nobody* sees a movie for who is producing it."

Then why would the first three Indy movies be hits?

"Indy has already, by the end of Friday, made more money than MI3 did its opening weekend."

Only because Indy 4 got an extra opening day, and it's being released during Memorial Day weekend.

"Again, it is simply STUPID to set the bar at the fifth highest grossing movie of all time and declare the movie a failure if it can't reach that bar."

Weren't they using the failure argument when Phantom Menace didn't beat Titanic and Attack of the Clones didn't beat Spider-Man?

"Phantom Menace opens on Wednesday, gets $28 mil with Tuesday at midnight.
Indy opens on Thursday, gets $25 mil with Wed at midnight. Actually, that's much closer than I expected.
Phantom Menace's second day is $12 mil, bringing the total to $40.
Indy's second day is $31 mil. Wait a minute -- Indy is beating Phantom Menace? Wow, $51 - $40."

Adjusted for inflation, Phantom Menace is still ahead.

comment #39

Richardson says ...

There is not a single word in that post which is worth responding to. You have completely abandoned any point you were previously trying to make. Rather that develop an argument, you just respond scattershot, as if your points counter the points that I am making. Anybody who can read would understand that they don't. You have the intelligence of a turnip but none of the wit.

comment #40

jany says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability cluster