The Hot Blog

I have worked on many projects that have been hell in production, but ultimately everyone pulled together in the end to make for a quality result. I'd be horrified if the quality of my final product was judged solely on how I got there. I know nothing about the behind the scene on Jones 4 production. Face it, it's a whores movie anyway, the 4th movie in a franchise. Everyone who worked on it knew that. But I still want to view it with fresh eyes, and not with some knowledge of catfights or creative arguments that it took to get to this final film.

McWeeney should know, with all his industry experience, that a tough production does not equal a bad movies. Ask Universal how Doug Limon's shoot of Bourne Identity went.

The Godfather, Tootsie, Titanic...just to add to your point, Martin. Sometimes films have terrible productions and whispers start talking about "well, if the production is troubled, the movie must be awful" and the movies turn out to be masterpieces. And I'm sure there have been films that were absolutely a blast to be on set, everything was easygoing and everyone enjoyed each other's company and the films turned out to be terrible.

The point is that nothing really matters until the lights dim and the movie starts. So while "buzz" might have existed on this film and many others, I don't really know how much that "buzz" really means.

Oh, and I thing McWeeney wants the film to be bad so that he can say, "See, it sucks. We broke the news first. We're relevant."

Wrecktum, I know Drew and he is not that guy. At all.

And I guess the movie is mediocre at best. Shit. The internet is going to be flooded with reviews in about an hour.

One word. Jaws.

"And I guess the movie is mediocre at best. Shit. The internet is going to be flooded with reviews in about an hour."

You're lying as much as McWeeny. Word is mostly postive from people seeing it today.

I don't think Spielberg is remotely concerned with whatever AICN are saying about his movie or it's production, it won't damage the outcome or the audience response one iota. Don't forget that leading up to his last major Summer release, his leading man lost all his dignity and turned into a worldwide laughing stock on national television. Now that's damaging. A few shut-ins trashing a movie they probably haven't even seen on an internet messageboard? Nothing to worry about.

I'm sorry, Wrecktum. But statements like "it's okay" or "it's not terrible" or "the first third is fun" are positive but not the kind of things I want to hear about an Indy movie.

Jaws, Last Crusade, 1941, Titanic, Predator and The Abyss all had problems. All are pictures worth watching at least once.

This movie will definitely be worth watching once. Maybe twice. Why wouldn't it? A mediocre Indy film is still going to be a fun time at the movies. The Last Crusade is a pretty bad movie but there are some amazing set pieces in it and a couple brilliant moments.

Oh, and Predator doesn't have any problems. It had a problematic production but it's a near perfect action film.

^^^ Predator is definitely underrated. It's too bad all the movies that have had the Predator since haven't been good.

It wasn't that the set was troubled (though I heard that too) it's that word was the film and script never came together. Which it didn't, the film is a mess. That said, it's not terrible. It's fun enough if you don't expect much. Which I didn't. It's a better film than any of the prequels. But it's hard not to damn the film with faint praise.

Predator is a great and near perfect film but it's worth mentioning that it wasn't perceived that way at the time. In the summer of '87 it was seen as a simplistic combo-rip-off of Aliens and Rambo for the lunk head set.

I remember reading and seeing on TV plenty of reviewers who could not get it into their heads that Arnold could make a well-crafted film.
And McTiernan was coming off the horrible Pierce Brosnan vehicle, Nomads.

Interesting how perceptions change in 20 odd years and now Predator is considered not only Arnold's best two or three films, but an action/sci -fi standard in its own right.

Ebert just went 3 1/2.

Some interesting revision going on.

I remember critics being split on it and a quick check of Siskel & Ebert shows that they did as well. And those that didn't like it at the time were the sort who had problems with fantasy popcorn films to begin with.

"It's a better film than any of the prequels. But it's hard not to damn the film with faint praise."

Which prequels?

Poland is going to trash Indy 4, just wait. This is the type of movie he loves to be the naysayer on (ignore his bad buzz posts, different discussion).

"Temple of Doom" and "The Last Crusade" are referred to as prequels because they take place prior to "Raiders" (well, I know "Temple of Doom" takes place before both but I can't say for certainty that TLC takes place earlier than "Raiders").

If TLC does take place before "Raiders" it makes the whole warning delivered by Elliot really funny in comparison to all the shit they both went through in TLC.

I thought it was obvious I meant the prequel trilogy. Oh well.

I'm pretty sure I've never heard Indy 2 or 3 referred to as prequels, so I'm going to assume that the review guy above was referring to the SW movies.

The Last Crusade was absolutely not a prequel to Raiders. The events in Raiders took place in 1936 and the events in Last Crusade took place in 1938.

How would this joke work if it took place earlier?

Indy: "The Ark of the Covenant."

Elsa: "Are you sure?"

Indy: "Pretty sure."

The Internet: Where Pointless Hating Happens.

"I thought it was obvious I meant the prequel trilogy. Oh well."

You're talking about Star Wars I assume.

Doom is a prequel to Ark. Ark is a prequel to Crusade. All three are prequels to Skull.

Yesterday was a prequel to today! Today is a prequel to the Thursday after next!

I vaguely remembered when the cassettes were re-released that the movies were chapter marked along with the TV series. So I found that "Temple of Doom" is ch. 23, "Raiders" is ch. 24, and "The Last Crusade" is ch. 25.

None of the Indy films are prequels or sequels. To be one or the other, the story has to have bearing on the other film and none of the Jones pics effect each other in any tantamount way. Somewhere between Godfather Part2 and Jaws2, Prequel/sequel went from having value to marketing bullshit. I never understood why critics don't have the stones to call all arbitrary follow-ups what they really are - serials.

agreed, which is why it's even inane to call the new SW movies "prequels". It's a marketing term that appeals to fanboys, nothing else. To me every new addition to a franchise is a sequel and the latest SW movies were 4-6. The whole historical/backstory stuff on numbering is bullshit.

Temple of Doom is, I believe, only set in 1935 because Raiders was set in 1936 and if Lucas and Spielberg had set a movie in China in 1937 they would have run into history.

But Temple of Doom was set in India....

I've never considered Temple of Doom a prequel to Raiders. Yes, I know, the history and blah blah blah...whatever. Temple of Doom was made by two guys who just got divorced which resulted in the worst movie of the series. Haven't seen the new one, though.

The first 15 minutes of Temple of Doom are set in Shanghai, which the Japanese invaded in 1937.

I rewatched all three movies yesterday. Temple of Doom is, at the very least, the most uneven of the three movies. The script has a lot of lame comedy in it and when you add a shrill Capshaw performance on top of that it's easy to get annoyed. When it's just Spielberg directing action scenes, though, it's fine.

Some of these reviews are hilarious. It really comes down to HEART. The Internet: Where Assholes Without Hearts Reviewing Movies Happens.

io --- i bow to your knowledge/example of all things 'asshole'.....you should, most def, be elected 'house expert'......

Scoot: you are a bitchy little man whose trying to act like you are tough to someone whose bigger, and who can throw you over a fence. If it was needed. Please keep on pissing on my foot, little fella. It's starting to crack me up. Oh. I forgot. You like fellas. Are you trying to hit on me? You sly fox.

io -- you're outta luck, sport....my 'fella' and i just celebrated our twenty-third year together...'hitting on you' is laughable...'pissing on you', however, is an entirely different story.....

xoxo

Just to throw a few curves in there...Last Crusade is a prequel and a sequel. Remember the prologue? Temple of Doom is a prequel, but ideas like the cart chase underground are ideas trimmed from Raiders. The sword gag wouldn't work without Raiders as well.

Scoot: you post like a 13 year-old girl. A 13 year-old girl, who apparently really wants to be like the folks on Gossip Girl. Not only are you a sad little man trying to act all tough in ways that you could never ever do to me in real life. You also want to be Michelle Trachtenberg's bitchy character. Oh scoot... you sad sad sad pool having person.

Doug: indeed you are right.

After introducing my young daughter to all of the Indy movies a few months back, she just can't stop watching TEMPLE O' DOOM--apparently she has a thing for Short Round.

Maybe it's time to break down and buy GOONIES.

Despite Kate Capshaw and Short Round, Temple is still the best based solely on the heart-removal scene. And it was cool that they had the balls to put child-slavery into a kids movie. I honestly don't get why people think Temple is "too dark". Darkness is a description, not a criticism.

errr, 'too dark' IS a criticism, though.

I don't think the darkness is a problem for the movie, but merely the lameness of some of the comedy.

IOI, relax before you have a stroke.

Kali Ma Shakti de!

btw -- i saw 'indy 4' this morning and loved it (as did the people i was with).... yes, it is way over the top but it all just worked.... ford looked great, labeouf acquitted himself nicely, blanchette is a perfect comic-book commie and the action really is non-stop......
NOTHING in the movie has a foothold in reality but it's still a great ride.....
i'm sure people will pick it apart but, wow, it really was a nice nostalgic morning at the movies.... jus' sayin'.......

i can't wait to see marion ravenwood again, it's been soooooo long! i'm hanging out for thursday.

io, just shoo, would you. shoo fly

Did anything in the last film have a foot hold in reality? The previous one? The one before that? I had no idea that one could actually survive a canopy fall. Who knew?

Jeff: get some heart.

"io, just shoo, would you. shoo fly"

Who the fuck are you? Are you scoot under his stage name? You shoo away. Do not let me have to get out the OWNING stick. You would not like it when I get out the OWNING stick.

The above two comments are so schizo, it's great.

io -- you pick on lea and a whole world of shit hits your sorry little head....no one cares if we duke it out but go for the throat of the mom unit and you learn about 'owning'......

lea -- karen allen really is the weak link in this one.... she looks considerably older than indy (no 'work' for her) and (well, let's just say...) she's been away from acting for a while....
that said, when she first appears on screen, she's a big part of that 'nostalgic' thing i mentioned......

Nobody messes with Leah. She could own you, IO, and all your multiple personalities in a heartbeat.

I heart Leahnz.

Oh... the fancy boys have their own hag. The secret worlds that go around here are shocking. You keep to your side of the road, and I will keep to mine. You fancy buggers. Also... jeff... schizo? Really?

The Hot Blog: Where Assholes Like Jeff McMahon Happens.

All the Indy films are equal in my book. Can't wait to see the new one.

io, you asked who i am...
well i'm just me, but i'm heartily sick of your nasty bullshit and i'm pretty sure i'm not alone in that department. i dread your posts because they're vile a majority of the time; i'd just skip over the seething diatribes but you're like a car crash and i'm a rubber-necker: i know it's gonna be ugly but i can't help but look. so in closing: piss off, fuckface, you're a world-class wanker. sorry if that offends the sensiblities of the other bloggers here, i just couldn't contain myself any longer, my head finally exploded :-0

kam and scoot, thanks for having my back, guys, i'm sorry you have to put up with that crap from such an utter fool. water off a duck's back, you know the deal. and kam, i'm sorta crushing on you right now

scoot, re: karen/marion, i could sort of see what you mean about the passage of years just from the trailer, so i hope the sheer nostaligia factor will be enough for me. 'raiders' was one of the first movies to really blow me away as a teen-ager - action and adventure galore - and marion was such a pistol, i really admired her, as silly as that may sound, her and lt. ripley...

io --- can you say 'hate speak'?.....you may be able to get away with it under the protective wing of your pal here but if you say stuff like that on the street, you will get hurt....seriously....
don't slip up and use those terms when not under the veil of anonymity....jus' sayin'....

IO... enough... please.

IOIOIOI: Why Intelligent Discussions Rarely Happen On This Blog Anymore.

like dave, i'm kind of fascinated by this topic. the eroding of standards in journalism and the tabloid nature of the american media to me is amazing. It's amazing to watch the standards degrading.

Media, and the corporate control of it, is the greatest crime being perpetrated on the American people. Film criticism and eroding standards in entertainment journalism is just annoying.

And that's where i see Dave's point in all this, because you have to ask yourself "Why am i posting this story?" or "Why am i not posting this story?"

If there were 100 stories about Indy 4 while it was shooting and only 4 were reported, then what happened to other 96?

Were they from unproven sources?
Was it idle gossip with little foundation in fact?
Would it hurt the perception of the production?
Would it hurt people professionally if those details got out?
Were they things said in confidence and therefore off the record?

I'm not asking these questions expecting answers. This is all hypothetical, but the question truly remains that as journalists and columnists, if you hear 100 items about a film and only report a fraction of those items, then i have to ask: Why?

As a reporter, do you report everything and say 'damn the consequences, it's the truth' or do you adjust each story based on personal perception and decide what is worth running?

I go back to that Prince William (or was it Harry) who was fighting in Afghanistan and the British Press respected the wishes of the Government to not report it.... until Drudge heard about it blabbed it to the world. The embargo was off and now it was into the traditional media.

In that case, not reporting it was benefiting the lives of the Prince and those he was fighting beside. That made sense. I can understand not reporting that story.

Of course, i have perspective enough to understand that this is just the film business, but i am fascinated when people tell me they knew more than they reported, but have no idea why they don't disclose certain information.

That control of information and the skewing of it is fascinating. Personally, i think that the more you hear people saying they know things they're not sharing, they are trying to put themselves in a position of power. They know things you don't, and they're TELLING you that they know things you don't. They are the keeper of the secrets, and they deride a lot of popularity from positioning themselves an an insider.

But what does that matter if the 'insider' only shares a fraction of what they know, or what they deem as acceptable for people to know?

Finke has gotten quite a following positioning herself as someone who is inserted between the studio moguls, executives and regular readers as if every email and story that routes through the internet passes through her inbox.

Numerous websites have built their audiences on being insider sites that provide scoops, even though a large portion of their content is recycled from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and cannibalized from other websites. If your site is a film criticism and film rumor site, why wouldn't you just post everything you knew?

But that's a question that can't be answered, because the answer is honestly, and truthfully: because it would hurt them on a professional or personal level.

Information is brokered like stocks and bonds. And when someone says they knew a lot more but couldnt say, it means that there was something of a conflict that they would not be a part of.

When Latino Review runs a story about a picture they saw for the Magneto film, that's honest because it's newsworthy. Then they pull it, and at least have the balls to say "we pulled it to maintain relationships with the studio"

I can't remember the last time i read something that honest.

PULLED AT THE REQUEST OF (INSERT STUDIO/STUDIO LAWYERS) always seems so dishonest. Factually, it's true, but in reality, these weren't cease and desist letters mailed to the websites, these were phone calls from people who the websites frequently talk to. Posting PULLED AT THE REQUEST OF... seems disingenous, beacuse it reeks of attempts to still seem like outsiders, when most of these sites are so friendly with production and publicists that theyre a phone call away on the blackberry.

I'm not throwing this out there to be problematic or throw stones. But as i look now at websites, i actually find sites like Perez Hilton reprehensible, yet I still find them more intellectualy honest than other sites. Perez is a whore, and has no problem admitting that. You know what you're getting with him. He doesn't change the rules.

Either you report everything or you adjust the truth. People want to argue that there are grey areas, but those grey areas are called comprimise.

I won't tell story X about Production Y because of a friendship with Filmmaker Z is adjusting the truth.

It's an interesting debate, one i wish we could have with some kind of candor and positive dialogue. THis sounds like a great roundtable discussion.

Three things,

Leah, Only somebody from our part of the world could say "piss off, fuckface" and that's why we're awesome. I won't tell my partner if you don't tell yours ;)

IO, aren't you the very person who was commenting just the other day about how you don't understand why people get so mad at certain people who reply here when it's only words on a computer screen. Mark your own words, or something to that effect. To continue with you "stick to your side of the road" motif, you're like the noisy neighbour who won't turn the music down even after you call the cops (and trust me, I have neighbours like that - i'm sure you'd be best buddies with them - and they certainly do not own. they're also drug dealing layabouts bogans...)

Thirdly, isn't it odd how IO and LexG go in cycles? It's rarely both at the exact same time being the biggest arseholes they can be. Last week it was Lex, now it's IO. I still reckon they're friends in real life just playing some lame-arsed neverending practical joke.

kam, only somebody from our part of the world would use the term 'bogans', none of the northern hemis will get the hilarious mental image only that word conjures up ;)

"Bogan" is one of the great words in the english language.

You want people to source when they talk about working on movies that cost millions and millions of dollars and hope to keep working in this industry? You expect people to badmouth a Spielberg film on record?

Also, with this film especially, didn't lowering the expectations help?

Angus is right, it's a power thing. But it was about creating the perception of power to the studios, agents, etc... and then using that clout to hold over your niche. That balancing act is a decade-old debate which AICN won.

So Dave, instead of having a "dialog", do something. Conversing about the state of film journalism or criteria is not going to change a thing. There's been an opening for several years and if my background was journalism, I would've gone for it. The AICN model, which every fansite follows, has run the EPS cycle. And the slowdown of ad dollars means now is the time. As your high priest would say, you have been the one you are waiting for.

The bulk of leaks surround niche/geek projects and until the slate shows a different trend, stories like Indy 4 are not going to fade. But it's going to take more than just another MCN blog covering all things fanboy to change behavior. Most likely, it will take a merger or partnership with some already established players who share the same standards. You could then have a counter balance to the gossip/leak sites that studios/producers would look favorable upon and provide exclusives for. But don't expect things to change when the model has paid off for so many others.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)