Shia LaBeouf apologizes for Indiana Jones 4

[hackerjack]

Also, I forgot to mention this before, but Shia LeBeouf is a douchebag.

He normally comes off as a genuinely nice guy in interviews. Pretty average, every day type of person.

I would normally say never trust interviews with actors to judge their charachter because THEY ARE ACTORS!!!

But it is Shia "One Charachter" LeBeouf so that kind of nullifies the point.

[Skummy]

Yeah, I think people criticising Indy 4 for not being a good film just never quite realised that none of them ever were. But Sean Connery, so yeah.

[TKz]

Yeah, I think people criticising Indy 4 for not being a good film just never quite realised that none of them ever were. But Sean Connery, so yeah.

How were they not good films? I'll maybe give you Temple of Doom, but Raiders and Last Crusade were perfectly good films.

[Skummy]

They're good fun, and I'm sure that if I'd seen them as a kid I'd probably have enjoyed them, but I'd never say they're "good".

[TKz]

Well, what would you classify as 'good' then? If I can sit down and have fun, enjoying a film, I'd classify it as good.

[Skummy]

I can sit down and have a lot of fun watching Hell Comes To Frogtown or Return Of The Living Dead 3, and they're unequivocally bad films.

The Indiana Jones films have little in the way of artistic merit, but then they were never supposed to. It was supposed to be an action-filled romp filled with ludicrous setpieces. Indiana Jones 4 provided this, and was roundly criticised for being illogical.

[TKz]

But why does a film need to have 'artistic merit' to be a good film? It's hardly bad by any stretch of the word and it's certainly enjoyable, I don't see how that doesn't let it qualify as a 'good' film? Does every film have to have visionary direction before it can be called 'good'?

[Skummy]

Well, to me a good film is one that's well made and logical - whether by its own internal logic or otherwise, so long as its consistent - and with a compelling narrative. I wouldn't really say Indiana Jones follows that at all, but it's good fun.

You could argue that it's a good film because it fulfils its purpose - a 1930s/1940s-style "Boy's Own Adventure" story for the modern day - but if fulfilling purpose is all it takes to classify a film as good, then you'd have to call Road Trip a good film because it made teenage idiots laugh.

There's no shame in being a bad film, anyway, some of my favourite films are bad films.

Edited May 19, 2010 by Skummy

[thuganomic]

Good start. Now apologize for Transformers 2

[TKz]

I can see your reasoning, but I still don't see how Indiana Jones doesn't fit with your description. I suppose it's just a differing of opinion on what makes a film 'good'.

[Skummy]

Honestly, I think a lot of it comes from a lack of nostalgia on my part. I never saw any of the Indiana Jones films as a kid, saw them for the first time around the time Indy 4 came out because one of my friends wanted to watch them before we went to see the new one. While I agree that 4 is the worst of the bunch, I don't see the gap between it and the other films as being as huge as everybody else seems to, and certainly don't see it as the travesty that some people seem to view it as, it's more just the series jumping the shark than anything.

Maybe if I'd seen any of the films as a kid I'd hold them in high regard, or have some kind of sense of wonder around them, but other than a couple of fun setpieces and some good one-liners I don't really see them as anything special, and I doubt I'd ever fancy going out of my way to watch any of them.

[GA!]

Good start. Now apologize for Transformers 2

He's already done that.

[YI]

Good start. Now apologize for Transformers 2

He's already done that.

"Transformers 2" has that bit with the tail disappearing back up that lasses dress...NO APOLOGIES NEEDED!

[TKz]

Good start. Now apologize for Transformers 2

He's already done that.

"Transformers 2" has that bit with the tail disappearing back up that lasses dress...NO APOLOGIES NEEDED!

It had robots with balls.

They should never stop apologising YI. Never.

[YI]

I'm sorry...the tail back up the bum shot made the whole thing worth it. I mean, we all knew it was going to be shit anyway.

Edited May 19, 2010 by YI

[Rich]

It was Transformers, as being the biggest fan boy ever, I say they should never EVER apologise for getting Optimus Prime on to the big screen, even with the two really awful "wise-cracking" Autobots

[TKz]

I can't really complain about Transformers anyway. It's not cool to do it any more. Don't want to look behind the times.

[YI]

If anything. They should apologise for not giving Starscream his voice from the cartoon. If they'd done that, the films would have been great. Admit it, if he spoke in that voice everything shitty about the 2 films would be forgotten.

[Rich]

If anything. They should apologise for not giving Starscream his voice from the cartoon. If they'd done that, the films would have been great. Admit it, if he spoke in that voice everything shitty about the 2 films would be forgotten.

I cannot agree more, that and if they hadn't ruined Megatron

[YI]

Also. On the subject of "Transformers", the original cartoon. From the movie/afterwards, when Spike grew up and had a kid. The kid was a little bellend. Sparkplug and Spike > Spike and Daniel.