Expiration Date

Is anything you’ve seen dated to where the magic is gone? Or aged to where the sequel years later is a waste of your time?


Prosecution Exhibit #1. Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008). 19 years between Indiana Jones movies. Is a generation too long to introduce a new chapter? I’d insist Yes. Practical effects making way for CGI, Cold War instead of pre-WWII, Aliens not artifacts, Indy with a family. A multitude of alterations augmented what the franchise was to near universal dislike.



For about 45 minutes when I first saw it, it was great. But unlike Lawnmower Man or any other similar “Matrix” forerunner this aged like bananas for me. Now it’s just a time capsule.

1 Like

I agree with this entry, although I do think they could have made a much better feel avoiding the aliens, the overuse of CGI, and the need for Indiana to have a family.

But does that movie need to be done? Nope.

They should of stuck with the original 3.

All I mean is that I don’t think The expiration of the series is to blame for Crystal Skull being a stinker. It would of been a stinker even if it was released shortly after the original three. Indiana Jones is being forced to care about something he doesn’t, and that’s aliens. He wouldn’t spend his time away from preserving historical artifacts.

Although, its a major contributor for why this film was made. Hollywood has become so lazy in filmmaking as of late, that the vast majority of great films are almost exclusively independent, the rest are remakes, or CGI action films.


I vary with you there. Somewhat. Last Crusade (1989) and its setting sun communicate Spielberg’s feel that “This Is It!!!” as the film wraps to credits. Steven is through and that is why it acts like the conclusion even back in 89. BUT had Steven changed his mind in the 90s when Harrison was running around playing Jack Ryan and Lucas had a stronger story than Crystal Skull it could have worked in an era where movies like Indy were still being made. What killed Indy 4 was the weakness of the story and the CGI/digital practices of the late 2000s. They weren’t a fit with Indy and it destroyed that certain feeling those earlier pictures had. It wasn’t only the lack of enthusiasm and poor script but a level of status quo of today also that went against Indy 4 defying the odds and working.

P.S. I would have rather they stopped at 3. Crusade beautifully closed it out. There needn’t be any more and on that we agree. What I tried say is everything has a season and going against 3’s perfect ending and the rigors of time proved too much.


I didn’t like the original much, but making sequels to Avatar 12 years later seems silly.



I never bothered to watch the first one after hearing the plot described as “Pocahontas in space with giant Smurfs”, since that basically made watching it utterly pointless. Hopefully the second one won’t do terribly well at the box office (at least in comparison to the first one; thanks China) and we won’t have to be subjected to the rest.


Beautifully put, I’m going to chew on that for a bit.

I do think CGI has ruined much of the movie magic of movies past, but I still have a sinking feeling that the Crystal skulls worst part is portraying Indie in a position he would never put himself in.

But who knows, maybe that’s the point?

I can say that I watched it recently and didn’t hate it as bad when I didn’t see it as a Canon Indiana Jones story, and ignored the terrible CGI. So perhaps my protection of the original three, and how I watched them with my father has made me a curmudgeon.

I just wish Hollywood didn’t get so crazy into CGI, but would go back to using props and sets and only allow CGI to help “fill in” the sets. If I were a collector I’d definitely collect movie props.

So, yeah… I think you are right about Crystal Skull. I think I’d be more convinced if I were able to see it made back in the 90s.

I also feel like Harrison Ford isn’t passionate about acting as Solo or Jones like he once was. His acting felt forced.

1 Like

Avatar was a tech demo for a new era of 3D films.

It was cool in the theaters back in the day, but the movie lacks soul.

1 Like

I didn’t even like it when I saw it in the theater. It was pretty, but that’s as far as I’d go.

1 Like

You can blame China for it being so popular. If you look at the domestic haul for the film, it’s actually far less than you’d expect for being the “highest grossing film of all time” (not adjusted for inflation); it was only a bit over $700K. China though, people there went to see it in DROVES; I think China alone was responsible for more than a billion of the total box office take of the film.


Pretty much this.

The movie looked great, but I was bored to tears by a film that seemed so creatively and entertainingly lacking to the point that James Cameron was heavily taking material from his own previous films.


Not just great but virtually anything not utterly homogenized. That’s why I love Korean films: They are unabashedly pro-Korea, happy and patriotic.

I took the kids. Went out for popcorn refills about an hour in, looked at the clock…realized there was another hour or two to go…couldn’t think of enough reasons just to stay in the lobby…

I’m told the Chinese government will just buy craploads of tickets to create the impression of a successful film.</tinfoil hat> Can’t honestly even come up with a good fake reason for them to do that with Cameron, tho’.


Yeah well, currently the Chinese government is pushing indigenous films over Hollywood films and is refusing to even screen some films (like some of the recent Marvel films, which explains their lower performances at the box office in addition to the pandemic still being an issue). So I don’t know if Avatar 2 will see similar treatment at the Chinese box office or not.


My guess would be that it won’t do well compared to past efforts, but that would be my guess for anything.