Shia LaBeouf Defends 'Nuking The Fridge'...

[Ragingblues]

Shia LaBeouf Defends 'Nuking The Fridge' And Other Fantastical 'Indy 4' Moments

www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1594844/story.jhtml


Actor says the 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' audience changed, not the series.

Nineteen years after he last rode into the sunset, the man with the hat finally came back to theaters this summer with the eagerly anticipated, feverishly discussed movie "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Just four months later, and it's hard to find anybody who really cares.

While the fourth film in the insanely popular series was an unabashed financial success, thanks to more than $700 million in international box-office receipts, "Crystal Skull" was almost universally a fanboy disaster. Its only lasting contributions to the cultural zeitgeist are the insipid, Tarzan-esque scene of a character swinging through the jungle vines and the phrase "nuked the fridge," which UrbanDictionary.com defines as "the precise moment at which a cinematic franchise has crossed over from remote plausibility to self parodying absurdity." The phrase has spawned a Facebook group, countless YouTube parodies, a Web site and even a whole slew of T-shirts.

But if you thought "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was silly or juvenile, or that it didn't measure up to the first three films, it's not the movie's fault — it's your fault, co-star Shia LaBeouf told MTV News.

"I feel like people are watching the movie and it's not the same viewer [as watched the originals]. It's not necessarily the style of the films has changed, it's the viewer — the viewer is different than the viewer was in the 80s," said LaBeouf, who played Indiana's prodigal son Mutt Williams. "It's two different viewers, and I think it was an innocent viewer and a less-jaded consumer [back then].

"To suspend the disbelief — the swing through these vines and nuking of the fridge. It wasn't like they didn't do fantastical stuff in the first three," he continued. "They did ridiculously fantastical things in the first three. But you could stomach it because you were a different viewer, and I think that the viewership has changed."

But while LaBeouf embraced the silliness of nuking the fridge as consistent, screenwriter David Koepp already seems to be distancing himself a little from the center of the fanboy bull's-eye. Asked whether he would defend "nuking the fridge" to his dying day, Koepp was quick to point out that that moment "wasn't even my idea." (Indeed, a similar scene was in Frank Darabont's earlier version.)

"I thought the fridge was kind of cool, and I thought that was a lot of fun," Koepp said. "There's going to be stuff in movies that people like and don't like. Going into that one, I knew I was going to get hammered from a number of quarters. That movie is owned by millions and millions of people. What I liked about the way the movie ended up playing was it was popular with families. I like that families really embraced it."

At the end of the day, LaBeouf isn't particularly concerned with whether fans liked the moment — he's not even concerned with whether the average fan liked the movie, he said.

"I think that Steven [Spielberg], George [Lucas] and Harrison [Ford] are the only fans that I care about. ... If they're happy with the movie, then my job is done," LaBeouf said. "And they're happy with the movie."



Ken

[Deleted]

"I think that Steven [Spielberg], George [Lucas] and Harrison [Ford] are the only fans that I care about. ... If they're happy with the movie, then my job is done," LaBeouf said. "And they're happy with the movie."

Goody goody for them. If they make an Indy 5 I will NOT pay to see it at the theater.

Cheers,
John

[Havana]

I think Shia has a point. Movie audiences have become far more jaded and critical. That's a fair assessment. That being said, KOTCS does stand out as being very different in many ways when compared to the first 3 films. The audience has changed a bit but I feel that Uncle George has changed the most. I think the big problem with KOTCS and the Star Wars prequels is that they failed to recapture the magic of the earlier films. Blaming it on the audience is a bit of a cop out and somewhat curious coming from someone who wasn't even born when Raiders or ToD first played in theaters.

[Ragingblues]

If we weren't able to see the first three Indy movies to directly compare them right now to KOTCS, I could see where relying on our potentially biased memories of how great they used to be might fit. However, most everyone has a copy of the Indy movies on DVD these days, and can't make immediate comparisons and contrasts with the latest film.

The fact that almost everyone who saw the first three movies also bought a ticket to see Indy 4 means it's primarily the same audience. So, I don't see how the audience "changing" has any merit in the discussion of how different the most recent chapter is when most everyone has seen them all... and most likely recently as well. Just like Havana said, he wasn't born when the first movies were out, so his opinion on the issue means nothing to me in the first place.

The very fact that Shia feels he has to defend certain moments in KOTCS (or was dispatched to do so), ought to show how aware they are of public opinion on this issue. If they had delivered a movie that stood up to the first three, the only public statements issued right now would be in response to people asking about making Indy 5.


Ken

[GCR]

I was about to launch into a lengthy rant on this, but I think Havana pretty much said everything I was feeling, so I guess I can leave the rant for another time. ;D

I totally agree that the audiences have changed somewhat, but the Indy series changed far more thanks to KOTCS. If they had actually tried to make a movie more on par with the feel, pacing, excitement and BELIEVABILITY of Raiders, rather than some saturday morning cartoon / sci-fi B-movie crapfest, then this wouldn't even have been an issue. Yes, all the Indy films contained fantastic elements, but the way these fantastic moments were handled in KOTCS made them seem much more cartoonish and less believeable than anything in the original trilogy. I won't delve into each and every sub-par aspect of KOTCS that ended up pushing the envelope so far that it fell off of the desk and into the trash can, but I think the old comparison between the TOD raft sequence (implausible but still remotely possible) and the "nuked the fridge" sequence (totally and absolutely impossible) says it all. They just went too far overboard with too many elements and got too far away from the look and feel of the original films.

I will also add that I was strongly against Shia's involvement in Indy 4 prior to seeing the film, but once I saw him on screen with Ford, I changed my mind and I thought he did quite well in the role (even though I think the movie would have been better without his character or the entire "Indy has a son" plotline). Now, however, Shia is starting to get under my skin again. He really needs to shut his trap and just accept the fact that three of the biggest names in Hollywood "F"ed up and made an awful movie. As other have pointed out, he's got no frame of reference to be making these comments about "audiences back in the 80's". I honestly have STRONG doubts (regardless of the BS he's said publically) that he ever even saw an Indy film before getting the call to do Indy 4.

Okay, I guess I ended up ranting anyways.

[Deleted]

If Shia was supposed to have the HAT passed to him for a Next Generation of Indy films he needs to defend this movie. Or watch that opportunity go down the drain.

Any thoughts on that?

Cheers,
John

[GCR]

Sept 16, 2008 15:37:53 GMT -5 @gmann said:

If Shia was supposed to have the HAT passed to him for a Next Generation of Indy films he needs to defend this movie. Or watch that opportunity go down the drain.

Any thoughts on that?

Cheers,
John

That's a good point, especially since it wasn't that long ago that Lucas was talking about the possibility of a Shia-less Indy 5. Maybe Shia's feeling the heat and wants to try and create some positive spin for KOTCS in order to secure his spot as the future face of the franchise? Still, this stunt seems like it will only do further damage to him in the eyes of the audience, since he's basically insulting everyone who saw KOTCS and didn't like it. (and it seems to me that there are a LOT of folks who fall into that category)

[Kaplan]

I agree with the general opinion in this post that audiences in general have changed but so did the franchise.

But what people like about Indiana Jones hasn't changed. And awesome movies are still awesome.

If Raiders was released today it would be rated R. (I really believe that... just think about it. Any recent PG or PG13 movies with as much blood, death, and swearing???)

Regardless of Raider's rating, it would still be an hit with a fan following if it were released today.
Whereas, If KOTCS was released in 1981 or even 1989 (with time period correct special effects) it would NOT have done as well as Raiders or LC.

And no number of Zorro wannabe's dressed like greasers swinging from vines would ever be able to top Raiders no matter what the audience or the time period.

[jnicktem]

Even though I liked Crystal Skulls, I did not by no means like it nearly as much as I did Raiders or Last Crusade. I still think that if the Indiana Jones franchise was going to end, it should have ended with Last Crusade (the BEST trilogy ending EVER!).

I think what would have made Crystal Skulls better, and to make a good possible Indy V, is to cut George Lucas out. As much as I hate to say that, but he has completely lost his touch IMO.

[GCR]

Sept 16, 2008 21:47:54 GMT -5 jnicktem said:

I think what would have made Crystal Skulls better, and to make a good possible Indy V, is to cut George Lucas out. As much as I hate to say that, but he has completely lost his touch IMO.

I would agree, to an extent, but at the same time, as much as I blame Lucas for KOTCS, Spielberg and Ford have to be held accountable as well. Both of them could have and SHOULD have said no to Lucas and no to the project, but they didn't. The fact that all three of them agreed to this project tells me that Lucas isn't the only one who's out of touch, unfortunately.

Just to get this off of my chest, (and this isn't directed at anyone in particular, I just need to get this out there) I have to say I'm still very sore at how the whole KOTCS thing played out. I can understand how some folks liked the movie and got enjoyment out of it, but still, I don't think too many people would argue that the film could have been much, MUCH better. Considering the creative talent level of the people involved and the ridiculously long period of time they had to work on the story (18-19 years, last time I checked), it's just a shame that they couldn't have come up with something better, something that would have recaptured the look, feel and excitement of the original films. Something that would have brought fans of the series together and still pleased the mainstream audiences, rather than driving the fans apart and leaving many with a very sour taste in their mouths.

[Damned Dan]

Shia's entitled to his opinion, even if it's the wrong one.
Despite some of the ridiculous sequences in KOTCS, I thinks it's biggest problem was the story just sucked. Screw the fridge, nevermind the greaser Tarzan and forget the army ants. What the hell do I care about some damn Crystal Skulls! If your audience isn't familiar with the particular artifact at the center of the story, I don't think they'll care as much. This is one of the main reasons why I feel TOD seems to rank third on most everyones list. I suspect that there weren't many options for artifacts that would be pursued for greater power. There were so many elements that contributed to KOTCS being mediocre, but those could easily be overlooked if it was a story we cared about. The absence of those hated sequences couldn't help save this movie from being disappointing.

[Havana]

I am one of those that initially enjoyed the movie to a certain degree even against my better judgement at the time. I recognized the lame parts as being as lame as they are but I was just so drunk with the idea of experiencing an Indy film after all those years. It didnt' take long for me to sober up and feel that I had been sold a substandard product.
The great tragedy of the whole affair is not that they were incapable of making a better movie, they just didn't. They took a laid back, take the audience for granted, we've already proved ourselves, low ball approach. Why try harder when we don't have to? We don't need to travel the world to exotic locales. We can shoot it all in the States and send a second unit to pic up some foreign location shots. Whatever's missing can just be filled in with CGI. I think they all saw this film in terms of dollar signs when they should have seen it as an artistic challenge. They should have set a lofty goal of making a film as good as Raiders (and in that same classic style) and put everything into attempting to achieve that goal. Ford is not blameless in this affair but out of the big three, he seemed to be putting the most into it. He was at least trying to recapture the character and make the most out of what he had to work with. He could have done a Roger Moore where he used a stunt double for absolutely everything. He got in there and gave it his all. That's no easy task when you're in your mid 60's. Still, he should have used his weight to force some script changes and improvements. He does have that power. Honestly, does anyone believe that Speilberg or Ford would have signed on for this script if it had been presented to them back in 1981?

[Damned Dan]

I hold Lucas 90% responsible for the movie travesty known as KOTSC. For me it's hard to place any blame on Spielberg, because I'm sure if he wasn't on board completely with George's vision, he knew that he would be replaced with a substandard director like Lucas himself. George seems to be so drunk with power and unfortunately today's audience has just played the part of the enabler. He received his validation with Episodes I, II & III, some of the most lack lustre prequels to ever hit the big screen. Nevertheless these films made an absurd amount of money, which is unfortunately interpreted as a success in more than just the financial sense. Time was running out for this team to bring this film to fruition and I truely believe Spielberg never put much stock in it ever being produced. As for Ford, who knows if he even had the sensibilities to recognize a bad script, considering his recent resume. He's just an instrument of the filmmaker and producer and should mostly be held accountable if he gave us a bad performance which I don't believe he did. Ford loves this character and probably knew it deserved much more, but I'm sure he was willing to comprimise this just for another chance to reprise the role. At Harrison's age he must have known it was now or never or that Lucas wasn't beyond replacing him.