Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood
Why does everyone hate Skull
? It has lots of slam-bang action bits, it's good to see Karen again, and Cate is always a welcome ingredient to her films. Shia was okay, and though the ending was the usual stupidity of the secret mystic pieces coming together and whipping up on the vicinity- as if we haven't seen that
trick enough- all in all I was thoroughly entertained. I think part of it is that people are seeing it with radically different eyes due to getting older, and maybe thinking the early ones in the series were better than they really were.
Not at all. Skull
, quite simply, has a terribly constructed screenplay. It pads the set-pieces with long, drawn-out stretches of expository dialogue that can work on the page in something like The DaVinci Code (the novel), but it just doesn't work on screen. Koepp ignored the first rule of screenwriting: Show. Don't tell.
Compare this to Raiders
, where the bulk of the exposition is handled in that early scene where Indy is commissioned to go after the Ark. In that scene, we learn everything we need to know about the Ark and why the Nazi's want it. For the rest of the movie, all exposition is handled either in the midst of action or in scenes of character building.
People nitpick the small elements of things they don't like about Skull
, but the reality is that you're right: all the films have their annoying little quirks. Skull
just makes the annoyances more apparent and insufferable because the screenplay is so plodding that there's nothing to distract away from them.