Tales From The Box Office: Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull Was A Monster Hit No Matter How Much You Hate It
(Welcome to Tales from the Box Office, our column that examines box office miracles, disasters, and everything in between, as well as what we can learn from them.)
What happens when a trio of cinematic legends joins creative forces? You get one of the most iconic characters in the history of popular culture. It all begins in the summer of 1981 with the release of "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Conceived by George Lucas ("Star Wars"), directed by Steven Spielberg ("Jaws"), and starring Harrison Ford (also "Star Wars"), Indiana Jones was born and blockbuster cinema would never be the same.
Indy and his fedora dominated the silver screen throughout the '80s but, following 1989's "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," it seemed like the character was destined to be retired for good — at least as far as the movies went, even though Lucas and Spielberg originally signed a five-picture deal with Paramount for "Indiana Jones." Now, more than 40 years later, they're making good on that fifth picture with the release of "Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny." But in between "Last Crusade" and "Dial of Destiny," there was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."
Wildly anticipated at the time of its release in 2008, two things are inarguably true about "Crystal Skull": It was both an unbelievably huge success and remains wildly disliked by fans of the character to this day. From the whole "nuke the fridge" scene to Shia LaBeouf's maligned greaser Mutt Williams, people don't like this film, but they sure as heck turned up to see it.
In honor of the release of Ford's last ride as Indiana Jones, we're looking back at "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" — the long journey to get the script hammered down, what happened when the film finally did hit theaters, and what lessons we can learn from it 15 years after the fact. Let's dig in, shall we?
The movie: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
In truth, it didn't take long for the notion of a fourth "Indy" film to be kicked around. After all, the original trilogy made more than $1.1 billion against combined budgets of just $96 million. Hollywood tends to follow the money, and we're also dealing with three central creative forces who are in the position of being able to choose what they do and do not want to do. That's a big part, in fact, about why it took so long to get the fourth film truly moving.
Jeb Stuart ("Die Hard") originally started on the fourth film in the early '90s with a script titled "Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men From Mars." Yes, aliens would remain part of the proceedings in the final product but, with that specific iteration, Harrison Ford wanted no part of it. Speaking with Entertainment Weekly in 2008, George Lucas recalled:
”Harrison said, 'No way am I being in a Steve Spielberg movie like that.' And Steven said, 'I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.”'
Other writers such as Jeffrey Boam ("Last Crusade"), Frank Darabont ("The Shawshank Redemption"), and even M. Night Shyamalan ("The Sixth Sense") took a crack at the film. Eventually, David Koepp ("Jurassic Park") became the man the cracked the story. Ultimately, they aged up the character to bring him into an entirely different setting. Namely, the 1950s. "The Cold War came to mind immediately, because if you're in the '50s, you have to acknowledge the Cold War," Spielberg said to EW in 2008.
The idea was to move away from Nazis, which had largely dominated the original trilogy. Instead, we would get Russians as the central villains, with a big side of B-movie sci-fi. That last part is something Lucas was rather insistent on.
Indy meets aliens
George Lucas originally conceived the idea of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" because he wanted to craft something that mirrored the movie serials set in the '30s that he grew up enjoying. But when it came to wanting to mirror what was going on in the '50s, the genre that they were attempting to mirror needed to change. Speaking with Total Film in 2008, Lucas explained where the sci-fi component that he was so married to came from:
"I had to do 'now' is basically the mid-'50s. I said, 'Gee what's the equivalent of B-movies in the '50s?' It's science fiction films — 'Them,' 'It Came From Outer Space,' 'The Thing.' It gave us a whole new genre to play with and a new texture beneath the story. And I came up with a great MacGuffin."
To what degree one agrees that the MacGuffin of "Crystal Skull" is great is up for the individual to decide. That being said, the consensus amongst fans would lead you to believe the majority of moviegoers don't agree with Mr. Lucas on that one. Regardless, the filmmaker's reasoning at least made sense. Whether or not it was the best fit for the character? The court of public opinion has strong feelings on that matter, as anyone who spends time on social media could probably tell you.
The film as we know it sees Indy kidnapped by Soviet agents who take the archaeologist with them as they break into a U.S. secret military base looking for an alien corpse. Later on, Indy escapes and heads south with Mutt to retrieve a crystal skull with mystical powers and stop the Soviets from accomplishing their evil mission. Cate Blanchett ("The Lord of the Rings") headed up the Soviet villains, with Karen Allen also returning as Marion Ravenwood.
Bucking the trends of the day
The film had the Russians, a cast full of actors who had proven audience appeal at the time, and a large dose of nostalgia. Steven Spielberg would also make use of filmmaking advances that had come about since he made "Last Crusade," such as the CGI he pioneered with "Jurassic Park." But one thing he wouldn't do was embrace trends of the day, such as the shaky-cam style of action that became popular with movies like "The Bourne Identity." Spielberg, speaking to Vanity Fair at the time, had this to say:
"Part of the speed is the story. If you build a fast engine, you don't need fast cutting, because the story's being told fluidly, and the pages are just turning very quickly. You first of all need a script that's written in the express lane, and if it's not, there's nothing you can do in the editing room to make it move faster."
Harrison Ford also had a pretty astute observation about what they were trying to accomplish here. The movie, for the most part, was shrouded in secrecy right up until its release. But what was absolutely true is that generational nostalgia had time to catch up with Indiana Jones. Speaking to MovieWeb in 2008, the actor said the following:
"This is a movie which is geared not to one segment of the demographic, an age-defined segment. It's interesting that while we've been off doing other things, a generation and a half of moviegoers have been introduced to [the 'Indiana Jones' films] through the agency of their family. Fathers and mothers passing on this experience to their sons and daughters. It's pretty interesting that this is such a family event. We've got a great shot at breaking the movie demographic constraints."
Turns out, Ford was right. Audience opinion be damned. They only get to express that opinion after they buy a ticket, after all.
The financial journey
Naturally, Paramount went all-out in promoting "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" heading into the summer of '08. Let us not forget that was a stacked moviegoing season, with "Iron Man," "Sex and the City," "Kung Fu Panda," "The Incredible Hulk," "WALL-E," "Hancock," "The Dark Knight," and "Mamma Mia!" all coming out that summer as well. Paramount, nonetheless, had a big Steven Spielberg film with a whopping $185 million budget to promote.
Somewhat remarkably, critics of the day were kinder to the film than viewers may believe. "Crystal Skull" holds a 77% critical approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes to this day (in stark contrast to the 58% audience rating), so it's not as though this movie had to overcome negative buzz heading into opening weekend. The film hit theaters on May 23, just in time for Memorial Day. It pulled in a massive $100 million, and that number grew to $126.9 when accounting for the Monday holiday. It was a smash hit, financially speaking anyway.
The film chugged right along throughout the summer, even in the face of stiff competition and harsh criticism from hardcore fans. It finished its run with $317.1 million domestically and $473.5 million internationally for a grand total of $790.6 million. That makes it the biggest "Indiana Jones" movie to date — and it's frankly not even close. It was also the second-biggest movie of 2008 overall, second only to "The Dark Knight" ($1 billion). It's a global hit the likes of which any studio would kill for in the aftermath of the pandemic, despite the movie's terrible online reputation. "This movie was the biggest disappointment of all time. Absolutely terrible," as one user put it on Metacritic. Be that as it may, that same person likely paid hard-earned money to see the film that left such a sour taste in their mouth.
The lessons contained within
It's undeniably fascinating that a movie with such a downright lousy reputation can also be such an unqualified financial success. Heck, this movie resulted in a scathing episode of "South Park" dedicated entirely to the notion that George Lucas and Steven Spielberg "raped" Indiana Jones. Say what you will about "Venom," another poorly received movie that made a lot of money, but Trey Parker and Matt Stone wouldn't bother giving Eddie Brock the same treatment.
Lucas is no stranger to this sort of thing though. He went through it with the "Star Wars" prequels, then rolled right into it again when he finally returned to "Indiana Jones." In that same Total Film interview from earlier, the filmmaker seemed to have a pretty zen (if jaded) view of the whole thing:
"With this kind of movie, no matter what you do, it's not going to live up to expectations. I had it with 'The Phantom Menace.' The fans say, 'Oh, I expected the Second Coming and it didn't happen!' The critics say, 'It's just more of the same.' They didn't like the first three anyway, so why expect that they'll like this one?"
To punctuate the point, Lucas addressed the topic of making a fifth film at the time saying, "I don't know. There's no motive other than to enjoy ourselves. We'll see what happens." Perhaps it's telling that Lucas sold all of Lucasfilm to Disney in 2012, while Spielberg ultimately decided not to direct "Dial of Destiny," instead handing the reigns to James Mangold. The consensus is a bit mixed on Indy's latest adventure, but the reception does seem to be generally more positive.
It's okay for creatives to walk away when something is no longer fulfilling. And like it or not, Spielberg and Lucas got to leave the franchise on a high note from a pure dollars and cents point of view.