You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 2:29am

Post 1 of 164

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Well, it comes out in the US tomorrow. Who's gonna see it? (Or a better question is: who's not? smile ) For those of you who have, feel free to post your thoughts here.
As for me, there's not a very good chance that I'll be seeing it tomorrow, but will gonna be seeing it very soon.

Please remember to hide spoilers!

Last edited Thu, 22nd May 2008, 4:53pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 3:47am

Post 2 of 164

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Im seeing it in a couple of hours!!!! 12:01 AM !!! Cant wait, Im a huge Indy fan like many other filmmakers on here. Its going to be great!
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 5:38am

Post 3 of 164

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Will see it later today, on the Swedish premiere. Can't wait!
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 6:25am

Post 4 of 164

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

LITE SPOILERS





I just came back from the midnight premiere. I think it fell apart in the third act...completely.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 8:40am

Post 5 of 164

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Was at the premiere yesterday evening.

SPOILERS

Overall, I liked it. It had some genuine moments of "Indy fun" and "Indy action". Harrison Ford is still awesome and watching him play the role again was a pure joy. However - the script was a mess. Too much uninspired talking, too many random plot points and some moments of being way too cartoonish.
Aliens just don't fit into Indy and I agree with Frosty, the third act was strange, but it was odd to begin with.

Even with it's weaknesses, it was entertaining and had a lot of moments that felt right and was entertaining. It is however, the weakest chapter in the quadrilogy.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 8:44am

Post 6 of 164

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

I really, really, really, really didn't like this movie. For some reason, it just didn't work for me in the slightest. I can't even think of a single moment where I was happy to be watching it. I felt like they took the one-liner aspect of Indiana Jones and turned it into a whole movie, while completely throwing away the charm and wit of the character.

Not to mention I felt like th CG really had no place in an Indy movie. It just looked unnatural.

Also, seriously, the monkey-swing-through-the-vines part?
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 9:37am

Post 7 of 164

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Good parts:

-It's an Indiana Jones movie
-It had some iconic Indiana Jones imagery

Bad Parts:

-Script kinda sucked
-Meandering plot
-CG Alien
-CG at all...
-Monkey swinging thing

Overall, I'd say this was better than Temple of Doom (but actually... maybe not), but it wasn't that good at all, and had moments of sheer absurdity. Instead of trying to top the previous movies with an interesting and compelling adventure plot, they had to go and just try to top it in terms of scale and grandeur. There's no room for CG in an Indiana Jones movie, and especially not in the magnitude presented here. In early interviews, Spielberg and Lucas made it out like they were holding back on the CG as much as possible to make it more like the original movies, but they went with a script which practically entirely depended on CG to make it work.

Oh well. So is life. The opening sequence had me hooked, and the image of Indy in front of the mushroom cloud was awe-inspiring, but it really did fall apart quickly, mostly due to the over-the-top CG sequences and the overuse of one-liners (though, the scene with the motorcycle in the library was pretty clever.)

I have to admit, I was pretty excited when they finally got to the chamber with the 13 inter-dimensional beings in it, and the portal to another dimension, but was disappointed when they didn't proceed with that and take it into total science fiction, and have Indy travel through spacetime. Hehehe... Then again, I was also disappointed that they went that route in the first place. Interesting concept, just not for an Indiana Jones movie.

3/5
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 9:48am

Post 8 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Seeing it later tonight...I don't regard the originals as masterpieces by any measure, so with luck that'll mean I won't have 'Phantom Menace' style unrealistic expectations.

I will say that I've been uneasy with the concept of the sci-fi angle, as Indy has always felt very comfortable in mythology/religious settings.

David Koepp does seem to be a rather overrated writer. War of the Worlds was pretty shoddy in places (that ending...), and Jurassic Park had some seriously wobbly moments in the script department.

It's a shame we'll never know what the Frank Darabont script could have been like.

I've always wondered why Laurence Kasdan never worked with Lucas/Spielberg again, after delivering such awesome scripts for Empire and Raiders...he always had the easy-going, freewheeling Han Solo/Indy vibe down pat.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 10:01am

Post 9 of 164

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Spoilers

Well I just got back from a west coast Mid Night showing and I must say I liked the first 3/4s of the movie. It really felt like Indy 4! But the last 4th of the movie was just too much sci-fi and like others said, sci fi doesnt belong in an Indy movie.

But lets go to what I did like other than the first 3/4. The movie had me hooked from the begining, great way to open it up. I actually didnt mind Shia Labeouf in this film, and of course Harrison Ford did a great job. The CG effects were great, ILM at its best IMO. I agree with most that say CG and Indy dont mix, but for this script to work CG was needed and I didnt mind it at all. Even thought there was alot more CG than I thought there would be.

But overall I think the End (Not the church scene) just didnt fit. If it wasnt for the Aliens I would give this film 5/5, but that IMO is the biggest flaw of this movie.

3.5/5
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 12:24pm

Post 10 of 164

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Aliens? Really? Isn't Indy suppose to do religious stuff? Why do they keep trying to put religion out of everything even if it means ruining a series? I'll go see it though.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 2:59pm

Post 11 of 164

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:

he always had the easy-going, freewheeling Han Solo/Indy vibe down pat.
Which is something I think Crystal Skull was sorely missing.

As long as we're doing number scores, I'd probably give the movie a 2/5 or maybe a 2.5/5

I just came out of it with very similar feelings I harbored towards Episode III.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 3:44pm

Post 12 of 164

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

The one thing I thought was hilarious was the snake rope scene.

Yeah score wise I'd give it a 3/5
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 4:51pm

Post 13 of 164

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I saw this at a midnight showing last night. My feelings are similar to Waser's, down to wtf about the swinging through vines and the CGI. Cute chipmunk things that liked the bright lights - what were they doing there? The opening sequence with the kids racing the army vehicles was dire and pointless.

After about 40 minutes I had no idea what the plot was. But where it made sense, they over-emphasised stuff. Holding skull up to wall painting to show they're the same shape? Um, I think we got that.

There were a few good bits. The extended cafe>streets>library setpiece was awesome. The quicksand/snake stuff was excellent. The interplay between Ford and Shia was actually good. There were moments where Ford really really brought Indy back.

But too much cancelled it out. Like the nuclear village - WTF? It was incredibly surreal, and by the time Indy was clambering out of the fridge at the end of that sequence I wanted to put my head in my hands. There was too much dialogue and it was quip intensive. The graveyard scene with random dudes was only rescued by the funny blow dart gag.

The Mummy was a better Indy movie than this rippoff of both Indy films AND The Mummy (cannibalistic bugs - hello?)

I officially hate Lucas now and this confirms he's truly lost any talent he once had. Everyone and everything turned up for this movie - except the script. The main storyline should never have been approved by all 3 major players who were supposedly wanting to make another Indy movie for years, but were waiting for the right script.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 5:13pm

Post 14 of 164

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Just a reminder to everybody: please remember to hide spoilers! Even things you may not realize are spoilers might be. Right now, I seem to have accidentally find out there are (I think) some CG monkeys or something in the movie (that people here seem not to have liked), I don't know much about it, because I quickly scroll away from that part of the page when I see something like this.

The point is: PLEASE HIDE SPOILERS! Preferably using the "highlight to read" technique, so nobody accidentally sees something.


Thank you
-Jabooza
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 5:31pm

Post 15 of 164

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'd agree with a general vote of 3/5 too. What makes me like this is mostly the fact it's Indiana Jones. The more I think about it, the worse it becomes. But it has it's fun moments.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 5:48pm

Post 16 of 164

nanafanboy

Force: 690 | Joined: 1st Sep 2002 | Posts: 345

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

*** Here be spoilers ***
They aren't hidden because I wasn't sure how to do it

Hm. I actually really liked it. I felt like it was a lot of fun, which is all I would really expect from an Indiana Jones film.

I do think that Last Crusade and Raiders are both better films. I ended up enjoying this a lot more than Temple of Doom which I consider to be a flaming hunk of movie turd (at least compared to the other two).

There were problems
1. too many things were introduced and immediately dismissed (graveyard guys and rock flinging natives, they were in and out quicker than ChumbaWumba)
2. the whole alien thing was a little strange but not unacceptable. Although I didn't understand why they kept stressing that they were interdimensional and not from space.
3. The Villain (who was awesome) went out like a punk-ass.
4. Mac's character was entirely unnecessary.

I thought the acting and directing were right where they should have been. The action sequences were damn brilliant. I especially appreciated how Spielberg didn't wiggle the camera at breakneck speeds and cut to a different shot every half second.

I would say that the only real problem was the script, but I don't feel like it ruined the movie.

As I said... I was entertained. I laughed, I smiled at the nostalgia, I said "WHOA!!!" more than once, and that's all I wanted.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 6:09pm

Post 17 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ONE STAR-

Seriously, this movie is laugh out loud TERRIBLE. Ford is great, Shia is fine, Cate is interesting, and Karen Allen, well.. uh, she isn't given much to do. In other words they are all WASTED on this convoluted piece of crap. Whenever someone just points at something and says "look! it's a gateway to another dimension!" without any real idea of how anyone would KNOW or assume such things...is a complete copout. My opinion of George Lucas is now lower than my opinion of George Bush, and that is a feat that I didn't believe was possible. Lucas somehow takes the choicest cuts of Indy meat (the backstory, the fact that Ford is in fine form even at 65, the fact that SPielberg is directing) and turns it into Poop Soup. He needs to stay FAR away from the movie business and Spielberg acted simply as an enabler to Lucas on this one. The worst thing was that the theater decided to run Raiders before this one- and to see the gritty feel of the original, the physical stunts, the sweat, the real STORY pitch perfect and snapped together like the coolest piece of Ikea furniture next to this piece of garbage was heartbreaking. SOme of this thing just defies logic to the point of absurdity that you can't get your bearings- I literally couldn't sleep last night after seeing this. It disturbs me still. WHY? is the question on my mind- WHY so over the top with some of this? WHY no longer development of the Marion/Indy story WHY the absurd CGI- can't you just shoot SOME things outside these days? Why the monkeys for &$*(#) Sake!!? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY!??!?!??!?? Some simple storytelling 101 would have even made this thing more bearable, and yet it fails there as well.
Unbelievable. 1/5 It's really that bad- especially when Jar Jar Binks shows up to save the day.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 7:12pm

Post 18 of 164

Merrick

Force: 1067 | Joined: 12th Apr 2007 | Posts: 548

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

My opinion of George Lucas is now lower than my opinion of George Bush.
lol

I'm going to see it tomorrow. Hope it's at least visually entertaining.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 7:37pm

Post 19 of 164

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryan, you seem a bit outraged at what almost everyone knew was going to happen:

This film was never, ever going to live up to any of the hype. The Star wars and Indiana Jones Magic ended when those trilogies were completed.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 7:39pm

Post 20 of 164

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Rating: +2

I feel sorry for someone who views the magic of films - through the eyes of a 'filmmaker' (oh no, the lighting is horrible here!, should've used a dolly shot there!).

I'm sure it'll be fun. I'm gonna grab my popcorn, coke and enjoy it. Can't be worse than the cgi junk that's out these days!

d
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 7:50pm

Post 21 of 164

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Haven't seen it yet, probably will though this weekend. Hopefully it will be a bit better when I see it because I my expectations are even lower now. smile
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 8:33pm

Post 22 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

My opinion of George Lucas is now lower than my opinion of George Bush.
I'm guessing that if you had liked this movie you would be complimenting Spielberg... not Lucas.

About the CGI... I haven't seen this yet (going tomorrow), but didn't Spielberg say that there wasn't much CGI in the film, and that they built most of the sets and filmed old school, physical stunts? I don't understand. Some reviews say it looks old-school, and some say it looks completely fake. To be honest, I don't think many people could tell what is CGI and what isn't. Well, either way, every movie in the series has fake-looking effects. CGI is just a newer, more efficient and economical way of creating a "fake" effect.

So is there or isn't there a lot of CGI?
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 8:57pm

Post 23 of 164

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

OK FINE SPOILERS AHEAD:



There is a boatload of CG.

I'm also in the camp that found this movie alright, but definitely not great.

I saw it at a midnight show last night and I generally had fun the whole way through.

Unlike most others, the aliens didn't bother me as much. Since I think that all religious stuff is bogus anyway, I thought the arc of the covenant and the chalice of christ were just as whacky concepts. The Crystal Skulls are real and are a real myth, just like those.

I think the film would have been fine if they had never actually showed the living alien and definitely toned down the launching spaceship bits considerably. Less would have definitely been more here, and ambiguity would have been so much better and not as laugh out loud funny.

The bit with Mutt and the monkeys was just plain embarrassing.

I'll admit that the part at the end when the hat blows into Mutt's hands and Indy snatches it back was brilliant and had the whole theater cheering.

Basically - Indiana Jones 4: The X-Files.


PS - I was SO waiting for the alien to turn into Tom Cruise and say "Told you so!" wink

Last edited Thu, 22nd May 2008, 9:50pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 8:59pm

Post 24 of 164

SilverDragon7

Force: 2265 | Joined: 29th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1990

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Well, by the sounds of it I'm probably not gonna see it in theaters, I'll catch on HBO or Stars in 4 months.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 9:00pm

Post 25 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

My opinion of George Lucas is now lower than my opinion of George Bush.
I'm guessing that if you had liked this movie you would be complimenting Spielberg... not Lucas.

About the CGI... I haven't seen this yet (going tomorrow), but didn't Spielberg say that there wasn't much CGI in the film, and that they built most of the sets and filmed old school, physical stunts? I don't understand. Some reviews say it looks old-school, and some say it looks completely fake. To be honest, I don't think many people could tell what is CGI and what isn't. Well, either way, every movie in the series has fake-looking effects. CGI is just a newer, more efficient and economical way of creating a "fake" effect.

So is there or isn't there a lot of CGI?
Well, not "alot" compared to say...the Lucas films! But seriously, entire sequences are CGI heavy. The only time I haven't been able to spot CGI a mile a way was the John Adams film on HBO- that thing looked real as all heck most of the time, but I think it was a different aesthetic. Honestly, it's the STORY - it's ALWAYS the STORY. And this story is so convoluted, so "out of place" for the "story world" that Indiana Jones inhabits, that it ruins it for me. Visually, Spielberg does okay in creating a sense of place and time, and honestly the simpler parts were probably my favorite because they gave me that feeling of BEING in the 50's and seeing a slice of life- but there are really just so many things wrong with this picture that just tweaking some of them would have made it 10x better. From a screenwriting perspective, stories unfold based on what you reveal and what you keep hidden and they really don't bother with that very much in this picture, so there is no tension, no mystery- I recall the moments in Raiders when Toht holds up his hand and you think "Oh no! The Nazi's DO have the dimensions of the staff!" or when you think Marion has died in the truck explosion, or at any time when you think all hope is lost... there is NONE of that here. NONE. And so much of it is played for laughs- there is no sense of danger at all. If Lucas would have come back with a DECENT story that reallly fit Indiana Jone's "story world" I would have given him all the credit he deserves, but instead this has the hallmarks of Lucas's shallow story structure ALL OVER IT, and when it isn't CGI, it's a freaking studio set- which is often just as bad- it looks like an episode of "Bonanza" for crying out loud! I hope beyond hope that this film sinks after the first week and is openly ridiculed as it deserves to be- our audience was nearly stunned into silence at the end of the film- a rowdy group of fans, some dressed in Indy garb gathered in small mourning support groups after the picture to comfort each other and discuss the further rape of their childhoood memories by Lucas and now, the high treason of our relatively consistent champion in Spielberg.

I had no idea it would REALLY be this bad, seriously...

oink
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 9:38pm

Post 26 of 164

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Evman wrote:

There is a boatload of CG.

And the spoiler tags are unnecessary. Don't view a thread about this movie if you haven't seen it.
I want to see what people thought of it. Sometimes their thoughts are spoilers. It isn't hard to recognize that some section of your post contains spoilers, just do some kind of mark. I like hearing what people have to say about something, it could make my experience better. Like, right now, my expectations have been lowered significantly and I might end up enjoying myself. It's not much to ask.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 10:03pm

Post 27 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

SPOILERS AHEAD!


Right, here goes.

Reason #1 why this movie is AWESOME: The kids driving the hot rod at the start of the film, racing the trucks? The guy specifically DRIVING the hot rod? That's Adam Kirley. Flameboy, on the FXhome.com forums. The guy in Project One. The guy in the Nightcast video diary. Awesome driving, and awesome that he got a speaking line.

Reason #1 why this movie is NOT awesome: Tarzan monkey swinging scene. I mean...what the holy hell? If they'd actually bothered to get a stuntman to swing through a jungle it MIGHT have worked...but probably not. Bizarre. Just utterly, utterly strange.

Reason #2 why this movie is NOT awesome: The Flying Fridge. What a heap of junk! Very, very odd, and seriously broke the implicit 'physical rules of survival' set out in the previous films.

Reason #2 why this movie is AWESOME: Shia LaBeef is, once again, totally brilliant. After this and Transformers, I can't wait to see where he goes next.

Reason #3 why this movie is AWESOME: The action sequences are pretty damn good - some are superb.


Enough of that.

The alien plot didn't bother me in the slightest - as Evman says, it's no more or less ridiculous than the religious stuff in the earlier films. The actual stuff they DID with the plot was a bit guff, though - particularly the alien/portal sequence, which again was pretty random.

My single main issue with the film is the amount of CG - there's tons of the stuff. CG doesn't normally bother me, but there were two reasons why it didn't work here: 1. It was actually rather poor quality (what happened to the ILM that did Transformers and Pirates?). 2. It didn't 'fit' into the gritty, stuck-together-with-gaffer-tape-and-grit universe that the Indy films inhabit.

All the non-CG stuff, where they were on location, or on a cool set, was brilliant, and felt exactly how Indiana Jones should feel. The moment it went to a CG sequence it simply stuck out like a sore thumb.

So yeah, lots of flaws but, overall, I had a thoroughly entertaining time watching it.

In other words, it's exactly like the other 3.

If I had to put it 'in place', I'd put it alongside Temple of Doom. Great fun, but a bit random and wobbly in places.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 10:26pm

Post 28 of 164

Frosty G

Force: 540 | Joined: 28th May 2005 | Posts: 640

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

SPOILERS MILDLY



The more I think about it, I would really have liked it if there was no sci-fi element in the end and it was all legend as Indy always shouts at the beginning of every film. I think it would be a nice change and would lead to a nice climax with a heavily pissed off Cate Blanchett.

What I didn't like about this one is that it was too much like Raiders but not as cool. Each film has had its own different and, IMO, amazing ending. In raiders it was the opening of the ark, in Doom it was the big bridge stand-off, and in Crusade it was the three tests, in this one it was the same as the ark but with a CGI Alien looking intently at Cate Blanchett. I mean was it showing that she couldn't handle the knowledge of the alien? Its just a repeat of the ark. Just weak, IMO.

Also, I preferred it when the final scene of the Indiana Jones film world was them riding horses into the sunset, not them walking out of a church.
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 11:15pm

Post 29 of 164

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

My opinion of George Lucas is now lower than my opinion of George Bush.
I'm guessing that if you had liked this movie you would be complimenting Spielberg... not Lucas.
That is correct. People seem so ready to hate George Lucas, but I don't see anyone saying "I hate Spielberg for this." If there's anyone people should be "hating" shouldn't it be Steven Spielberg? He is, after all, the director. I would think that if it was perfectly directed, the producing couldn't mess it up all that much. But then again, no one ever dare hate the great Spielberg right? smile Especially when George Lucas has already encouraged fans to not like him after he made the Prequel Trilogy that everyone hates.

I'd say it's a bit harsh to hate George Lucas anyway. He could make the worst movie in the world, and I say you should at least show him some respect, he did after all, make the original Star Wars movies. No one can deny that he is or was, at least at one point, an incredible filmmaker and storyteller.

As for me, I still haven't seen it, so when I talk about people not liking George Lucas or Steven Spielberg, I'm not saying that I hate either of them... although, I'm not sure what Lucas is thinking doing the animated Clone Wars movie, but that's a whole other topic.


-Jabooza
Posted: Thu, 22nd May 2008, 11:37pm

Post 30 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Jabooza wrote:

I'm not sure what Lucas is thinking doing the animated Clone Wars movie, but that's a whole other topic.
Not to get off topic, but this isn't supposed to be a real Star Wars movie or anything. It's really just a feature-length premiere of the T.V. show, that Lucas (and fans) thought would look really cool on the big screen. It's a stylized T.V. show that's not supposed to take away from the real films.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 12:02am

Post 31 of 164

Randito3

Force: 3000 | Joined: 19th Mar 2007 | Posts: 55

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User

Gold Member

I have not seen the movie yet, but after reading about the Aliens and the different dimensions I know where they got that stuff from. Many people beleive that there are different dimensions and that is where aliens come from. I hear this more and more everyday. CoasttoCoastam has it on their radio show all the time. I guess Lucas decided since its the thought process of many today that it would be accepted. Like I said, I have not seen it, but I wish they would have gone a different route than the alien thing.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 8:36am

Post 32 of 164

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Jabooza wrote:

People seem so ready to hate George Lucas, but I don't see anyone saying "I hate Spielberg for this." If there's anyone people should be "hating" shouldn't it be Steven Spielberg? He is, after all, the director. I would think that if it was perfectly directed, the producing couldn't mess it up all that much.
The director doesn't always have full say. If you followed the story of the films production, you'll know that Fank Darabont wrote a script which everybody really liked except Lucas, he said no. Lucas was also involved in the screenplay by David Koepp, despite the fact he's credited.
And Lucas involvement show. The storytelling has the same rubbish Lucas trademarks his Star Wars scripts have: Stupid story, silly dialogue, unnecessary characters, incredibly odd comiclike bending of established survival rules (Indy survives a crash in a metal fridge / amidala being no jedy jumps 50 foot down on the back of an animal etc) and random CG at places it's entirely not necessary (CG animals? CG jungle swing?).

In fact, Spielbergs excellent direction is what makes the film not fall apart entirely. Because it's not the directing that sucks, it's the producing and the screeplay - both aspects Lucas was involved in.

Lucas is just a man who shouldn't touch anything if it shouldn't go downhill.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 2:19pm

Post 33 of 164

film freak

Force: 1353 | Joined: 18th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1109

Windows User MacOS User

Member

This can pretty much sum it up: It's a good movie, but it's not a good Indiana Jones movie.

SPOILERS





In my opinion, it was pretty much great until the last 15 minutes or so. Exactly when all the crystal skeletons combined to turn into a CGI alien, the movie ruined itself for me. It only got worse from there with the UFO popping out of the ground. It was a huge disappointment for me, and I wish to say this: If it's a trilogy, keep it a trilogy. But don't try and breath new life into a series with something like this.


[/my two cents]
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 2:39pm

Post 34 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

film freak wrote:

This can pretty much sum it up: It's a good movie, but it's not a good Indiana Jones movie.
This is always going to be the problem with an established series that hasn't been touched for decades. Everyone knows the original off by heart, so anything new is going to simply seem weird - irrespective of its actual quality.

Everyone knows what Indiana Jones is: It's Raiders, Doom and Crusade. Anything else is going to have a hard time feeling like a 'true' Indy film, simply because it's not any of those three films.

Having thought about it a bit more, I'd say the middle third of the film feels very much like an Indiana Jones film. It's the slow, bizarre opening and effects-heavy ending that don't work for me. Still generally entertaining, just of a notably lower quality.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 3:47pm

Post 35 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Sollthar wrote:

Jabooza wrote:

People seem so ready to hate George Lucas, but I don't see anyone saying "I hate Spielberg for this." If there's anyone people should be "hating" shouldn't it be Steven Spielberg? He is, after all, the director. I would think that if it was perfectly directed, the producing couldn't mess it up all that much.
The director doesn't always have full say. If you followed the story of the films production, you'll know that Fank Darabont wrote a script which everybody really liked except Lucas, he said no. Lucas was also involved in the screenplay by David Koepp, despite the fact he's credited.
And Lucas involvement show. The storytelling has the same rubbish Lucas trademarks his Star Wars scripts have: Stupid story, silly dialogue, unnecessary characters, incredibly odd comiclike bending of established survival rules (Indy survives a crash in a metal fridge / amidala being no jedy jumps 50 foot down on the back of an animal etc) and random CG at places it's entirely not necessary (CG animals? CG jungle swing?).

In fact, Spielbergs excellent direction is what makes the film not fall apart entirely. Because it's not the directing that sucks, it's the producing and the screeplay - both aspects Lucas was involved in.

Lucas is just a man who shouldn't touch anything if it shouldn't go downhill.
I think this sums up my opinion better than I could, I'm still in emotional shock. The truth is that I was 7 when the original Star Wars came out in 1977, and it's hard to explain to people who weren't there- this is the days before the mall multi-plex and the big "summer blockbuster" films that all of us get excited over. George Lucas became this icon of the independent visionary, and that idea has carried him for a long time. The truth is that he hasn't really directed many good films. Only the original Star Wars and the excellent American Graffitti. Nearly all of his other films have been average at best. His "concepts" for story are wonderful, but the truth is that he isn't really a good story teller. Spielberg however is one of the better storytellers of our generation and has demonstrated that in a variety of settings with a variety of topics and levels of depth. I don't buy the argument that "everything seems wierd because you are in love with the original blah blah blah..." argument. It doesn't fly here. I've enjoyed the other two Indy movies. This one falls short FIRST AND FOREMOST ON THE PAGE. I can name probably 10 simple, minor storytelling 101 tweaks using the same exact story in this movie that would have at LEAST made it bearable. I like Solthars mention that Lucas doesn't follow the "rules of survival"- because that is EXACTLY my point. Your characters inhabit a "story world" and you set up the reality of that world. In Harry Potter's world we know that magic is real and lots of things can happen- we accept that. In Superman's world we know he is Superman, but we also know he can be killed by Krytonite and can't see through lead- etc... well, we know Indy will get out of scrapes by a combination of his wits, sheer luck, and his fortitude- I think this story just violates the Indy story world in so many ways that it takes you OUT of that world and ruins the experience. There is always supposed to be one foot in reality with Indy- that's what makes it so much fun, he's skeptical,- the supernatural is what keeps cropping up to challenge that side of him. They just destroyed all of that in this pic. sad
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 3:57pm

Post 36 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

I don't buy the argument that "everything seems wierd because you are in love with the original blah blah blah..." argument. It doesn't fly here.
Really? I'd say it's quite clearly and undeniably a factor. I'm not saying you're 'wrong' or anything. But it's surely going to be a factor for people that love something, then 20 years later something new comes along.

It's the same if you have a tight-knit group of friends, or work colleagues, then someone new joins - no matter how pleasant (or unpleasant), it's going to seem extremely weird at first.

I think you you have to mentally get past that 'first contact' syndrome before you can judge something sensibly, that's all. You might still hate it, and that's fine by me. smile

They just destroyed all of that in this pic. sad
Monkey swinging aside, almost all the gripes I have with the film take place exclusively in the opening and closing sequences. All the Area 51 and Nuke Town stuff is either a bit wooden or completely random - and completely breaks the 'survival rules' we've been talking about with the fridge bit. Similarly the climax is very passive, with Indy & co not really doing anything while the effects jibber about around them.

The middle third of the film I thought was much more 'Indy'. It didn't break the survival rules set up by the previous films, it had a nice mixture of locations and cool sets, proper Indy-style action, good camaraderie between Mutt and Indy.

Crucially, the action all felt 'real' - like every punch hurt. That's really the key to Indy action: every punch has to hurt. Every escape is part fluke. The fight with the big Russian guy was classic Indy - big punches, clearly hurting a lot. Nothing fancy, no overly-choreographed whizzbangs: just hard punches. Shame they're surrounded by dodgy CG ants, but there you go.

I think the poor start and poor end unfortunately also tarnish the middle section (from the motorbike chase etc at the university until they arrive at the Waterfall Face, basically), which is actually pretty cool.

I'm saying we should simply forgive it the start and end - far from it. But there is a tendency with these movies in which we are emotionally invested from our childhood to focus on the negative to such a degree that we ignore the positive, when we did the exact opposite as a child.

I mean, there's plenty to complain about in the originals, but we ignore it all in favour of the good stuff.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 4:19pm

Post 37 of 164

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

I agree with Bryan that there needn't be a weird factor because of time differences.

With Star Wars, the entire acting personnel was replaced. With Indy, it's the same actors playing him and Marion. The period it's set in is recaptured really well. No leap from the audience is required to accept the character stories, as Indy and Ford are older and wiser. So if the story had been less ridiculous in places, I would happily place it alongside the other three. But for me, it wasn't as clear cut that the middle was better - it varied from scene to scene.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 4:37pm

Post 38 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

I don't buy the argument that "everything seems wierd because you are in love with the original blah blah blah..." argument. It doesn't fly here.
Really? I'd say it's quite clearly and undeniably a factor. I'm not saying you're 'wrong' or anything. But it's surely going to be a factor for people that love something, then 20 years later something new comes along.
Maybe- I'm not denying my emotional attachment, but I work in video and film production for a living, and I can tell when I see shoddy craftsmanship. That's like saying "You loved your old Chevy, that's why you don't like this new Chevy." and I'm saying "The wheels fell off of the new Chevy!!! so emotional attachment aside, the car is just poorly made." Does that make sense? unsure

I know I've bored (or maybe enlightened? Yes- I have an ego smile ) some of you with my "Screenwriting" posts in the Filmmaker's forum, and again- if I may wax purely academic for a moment- the story is STRUCTURED POORLY - I'm not talking content here, just structure. We can start there- and that's where they start losing me. There are so many SIMPLE things they could have done to keep the "reality" of the Indy story world in tact that they didn't do. Let's start with the first 10 minutes of the film.

1. Opening scene drag racing- LOVED IT. Why? Becuase it FIRMLY ESTABLISHES A SENSE OF PLACE AND TIME. Spielberg is at his best establishing place and time and setting the tone in ALL of his films. Wonderful shot selections, etc... Arrive at ARea 51. OK, it's already a little unbelievable that an entire platoon of Communist agents would be on American soil. It would have been MORE BELIEVABLE if it were only a FEW guys. But we'll let that slide. What I won't let slide is that these guys are dressed in US Soldier uniforms to disguise themselves (great)- BUT when Spalko steps out, she is dressed in a coverall with a huge HAMMER AND SICKLE on her back! And a sword! She may as well have been dressed as Wonder Woman - not much of a disguise in Commie-Crazy 1957 USA. In other words she is dressed like some kind of superhero villian. Had she stepped out dressed like a scientist in regular clothes- well, that would have again been much more believable and not violated the rules of Indy's "story world" so much- save her "costume" until we meet her again in the jungle- where it's more appropriate and where she won't stick out like a sore thumb because she has a hammer and sickle on her back! It also would then gradually reveal her to be more dangerous than she first appears and demonstrate that she has both the scientist and the warrior in her- just like Indiana Jones! For God's sake that's why he doesn't wear his leather jacket and carry his whip on the campus or in his classroom- those external cues tell you something about him. Spalko needed an actual CHARACTER ARC. This is mechanics, not content- what you reveal and WHEN. most engaging stories do this- Take Batman Begins, the original Raiders and the Last Crusade- even Die Hard or the Spiderman films- you have to give the villians a character arc as well and if you can paralell the hero, well then it just gets more and more interesting on different levels. This is Storytelling 101, a course that George Lucas has never taken. If it doesn't fit neatly into Joseph Campbell's "Hero's Journey" model, Lucas is LOST as a writer and storyteller. And I re-state, these types of structural dynamics actually DO exist in Both Raiders and The Last Crusade- they are far more subdued in Temple of Doom, and in general that one is the least favorite of most people! That's not a coincidence. "Story dynamics" is a real thing, and even if you can't articulate it- you know it when you are experiencing effective story dynamics when you are watching a film.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 6:09pm

Post 39 of 164

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

SPOILERS

I really liked this, perhaps loved it even, for the first 3/4ths of the movie. But.........aliens? Really? This modernization and completely unkin story arc is what threw this movie off the most from the other three.

But I could deal with that as a 'they worshipped them religiously' thing. Doom had that, so did Raiders. But......the CG alien. Uggh. Archaic and mystical are two words I'd use to describe the supernatural elements of the Indy movies; and this one had both covered (even if it was with an alien) until they screwed the pooch and reversed the feeling to 'it's so high tech they don't understand it because it's still the 50s!', which is unfortunate.

However, one thing I will give this movie is a restrained and proper use of CG. People may complain, but if you're not counting the aliens and ufo thing/sequence; a lot of the special effects were entirely Indy-styled. This includes the car-to-car sword fight, which looked slightly dodgy but to me was a clear homage to the dodgy-looking dog fight in 'Crusade'. Besides that,

a solid 6/10. Maybe a 7. No Speed Racer, though. (a movie that resurrects itself in it's third act; an action devoid in this picture.)

Pluses were Harrison Ford and Shia Labeouf. Minuses- primarily the disjointed and ill-framed editing/cinematography in dialogue scenes. And, sadly sadly sadly, not just non-Indy lighting but bad and uncinematic lighting. Some of the frames looking cool, but largely the well-shot sequences gave me the feeling of "forget that gel and fill light, Bob! There's not enough room on the set, we can do that fine lighting in post!". Anyone else get this feelings?

But bah, I'm only pointing out the bad things. Overall, this movie is decidedly a 'good one'. If you're willing to pick certain cringe-worthy articles out of it, it's as good as Doom and Crusade, if not better with age.

Last edited Fri, 23rd May 2008, 6:25pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 6:19pm

Post 40 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Bryan - yeah, absolutely agreed on the script, it was pretty awful. Which is extremely perplexing given the Big 3's repeated claims about 'waiting for the right script'.

All the characterisation basically came from extremely hard work by the actors, rather than anything inherent in the writing.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 7:19pm

Post 41 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Bryan - yeah, absolutely agreed on the script, it was pretty awful. Which is extremely perplexing given the Big 3's repeated claims about 'waiting for the right script'.

All the characterisation basically came from extremely hard work by the actors, rather than anything inherent in the writing.
On that we agree- I thought Ford was good, a little stiff at first but really a "return to form" in many ways. Shia was decent, Cate was interesting as a villian. Karen Allen had nothing to do most of the time, and both Ray Winstone and John Hurt were also wasted IMO.

Oh well- there are interviews already on the internet talking about Indy 5 with SHia taking over if this film is "well received". Dear God, please let this movie flop so it can stop Lucas once and for all...
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 7:30pm

Post 42 of 164

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Lucas isn't a bad man. His creativity and/or genius may be wearing (or have been worn) thin; but he's not just in it all to make money- and I think you need to see that, Bryan.

He's a man of the people, and he's simply in it to please the fans. At least, that's what I've always got from him. Hell, the man created Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Give him some credit. I may not be the die-hard Indy or Star Wars freak, but I can appreciate what Lucas did with Spielberg and on his own; and what he's doing now: Keeping himself busying and fans fed with more stuff.

Heck, we all know he's got enough money to have a cash-bonfire everyday for the rest of his life; and yet we're still kindly treated to another serving on Indy and a few helping of Star Wars. There may be some negative connotations to it all, but he's done and doing something most directors and writers don't dare decide to do on their own: revive something beloved.

And I'm happy with it all. More fun and nostalgia, even if George isn't the greatest writer or the sharpest tool in the shed- he's still well-intentioned. At least, I think so.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 7:39pm

Post 43 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Lucas isn't a bad man. His creativity or genius may be wearing (or have been worn) thing; but he's not just in it all to make money- and I think you need to see that, Bryan.

He's a man of the people, and he's simply in it to please the fans. At least, that's what I've always got from him. Hell, the man created Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Give him some credit. I may not be the die-hard Indy or Star Wars freak, but I can appreciate what Lucas did with Spielberg and on his own; and what he's doing now: Keeping himself busying and fans fed with more stuff.

Heck, we all know he's got enough money to have a cash-bonfire everyday for the rest of his life; and yet we're still kindly treated to another serving on Indy and a few helping of Star Wars. There may be some negative connotations to it all, but he's done and doing something most directors and writers don't dare decide to do on their own: revive something beloved.

And I'm happy with it all. More fun and nostalgia, even if George isn't the greatest writer or the sharpest tool in the shed- he's still well-intentioned. At least, I think so.
I never said he was just in it for the money- I just think his so-called "talent and creativity" is really just the only two good ideas he's ever had in his life. Star Wars and Indiana Jones. He has proven to be mediocre at best as a filmmaker outside of those two ideas and the last three star wars pictures were widely panned by fans and critics alike for the poor writing, dialogue, and stiff acting. His next project is taking Star Wars to the animated Clone Wars series- seriously, his entire career is Star Wars! Spielberg is a different animal, and has had wide-ranging success as a filmmaker. I guess I'm just struggling with the fact that Lucas never really was the talent I thought he was, ever- and that hurts... sad because he has fallen into that category of "yeah I know it's going to suck because this guy is associated with it..."
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 7:50pm

Post 44 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

The main thing I really don't get about Indy 4 is the CG. Not the amount of it (which also annoys me, but is a separate issue), but the quality.

I mean, as you say, we unfortunately rather expect wooden dialogue and storytelling from Lucas these days. But we dont't expect wobbly CG. Get him and Spielberg working on the same film and it really makes no sense how dodgy some of the compositing and effects were...I'm really quite mystified, to be honest.

The monkey swing sequence, the alien at the end, the spaceship, all the random CG chipmunk things, and some of the compositing during Shia's (otherwise really cool) jeep-top swordfight.

Very strange, considering ILM's amazing work in Transformers and Pirates. Did they not give them enough time, or something?
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 8:26pm

Post 45 of 164

ryanprickle

Force: 244 | Joined: 8th Jun 2005 | Posts: 62

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ok, here are my thoughts. I am a huge Indiana Jones fan and I have been waiting for this since they announced production back in the early 2000's. I think what makes this movie so akward is how they tried to combine things that older people would know of (the roswell thing) with things that would appeal to kiddies under the age of 8 (the monkey thing). And lucas definatly had a bigger part in this one, because I could almost guaruntee Spielberg wouldn't put those damn aliens in it. Not that he doesnt like the whole alien thing, but it doesn't fit with Indy. I thought they pushed it with the magical powers at the end of Raiders because it gives the movie that odd feel like, "This movie is starting to get wierd". So to sum it up, excellent actors, even the cg was decent when they needed it, but they should have stuck to a biblical artifact or any kind of actual artifact for that matter. This was not an Indiana Jones film for me, because Indiana Jones is like one of those old grave robber serials, not one of those sci fi serials.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 8:47pm

Post 46 of 164

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ryanprickle wrote:

but they should have stuck to a biblical artifact or any kind of actual artifact for that matter. This was not an Indiana Jones film for me, because Indiana Jones is like one of those old grave robber serials, not one of those sci fi serials.
Absolutely true; and exactly why it didn't work. If I wanted to relive that 'thrilled-feeling, fun movie-watching experience' for my money I'd no doubt go see Speed Racer. (I called the minority prediction about both of these, and I feel great about it smile)

Oh, and you're right about Lucas having more interaction this time around. Lord knows, Spielberg

hates

them

aliens.

Especially in movies. He's said they're the greatest detractor from his success.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 9:06pm

Post 47 of 164

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I mean, as you say, we unfortunately rather expect wooden dialogue and storytelling from Lucas these days. But we dont't expect wobbly CG. Get him and Spielberg working on the same film and it really makes no sense how dodgy some of the compositing and effects were...I'm really quite mystified, to be honest.
It may have been Spielberg's involvement. I'd assume he spent more time shooting, and he didn't give post-production enough time to do their effects. I think it's interesting actually; Spielburg and Coppola both try to shoot on film as much as possible, while Lucas is high on shooting digitally. I think the downfall of Lucas was technology to be honest. I mean, he cut the puppetry department of his company, and when he added CGI to the original Star Wars films it felt like a mockery to his own work. I mean, the modelers that spent blood sweat and tears creating elaborate battle scenes were slapped in the face with CGI.
/small rant


I'm seeing this tonight, and not expecting much.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 9:20pm

Post 48 of 164

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Well, now that I've seen all the big movies I had been waiting for this spring I feel a bit let down. Now what do I have to look forward to this summer?

Indy was alright. For me it fell prey to the Matrix: Revolutions curse. I went in to the theater expecting everything and left unsatisfied. I won't go into detail with a critique, but it does sound like I fall somewhere in between the opinions of Tarn and Bryan.

I did not expect to be saying this, but Speed Racer is a better movie than Indy 4.

There, I said it, WHATDAYA THINK OF THAT?
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 9:32pm

Post 49 of 164

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Certified Fresh at Rotten Tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_and_the_kingdom_of_the_crystal_skull/

Thats all the encouragement I need to actually do this. wink
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 11:16pm

Post 50 of 164

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

Certified Fresh at Rotten Tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_and_the_kingdom_of_the_crystal_skull/

Thats all the encouragement I need to actually do this. wink
I don't know if that's worth it. I absolutely loved the movie, but the last act ruins it almost completely for me. Like a delicious, perfectly-portion and flavored meal that you proceed to throw up after eating. Sure, the meal was nice- but look at the end result and all you can't help but think about now: the bad part.

Oh, and this is from one week ago:

Evman wrote:

jawajohnny wrote:

Atom wrote:

Indy 4 I couldn't care less about at this point. Mainly because reviewers and the box office will go gah-gah over it while this (sadly but probably) supremely better movie has been shot, killed, and thrown to the curb by both the critics and the box office.
Wait... Are you saying that you don't care about Indy because it's going to get better reviews and make more money than Speed Racer? Not to sound like an Indy fanboy, but I don't quite understand why you don't care about the return of an iconic hero.
It's kinda like how Citizen Kane will always be the number one movie on the AFI's top 100 list... not necessarily because it deserves the title, but because film critics are too afraid to take a second look at it's merits, and automatically tote it as the best thing ever. Likewise, Indy 4 will be well received regardless of how good it actually is, whereas Speed Racer, an original and amazing motion picture, goes down in history as an abysmal failure just because it was not given its fair shake.
Posted: Fri, 23rd May 2008, 11:41pm

Post 51 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Just got back, and I absolutely loved it! It's just like the other Indy movies. Actually, it feels like a combination of all three films. For me, it stands right beside the two other sequels (which are both great).

Here's what I loved:

The opening sequence (with the brief shot of the Ark). And the atomic bomb thing was especially well done (I'm pretty sure Indy has broken those "laws of survival" in the previous films).

The entire middle part. The motorcycle chase scene, the "grave robbing" scene, the quicksand/snake scene, the jungle chase, and the ants. The archeology stuff and the action is just classic Indy. And the family bickering reminded me of Indy and his dad from "Last Crusade".

I didn't mind the whole alien plot. It was a little vague at the end, but all the movies have that same kind of supernatural ending. And the quote about the gateway to another dimension - it's perfectly acceptable, seeing as it's spoken by the random crazy guy who has actually been researching the topic extensively.

I liked the CG, it reminded me of the "campy" effects from the other films.

Overall, 10/10, 5/5, A+, or whatever rating you want. It's a film for the fans. The audience in the theater loved it. The only disappointing thing is that it ended. That's the thing. I (being diehard fan) am disappointed that after nineteen years, the return of my favorite movie character is limited to one two-hour movie.
Posted: Sat, 24th May 2008, 12:14am

Post 52 of 164

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Oh, and this is from one week ago:

Evman wrote:

jawajohnny wrote:

Atom wrote:

Indy 4 I couldn't care less about at this point. Mainly because reviewers and the box office will go gah-gah over it while this (sadly but probably) supremely better movie has been shot, killed, and thrown to the curb by both the critics and the box office.
Wait... Are you saying that you don't care about Indy because it's going to get better reviews and make more money than Speed Racer? Not to sound like an Indy fanboy, but I don't quite understand why you don't care about the return of an iconic hero.
It's kinda like how Citizen Kane will always be the number one movie on the AFI's top 100 list... not necessarily because it deserves the title, but because film critics are too afraid to take a second look at it's merits, and automatically tote it as the best thing ever. Likewise, Indy 4 will be well received regardless of how good it actually is, whereas Speed Racer, an original and amazing motion picture, goes down in history as an abysmal failure just because it was not given its fair shake.
That isn't actually all that true. It seems that critics are actually usually more harsh on sequels to great movies and usually like the original movies better. The ones that critics are too afraid to take a second look at are actually the classics. Examples:
Frankenstein
King Kong
The Wizard of Oz
Singin' in the Rain
Marry Poppins
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
The Godfather

D3L3T10N wrote:

Certified Fresh at Rotten Tomatoes.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana_jones_and_the_kingdom_of_the_crystal_skull/

Thats all the encouragement I need to actually do this. wink
I agree.


-Jabooza
Posted: Sat, 24th May 2008, 2:22am

Post 53 of 164

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I completely dug it.

The only scene that was too ridiculous even for an Indiana Jones scene was:

SPOILERS sort of... Shia Lebouf swinging from vines. END SPOILERS



Anyone see Adam Kirley in the credits as stunt coordinator? I saw the film with my dad and pointed saying "I sort of kind of know that guy indirectly through other people." I know he's done tons of professional work, but to see a name I "know" (though I've never spoken to him directly) unexpectedly in a film I've been looking forward to for ages is very cool.

I thought the whole thing was very fun. I really didn't think any of the effects were bad at all, especially compared to the old films. My order of Indiana Jones films goes:

Raiders
Crusade
Crystal Skull
Temple of Doom

And I love all of them, and this one definitely fits as an Indiana Jones film, filmed in a different era. It certainly wasn't as creative as Raiders in the writing, but the film had a lot of character that I actually didn't expect based on the reviews here. My expectations were very high, then lowered a bit (but still positive) after reading this thread. The film actually met my old expectations.

Overall awesome film experience. I hate giving films a number rating, as there are so many variables and different kinds of films. So on a "didn't like it," "neutral," "loved it" scale, I'd definitely give it a "loved it."
Posted: Sat, 24th May 2008, 4:07am

Post 54 of 164

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm going to tote some more opinions here as I've had time to mull things over.

SPOILERS

The entire alien concept was not bad - as Tarn said, it's the execution of that storyline that completely destroyed the credibility. If they had not showed the live alien and left the skeletons alone and definitely not showed or at least more obscured the spaceship, it wouldn't have been so weird. Spielberg just can't resist anything involving aliens, it seems. The fact that, again, as Tarn said, Indy almost had nothing to do with the entire climactic ending, didn't help at all.

I don't think people give Lucas enough credit for anything now-a-days. Sure, he shouldn't be allowed to direct or directly write anything now, because he's clearly lost his storytelling magic, but come on, the guy CREATED STAR WARS AND INDIANA JONES. Watching American Graffiti, it's also very good. Not to mention the impact his development of technology has had on the film industry. It'd be a totally different industry. People just need a scapegoat and big old millionare Lucas is a great one.

The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. Once you get over the initial "wtf was with the aliens" shock, you realize how much fun the first 3/4 of the movie was, and how badass it was to see Ford back in action. The movie was designed to be like a 1950s B-movie, just like the originals were designed to be like 1930s serial adventures. Just because the movie has a different tone is NOT a bad thing. 20 years HAVE passed, folks.

I just generally find the entire idea of aliens or "interdimensional beings" influencing early human civilization extremely fascinating, and loved the whole mystery of the skull. Shame it fell apart at the very end.


Anywho, just thought i'd share some ideas now that I've had 2 days to digest what I saw.
Posted: Sat, 24th May 2008, 4:19pm

Post 55 of 164

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Finally saw it. It was great, of course, until the end. Aliens ruined the entire movie for me. I think they pretty easily could have changed the skull to a human skull, and then only changed the end. They could have done the exact same thing with the 'gift of knowledge' and all that, but with some sort of biblical artifact like in the other films.

Still, I really enjoyed it, and I would still recommend anyone to see it.

4.5/5
Posted: Sat, 24th May 2008, 4:59pm

Post 56 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Now that I've taken it all in, I only have a couple of problems with it. The script was very fast-paced. They just moved from scene to scene, without allowing the audience to catch up with them. I really didn't mind this, as I just sat back and enjoyed the ride. However, I would have liked to see a slower paced love scene between Indy and Marion.

Generally, the effects were excellent. They didn't overuse the CG at all, and I think it fit perfectly into an Indy movie. Now I'm just nit-picking, but I would have liked the end to have more effects, making it more like the ending of Raiders. The effects sequences with the skulls in the temple, and the saucer liftoff seemed a little bland. I liked it, but I wanted to see more color, something a little more spectacular. And I didn't have a problem with Indy just watching the whole thing - after all, he just sat and watched (or didn't watch) the effects-heavy ending of Raiders.

Overall, the biggest flaw was the writing. Lucas' story concept was great (it actually stayed pretty true to the real skull legend, with the inter-dimensional alien stuff), but Koepp could have done a better job with the script. I think that the big three (Spielberg, Lucas, Ford) decided that after nineteen years and a ton of drafts, that it was now or never to do the movie, so they had to make do with a so so script. I hope they make another film with Ford, because as I said before, a two hour movie was not enough for the return (and potential ending) of such a great franchise. I liked what we got (another classic Indy film), but I want more than than that.

"Crystal Skull" really felt like a tribute to the fans, combining elements from all three films. I really can't rank all the films (they're all 10/10 for me), but If I had to I would probably agree with Serpent:

Serpent wrote:

Raiders
Crusade
Crystal Skull
Temple of Doom
Posted: Sat, 24th May 2008, 5:16pm

Post 57 of 164

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

-Semi spoilers-
I'm not going to try to change anyone's mind, but I completely dug the alien plot. The writing wasn't perfect, but I actually loved the writing. I'm a sucker for alien conspiracies.

Honestly, if anything, the alien wasn't ridiculous enough. BIGGER SPOILER: Blanchett's death could have been gruesome or something.

Also, the ants were amazing.

I went into this movie expecting aliens, by the way. It was announced a few months ago that they were going in the 50's alien type direction. A lot of you seem to be surprised, maybe you were avoiding spoilers. Knowing about the aliens didn't ruin it for me either, it's not like the alien part was a twist, it was revealed pretty early on via blatant foreshadowing. I recommend going through it a 2nd, I haven't yet, but my friend said he loved it more the second time through.
Posted: Sat, 24th May 2008, 5:42pm

Post 58 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

The second I heard the title, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull", I immediately thought about aliens. The more and more I recall my knowledge about real crystal skulls, I like the plot more and more. It wasn't really convoluted at all, and I love all the Mayan/alien conspiracy theories. And I liked Blanchett's quest for knowledge, as it reminded me of Belloq's ultimate goal in Raiders.

I'm definitely going a second time. Maybe the writing seemed fast-paced because I was overexcited the first time around, and I was having trouble focusing. The more and more I think about it, the alien thing at the end becomes greater and greater. The end was exactly the kind of supernatural ending we are used to seeing in these movies, but with aliens instead of religion. I'm perfectly fine with that.
Posted: Sat, 24th May 2008, 6:56pm

Post 59 of 164

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I haven't seen it yet. I will though, probably this weekend.
Posted: Sat, 24th May 2008, 10:54pm

Post 60 of 164

doppelganger

Force: 134 | Joined: 16th May 2006 | Posts: 1157

MacOS User

Member

Spoilers:


Just saw it and thought it was the awesome, funnest, coolest, etc, etc, movie I've seen for a while.

It felt a little more fast paced than the others but it really didnt bother me at all.

When the space ship thing was going up and Indy was standing on that cliff it really felt epic.

The cg was just amazing, I had to keep reminding myself that it was cg.

The whole movie just felt right, like an Indiana Jones movie.

I thought it was a great Indy film, and an amazing adventure film.
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 2:29am

Post 61 of 164

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

It was obvious that the aliens were going to be a part of this from pretty early in the movie.

My thoughts: I didn't like this. At all. Not my cup of tea. This movie tried to hard to be something else it shouldn't have been. I've lost all respect for George Lucas, and I'm becoming extremely biased against CGI. The warehouse scene was ridiculous. The entire place was CGI. What the hell? Rent a damn warehouse, get a few crates, and shoot it! The survival of these characters were completely unreal. Surviving one waterfall is a feat, but three?! I get tired of impossibilities in movies that market themselves to be real.

Maybe that's why I didn't like it. All the Indiana Jones were giving a realistic impression, and they didn't do anything over the top, but this one just went over the line. Something like the Bourne movies give me a lot of excitement, because, well... it looks like that could very well happen today in our government.

Writing wasn't that great. I liked the Russian woman, I thought she was a great villain, but the plot, not being bad, did not belong in Indiana Jones at all. Period. Sci-fi elements in a movie that its predecessors have put a somewhat historically based plot on is a bad move.

Anyway, I'm really getting tired of CGI. I expect Wall-E to be one of the last times I'll actually be awed by it.
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 2:48am

Post 62 of 164

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

All the Indiana Jones were giving a realistic impression, and they didn't do anything over the top, but this one just went over the line.
I completely disagree. The Indiana Jones movie were meant to imitate the 1930s and 40s style serials, and were always meant to be a little campy and ridiculous, and that was what made them really good. If you go to an Indiana Jones movie expecting a serious, somber, meaningful, and totally believable plot, you will be sorely disappointed, and I think if you go just to see a really entertaining and fun movie, then that's what you'll get.
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 3:51am

Post 63 of 164

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I just saw this movie, and I don't know why some of you didn't like it, because I thought it was great. Very great, in fact. I must admit I didn't like the whole alien part of it, but other wise I enjoyed it thoroughly. I've always loved Indiana Jones, and I think this is a great addition to the series.
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 5:29pm

Post 64 of 164

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Spoilers, obviously

I felt sad that the movie took place in 57, because it kind of felt a bit too modern for Indiana Jones in some parts... like having flashlights, the nuclear village, and so on. The period setting is what makes the character so interesting, and if they get too close to modern day it feels odd.

I also agree: they shouldn't have shown any aliens. Just showing the 13 skeletons and leaving a certain mystery to it, so it still feels mystical and old, would have been amazing. They could have found another way to "reward" them for bringing the skull back and to kill Spalko. As it stands, it's still ok and ends up giving us the mind boggling spaceship liftoff scene, but to me it's just lazy writing. I definitely agree with Serpent that Spalko's death should have been much more gruesome, à la Raiders or Crusade.

Nonetheless, I still thoroughly enjoyed it, despite the different feel (am I the only one that was reminded of King Kong? somehow I felt the atmosphere was really really similar) and the ending. It's just a bit of a shame that there were no laugh out loud moments like in Crusade (and the attempts at them were only decent and not particularly clever).

I'd also agree with the Raiders, Crusade, Skulls, Doom order of best movies, though I'd say Skulls and Doom are almost on the same level.
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 6:10pm

Post 65 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

My thoughts: I didn't like this. At all. Not my cup of tea. This movie tried to hard to be something else it shouldn't have been. I've lost all respect for George Lucas, and I'm becoming extremely biased against CGI. The warehouse scene was ridiculous. The entire place was CGI. What the hell? Rent a damn warehouse, get a few crates, and shoot it!
Um... they did build a warehouse set. They tried to use minimal CGI.

Fill wrote:

The survival of these characters were completely unreal. Surviving one waterfall is a feat, but three?! I get tired of impossibilities in movies that market themselves to be real.
Raiders of the Lost Ark: Indy survives a ride on a submarine either submerged (where he would have drowned) or above water (where someone should have spotted him).

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: Indy, Willie, and Short Round fall out of a plane on a raft, and land safely, slide off a huge cliff, and land in some rapids while keeping the raft upright the entire time. Then there's the whole mining cart sequence, where they fly off the track and somehow land safely back on the track again.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: Indy is on a tank that falls off a cliff, and he somehow manages to survive and pull himself back up the cliff.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull: Indy survives an atomic blast by climbing into a lead-lined refrigerator. Then they survive dropping down three waterfalls.

It's not supposed to be realistic.

Last edited Sun, 25th May 2008, 6:13pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 6:11pm

Post 66 of 164

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

like having flashlights
Er, read up on the history of the flashlight... Flashlights were used in WWII. It didn't feel too modern for me personally, he works better in WWII era, but I think it still worked perfectly, it really wasn't all that long after. But each to his own.

Fill wrote:

The survival of these characters were completely unreal. Surviving one waterfall is a feat, but three?! I get tired of impossibilities in movies that market themselves to be real.
Did you ever watch the original trilogy? At all? Indiana Jones survived jumping out of a plane on a raft. They are all extremely ridiculous, it's purposeful. I'd complain about the refrigerator scene if I cared about realism, honestly... These are all supposed to be fun. Indiana Jones has NEVER been intended to seem realistic, like the Bourne films. I can understand that this may not be your cup of tea, maybe you only appreciate realistic films. If that's so, don't bother watching these kinds of films; it seems like you think the old Indiana Jones films are (your cup of tea). Maybe go back and rewatch them. Now this one may have been more over-the-top, but not that much more, and really that part of it shouldn't have ruined the experience. Only Harrison Ford in his Indiana Jones glory could survive a nuclear explosion, 3 waterfalls, several gun and fist fights, etc. You should have kind of expected that... Maybe try watching it again with a "this is going to be ridiculous" attitude, that's what they are. You may still not like it, but you definitely didn't watch it with appropriate expectations.

EDIT: Jawa said what I was saying with more examples. I think you are remembering the Indiana Jones original trilogy from a child's eyes, if that was the last time you watched them.
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 6:40pm

Post 67 of 164

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

Fill wrote:

My thoughts: I didn't like this. At all. Not my cup of tea. This movie tried to hard to be something else it shouldn't have been. I've lost all respect for George Lucas, and I'm becoming extremely biased against CGI. The warehouse scene was ridiculous. The entire place was CGI. What the hell? Rent a damn warehouse, get a few crates, and shoot it!
Um... they did build a warehouse set. They tried to use minimal CGI.
Yeah, they did. But the intro with the doors opening and an overhead shot of all the crates looked a lot like CGI to me. Even my friend sitting next to me said, "I don't think that's real."

jawajohnny wrote:

Fill wrote:

The survival of these characters were completely unreal. Surviving one waterfall is a feat, but three?! I get tired of impossibilities in movies that market themselves to be real.
It's not supposed to be realistic.
I see what you're saying. I forgot about the raft in the second one, which was a bit ridiculous. However, I still don't think(highlight for spoilers) surviving three waterfalls, an atomic explosion inside of a refrigerator, a gear slicing through a truck(which still keeps driving afterwards), ducking inside of a truck while another scrapes over it, and driving onto a tall tree that slowly lets down your truck/boat and thwaps up to conveniently kill the bad guys is excusable.

Oh, I must say thought that I absolutely loved the quick sand scene. It was one of the few moments in the movie where I actually felt like I was watching Indiana Jones.

I'm getting worried about the movies this year. I pray the Dark Knight doesn't disappoint.
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 7:20pm

Post 68 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Fill wrote:

jawajohnny wrote:

Fill wrote:

My thoughts: I didn't like this. At all. Not my cup of tea. This movie tried to hard to be something else it shouldn't have been. I've lost all respect for George Lucas, and I'm becoming extremely biased against CGI. The warehouse scene was ridiculous. The entire place was CGI. What the hell? Rent a damn warehouse, get a few crates, and shoot it!
Um... they did build a warehouse set. They tried to use minimal CGI.
Yeah, they did. But the intro with the doors opening and an overhead shot of all the crates looked a lot like CGI to me. Even my friend sitting next to me said, "I don't think that's real."
Not sure about the shot in question, but remember that a lot of shots in the older movies (including the warehouse shot at the end of Raiders, I believe) don't look real either. A lot of the CGI shots in the new movie are digital matte paintings for backgrounds, replacing the old method. The old movies used the old fashioned, paint-brushed matte paintings that you can sometimes tell are fake. And a lot of special effects look really fake too, like the mining cart sequence. So if something looks fake, it's really nothing new.
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 8:00pm

Post 69 of 164

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

Fill wrote:


Yeah, they did. But the intro with the doors opening and an overhead shot of all the crates looked a lot like CGI to me. Even my friend sitting next to me said, "I don't think that's real."
Not sure about the shot in question,
Um, no, I definitely remember the shot he was talking about. It was the first big "this is CG" shot that I noticed in the whole picture. It was pretty obvious.

Another very noticeable scene was when they were at the top of the temple with the filling sand and trying to get in. This entire scene had the classic, telltale signs of "this is us trying to pretend like we're outside, but instead we're really using blue screen very poorly" shots.

Also, what the hell was with the flying gun powder stuff at the beginning? I didn't understand that at all. The powder was essentially flying through the entire warehouse, whereas guns and glasses, etc were only slightly tugged when they got extremely close to the container. That inconsistency bothered me. I know "it's an alien device" and all that, but still, there should be SOME laws of physics that remain believable (not to mention that the effect itself looked like poo...).

Last edited Sun, 25th May 2008, 8:05pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 8:03pm

Post 70 of 164

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

There's really no need to quote EVERYTHING in every post guys... It'll just make this thread really hard to read and follow. If you quote, quote the important stuff. smile
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 8:38pm

Post 71 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Did the warehouse shot in Raiders look completely real? My point was that some shots in the old movies look really fake, so why does it matter so much that some shots in this film look like fake CGI? I heard that for this film Spielberg actually thought about making brush strokes visible on the digital matte paintings in order to be "consistent" with the old films.

And the shot with the temple and the sand... did they build that set, and then bluescreen the actors in? I heard they built it.
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 9:53pm

Post 72 of 164

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

As you can see, they did build a fairly large set for the warehouse:



This is the only shot of the warehouse from Raiders, I couldn't find any from Crystal Skulls to compare, but there are a few in the Trailer:



My personal opinion is that, as cool as it technically was, they should have left the giant warehouse idea alone, because actually going there and having a fight scene took all the magic and mystery out of it. Now it's just some warehouse in the desert.


I have a question to anyone who went to see the movie though:

Can anyone explain to me who the guys with the blowdarts and skull masks in the graveyard were, and also how the hell the Mayan people were still alive and came out of the stone walls in the temple?
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 10:51pm

Post 73 of 164

film freak

Force: 1353 | Joined: 18th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1109

Windows User MacOS User

Member

SPOILERS





Just got back from the second time. It was better, but not much better. I realized after a day or so I was just overwhelmed by the dissapointment, I didn't realize the movie wasn't bad at all. I agree with you about the warehouse Pooky, that scene from Raiders was a classic movie moment. And to answer your question, I didn't really understand the graveyard people, but it didn't really need to be understood, in my opinion. However, after seeing the second scene you mentioned again, it was ridiculous. The fridge scene and ones like it were normal to me, because they've always been in Indiana Jones movies, but the people coming out of the wall was just weird. wink
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 11:22pm

Post 74 of 164

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

SPOILERS!


Well, I saw it last night. I really loved it, I think it actually did manage to keep the same "Indy" feeling that all the other ones had. My biggest complaint: The aliens. Indiana Jones and aliens just don't go together. The aliens seemed to be presented in pretty much most Indiana Jonesish way that aliens could be presented in, but it still didn't quite fit. It worked really well until the very end where you actually get to see the alien and get to see the space ship. I definitely don't think it was anywhere near bad enough to ruin the experience, it was just kinda awkward.
Smaller complaints: The monkey scene. It was just kinda weird and corny to all of a sudden have someone start swinging around the forest like Tarzan with a bunch of monkeys in the middle of a fight scene.
Other smaller complaint: The groundhogs. Um.... why were they even in the movie? they were just kind of a bad attempt at comic relief. Maybe the reason I found them annoying was partially because everyone in the theater burst out laughing whenever they one of the groundhogs come on screen. The people in the theater laughed a little too much at everything though. unsure

As for the effects, I thought the alien didn't really look that good, and I thought the groundhogs didn't look good. Everything else I thought looked pretty much perfect. Although, I tend to find it hard to judge how good effects are when I see movies in a theater.


-Jabooza
Posted: Sun, 25th May 2008, 11:24pm

Post 75 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

The Mayan people that popped out of the walls were the "living dead" that guarded the city. I suppose they could have been really living, since they might have had access to the alien technology, but I think they were the living dead.

I liked the whole warehouse scene at the beginning. I don't think it takes away from Raiders at all. In Raiders, they put something in the warehouse, and in "Crystal Skull" they take something out. It is still very mysterious. The reason I liked it so much was that we get to see the Ark during the fight scene.
Posted: Mon, 26th May 2008, 8:53am

Post 76 of 164

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

After such "lists" I'm a little embarrassed to say that 'Doom' is my favorite Indy movie, followed closely by a tied Raiders and Crusade.

For my money, I like the middle portion of Doom the best, liked the character Short-Round, and thought it had the best stunts and most 'epic' locations, as well as the second-best beginning (love Raiders intro; can't stand River Phoenix in Crusade), and craziest/scariest baddies.
Posted: Mon, 26th May 2008, 11:54am

Post 77 of 164

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'm finally off to see this later.

It'll be a packed cinema, full of chavs.

Fun.
Posted: Mon, 26th May 2008, 5:44pm

Post 78 of 164

Bucees

Force: 2477 | Joined: 4th Jun 2007 | Posts: 382

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Im seeing at at 3 today
Posted: Mon, 26th May 2008, 6:53pm

Post 79 of 164

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I've just got back from a screening of the film.
I was highly underwhelmed. It was pretty cool to see my mate Adam at the beginning for the first 3 minutes or so... but after that I grew increasingly bored. I dunno what it was, perhaps the whole alien stab at things. It seemed the story was written backwards from the 'UFO' shot at the end and random inserts of action and OTHER indy ingredients were thrown in for the sake of it (the ants, the snake, the chase, the car stuff).

National Treasure 2 was a better film in the same genre. And that's saying something.

Enjoyable yes, but only just. 3/5
Posted: Mon, 26th May 2008, 8:05pm

Post 80 of 164

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

er-no wrote:


National Treasure 2 was a better film in the same genre. And that's saying something.
WELL... there goes my interest in ever seeing this film...
Posted: Mon, 26th May 2008, 8:56pm

Post 81 of 164

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ChristianFilmer 100001 wrote:

Im seeing at at 3 today
Okay!
Posted: Tue, 27th May 2008, 12:39am

Post 82 of 164

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

er-no wrote:




National Treasure 2 was a better film in the same genre. And that's saying something.

It must have been bad! cool
Posted: Tue, 27th May 2008, 1:09am

Post 83 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Indy 4 was much better than National Treasure 2. By the way, did the Indy "City of Gold" remind anyone of the "City of Gold" in National Treasure 2?
Posted: Tue, 27th May 2008, 1:27am

Post 84 of 164

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

jawajohnny wrote:

Indy 4 was much better than National Treasure 2. By the way, did the Indy "City of Gold" remind anyone of the "City of Gold" in National Treasure 2?
I avoided National Treasure 2, but El Dorado is a fairly well-known and often referenced-to legend. Not sure if that's what NT2 referred to, but if so, it reminded you of it for a reason. smile
Posted: Tue, 27th May 2008, 1:35am

Post 85 of 164

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

In NT2 it was an actual gold city though. And Indy was definitely a better movie IMO...
Posted: Tue, 27th May 2008, 5:46am

Post 86 of 164

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

In NT2 it was an actual gold city though. And Indy was definitely a better movie IMO...
I saw National Treasure 2, but I don't remember anything about it. Must not have been that good. razz
Posted: Tue, 27th May 2008, 6:02am

Post 87 of 164

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I really liked National Treasure 2. It had smart, snappy dialogue and a great cast; and that got the movie halfway to greatness. The rest came with some interesting turns (although somewhat tired after the first movie) and most notably a terrific beginning scene. (the assassination of President Lincoln)

Don't knock a movie just because you see it has Nicolas Cage and Jerry Bruckheimer on it. (Oh, and it may not have been completely 'better', but NT2 was in my opinion more fun than Indy 4. Which.....sadly defeats the purpose of an Indy movie: to be a fun experience to watch.)
Posted: Tue, 27th May 2008, 9:59am

Post 88 of 164

Mantra

Force: 1888 | Joined: 25th Nov 2002 | Posts: 551

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

Oh, how it hurts to write this:

The film was a major disappointment.
Was it just me or did Indy / Harrison just look bored and spend the whole film explaining ALL the plot?

There was NO sense of peril, the key ingredient to an Indy film. The overblown cgi shots took it away during the set pieces ( the one exception being the motorbike / car chase). The script was lacking in wit and verve, again a staple of the series up to now and a key part as to why the other films still stand up so well today.

The warning should be that if you start a film with a nuclear explosion and your main character just casually walks away then it's going to be hard to get any sense of danger over the next 115 minutes.

Ultimately, when they chose the story and script, they chose "Poorly".
Posted: Tue, 27th May 2008, 3:01pm

Post 89 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'm going to just come out and say it : I enjoyed this film, though I don't think it stands up to the greatness that is the Indiana Jones title. Though we all knew it couldn't. I truly think that Indy, alike to Star Wars has far too much weight behind it. What made the films great is so out-dated by today's audience expectations that it must be impossible to update something so definitively routed within nostalgia.

The CG was a little off in places, though despite spending all day every day working with visual effects I wasn't particularly annoyed - there were a lot of fantastic effects too. Awful script, fun action sequences with some outlandish pieces and some nods to previous Indy films thrown in. So once again - not utterly brilliant but still good.

I'm not angry about this at all. Had a fun experience in the cinema and felt like I got my money's worth simply through feeling that Indy did not undergo the same mutilation as Star Wars 1&2 did.

Now, I'm off to rest up not in space... But in the space between spaces.

-Matt.
Posted: Wed, 28th May 2008, 4:04am

Post 90 of 164

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Just went to see it a second time, and it was much better for some reason.

I dunno about you guys, but I can't wait for Indy 5. Highlight for spoiler:

When Indy snatches his hat from Mutt's hands at the end, to me it kind of meant "not yet", which gives me hope that there will be at least one more Harrison Ford Indy movie. Ending the series there would be kind of a shame.

I'm looking forward to Spielberg/Lucas and co. learning from their mistakes and, now that they've gotten back into the Indy vibe, giving us a slightly more realistic and witty plot this time around... for some reason, I get a "this is the one" feeling about a 5th film. It'd be kind of interesting, as the best movies of the series would be the odd numbers, while even numbers would be the fun but slightly strange movies.

Anyone else hope for a 5th one?
Posted: Wed, 28th May 2008, 4:09am

Post 91 of 164

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I feel exactly the same way, I even thought the same thing during the scene you described. Definitely look forward to a sequel.
Posted: Wed, 28th May 2008, 7:08am

Post 92 of 164

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Supposedly, they originally wanted to do five movies, so another one wouldn't be a surprise. I just hope they stop there and the series doesn't venture into "MUTT JONES AND THE HIPPIE ONSLAUGHT" territory.


Will Mutt escape without being poisoned by the Devil's weed?? Find out!
Posted: Wed, 28th May 2008, 7:33am

Post 93 of 164

Kid

Force: 4177 | Joined: 1st Apr 2001 | Posts: 1876

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

The weird racing bit at the beginning was obviously a tribute to American Graffiti. The gophers were daft though, I was just waiting for one of them to pull the dramatic gopher face.



I was amused that he was called mutt, also after the dog smile That and the way he combed his hair telegraphed that he was going to turn out to be Indy's son.

Bits I would lose would be the nuke scene because the fact that he survived was ridiculous. a) the blast would have vapourised the fridge b) with it flying aroung like it did Indy would be battered to death inside anyway and c) it made any trouble he got in later in the film a complete anti-climax because although we know he can get out of anything there still needs to be that stage where you think he can't possibly. Also the monkeys and vine swinging. It was bad CG but also he swung for too long, one or two swings onto the next car would have been ok, but as it stands we are supposed to believe that he is suddenly tarzan! What made the monkeys really bad is the fact that the ants were also CG but totally worked. Someone was complaining that that wasn't realistic and just a rip off of the mummy, but there are ants that actually do that and eat cows and stuff, plus it was in McGuyver. And of course the aliens. I don't think the fact that they ARE aliens is as bad as the sort of fizzle out ending when Indy got to them. They didn't give any knowledge or reward, they just destroyed anyone who stuck around and dissapeared. A little mystery goes a long way, if they got to the lost city and found out that they were aliens without actually meeting them then that could have worked out much better.

With so much money put into them it amazes me that they don't have test audiences or at least someone who is not originally connected with the project who can step back and say well this bit doesn't work or that bit sucks. And then go and fix up those parts.

But overall I'm with Hybrid on this one. It was a bit dissapointing as an Indy film but it wasn't terrible. It certainly doesn't spoil the series like Die Another Day did.
Posted: Wed, 28th May 2008, 8:23am

Post 94 of 164

B3N

Force: 3081 | Joined: 26th Feb 2006 | Posts: 1534

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Watched this yesterday. I thought it wasn't too bad, it kept that Indiana Jones style to it but sometimes wandered of into Spielburgs stupid alien addiction. I however felt the "Grab the snake!" scene was possibly the best bit of humour in it and it felt good to bring back Indy's fear of snakes.

I think they overdid it on the CGI parts as they neared the end but at least it didn't look to fake. As for the ending with Mutt when the hat 'walks' over to Mutt I do have a feeling there is another part to the franchise to come which only revolves around Mutt which I really hope they don't do, but I have read that Speilburg had promised fans that if Indy4 did well then he would possibly make 3 more Indy films.

Overall it was a good film and deserves a 4/5 from me.

B3N
Posted: Wed, 28th May 2008, 5:39pm

Post 95 of 164

JUIDAR

Force: 1525 | Joined: 10th Feb 2006 | Posts: 502

VisionLab User Windows User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I thought this film was very entertaining. The laws of physics bent as always it was made as if it was done right after the last one which in the days unrealistic stunts like that(falling off 3 waterfalls with out dying) were more believable.

You really had to watch it as if it was made during that time period or you would seriously would have spent the whole time watching the film saying, "Yeah right!".
Posted: Wed, 28th May 2008, 11:59pm

Post 96 of 164

Garfield Street

Force: 360 | Joined: 16th Jan 2006 | Posts: 256

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I personally loved the film! The unrealistic parts were funny I thought and added to the overall fun of going to see an Indiana Jones flick. My one friend that I went to see it with was disappointed by the unbelievability of the film, but I say isn't that what movies are for. A way to escape from reality and enjoy something that doesn't happen everyday? I thought the jokes were clever and made me laugh and the special effects were decent!

I'd give its 4.5 stars out of 5 (It was so close I had to split a star me)
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 3:45pm

Post 97 of 164

riftmaster

Force: 268 | Joined: 12th Nov 2007 | Posts: 145

Windows User

Member

it was great until the ufo part
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 3:51pm

Post 98 of 164

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

FXhomer34268 wrote:

it was great until the ufo part
Exactly. Although, I don't think it was ruined.
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 4:30pm

Post 99 of 164

riftmaster

Force: 268 | Joined: 12th Nov 2007 | Posts: 145

Windows User

Member

yeah it was not ruined
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 5:58pm

Post 100 of 164

Aculag

Force: 8365 | Joined: 21st Jun 2002 | Posts: 8581

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

FXhomer34268 wrote:

yeah it was not ruined
Yeah, it was the Tarzan bit that ruined it.
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 7:06pm

Post 101 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Aculag wrote:

FXhomer34268 wrote:

yeah it was not ruined
Yeah, it was the Tarzan bit that ruined it.
It was ruined for me at the atomic blast, which was pretty early in the film and it just made me focus on the shortcomings of the other parts that occurred before that that I might have let slip by.

This movie is simply a travesty that was not made for the "fans" it was made for the very broad general public, including 3-6 year olds. There is nothing in the original Raiders that is made for 3 year olds. Nothing.

This was CGI Jar-Jar 2.0, now with twice the suck!
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 8:23pm

Post 102 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

I really don't see the problem with the whole atomic blast or "fridge" sequence. I (along with everyone else in the audience) thought it was pretty awesome. As I said before, Indy has survived countless situations in which he should have been hurt, if not killed. The atomic blast is a cool way to show us the obvious: INDY IS IMMORTAL. Of course there isn't really any suspense. Did anyone actually go into the film expecting Indy to die? He's done the impossible before.

I don't think the CGI was overused at all (it definitely wasn't another Jar-Jar 2.0) They used it mostly for backgrounds, (replacing the old, fake matte-paintings) and for adding plants to the jungle chase scene. People are quick to criticize this film for the CGI, yet the old films had fake-looking effects too. It's not like they filmed everything on location back then either. Compare the shots of the warehouse from "Skull" to the closing shot of "Raiders". What's the difference?

I'm really happy that there was a lot less CGI than the usual summer blockbusters these days.
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 9:10pm

Post 103 of 164

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I went ahead and grabbed a screenshot from the HD version of Raiders of the warehouse, and I'd agree that to me it doesn't look any better than any of the new CG shots. I don't really get why people hate CG, to be honest, it's better than awkward 2D effects like the early ones. They're cool and make the old trilogy what it is, but you've got to get with the times razz

Screenshot
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 9:43pm

Post 104 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

The fact that you can't understand how EXTENDED CGI sequences can take an audience OUT of a movie is lost on me. Yes, they had matte paintings in the earlier films, but they were usually quick establishing shots, not the main ENVIRONEMENT IN WHICH THE CHARACTERS ARE IN for extended periods of time. Like the jeep car/fight chase looks ENTIRELY FAKE as if it were shot on a greenscreen studio somewhere.

The truth is that if the STORY, DIALOGUE, AND STRUCTURE were better- no one would care about the freaking CGI- but it was Ewoks and Jar Jar all over again. something for the "kiddies" I'm not surprised that there are throngs of people that line up and like this movie- GOd knows the last 3 star wars films were pretty bad and they still made money- The world Indy lived in had some basis in reality at one point and it all went out the window completely this time. Everything from the magic flying gunpowder )Gunpowder is NOT MAGNETIC! to the atomic explosion to the animated cartoon prarie dogs that were shown not once but several times to the flock of CGI monkeys in the CGI jungle that followed Mutt to the CGI car chase already in progress- it was like watching a cartoon. Watch Raiders again- look at the sweat, the grit, the actual snakes, everything that could be brought to bear to make the film seem more REAL- and look at the cartoon that is "Crystal Skull" - I don;t go to the movies to WATCH SPECIAL EFFECTS I go to see a good story. I'm not criticizing CGI just for what it is, but how it is used.

Lucas: "I know, we can do anyting we want with CGI- let's do this: Jar Jar was such a success, lets add to the film!

1/ Create cartoon animals
2. Create things that already exist and would make the film look more realistic, like jeeps and things- why use anything real if you don't have to?
3. Create things that already exist like jungles or roads
4. Create more cartoon animals that giggle and coo
5. if only we could work some poop jokes into this picture it would really appeal to everyone

That way it will all tie right into the video game and the M&M candies promotions and the other toys I have lined up to further my career into 2020- when I will remake all of these films using NO actors at all! Then I will have the total creative freedom I seek!"

Watch John Adams on HBO and look at how they used CGI to create a truly immersive reality instead of making cartoon animals.
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 10:05pm

Post 105 of 164

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Small clarification: the skull wasn't magnetic, they established that in the conquistador's tomb when it attracts the gold coins and they mention that gold isn't magnetic. The skull is just some funky alien telekinetic psychic thing that doesn't really follow any laws, which is used to explain why not everything is attracted to it, and why covering it makes it stop attracting stuff, etc.

I see what you mean though, and this one definitely was a heck of a lot more cartoony. However, Last Crusade was rather cartoony as well (considering the available effects at the time), so I saw it as a natural evolution of that. I do agree that the next one should be more realistic and go back to a more Raiders-ish feel, and that's probably what they'll try to do considering the criticism has all been about this.
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 10:24pm

Post 106 of 164

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Pooky wrote:

Small clarification: the skull wasn't magnetic, they established that in the conquistador's tomb when it attracts the gold coins and they mention that gold isn't magnetic. The skull is just some funky alien telekinetic psychic thing that doesn't really follow any laws, which is used to explain why not everything is attracted to it, and why covering it makes it stop attracting stuff, etc.
However, the fact that gunpowder isn't magnetic makes Indy look silly then. He knew the box was magnetic, he didn't know it would attract materials that don't contain iron etc. But for me, things like that don't take away from the film, especially since I didn't know gun powder didn't contain magnetic metals.

However I completely agree with Bryan on the overuse of CGI sometimes. If a film is meant to be set in a realistic place that exists, or is possible to make exist: shoot it there! CGI can take away from the film. After re-watching the original Indiana Jones trilogy, it felt more organic. I still loved the new film, and of course it wasn't totally CG, but a lot was.

It's like the modern version of an obvious back lot set. I appreciate on-location stuff more. I'm also a huge proponent of CGI and progress in that field, however sometimes it just isn't the right choice.
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 11:31pm

Post 107 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

They did film a lot of stuff on location, including the motorcycle chase and the jungle chase sequence. The jungle chase scene was filmed on a road in Hawaii, but CG plants were added in to make the scenery more interesting. Sure, there were some CG shots mixed in (Shia standing and fighting on both jeeps, and later swinging like Tarzan), but the majority of the sequences were filmed on location. There was never an entire sequence where I was overwhelmed by the CGI or annoyed by the CGI. It's not like Star Wars, where everything but the actors are fake.

And I didn't mind the CG critters. They were only in the film for a few brief moments- not nearly long enough for me to care. Now Jar-Jar on the other hand...
Posted: Thu, 29th May 2008, 11:34pm

Post 108 of 164

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:


However, the fact that gunpowder isn't magnetic makes Indy look silly then. He knew the box was magnetic, he didn't know it would attract materials that don't contain iron etc.
The reason they kidnapped Indy was because he had dug up the alien body that they were looking for in the warehouse. So therefore, he would probably know which substances the alien attracted: i.e. gunpowder.
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 3:42pm

Post 109 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

Serpent wrote:


However, the fact that gunpowder isn't magnetic makes Indy look silly then. He knew the box was magnetic, he didn't know it would attract materials that don't contain iron etc.
The reason they kidnapped Indy was because he had dug up the alien body that they were looking for in the warehouse. So therefore, he would probably know which substances the alien attracted: i.e. gunpowder.
Then why ask for a compass? Why then explain that gunpowder is magnetic? (I think those words came right out of Indy's mouth... wink ) and why the suprise in the tomb about gold?

I'll buy that the thing has "unexplained properties" - but why not just give Indy a compass or have him explain that "It's not just magnetic...We don't understand how it works" setting up some mystery - but no, as in typical Lucas fashion he needs to explain everything until it makes no sense at all. I was happy that "the Force" was an ancient Jedi religion that required meditation and training to explore and that the explination of "an energy field created by all living things" offered by Ben Kenobi in "A New Hope" was sufficiently mysterious, simple, and powerful- but Lucas had to go an explain that some crap in your bloodstream determines your "force viability" - ruining the whole thing. Why not just get a Jedi blood transfusion and be on your way?

Lucas=Suck
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 3:48pm

Post 110 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rating: +1

Bryan M Block wrote:

This movie is simply a travesty that was not made for the "fans" it was made for the very broad general public, including 3-6 year olds. There is nothing in the original Raiders that is made for 3 year olds. Nothing.
Wait...Bryan, I'm getting the feeling that you don't like the film?
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 3:54pm

Post 111 of 164

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

Why then explain that gunpowder is magnetic? (I think those words came right out of Indy's mouth... wink )
Did a little research. Turns out that Soviet gunpowder in the 1950s contained iron filings, making it magnetic.
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 4:06pm

Post 112 of 164

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

If that's true then we all just got pwned by Lucas razz
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 7:22pm

Post 113 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

Why then explain that gunpowder is magnetic? (I think those words came right out of Indy's mouth... wink )
Did a little research. Turns out that Soviet gunpowder in the 1950s contained iron filings, making it magnetic.
Provide link to credible source- I'm intrigued...and I don't believe you.


Also, the pellets in most shotgun shells are were lead, and also shouldn't have been magnetic...but it's possible that for some reason they were steel... but unlikely.

tard
Posted: Fri, 30th May 2008, 11:28pm

Post 114 of 164

FXhomer39072

Force: 0 | Joined: 30th May 2008 | Posts: 1

Member

Did a bit of research myself, since this bothered me. As a veteran, I had to wonder "How long has it been since they actually put gunpowder into grenades, again?" From what I can tell, the Soviet pineapple grenade, the F-1, would have been in use about that time. The only problem is that the F-1 doesn't have a black powder filler, it used TNT. Well, we can probably figure that they weren't using Soviet grenades, since they were pretending to be American soldiers. It'd look awfully strange to anybody who passed them if they were using Soviet weapons. The American MK-2 grenade, which had a similar shape and was in use up until the late 60's, used either TNT or smokeless powder depending on what variant was in use. If it was smokeless powder, it shouldn't have had iron filings. So if the grenades were Soviet they didn't have gunpowder in them, and if they were American the gunpowder shouldn't have been magnetic. Lucas did not pwn us.

One rather nice note, though, was them flying through Havana. Since the movie was set in 1957, that would still have been possible for a couple more years.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 12:07am

Post 115 of 164

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Apparently, I'm an idiot. I misread my source, and If someone could kindly delete my earlier post, I would be very thankful. I'm sorry about my misinformation, hope you forgive me, Bryan.

P.S. I Actually had a source. I wasn't faking it. I swear.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 12:09am

Post 116 of 164

Bolbi

Force: 408 | Joined: 22nd Apr 2006 | Posts: 429

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User

Gold Member

you can delete your own post by click the small blue X is the upper right corner of the post.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 12:34am

Post 117 of 164

D3L3T10N

Force: 317 | Joined: 23rd Jun 2007 | Posts: 472

CompositeLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

THE DIRECTORS wrote:

you can delete your own post by click the small blue X is the upper right corner of the post.
Its not available because my post has been replied to.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 4:00am

Post 118 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

D3L3T10N wrote:

Apparently, I'm an idiot. I misread my source, and If someone could kindly delete my earlier post, I would be very thankful. I'm sorry about my misinformation, hope you forgive me, Bryan.

P.S. I Actually had a source. I wasn't faking it. I swear.
NO worries brother- I'm not out to mock you, only Lucas! wink Also, to the point that "using Soviet weapons might have called attention to themselves" (paraphrased) I say "Gee- didn't having your evil scientist walking around with a coverall with a huge HAMMER AND SICKLE stenciled onto the back of it really negate your chances of blending in anyway!?" Not to mention the rapier she was carrying. Which all goes back to my original points- some simple tweaks to this mess would have kept it WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE INDIANA JONES "STORYWORLD" that had already been established, i.e. that one foot is placed somewhere in reality.

1. Spalko shows up in regular "scientist clothes" at the begining, but changes to her super-hero villian costume when we see her again in South America.
2. Indy uses a compass or other means to find the skull in the warehouse instead of magic gunpowder.
3. His friend does NOT betray him until they hit South America, giving us something known as a PLOT TWIST. Raiders had them, so did the other films- this one telegraphs its plot from the begining.
4. Indy and his friend escape the nuclear blast NOT in a refrigerator- but with something somewhere near plausible- like maybe they save that Rocket Sled gag as a way to escape the nuclear blast or they escape in some kind of plane by that hangar that is then sent crashing to the desert floor by the shockwave of the nuclear blast and they find themselves surrounded by angry US Army who arrest them- resume story...

You see where I'm going with this? You can keep the alien story, keep the special FX, etc.. Just keep the story rooted in the rules of the previous films storyworld and keep some things hidden until later to provide interest!!! It's like they forgot how to tell a freakin' story!


evil
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 3:21pm

Post 119 of 164

Hendo

Force: 13107 | Joined: 16th Sep 2004 | Posts: 848

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Well I finally managed to see it.

SPOILERS AHEAD


I thought it was good (as in 3/5) but nonetheless disappointing. Overall I think the story/script was the main problem, and I think it's valid to criticise Lucas for that (as opposed to Spielberg) since Lucas is credited for the story and as a producer.

That doesn't absolve Spielberg (and Ford) for agreeing to the story, however, especially after their much publicised deal to all agree and be happy with it.

I disliked the opening, the ending, and the alien plot. The beginning didn't do anything for me and it wasn't until we saw Indy in the university that I felt it was actually an "Indy film". I thought it was weak that so much exposition was required, and that the story relied upon off-screen events which had happened in between 3 and 4, like Indy's discovery of the alien during the war.

There were lots of scenes during the middle third which I thought were great: genuine Indy stuff.

Ford and LaBeouf were both great, I thought, and the rest of the cast were good. It would have been nice for more interaction between Indy, Mutt and Marion at the expense of some action scenes.

I'm slotting Skull in at 3rd (or joint bottom), from most favourite to least:

Crusade
Raiders
Skull
Doom
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 3:35pm

Post 120 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I'm going to weigh back in and call Bryan M Block out for being a bit of a tit. Re-watch the other Indy movies and try to apply the same level of neurotic fanboy criticism you have to crystal skulls. To aid you I've compiled a list of things to look out for which by your current standards would be labelled a travesty.

1 ) A crusader who has been kept alive by drinking holy water.
2 ) A man able of ripping peoples hearts out whilst they are still beating.
3 ) A monkey that can spy on Indy and then talk to its owner.
4 ) Machinery in a catacomb thousands of years old.
5 ) The Ark of the Covenant Melting people.

Indy has never been realistic, has often gone completely against science and has always used extensive measures of its ages special and visual effects repertoires. It strikes me as crazy to not expect the same of the new movies.

This films only real flaw is the script - CG and performances wise I think it was a stunning film. No one I went to see the movie with realised that matte paintings were used to the extent they were and NO ONE questioned the CG Chipmunks.

I didn't particularly think this film was good, though I still came away entertained and I can see it fitting into my collection with the other films in 10 years after a little more nostalgia has set in. It's fine that you didn't like this movie Bryan, but for your own sake get over it.

-Matt
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 4:13pm

Post 121 of 164

Coureur de Bois

Force: 1394 | Joined: 23rd Sep 2002 | Posts: 1127

VideoWrap User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

...3 ) A monkey that can spy on Indy and then talk to its owner....
Unbelievable or not, at least it was an actual monkey.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 4:15pm

Post 122 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Gorion wrote:

Unbelievable or not, at least it was an actual monkey.
That is now one of my favourite lines to be used in a debate ever. biggrin
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 4:17pm

Post 123 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

I'm going to weigh back in and call Bryan M Block out for being a bit of a tit. Re-watch the other Indy movies and try to apply the same level of neurotic fanboy criticism you have to crystal skulls. To aid you I've compiled a list of things to look out for which by your current standards would be labelled a travesty.

1 ) A crusader who has been kept alive by drinking holy water.
2 ) A man able of ripping peoples hearts out whilst they are still beating.
3 ) A monkey that can spy on Indy and then talk to its owner.
4 ) Machinery in a catacomb thousands of years old.
5 ) The Ark of the Covenant Melting people.

Indy has never been realistic, has often gone completely against science and has always used extensive measures of its ages special and visual effects repertoires. It strikes me as crazy to not expect the same of the new movies.

This films only real flaw is the script - CG and performances wise I think it was a stunning film. No one I went to see the movie with realised that matte paintings were used to the extent they were and NO ONE questioned the CG Chipmunks.

I didn't particularly think this film was good, though I still came away entertained and I can see it fitting into my collection with the other films in 10 years after a little more nostalgia has set in. It's fine that you didn't like this movie Bryan, but for your own sake get over it.

-Matt
Yawn- First of all I have not called anyone names, except Lucas- you've just personally insulted me by calling me a "tit" for pointing out the same thing that countless critics are pointing out as the shortcomings of this film, and I must say many of the same things that many fans are complaining about all over the internet. If anyone is a "fanboy" it must be you, who is willing to swallow anything Lucas barfs out without holding it up to criticism. What you fail to understand is that the supernatural element in the Indy films as well as his incredible "luck" were still counterbalanced by the "reality" of the settings. A true reality? No- Were they 100% realistic? NO, of course not! and some of the things you mentioned are exactly the things I groan over in the original series. But Raiders is pith-perfect in implementation. The other two films fall short in various ways, but the OVERALL EFFECT is not one of being hit over the head with a CARTOON like Crystal Skull was. We see cartoon prarie dogs in the FIRST 3 seconds of the film!!! It's the same reaction I had in Temple of Doom when the opening sequence was SUPERB - recalling the old noir films and having that great opening sequence in Club Obi Wan and the street chase all the way up to Indy closing the door on the plane that said "Lao Che" - what a great way to end that sequence! But then when they parachute out of the plane in a raft!? Holy schnikes- I was so frustrated that they chose to start taking Indy down this path- and the funny thing is that they continue to emphasise these cheeseball elements over the actual STORY elements! If it were weighted the other direction, 70% story, character development, 30% explosions and CGI cartoons, then maybe it would be okay with me and millions of other fans, but it's not OK and I'm calling "crap" on Lucas once and for ALL.

I have an example for you: The Star Wars holiday special. Remember watching that on TV in 1978? What a violation of the Star Wars story world- turning it into a "sitcom" complete with Jefferson Starship playing as a hologram for Chewbacca's son. Oh- you didn't know Chewbacca had a wife, a son, and he lived with his grumpy old father? and their arguments are punctuated with a laugh track? Yeah- he does and they live on a soundstage somewhere next to Archie Bunker and Jack Tripper and they shop at Grace Brothers. This is what Lucas does. I highly suggest adding "The Star Wars Holiday Special" to your Star wars collection- if you liked Crystal Skull and can't seem to detect any differences in the structure and execution of this film compared to the others, then I'm certain you will enjoy the Star Wars holiday special.

I watched Raiders RIGHT BEFORE Crystal Skull as the theater was playing it for us as a lead-in, and there is just no comparison, everyone in the theater seemed to agree.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 4:42pm

Post 124 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I think that anyone that goes to these lengths to emphasise their personal opinion of something classifies as being a bit of a tit (I didn't often include me). To be honest. I hadn't intended specifically to insult you - as I have a much more explicit vocabulary I would use if that were the case.

I also think that the cinema community/the internet in general has applied heavier scrutiny to Indy 4 than was necessary - and as I have said I feel this is generally because due to either nostalgia/other we've all come to accept the original Indy films as classics. Indy 4 was never going to live up to that expectation.

Reread my criticisms of the film earlier in this thread. You'll note I was able to do so pretty concisely and in a single post. Using Paragraphs. I'm fine with your opinion of the film, no really - I mean I'm sure I've said that despite being entertained I didn't feel the film should ever have been made.

I've no problem with your opinion Bryan, I am simply surprised and irritated that despite knowing the state of things regarding Lucas that you were shocked by what you saw in the cinema and simply won't shut up about it. No one is arguing that this film isn't full of shortcomings. Honestly, what were you expecting? Because I knew what I was yet came away moderately pleased that things weren't completely ruined as was Star Wars.

-Matt

p.s. No one's going to argue that the Star Wars Christmas special wasn't awful. But that's a far cry from comparing it to Indy4.
Posted: Sat, 31st May 2008, 7:40pm

Post 125 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Actually Bryan, I kind of understand your opinion now. You don't like the unrealistic stuff in any of the Indy movies, and you would rather see the story emphasized rather than action. It does seem like the unbelievability increases with each film, until "Skull" where they went all-out. I don't have a problem with that though. My problem lies entirely with the script. I think Lucas actually came up with a good idea, but it was brought down by a sloppy, fast-paced script from David Koepp, which they had no choice but to use. The weakness of the script caused the story to take a back-seat to the action and nostalgia.

The CG gophers though? They're in the film for all of ten seconds... they're no big deal!
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 3:42pm

Post 126 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

1 ) A crusader who has been kept alive by drinking holy water.
That reminds me. I've been meaning to ask this: It was my understanding at the end of Last Crusade that drinking the Grail would make both Indy and James Bond immortal. How come that wasn't that case?
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 3:45pm

Post 127 of 164

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

They crossed the seal, and the crusader said that the grail only works if they don't.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 3:55pm

Post 128 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Aah. Stupid Elsa.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 3:55pm

Post 129 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Pooky wrote:

They crossed the seal, and the crusader said that the grail only works if they don't.
Yeah, which is why the whole place falls down. It sure would explain how Indy survived a few things in Crystal Skulls though.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 3:57pm

Post 130 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

I think that anyone that goes to these lengths to emphasise their personal opinion of something classifies as being a bit of a tit (I didn't often include me). To be honest. I hadn't intended specifically to insult you - as I have a much more explicit vocabulary I would use if that were the case.

I also think that the cinema community/the internet in general has applied heavier scrutiny to Indy 4 than was necessary - and as I have said I feel this is generally because due to either nostalgia/other we've all come to accept the original Indy films as classics. Indy 4 was never going to live up to that expectation.

Reread my criticisms of the film earlier in this thread. You'll note I was able to do so pretty concisely and in a single post. Using Paragraphs. I'm fine with your opinion of the film, no really - I mean I'm sure I've said that despite being entertained I didn't feel the film should ever have been made.

I've no problem with your opinion Bryan, I am simply surprised and irritated that despite knowing the state of things regarding Lucas that you were shocked by what you saw in the cinema and simply won't shut up about it. No one is arguing that this film isn't full of shortcomings. Honestly, what were you expecting? Because I knew what I was yet came away moderately pleased that things weren't completely ruined as was Star Wars.

-Matt

p.s. No one's going to argue that the Star Wars Christmas special wasn't awful. But that's a far cry from comparing it to Indy4.
A more explicit vocabulary? Why are you so upset with me? I don't buy the old "nostalgia" argument- it's a cop out. I've stated earlier that I won't deny I have an attachment for the old films, but I also work in this field for a living and from a structure standpoint, this film is a mess- and truth be told, if it were structured better- I would have at least been entertained- but it was a mess, just like Star Wars. What did I expect? What did I expect? Well- that's the real issue- I expected more out of Spielberg. I thought he would be able to minimize the damage of Lucas, and he just enabled him. It's not that I don't like ANY unrealistic elements in the films, there is always a fantasy/supernatural element to each film that I think is fine, but yeah- you keep pushing and that "grounding" element just goes away- It's the same thing with a superhero movie, the more "realistic" the world they live in, the more "special" the superhero is and the more relevant the story seems. Setting Raiders against the backdrop of the begining of WWII creates an exigency for the hero's mission that is hard to top- the other films fail to reach that level of exigency (the ark was the perfect McGuffin), but Last Crusade focused on the RELATIONSHIP between Indy and his father to create cohesion, where Temple of Doom is probably the least involving of the three films structure-wise, it actually reminds me more of the old serials than the other two to a degree, precicely because it is less involving! But this one was just such a wasted opportunity at every turn- they could have explored the relationship between Indy and Marion more, they could have demonstrated character growth in Indy, they could have cut down on the cartoon crap and CGI, and left some mystery in the ending, and still had the alien story. Don't even get me started on the cinematography. All of the Spielberg trademarks, the framing, staging, pacing and flow- gone- all gone! I realize that I'm probably talking over most of your heads here, but it was work that was sorely missed and contributed to further seperating this film from the others. Just an example of the unreality again, within the first 8 minutes, Indy is standing outside the hangar in the real desert, then they cut in for two shots and closeups and it's a soundstage (or at least they have flown in diffusion and lit the thing to look like a soundstage_ hell, the backgrounds also looked like they were keyed in! then back to the wide shot in the real desert. Huh? If you didn't notice this stuff, then yeah, I guess it wouldn't bother you, but it takes me out of the film.


For Indy / Star Wars fans:

As another note, seriously- the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles are being re-released, George Lucas is busy re-editing them to remove alot of things he no longer likes- I have no idea if that means adding CGI to the entire series or not, but he is re-editing them so that they are different. I'm not kidding. My interesting connection to Indy: This summer I acted opposite David Meunier in my friend's film "The Horseman" I was a bad guy fighting him in a tavern. David has a list of interesting credits, including being in one of the "Young Indy" episodes when he was younger.

Oh-and my friend Jeff (he's a Lucasfilm-approved artist, there are only a few in the country) is one of the artists drawing the new Star Wars comics- he also drew the Topps trading cards for Crystal Skull from production stills, although they wouldn't provide him with any story or plot elements, so he had no idea what each character or scene meant when he did the cards, I just know he had two weeks to do 122 card sketches...
Jeff is the dead body in my film "Motor Lodge"
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 3:57pm

Post 131 of 164

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

No no no....wait.

Indy drank from the grail in the correct spot, making him immortal. Whether or not he crossed the seal himself made no difference- the grail just wouldn't work once the seal was crossed. Right?

As in, the grail wouldn't offer more immortality to new patrons once passing the seal, not that it would reverse the effects of those already immortal, like the crusader or Indy.

But that wouldn't make sense for a dead Sean Connery, I guess...

Last edited Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:00pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:00pm

Post 132 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

ben3308 wrote:

No no no....wait.

Indy drank from the grail in the correct spot, making him immortal. Whether or not he crossed the seal himself made no difference- the grail just wouldn't work once the seal was crossed. Right?

As in, the grail wouldn't offer more immortality to new patrons once passing the seal, not that it would reverse the effects of those already immortal, like the crusader or Indy.
I think that immortality required constant or regular drinking from the Grail, the memory is a little hazy - though that would certainly make more sense.

Bryan - your last post only really served to make you sound like you're trying to crowbar your profession into a thread in order to validate your absolutely fine, if not completely over-emphasised and foamy opinion. Speaking my mind here - You've explained in other threads that you've had trouble keeping word, outlook and powerpoint open on your computer simultaneously so the level of seriousness regarding your profession is somewhat undermined.

You're not the only person working in the industry who's got an opinion on Indy. You are however - the only person in here flat out trying to convert other peoples. You've had your say, now's the time to shut up and let other people either enjoy, or otherwise the movie.

-Matt
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:16pm

Post 133 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I find these long-time-coming sequels quite fascinating, in terms of their reception. Particularly the way people get so astoundingly emotional about it, and the way the rose tinted specs immediately appear with regards to the 'originals'.

I'm looking forward to seeing the general concensus on Indy 4 and the Star Wars prequels in 20 years, when compared to the originals.

bryan wrote:

All of the Spielberg trademarks, the framing, staging, pacing and flow- gone- all gone!
In what way was it all gone? The action sequences seemed extremely well staged to me. Well shot, and well edited. They were some of the most coherent and entertaining action sequences I've seen for a while (dubious compositing notwithstanding).

I realize that I'm probably talking over most of your heads here,
Never a good way to start a sentence, especially on a filmmaking website. razz

Just an example of the unreality again, within the first 8 minutes, Indy is standing outside the hangar in the real desert, then they cut in for two shots and closeups and it's a soundstage
I'm not sure what your point is here. That they filmed some stuff on location and some stuff on a set? That's fairly standard practise...

You could take pretty much any film, subject it to the same level of scrutiny you've applied to Indy 4, and it would also crumble under the attention.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:18pm

Post 134 of 164

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Indy gets 2/5 from me and I think its best I just try and forget ever seeing it.

Other than a couple of good action sequences it just wasn't an Indy film which was mainly down to the story which I really REALLY disliked. Lucas has totally lost it and to do this to Indy when there were better options really gets my goat.

There was some decent CG in there but it was mostly crippled with terrible compositing. This mean the effects were generally all over the place which is rather odd at this level.

Harrison Ford looked really bored for much of the film but every so often he WAS Indy again - YAY! Karen Allen and Ray Winstone's characters were entirely superfluous and should have been removed from the script. Oh yeah, what the hell was John Hurt doing in this film - he didn't even manage to make it better!

Shia LaBeouf was probably the highlight for me - I'm liking him in everything at the moment...

WHAT THE HELL WAS WITH THE FRIDGE SCENE! Without this I might have given it 3/5!
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:25pm

Post 135 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

ben3308 wrote:

No no no....wait.

Indy drank from the grail in the correct spot, making him immortal. Whether or not he crossed the seal himself made no difference- the grail just wouldn't work once the seal was crossed. Right?

As in, the grail wouldn't offer more immortality to new patrons once passing the seal, not that it would reverse the effects of those already immortal, like the crusader or Indy.
I think that immortality required constant or regular drinking from the Grail, the memory is a little hazy - though that would certainly make more sense.

Bryan - your last post only really served to make you sound like you're trying to crowbar your profession into a thread in order to validate your absolutely fine, if not completely over-emphasised and foamy opinion. Speaking my mind here - You've explained in other threads that you've had trouble keeping word, outlook and powerpoint open on your computer simultaneously so the level of seriousness regarding your profession is somewhat undermined.

You're not the only person working in the industry who's got an opinion on Indy. You are however - the only person in here flat out trying to convert other peoples. You've had your say, now's the time to shut up and let other people either enjoy, or otherwise the movie.

-Matt
1. I'm not trying to convince anyone about my opinion. I'mn airing it, just like everyone else.
2. "keeping word, outlook and powerpoint open on your computer simultaneously so the level of seriousness regarding your profession is somewhat undermined." This is completely unnecessary and a personal insult. I don't "have trouble" keeping those programs open- my only point in that UNRELATED THREAD is that they can be considerable resource hogs if they are all open at the same time on a laptop that is not up to the challenge, especially if one is using Vista with all the bells and whistles turned on... or haven't YOU ever sat in a meeting with an international medical nutrional products company brainstorming ways to illustrate the advantages of closed-system enteral feeding systems, or adapting a symposium powerpoint over to an A/V script while preserving charts & graphs while also trying to show them the stylized graphics you are working on for the visuals?
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:28pm

Post 136 of 164

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

FXhome has only been back a few mins and we're already fighting!

I guess its just the stress of you all missing the website so much?

World peace guys... WORLD PEACE!
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:35pm

Post 137 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -2

Tarn wrote:

I find these long-time-coming sequels quite fascinating, in terms of their reception. Particularly the way people get so astoundingly emotional about it, and the way the rose tinted specs immediately appear with regards to the 'originals'.

I'm looking forward to seeing the general concensus on Indy 4 and the Star Wars prequels in 20 years, when compared to the originals.

bryan wrote:

All of the Spielberg trademarks, the framing, staging, pacing and flow- gone- all gone!
In what way was it all gone? The action sequences seemed extremely well staged to me. Well shot, and well edited. They were some of the most coherent and entertaining action sequences I've seen for a while (dubious compositing notwithstanding).

I realize that I'm probably talking over most of your heads here,
Never a good way to start a sentence, especially on a filmmaking website. razz

Just an example of the unreality again, within the first 8 minutes, Indy is standing outside the hangar in the real desert, then they cut in for two shots and closeups and it's a soundstage
I'm not sure what your point is here. That they filmed some stuff on location and some stuff on a set? That's fairly standard practise...

You could take pretty much any film, subject it to the same level of scrutiny you've applied to Indy 4, and it would also crumble under the attention.
Bullshit.

I agree with Schwar pretty much 100%- I'm just more vocal about it. The fact that you believe that I have "rose colored glasses" on and that the other films would crumble under this level of scrutiny simply PROVES that I'm obviously talking over your head(s) - and by that I don't mean it to be insulting, as in I think MY opinion is "better" than anyone elses, only that there is a level of detail that matters to me, that obviously doesn't matter to most people here, and I can see the holes in that set of details, and that bothers me very much- Am I being more clear?- But I want to thank you for not personally insulting me like Hybrid has.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:46pm

Post 138 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Bryan M Block wrote:

Bullshit.
...How can an opinion be BS?

Bryan M Block wrote:

The fact that you believe that I have "rose colored glasses" on and that the other films would crumble under this level of scrutiny simply PROVES that I'm obviously talking over your head(s)
Er, no. All that proves is that he disagrees with you and that you're unable to comprehend that as you *are* convinced that your opinion is better than his. This is why you won't shut up about it.

Man, slowly along the downward spiral huh? Act like a nuisance and expect people to say they think you're being an ass. Which everyone thinks, just I am being more vocal about it.

-Matt

Last edited Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:50pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 4:49pm

Post 139 of 164

Pooky

Force: 4834 | Joined: 8th Jul 2003 | Posts: 5913

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Rating: +1

I like enjoying movies.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 5:29pm

Post 140 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: -2

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

Bullshit.
...How can an opinion be BS?

Bryan M Block wrote:

The fact that you believe that I have "rose colored glasses" on and that the other films would crumble under this level of scrutiny simply PROVES that I'm obviously talking over your head(s)
Er, no. All that proves is that he disagrees with you and that you're unable to comprehend that as you *are* convinced that your opinion is better than his. This is why you won't shut up about it.

Man, slowly along the downward spiral huh? Act like a nuisance and expect people to say they think you're being an ass. Which everyone thinks, just I am being more vocal about it.

-Matt
No- it's bullshit that I have on Rose Colored glasses, it's also bullshit that any film falls apart under this level of scrutiny. You are claiming that there is no such thing as "story structure"- which is also bullshit. Everyone is entitled to like or dislike this film as they see fit- I can't control your enjoyment of of the film and I'm not trying to- Much like a 6 year old child does a fingerpainting for his mom and she puts it on the refrigerator- she might enjoy it, but it's not going to hold up to the same aesthetic interpretation applied to "serious" work. I expected better from Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford and I didn't get it, neither did millions of others, and many for the same reasons, and many that don't have an "emotional attachment" to the old films- again, for the same reasons. There is a recognizable pattern of weaknesses in this film. Some details obviously matter more to me than others (like the total shift in lighting in the close up scenes, making it look like an episode of Bonanza on TV bothers me- but it obviously doesn't bother many others and that's fine-) I'm not going to call you names because it doesn't bother you. I thought this thread was for airing your opinion about Indy, and that's what I'm doing- you are telling me to stop airing my opinion, yet you want yours to continue to aired.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 5:39pm

Post 141 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +1

Bryan M Block wrote:

You are claiming that there is no such thing as "story structure"- which is also bullshit.
Where did I say this?
I thought this thread was for airing your opinion about Indy, and that's what I'm doing- you are telling me to stop airing my opinion, yet you want yours to continue to aired.
There's a point at which a repeated statement of the same opinion, especially when directed against people with different opinions that you're stepping over a line. Both our opinions on Indy are down on these forums, and both are damning to some extent.

The difference is that mine and everyone else's are contained to a single post. Yours are spread out over several pages - I haven't re-made my points once and have essentially only posted again to tell you to calm down and let other people leave their opinions.

-Matt
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 5:45pm

Post 142 of 164

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Jesus Christ Bryan, it's not the presidential election, it's a goddamn sequel. Seriously, it's starting to get on my nerves. You know what? I don't care about your opinion, because you've voiced it too loudly. You're like Bill O'Reilly, some loud guy yelling about something he can't change. You don't have to scrutinize the movie dry. I enjoyed watching this film, even though I didn't like it, I enjoyed it. If you hated this movie so deeply, stop writing books on here, and ask for your ticket back.

</rant>

I suggest this topic is locked, as it's steered from friendly debate.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 5:49pm

Post 143 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

You are claiming that there is no such thing as "story structure"- which is also bullshit.
Where did I say this?
By claiming that it's all just a big matter of unsubstantiated opinion, you are effectively claiming that there is no underlying structure which can be applied by which to judge the quality of the film with any degree of objectivity.
I thought this thread was for airing your opinion about Indy, and that's what I'm doing- you are telling me to stop airing my opinion, yet you want yours to continue to aired.
There's a point at which a repeated statement of the same opinion, especially when directed against people with different opinions that you're stepping over a line. Both our opinions on Indy are down on these forums, and both are damning to some extent.

The difference is that mine and everyone else's are contained to a single post. Yours are spread out over several pages - I haven't re-made my points once and have essentially only posted again to tell you to calm down and let other people leave their opinions.

-Matt[/quote]

I'm not hurling insults "directed against people with different opinions" only posting disagreements- when I say I don't like magic flying gunpowder (an opinion) and someone posts "gunpowder is magnetic" that's not really an opinion, that's an argument of fact. Yet still I did not insult that poster and call them stupid for liking the magic gunpowder- nor did I call into question their character or motivations.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 5:57pm

Post 144 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Fill wrote:

Jesus Christ Bryan, it's not the presidential election, it's a goddamn sequel. Seriously, it's starting to get on my nerves. You know what? I don't care about your opinion, because you've voiced it too loudly. You're like Bill O'Reilly, some loud guy yelling about something he can't change. You don't have to scrutinize the movie dry. I enjoyed watching this film, even though I didn't like it, I enjoyed it. If you hated this movie so deeply, stop writing books on here, and ask for your ticket back.

</rant>

I suggest this topic is locked, as it's steered from friendly debate.
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make, done better. Thank you Fill.

I don't see a point in my continuing to post - Bryan, you're making way too many assumptions regarding my argument now - as I've obviously hit a nerve and it's leading things in the wrong direction, the joke is that for the most part I agree with your opinion just not the neurotic and repeated way you repeat it on the forums.

If I post again it will likely to be to lock this thread, which I now leave for others to leave their impressions and discuss the film.

-Matt

Last edited Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 6:03pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 6:02pm

Post 145 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hybrid-Halo wrote:

Fill wrote:

Jesus Christ Bryan, it's not the presidential election, it's a goddamn sequel. Seriously, it's starting to get on my nerves. You know what? I don't care about your opinion, because you've voiced it too loudly. You're like Bill O'Reilly, some loud guy yelling about something he can't change. You don't have to scrutinize the movie dry. I enjoyed watching this film, even though I didn't like it, I enjoyed it. If you hated this movie so deeply, stop writing books on here, and ask for your ticket back.

</rant>

I suggest this topic is locked, as it's steered from friendly debate.
That's pretty much the point I was trying to make, done better. Thank you Fill.

I don't see a point in my continuing to post - Bryan, you're making way too many assumptions regarding my argument now - as I've obviously hit a nerve and it's leading things in the wrong direction. If I post again it will likely to be to lock this thread, which I now leave for others to leave their impressions and discuss the film.

-Matt
I've gone back and read the entire thread. Everyone seemed to be fine until you started calling me names and calling me "unprofessional" for some post in an un-related thread. My venom has been squarely directed at Lucas and Co. in this thread, not at any other forum member and others have also responded to posts disagreeing with them and airing multiple perspectives about different aspects of the film as they came up in discussion. Yeah, I'm verbose and I expalined my position on each detail probably more than others, but I never started calling people names or questioning their professionalism- yet I've still refrained from calling you names.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 6:21pm

Post 146 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

All this fuss because I said I thought you were acting like a bit of a tit. As for the professionalism comment - anyone who crowbars their profession into a thread like this deserves a bit of a slap, last time I checked there were no major feature films about nutrition.

I'm the first person that understands that being involved with an element of something changes how you notice things - since I became interested in Visual Effects I've definitely noticed elements of films I previously would have overlooked. Though generally I can get in the mood of a movie and stop myself - people who make a big deal out if it are a pet hate of mine. I really have to agree with Tarn in that the level of scrutiny you are applying here will break most films though this doesn't mean that I felt Indy 4 required much to be broken anyway.

The first time I read this thread Bryan, you simply came off as a guardian of Indy 4's criticism and that anyone who came away saying they enjoyed it was wrong. Which grinds me, and I called it as I saw it - to which you responded with essentially that I was swallowing any barf Lucas threw at me despite my earlier posts which were more or less entirely negative.

This Knee Jerk reaction which included rehashing most of the already listed and agreed shortcomings with this film more or less cemented my belief that you're posting in this thread with the wrong attitude. A belief which became stronger the more you posted.

<crowbar>Now... Another one of my jobs is moderating these forums. And when I say enough is enough, it really is.</crowbar>

-Matt
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 6:41pm

Post 147 of 164

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Bryan, we heard you. It's time to move on. I don't want this topic getting locked because of an argument or because you need to repeat what you've already said over and over again. Hybrids been a bit out of line in tone, but I agree with what he says.

If the argument continues, posts will be deleted. Simple as that. So don't bother, both of you.


I'll leave the thread open for others to discuss the film though.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 6:53pm

Post 148 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

As a responsible forum member who generally enjoys this forum- I will cease and desist so as not to ruin it for anyone else. Sorry it came to this.
B
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 7:07pm

Post 149 of 164

Hybrid-Halo

Force: 9315 | Joined: 7th Feb 2003 | Posts: 3367

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Mm, I echo that. I apologize if my tone came across in the wrong way, I do have a habit of being a bit abrasive - Nothing personal.

Back on topic, where were we?

-Matt
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 7:18pm

Post 150 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

The fact that you believe that I have "rose colored glasses" on and that the other films would crumble under this level of scrutiny simply PROVES that I'm obviously talking over your head(s)
To clarify my earlier post:

I wasn't talking about you with regards to rose coloured glasses, I was talking in a general sense. Note that my quote from you was underneath that part. I was musing on the effects of nostalgia in general, I didn't reference anybody in particular. You're the person that made that association.

As regards 'the other films' crumbling, if you'll take the care to read my post properly you'll note that I wasn't referring to the other Indy films, but to all films.

You also seem to think that I think Indy 4 is a perfect film, an absolute masterpiece. I'm not quite sure why that is - as I've said in my first post, while I enjoyed it there's quite clearly some massive problems with it. Pull rank if you like, but I'm also 'in the business' and am well aware of the film's flaws. The only difference is that I don't try to use my job to authenticate my - completely subjective - opinion on a film.

Also, please desist with the confrontational and unpleasant tone, it's really not needed. Thanks.

Moving on! smile

Last edited Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 7:26pm; edited 3 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 7:21pm

Post 151 of 164

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

The fact that you believe that I have "rose colored glasses" on and that the other films would crumble under this level of scrutiny simply PROVES that I'm obviously talking over your head(s)
Erm, I think all that proves is that you didn't read my post very carefully.

I wasn't talking about you with regards to rose coloured glasses, I was talking in a general sense. Note that my quote from you was underneath that part. I was musing on the effects of nostalgia in general, I didn't reference anybody in particular. You're the person that made that association.

As regards 'the other films' crumbling, if you'll take the care to read my post properly you'll note that I wasn't referring to the other Indy films, but to all films.

Also, please desist with the confrontational and unpleasant tone, it's really not needed, given that my post was perfectly civil and relaxed. Thanks.
Apologies- in the midst of the other exchange, it read differently. I have been sufficiently humbled.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 7:27pm

Post 152 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

On another note - I've never seen the Young Indiana Jones TV series. Is it actually any good? I know almost literally nothing about it, other than it pioneered some virtual set technology.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Jun 2008, 8:23pm

Post 153 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Just got back from seeing it again... and I now love it even more than I already did. This time around, it felt a lot more like an Indy movie. All the problems I thought I had with this film completely vanished as I watched it for a second time. The only thing I can really say I didn't like was the unnecessary subplot where Indy gets "fired".

The acting was great, especially Ford and Labeouf. Although he sounded a bit different in some parts, it's clear that Ford still has it. And the action was just amazing. I really love that the majority of the action/stunts were filmed the traditional way... making it consistent with the other films. I don't think they overused the CGI at all. It's funny how misinformed critics praise the "real" action scenes, while some criticize them for being completely "fake".

The story had potential to be excellent. Crystal skulls and their relationship to the Mayans/aliens is really a fascinating subject. It's too bad Koepp's script wasn't very good. I don't think it's fair to criticize Lucas in this situation, as I think he did come up with a good story. However, I do think they should revert back to the typical religious MacGuffin for the next film.

Overall, it's a really fun and entertaining film, which is a very worthy addition to the Indy series. There is really nothing in the film that makes me think otherwise.

P.S. Interesting article...

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Indiana-Jones-Soundtrack-Intentionally-Muted-In-Theaters-9028.html
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jun 2008, 2:54am

Post 154 of 164

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I just saw it with a bunch of people (about thirty) and they all hated it. Only me and a friend of mine (who I originally saw it with) enjoyed it. Weird people have no taste.... wink
Posted: Tue, 3rd Jun 2008, 9:49pm

Post 155 of 164

Klut

Force: 2120 | Joined: 16th Apr 2004 | Posts: 1585

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

After avoiding spoilers since the premiere I finally got to see this. I'll be short and just say I did kind of like the plot, but they could have made a better ending. (wedding was cute though)
Posted: Wed, 4th Jun 2008, 10:06am

Post 156 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

hehe, amusing article:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/06/04/is-nuke-the-fridge-the-new-jump-the-shark/
Posted: Wed, 4th Jun 2008, 11:35pm

Post 157 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

I think Indy first "nuked the fridge" when he took a ride on a submerged submarine.

Wikipedia just had to remove a similar "Nuke the Fridge" article. I've never seen such a group of no-life "haters" before this.
Posted: Wed, 11th Jun 2008, 9:06pm

Post 158 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

It's a shame we'll never know what the Frank Darabont script could have been like.
Apparently this is it...

"Indiana Jones and the City of Gods"

http://www.pdfscreenplays.net/pdfscripts/screenplays/Indiana%20Jones%20and%20the%20City%20of%20the%20Gods.pdf

Not sure if it's real, but this script is a lot worse than Koepp's.
Posted: Thu, 12th Jun 2008, 8:37am

Post 159 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Yeah, I've been reading some remarks on the Darabont script, and it does indeed seem to be just as ropey, if not more so, than Koepp's. Wish I had time to read it myself!
Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2008, 3:35pm

Post 160 of 164

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

I've been reading a few pages of the Darabont script from day to day, and I think it is leagues better than the Koepp draft. It just feels more solid. But then again, I felt like Crystal Skull was about as solid as a handfull of water.
Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2008, 3:39pm

Post 161 of 164

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Waser wrote:

But then again, I felt like Crystal Skull was about as solid as a handfull of water.
Ice...water?
Posted: Fri, 13th Jun 2008, 3:49pm

Post 162 of 164

Jambuster

Force: 51 | Joined: 12th May 2008 | Posts: 64

Windows User

Member

I may be a bit late on the uptake here, but yeah, I saw it 3 or 4 weeks back and I wanted my money back. But apparently "I was not ledgeable for a full refund after seeing the movie." That is where I offered to rip my eyes out and scrape the film off - Thus recieving a sour distasteful stare. People now-a-days, just don't know how to relate to other human beings.

To sum up, I dont like the film - The plot was just oh so boring, and the action sequences had been done before - and the waterfalls? Psshh, I could swim them.

biggrin

J
Posted: Sat, 14th Jun 2008, 9:23pm

Post 163 of 164

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Having heard so many people (everywhere) not really diggin' it I saw it last night and have to say I pretty much liked it. H.F. did a nice job, though his age is really showing (pretty obvious with his walk). I thought Cate Blanchett was pretty average-I expected more from her. I thought she played it very one-dimensional-unlike many of the villains in the other 3. LOVED the shot of the Arc in the warehouse!! I did however think the Wilhelm was poorly placed.

I'm going to have to re-watch Last Crusade (with it's really, really bad ending) to see where this one falls in my order as far as the 4 goes. ROTLA is secure in #1 and Temple is defiantly wrapped up #4.
Posted: Tue, 17th Jun 2008, 9:01pm

Post 164 of 164

jawajohnny

Force: 1965 | Joined: 14th Dec 2007 | Posts: 829

VisionLab User VideoWrap User MuzzlePlug User Windows User

Gold Member

Waser wrote:

I've been reading a few pages of the Darabont script from day to day, and I think it is leagues better than the Koepp draft. It just feels more solid. But then again, I felt like Crystal Skull was about as solid as a handfull of water.
A drunk Indy recreating the opening scene from Raiders by trying to steal the golden idol from the museum?

"It's not the mileage honey... It's the years."

(To the alien)- "Welcome to Earth"


Definitely worse than Koepp's script. The only thing I liked about it was the scene where Marion punches Indy.