logo Sign In

Indiana Jones IV — Page 23

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
lordjedi said:


canofhumdingers said:

The gophers.... Oh my gosh, what the heck?!? Once again, totally pointless & out of place in the context of the movie itself, & definately in the context of the series.


Simple comic relief. The first gopher hole we see is in place of the Paramount mountain. Just like in Raiders when we see that mountain in place of the Paramount mountain. I'm pretty sure they did the same thing in ToD and Last Crusade. Do gophers usually live in the desert? I'm not sure, but it didn't bother me that much.


They were prairie dogs! ;-)

ChainsawAsh said:

The 'Meh':
- The warehouse sequence, especially seeing the Ark again. Not really necessary, and it kinda felt contrived.


That bit with the ark was actually one of my favorites in the movie. From the moment they walked into the warehouse, I was hoping they'd show it. I was a little disappointed that Indy didn't SEE it and do a double-take or something. :-P


Author
Time
Post link
I thought it would have been cool if he lead the Soviets to the Ark and had them open it and get their faces melted.

4

Author
Time
Post link
To quote a certain person you all know, "and that would end our trip real quick."

A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
did anyone else notice that they ripped off a scene directly from the first national treasure movie? the scene i mean is where they find treasures from every ancient earth civilization. Even the real treasure was knowledge same as in national treasure.



They even ripped off the X-files as well as ripped off from all 3 previous Indiana Movies even throwing in references to young indy.

The thing with dimensional beings was obviously stolen from Stargate. But since the movie stargate not the tv series stole from both indiana and star wars and close encounters franchises they can be forgiven. since they are borrowing from the borrowers or thieving from the thieves.

Indiana IV reminds me of the movie Transformers by Michael Bay also produced by Spielberg. Another movie filled with fake cgi and bad acting and way too many homages and no original content or ideas. It also starred Shia Lobouf, LOL i'm not kidding.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Post link
zombie84 said:

During the rough cut screening everyone felt it all worked until Marcia spoke up and said there was a lack of emotional resolution because Marion disappears, she's presumably left on some island with a lot of melted Nazis. So they filmed a new scene in San Francisco for the ending where Marion is waiting for Indy outside the building and Indy comes out saying they're all fools and they have some dialog and go off together. Its a small change, but a very effective one.


All hail Marcia Lucas!
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
I had hoped the novel might be better than the film like with the prequels, sadly it is bottom of the barrel dimestore novel quality.

Yes this was done in emulation of the pulps but the pulp writers Like Burroughs actually wrote some damn good stuff Like A princess of Mars or Tarzan of the Apes, hell even the Allan Quartermain novels by h rider haggard are better.

So the movie was majorly mediocre and so was the novelization.

Even the book on tape suffers from having an awful reader and being unabridged without the music and sound effects.

I'll go back to watching the first issued widescreen dvd release, and reading the novels and listening to the soundtracks for the first 3. Will even buy the new omnibus editions of the dark horse comics and lego indiana jones. Can you believe that the comics were better than this movie was, unbelievable. Even John Williams score was uninspired and phoned in.

don't even get me started on the fact that most of the movie was shot on green screen and phony cgi instead of on location in Peru, Tunisia etc. or elsewhere like they did with the originals.

And i don't buy the fact that shooting the movie this way was more cost effective since both lucas and spielberg are multi billionaires, and the movie cost somewhere between 175-185 million dollars just to shoot it. that is more money than the previous three combined probably. Talk about so called 19 years of inflation , good grief.

After destribution costs the final tally of the films cost was 400 million dollars, a 400 million dollar turd.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Post link
skyjedi2005 said:

I had hoped the novel might be better than the film like with the prequels, sadly it is bottom of the barrel dimestore novel quality.


You thought the prequel books were better than the movies? I guess I could've stopped reading here. You obviously have no taste.
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
uh yeah, Terry Brooks, R.A. Salvatore and Matthew Stover are better writer's than George Lucas. The books actually try to develop the characters not using the entire reading time with reference to fake cgi like the movies.

The originals were good because of the huycks and Kasden, Lucas' scripts are terrible and misspelled and are just skeleton plots. He is a idea guy jots stuff down and gives it over to someone who can actually flesh it out with snappier dialogue and add human emotion and warmth, funny how he cut out other writers from the prequels a horrible decision, much worse than the overall indulgence in computer graphics which allowed him to get lazy.

Terry Brooks novelization is far from perfect but you can tell he tried to get a more original trilogy feel to some parts of the book. Yeah the podracing descriptions are pretty horrible. Clones actually hits on anakins relationship to Obi wan as a father son relationship in salvatores novel, finally stovers revenge of the sith again far from perfect tries for a better way for anakins turn to the darkside than a split second decision.

If you had cared to follow the clone wars comics, novels etc you would realize the seduction by papatine was a long time thing in planning, Anakin was a battle scarred and mentally scarred person because of the long haul of the clone wars. away on the front lines from his wife.

The authors of the books and comics actually examined real war effects on people and added it into the story again better than fake crappy cgi.

And as you probably already know people used to site the novel for star wars that George Could actually write, That was Alan Dean Foster. That he wrote the willow sequel trilogy of books that was Chris Claremont.

Now i will admit the movie version of star wars and empire are better than the books but Return of the Jedi novelization is better than the movie because obi wan actually describes anakins fall and transformation into vader, and of course that Owen Lars and OBi wan Kenobi are brothers, none of that attack of the clones nonsense here.

Quote "You obviously have no taste."

If you mean my tastes don't follow CGI shit films and crap writing and digital fakery then yes you are very right on the money.

I don't know what schools Lucas went to but he would have failed English at any reputable High School Or Junior College, that he supposedly went under the tutelage of Joe Campbell i find laughable and ludicrous.

There is nothing mythic about the prequels "no hero with a thousand faces" stuff there. Nothing that resonates or hits on a common experience for people, no allegory or applicability whatsoever just videogame cgi crap cutscenes and poop and fart jokes and retarded racist characters.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Post link
I tried to watch this at a local theatre last weekend, but the projector was too bright, everything weas blown out, and I left to complain and get my money back. The manager told me that was how the movie was filmed. I didn't believe him and got my money back anyway.

So I tried it at a different theatre yesterday, and it was better, but still too bright, with a slight glow. Harrison's face was constantly over-lit. I figured they did that to hide Ford's wrinkles. But everything looked fake. It was very distracting, and looked nothing like the original three. And the bottom half of the screen seemed blurred, which I was able to confirm during the end credits.

Did anyone see the same things, or did I just experience a bad projection both times?

-T

Working on: Superman: Son of Jorel

Author
Time
Post link
You got a bad projector. Try a different theater.
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link
Finally saw it, and it was OK. Of course Raiders is the best, I always thought TOD was fun because it was an outrageous thrill ride, and thought TLC was OK, but Connery was great and gave it some life. I felt Indy IV was on par with TLC, as it just seems to lag at certain points.

In saying that, the CGI didn't bother me, Shia wasn't bad, I thought Karen Allen (although I love her in Raiders) shouldn't have been brought back. And Ford just seemed a bit slow in his delivery, as the jokes really seemed forced. Now maybe it was suppose to be that because he was 65, who knows.

Overall, it was entertaining, but just like TOD & TLC, I really won't revisit these on DVD, as if it comes on cable, I will watch it cause I still love the character of Indy.
Author
Time
Post link
Skyjedi: "don't even get me started on the fact that most of the movie was shot on green screen and phony cgi instead of on location in Peru, Tunisia etc. or elsewhere like they did with the originals."

If this is true, it certainly didn't feel like it. In my opinion, the vast majority of the film was shot on sets and locations. If much of this film was shot green-screen, I'll drop out of film school and flip burgers at McDonald's for the rest of my life - only one or two things (the swordfight and "skull room," I believe) even remotely felt green-screened. The rest certainly had the on-set/on-location feel to it, unlike 85% of "Attack of the Clones" or 98% of "Revenge of the Sith."
Author
Time
Post link
ChainsawAsh said:



If this is true, it certainly didn't feel like it. In my opinion, the vast majority of the film was shot on sets and locations. If much of this film was shot green-screen, I'll drop out of film school and flip burgers at McDonald's for the rest of my life - only one or two things (the swordfight and "skull room," I believe) even remotely felt green-screened. The rest certainly had the on-set/on-location feel to it, unlike 85% of "Attack of the Clones" or 98% of "Revenge of the Sith."


I agree, this movie did not feel like the CGI-infested PT movies. I always thought TPM holds up pretty well because that does have real locations like Tatooine, but AOTC & ROTS are just loaded with green-screen environments like Mustafar, Geonosis, Utapau, and Kamino. I read many comments about the CGI in Indy IV, and was fearing the PT, part 2, but I have to say the CGI didn't overwhelm me, although it is still an average movie.
Author
Time
Post link
CO said:


Karen Allen (although I love her in Raiders) shouldn't have been brought back.


When I was told she wasn't used well in the film (she was merely present with bad lines) that's basically what has discouraged me from wanting to even see the movie now.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I have mixed feelings on the whole movie. Its got plenty of groan worthy moments, but for me most new action movies do too. Harrison Ford has definitely lost his spark. There's very little of his charisma present in this movie. The way he delivers his lines is pretty bland. He sounds bored whenever he talks. And the dialog in general isn't very fresh.

That said, it still has some fun, if over-the-top action. I'm glad they brought Marion back, even if she didn't have much to do or say. I think Shia did a fine job, unexpectedly. He and John Hurt were the only characters that brought much charisma to the screen.

In terms of an action movie, I didn't feel cheated out of my $10. But as an Indiana Jones movie, I'd definitely make it fourth on the list. And I wasn't a huge fan of Doom or Crusade.

-T

Working on: Superman: Son of Jorel

Author
Time
Post link
ChainsawAsh said:

... the vast majority of the film was shot on sets and locations. .... The rest certainly had the on-set/on-location feel to it,


+1

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Anchorhead said:

ChainsawAsh said:

... the vast majority of the film was shot on sets and locations. .... The rest certainly had the on-set/on-location feel to it,


+1


You're kidding right? Take the sky during the scenes outside the warehouse at the start of the film - very fake looking. Yeah, it was a nice sunset or whatever but I don't understand why they couldn't just film outside a warehouse with a real sky.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion but sometimes I wonder if I was watching the same film as everyone else.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Yoda Is Your Father said:

Anchorhead said:

ChainsawAsh said:

... the vast majority of the film was shot on sets and locations. .... The rest certainly had the on-set/on-location feel to it,


+1


You're kidding right? Take the sky during the scenes outside the warehouse at the start of the film - very fake looking. Yeah, it was a nice sunset or whatever but I don't understand why they couldn't just film outside a warehouse with a real sky.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion but sometimes I wonder if I was watching the same film as everyone else.



I was definitely watching the same film as you, that sunset shot looked horrible, not to mention the head falling off the statue, why in god's name do you need to CG an object falling by gravity? it would have been so easy to do it practically and it could have looked real, not that I think it was a very good joke anyway.

A lot of the film didn't look to bad but it seemed that whenever they could they took the easy route, the 'Lord of the rings' films are sometimes criticized as being to CG heavy but at least when they wanted shots of a sunrise they just got up early in the morning and filmed actors against real scenery with a real sunrise. I just don't understand why filmmakers chose to fake things that they could do for real.
Author
Time
Post link
I never said they used NO CG, what I said was the *majority* of it wasn't. I'm also not saying the CG didn't feel out-of-place or bad, because when it was there, it was pretty intrusive.

Take the motorcycle chase - with the exception of the Brody statue (which I would have hated even if it wasn't CG, which I'm not entirely sure it was), the rest of the chase wasn't CG at all.

What about the graveyard sequence? That felt pretty real. I'm fairly certain that wasn't green-screened.

Did they use too much CG? Hell yeah. But saying "most of the movie was shot on green screen and phony cgi instead of on location" is just plain false.
Author
Time
Post link
@ChainsawAsh.

It's funny you mention the motorcyclce chase & the graveyard sequences as those were the only two that parts of the movie that really FELT like Indiana Jones to me. I loved those parts of the movie. the rest varied from bland to outright awful.
Author
Time
Post link
I agree with you there, canofhumdingers. Though I didn't hate the movie, and I did like the chase at the end (even the swordfight), although it didn't have quite the "Indiana Jones feel" I'd hoped for.
Author
Time
Post link
I agree a lot of the first half of the film looked OK and the bike chase was definitely my favourite part of the film, the second half was a lot more CG heavy it probably wasn't as bad as a lot of recent films in terms of the abundance of CG, it's just the pointless CG that bugs me.

with regard to the statue, it may not have been an actual CG model but it was definitely a composite shot, it just didn't look real, it's almost like they just added it in post production and did a pick-up shot of the head falling in the guys lap, it just seemed so out of place.
Author
Time
Post link
How do you guys even enjoy movies anymore? You nitpick over every little thing, down to the possibility of a pick up shot looking out of place. It's no wonder you haven't seen a movie you've liked in the past 10 years.

To quote Charlie Brown "Good grief".
F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335

You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.

Pissing off Rob since August 2007.