- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
War does not make one great.
Indiana Jones IV — Page 22
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
canofhumdingers said:
While i know you probably didn't mean it, i actually found this rather insulting. I fenced for four years in college learning all three olympic weapons (foil, epee, & sabre). I've taken kendo (japanese fencing derived from samurai fighting techniques) for two years & still actively train with both the Minneapolis Kendo club & the Memphis Kendo club (when i'm in town down there). I know exactly how long a real sword fight would last. Sword fights in movies are almost never realistic b/c they wouldn't be very exciting to the general populace who has no idea that a real fight would last about 2 seconds once the opponents made a move. I can accept that & enjoy a good swashbuckling fight. The part of the scene that bugged me was not the sword fight, but the splits between moving vehicles while getting thumped in the nads. it wasn't an exciting sword fight, it was a childish circus act. It's possible to make a great movie that appeals to people of all ages without being childish & that's what i was hoping for. Unfortunately, it didn't happen, imo.
While i know you probably didn't mean it, i actually found this rather insulting. I fenced for four years in college learning all three olympic weapons (foil, epee, & sabre). I've taken kendo (japanese fencing derived from samurai fighting techniques) for two years & still actively train with both the Minneapolis Kendo club & the Memphis Kendo club (when i'm in town down there). I know exactly how long a real sword fight would last. Sword fights in movies are almost never realistic b/c they wouldn't be very exciting to the general populace who has no idea that a real fight would last about 2 seconds once the opponents made a move. I can accept that & enjoy a good swashbuckling fight. The part of the scene that bugged me was not the sword fight, but the splits between moving vehicles while getting thumped in the nads. it wasn't an exciting sword fight, it was a childish circus act. It's possible to make a great movie that appeals to people of all ages without being childish & that's what i was hoping for. Unfortunately, it didn't happen, imo.
Well, I agree that it was a bit childish, but at the same time I thought it was kind of funny. Here you have this greaser that has some experience with a sword and while fighting an expert swordsman, he ends up getting whacked in the nads because he's standing on two moving vehicles. Yeah, I think that's a little funny. It's a hell of a lot funnier than seeing Jar Jar get kicked in the nuts (with no reaction) by a little droid.
canofhumdingers said:
I can see why you might say that about my post, but it's really not the case. I went into this movie with fairly low expectations, but i still had high hopes. Like when i walked into the theater for each prequel, i WANTED to like this movie so much! I WANTED it to be as much fun as the others. But then it wasn't & that left me disappointed, just as i feared i would be but hoped i wouldn't.
I can see why you might say that about my post, but it's really not the case. I went into this movie with fairly low expectations, but i still had high hopes. Like when i walked into the theater for each prequel, i WANTED to like this movie so much! I WANTED it to be as much fun as the others. But then it wasn't & that left me disappointed, just as i feared i would be but hoped i wouldn't.
For me, I walked into this movie with low expectations and no hopes of any kind. I'm sorry you felt that way about the prequels. After TPM, I had extremely low expectations for the rest of the series. The only minor redeeming qualities were found in ROTS. I think I'm definitely going to have to watch Indy 4 again to see if it grows on me.
canofhumdingers said:
the thing is, with some minor edits & tweaks & someone ballsy enough to tell them to stop using so much CGI, i think it could've been a really good IJ adventure. Not great like Raiders, but as good as any of the sequels. That just makes it even more disappointing to me.
the thing is, with some minor edits & tweaks & someone ballsy enough to tell them to stop using so much CGI, i think it could've been a really good IJ adventure. Not great like Raiders, but as good as any of the sequels. That just makes it even more disappointing to me.
The only thing I'd remove is the gratuitous pan down to the Ark. It's one of the only things I had a problem with. The theme when entering the warehouse is all that's needed.
canofhumdingers said:
i really don't hate lucas(he DID make some of the greatest films ever), it's just that all the things that really killed this movie for me just feel so much like his influence. The gophers? the car race opening? the tarzan swinging? the ridiculous amounts of unconvincing cgi? tell me you don't see Lucas in every one of those
i really don't hate lucas(he DID make some of the greatest films ever), it's just that all the things that really killed this movie for me just feel so much like his influence. The gophers? the car race opening? the tarzan swinging? the ridiculous amounts of unconvincing cgi? tell me you don't see Lucas in every one of those
Every one of them? No actually, I don't. The gophers? Could've easily been a Lucas/Spielberg thing. The car race and greasers vs jocks in the diner? Lucas. Tarzan swinging? I'm not sure, since it didn't have the Tarzan yell that we're all familiar with from ROTJ and ROTS. The CGI? Every film has that these days, so I'm not going to pin that on Lucas. To be perfectly honest, I hardly notice the CGI these days anyway unless it looks really ridiculous (like Spiderman). I'm just not totally against CGI like most of the people here seem to be. Most of you say it's unconvincing, but I think most of you would say that whether it was convincing or not.
You guys seem to think that the movie would've been so much better if they had just used old fashion models instead of CGI. Uh, the story would be the same. If that were the only difference then I think it would simply look like crap. Just because someone uses models instead of CGI doesn't automatically make the movie look any better. It makes the movie cost more, but that's about it. As long as the story is good, it doesn't matter how much or how little CGI there is. Conversely, if the story sucks, no amount of models will suddenly make it great.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
You guys seem to think that the movie would've been so much better if they had just used old fashion models instead of CGI. Uh, the story would be the same. If that were the only difference then I think it would simply look like crap. Just because someone uses models instead of CGI doesn't automatically make the movie look any better. It makes the movie cost more, but that's about it. As long as the story is good, it doesn't matter how much or how little CGI there is. Conversely, if the story sucks, no amount of models will suddenly make it great.
You're right, the quality of effects has little if any impact on the quality of the story. That's not what i hate about cgi. I think the "lucas fingerprints" thread over in the general star wars discussion has done a good job listing the reasons i prefer models, puppets, & real on set/location stunts over cgi & green screen.
& i think over reliance on cgi CAN have at least a small impact on the quality of the narrative. in my opinion, it allows the filmmakers to be lazy by having TOO much freedom. they can pretty much get exactly what they imagine everytime, whereas practical effects & stunts force them to face physical challenges in the real world that they have to overcome. Facing challenges forces us to think creatively & grow as people. This, in turn, makes better art.
Finally, cgi has also led to the advent of "digital editing" (is that what it's called?) where filmmakers can literally splice two seperate takes together to get the performance they desire. I remember seeing this on some "making of" for one of the prequels. Lucas maybe liked take 2 for Anakin, but liked take 6 for Obi-wan. Instead of trying to coax each actor into giving the desired results together in one take by giving them good direction & feedback, Lucas was able to just splice those two takes together in editing. IMO, this just KILLS any chance of getting good chemistry between the actors. It's not something I think Speilberg would or has used, but it is something cgi has brought about & it's a concept I utterly detest.
And i admit i'm a bit biased against cgi because i feel it's killing many of the arts i love. traditional matte painting, model building, & the many other things that cgi is slowly replacing are all things that i love & appreciate for the craftsmanship & skill required of the artists. not that cgi doesn't take skill to do well, it just doesn't appeal to me as an art form the way these older techniques do.
- Time
- Post link
had they had cgi, they could've made the sequence exactly the way they had wanted originally. But sometimes less is more (as george summarily proved with the special edition)
- Time
- Post link
canofhumdingers said:
Finally, cgi has also led to the advent of "digital editing" (is that what it's called?) where filmmakers can literally splice two seperate takes together to get the performance they desire. I remember seeing this on some "making of" for one of the prequels. Lucas maybe liked take 2 for Anakin, but liked take 6 for Obi-wan. Instead of trying to coax each actor into giving the desired results together in one take by giving them good direction & feedback, Lucas was able to just splice those two takes together in editing. IMO, this just KILLS any chance of getting good chemistry between the actors. It's not something I think Speilberg would or has used, but it is something cgi has brought about & it's a concept I utterly detest.
Finally, cgi has also led to the advent of "digital editing" (is that what it's called?) where filmmakers can literally splice two seperate takes together to get the performance they desire. I remember seeing this on some "making of" for one of the prequels. Lucas maybe liked take 2 for Anakin, but liked take 6 for Obi-wan. Instead of trying to coax each actor into giving the desired results together in one take by giving them good direction & feedback, Lucas was able to just splice those two takes together in editing. IMO, this just KILLS any chance of getting good chemistry between the actors. It's not something I think Speilberg would or has used, but it is something cgi has brought about & it's a concept I utterly detest.
Peter Jackson used that a lot for the Lord of the Rings. You can notice a lot of little details changing from one view to another here and there. The worst is when Boromir dies in fellowship since the location of their hands changes back and forth (it ruins the drama for me).
"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
- Time
- Post link
Tiptup said:
Peter Jackson used that a lot for the Lord of the Rings. You can notice a lot of little details changing from one view to another here and there. The worst is when Boromir dies in fellowship since the location of their hands changes back and forth (it ruins the drama for me).
canofhumdingers said:
Finally, cgi has also led to the advent of "digital editing" (is that what it's called?) where filmmakers can literally splice two seperate takes together to get the performance they desire. I remember seeing this on some "making of" for one of the prequels. Lucas maybe liked take 2 for Anakin, but liked take 6 for Obi-wan. Instead of trying to coax each actor into giving the desired results together in one take by giving them good direction & feedback, Lucas was able to just splice those two takes together in editing. IMO, this just KILLS any chance of getting good chemistry between the actors. It's not something I think Speilberg would or has used, but it is something cgi has brought about & it's a concept I utterly detest.
Finally, cgi has also led to the advent of "digital editing" (is that what it's called?) where filmmakers can literally splice two seperate takes together to get the performance they desire. I remember seeing this on some "making of" for one of the prequels. Lucas maybe liked take 2 for Anakin, but liked take 6 for Obi-wan. Instead of trying to coax each actor into giving the desired results together in one take by giving them good direction & feedback, Lucas was able to just splice those two takes together in editing. IMO, this just KILLS any chance of getting good chemistry between the actors. It's not something I think Speilberg would or has used, but it is something cgi has brought about & it's a concept I utterly detest.
Peter Jackson used that a lot for the Lord of the Rings. You can notice a lot of little details changing from one view to another here and there. The worst is when Boromir dies in fellowship since the location of their hands changes back and forth (it ruins the drama for me).
Thank God I don't notice the little details like that. I hardly ever notice visual continuity errors in movies, even egregious ones like Ben Afflack's scarf in Pearl Harbor.
- Time
- Post link
Darth Chaltab said:
Thank God I don't notice the little details like that. I hardly ever notice visual continuity errors in movies
Thank God I don't notice the little details like that. I hardly ever notice visual continuity errors in movies
+1
I don't dwell on them either. In fact, I make it a point not to waste time looking at tiny details like that. It distracts me from the flow of the film, from the emotion, the journey.
For me, it's story & characters first.
- Time
- Post link
Skull was soul-less. I did like the introduction of the Russians, I think they nailed the content for the era perfectly ... but then they jumped the shark. You can get away with the impossible in movies, but you cannot suspend disbelief of the improbable.
Spielberg and Lucas need to retire and begin allowing younger blood into their productions. How awesome whould Indy IV have been if it had been directed by a Speilberg in his 20s?!
Rehashing old franchises is just cashing in on nostalgia. If Skull had been released as a stand-alone film without the previous films existing it would do much less business IMO.
I'm waiting for Zemeckis to screw with Back to the Future in his stupid CGI actor style to completely annoy me.
The only director of the 80/90s blockbusters who seems to have kept his marbles by keeping out of the limelight is Cameron (yeah, I enjoyed Titanic, what's it to you?!)
- Time
- Post link
miker71 said:
My biggest beef with Skull is: what happened to peril on every page that is the hallmark of the previous films? Skull did not feel like a saturday morning serial, it felt like a mediocre Hollywood movie. Even in the quicksand (dry sand, whatever) it was just so hum-drum. Compare that to Indy's "We are going to die!" line in ToD and you see what I mean?
My biggest beef with Skull is: what happened to peril on every page that is the hallmark of the previous films? Skull did not feel like a saturday morning serial, it felt like a mediocre Hollywood movie. Even in the quicksand (dry sand, whatever) it was just so hum-drum. Compare that to Indy's "We are going to die!" line in ToD and you see what I mean?
Yeah!! So true!
miker71 said:
I'm waiting for Zemeckis to screw with Back to the Future in his stupid CGI actor style to completely annoy me.
I'm waiting for Zemeckis to screw with Back to the Future in his stupid CGI actor style to completely annoy me.
AAarararaaagghhh!!!
War does not make one great.
- Time
- Post link
Tiptup said:
Peter Jackson used that a lot for the Lord of the Rings. You can notice a lot of little details changing from one view to another here and there. The worst is when Boromir dies in fellowship since the location of their hands changes back and forth (it ruins the drama for me).
canofhumdingers said:
Finally, cgi has also led to the advent of "digital editing" (is that what it's called?) where filmmakers can literally splice two seperate takes together to get the performance they desire. I remember seeing this on some "making of" for one of the prequels. Lucas maybe liked take 2 for Anakin, but liked take 6 for Obi-wan. Instead of trying to coax each actor into giving the desired results together in one take by giving them good direction & feedback, Lucas was able to just splice those two takes together in editing. IMO, this just KILLS any chance of getting good chemistry between the actors. It's not something I think Speilberg would or has used, but it is something cgi has brought about & it's a concept I utterly detest.
Finally, cgi has also led to the advent of "digital editing" (is that what it's called?) where filmmakers can literally splice two seperate takes together to get the performance they desire. I remember seeing this on some "making of" for one of the prequels. Lucas maybe liked take 2 for Anakin, but liked take 6 for Obi-wan. Instead of trying to coax each actor into giving the desired results together in one take by giving them good direction & feedback, Lucas was able to just splice those two takes together in editing. IMO, this just KILLS any chance of getting good chemistry between the actors. It's not something I think Speilberg would or has used, but it is something cgi has brought about & it's a concept I utterly detest.
Peter Jackson used that a lot for the Lord of the Rings. You can notice a lot of little details changing from one view to another here and there. The worst is when Boromir dies in fellowship since the location of their hands changes back and forth (it ruins the drama for me).
What you are talking about is back and forth editing, and since most dialog scenes are not shot with coverage of both people at once this is normal. What canofhumdingers is talking about is isolating actors WITHIN the same shot--if there is a wideshot of two people, Lucas would digitally rotoscope Liam Neeson from take 3 into a shot of Ewan McGregor from take 1, so that both actors oncamera at the same time are not actually oncamera at the same time but spliced together from different takes of the same shot.
- Time
- Post link
zombie84 said:
What you are talking about is back and forth editing, and since most dialog scenes are not shot with coverage of both people at once this is normal. What canofhumdingers is talking about is isolating actors WITHIN the same shot--if there is a wideshot of two people, Lucas would digitally rotoscope Liam Neeson from take 3 into a shot of Ewan McGregor from take 1, so that both actors oncamera at the same time are not actually oncamera at the same time but spliced together from different takes of the same shot.
What you are talking about is back and forth editing, and since most dialog scenes are not shot with coverage of both people at once this is normal. What canofhumdingers is talking about is isolating actors WITHIN the same shot--if there is a wideshot of two people, Lucas would digitally rotoscope Liam Neeson from take 3 into a shot of Ewan McGregor from take 1, so that both actors oncamera at the same time are not actually oncamera at the same time but spliced together from different takes of the same shot.
I see. Thanks for the correction.
All I know is that Peter Jackson combined different performances and the visual continuity got thrown off. Plus I'm pretty sure that I remember watching a behind the scenes feature where Jackson talked about using the best performances from multiple takes.
"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
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
first off all I knew going into the film was:
Mutt was Indy's son
there were some aliens in it
and there was some bad CGI
My expectations were pretty low for this film but I really wanted to enjoy it.
The one thing I was really expecting to hate was Shia LaBeouf but to my surprise I actually thought he was quite good and the character worked fairly well.
Generally I thought the first half of the film was quite good but the gunpowder thing makes no sense and that skull is really inconsistent in how magnetic it is! I'm not so sure about the whole Nuclear explosion bit, at the time it amused me but it didn't make a whole lot of sense, why was there no running water in the house but outside there was? why was the TV on? and more to the point how did he not die or at least get seriously injured?
The bike chase was excellent and felt like classic Indy, I didn't like the bit where the statues head fell off, but basically I enjoyed from when Indy met Mutt up to them finding the crystal skull, although I wasn't sure why those guys in skull masks attacked them, who were they? it was just like they thought they'd gone too long without an action scene or something.
After they were captured I thought them having the Alien body just laid out on the table was just stupid not that I like the alien idea anyway but surely it should have been left and revealed at the end, and then you got the mess of CGI that was the jungle fight sequence, some of it was good, some was terrible I just wish they'd taken more effort to make it look good, but I did like the ants.
so then after they've passed the waterfalls they go though the ruins and suddenly a load of natives break out of the walls and start chasing them, I can only assume these aren't actual natives who spend there days hiding in the walls in case someone walks past so these must be the "living dead" who guard the city but if that's the case how do the Russians manage to kill them?? that is by far the worst undead army I've ever seen! either way it seemed like another excuse for a brief action sequence which had absolutely no consequence to the plot.
then we get to the ending when they were in the room full of treasures from all over the world I thought that would be a great time for someone to mention Atlantis which frequently comes up in the crystal skull myths and would of tied in nicely with the whole higher civilisation thing.. but no just Aliens, but wait not Aliens they're "Pan dimensional beings" from "the space between spaces" what the hell? if you're going to have aliens just have aliens.
but anyway 13 skeletons merge to form 1 alien what's that about? basically the whole second half of the film was one long action sequence which explained nothing I mean I could work out my own explanations for everything but if I have to do that why bother going to see the film? and then they are "inter dimensional beings" but they still have a flying saucer!
Obviously by this point I'd given up on this film, and then he not only gets his job back but he get promoted, why??? and the wedding, what rubbish! and then the worst line from LaBoeuf at the end of the wedding Ox says "well done henry" and Mutt and Indy say "thanks" why would Mutt think he's being congratulated on someone else's wedding day?
Sorry this turned into more of a rant than I expected, basically if it wasn't bad enough that there are aliens in an Indiana Jones film there was a whole load of other crap as well.
But although I blame Lucas for his influence on the terrible effects I think the real blame lies with Spielberg who was just too lazy to do a proper job, he didn't bother leaving the U.S. to do location shooting and he went back on his promise to do it old school, and worst of all he accepted a rubbish script. When did Spielberg last make a good film anyway? '93 had 'Jurassic Park' and 'Shindler's list', '98 'Saving Private Ryan'(I've not actually seen this but people say it's good so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt), has he made a single good film in the last 10 years?
- Time
- Post link
Max_Rebo said:
has he made a single good film in the last 10 years?
has he made a single good film in the last 10 years?
Have you been alseep for the last decade?
Saving Private Ryan
The Terminal
Catch Me If You Can
Munich
I thought War of the Worlds was awesome, and am always surprised to find some people didn't like it. A.I. is the only real clunker he's had but its a very interesting film, and Minority Report is quite good too. I'd say the latest batch of films are among the best he has ever done.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Max_Rebo said:
but anyway 13 skeletons merge to form 1 alien what's that about?
but anyway 13 skeletons merge to form 1 alien what's that about?
Well, in some religions, many deities can be considered aspects of one god. I believe Hinduism is like this. I don't know about the Inca or Nazca religions, but since they worshiped what turned out to be aliens, it could have been something like that.
fsb
- Time
- Post link
zombie84 said:
I'm pretty good at steering away from bad movies. I mean, I'm sure if I watched something like What Happens in Vegas that would be a new candidate but why in the world would I want to do that? And it still probably has better acting and writing than Attack of the Clones. I watch a lot of low-budget horror stuff, so indeed I HAVE seen worse examples, but I think I can honestly say that AOTC has the worst acting and dialog I have ever witnessed in a mainstream motion picture in my life. <snip>
Darth Chaltab said:
If Planet of the Apes and Attack of the Clones are the worst you've seen, you're VEEEEERRRRY lucky... And for that matter, even those two movies aren't in the same league of badness.
auximenies said:
Wow. You've put in to words exactly what I had been feeling about that film since the evening I saw it. To me, Burton's PotA and GL's AotC are the two worst films I have ever seen.
zombie84 said:
Nothing could be worse than Burton's Planet of the Apes. But then the whole film was on that kind of level anyway. It was like a final dump in the toilet to a two-hour bowel movement.
Nothing could be worse than Burton's Planet of the Apes. But then the whole film was on that kind of level anyway. It was like a final dump in the toilet to a two-hour bowel movement.
Wow. You've put in to words exactly what I had been feeling about that film since the evening I saw it. To me, Burton's PotA and GL's AotC are the two worst films I have ever seen.
If Planet of the Apes and Attack of the Clones are the worst you've seen, you're VEEEEERRRRY lucky... And for that matter, even those two movies aren't in the same league of badness.
I'm pretty good at steering away from bad movies. I mean, I'm sure if I watched something like What Happens in Vegas that would be a new candidate but why in the world would I want to do that? And it still probably has better acting and writing than Attack of the Clones. I watch a lot of low-budget horror stuff, so indeed I HAVE seen worse examples, but I think I can honestly say that AOTC has the worst acting and dialog I have ever witnessed in a mainstream motion picture in my life. <snip>
I don't consider myself to be lucky, just good. ;) Like zombie, I have an ability to avoid bad movies. Now, I probably miss some good ones along the way, but NOT seeing something good is far favorable to wasting 2 hours of my life on something bad.
Pink Floyd -- First in Space
- Time
- Post link
zombie84 said:
Have you been alseep for the last decade?
Saving Private Ryan
The Terminal
Catch Me If You Can
Munich
I thought War of the Worlds was awesome, and am always surprised to find some people didn't like it. A.I. is the only real clunker he's had but its a very interesting film, and Minority Report is quite good too. I'd say the latest batch of films are among the best he has ever done.
Max_Rebo said:
has he made a single good film in the last 10 years?
has he made a single good film in the last 10 years?
Have you been alseep for the last decade?
Saving Private Ryan
The Terminal
Catch Me If You Can
Munich
I thought War of the Worlds was awesome, and am always surprised to find some people didn't like it. A.I. is the only real clunker he's had but its a very interesting film, and Minority Report is quite good too. I'd say the latest batch of films are among the best he has ever done.
I guess it's just down to personal tastes. I quite liked AI but HATED War of the worlds and Saving private Ryan.
- Time
- Post link
Johnny Ringo said:
I guess it's just down to personal tastes. I quite liked AI but HATED War of the worlds and Saving private Ryan.
zombie84 said:
Have you been alseep for the last decade?
Saving Private Ryan
The Terminal
Catch Me If You Can
Munich
I thought War of the Worlds was awesome, and am always surprised to find some people didn't like it. A.I. is the only real clunker he's had but its a very interesting film, and Minority Report is quite good too. I'd say the latest batch of films are among the best he has ever done.
Max_Rebo said:
has he made a single good film in the last 10 years?
has he made a single good film in the last 10 years?
Have you been alseep for the last decade?
Saving Private Ryan
The Terminal
Catch Me If You Can
Munich
I thought War of the Worlds was awesome, and am always surprised to find some people didn't like it. A.I. is the only real clunker he's had but its a very interesting film, and Minority Report is quite good too. I'd say the latest batch of films are among the best he has ever done.
I guess it's just down to personal tastes. I quite liked AI but HATED War of the worlds and Saving private Ryan.
I'll admit I haven't seen all his films but 'The Terminal' and 'Catch me if you can' were OK but not great, 'A.I.' had some potential but had a some terrible acting and a terrible ending, 'Minority Report' was fairly dull and I don't have one good thing to say about 'War of the Worlds', but maybe 'Munich' was good. But still this is Spielberg and when it comes down to it the last Spielberg film I liked enough to buy on DVD was Jurassic Park (Well I have Jurassic Park 2 but in no way do I think that's a great film).
This man is a God of the movie industry who could make almost any film he wants and could probably get a larger budget than anyone else in Hollywood, but now we are putting up with bad scripts, bad effects and lazy film making. The really annoying thing is this could so easily have been a good film there's only a couple of big things wrong and then there's loads of little things, I really find it hard to believe they went through at least 5 writers and this is the best they got.
Surely no one thinks Indy 4 is one of the highlights of Spielberg's Career, it's not even the best film he's done in the last 10 years, of all the films you listed I would say Indy 4 only beats War of the Worlds, which was another nonsense Sci-fi script which didn't hold up to inspection and wasted so much potential.
Basically what I'm saying is share the blame, it's not just George's fault this film was bad.
- Time
- Post link
Screw the naysayers, i thought this movie was pure fun from beginning to end.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
End Credits said:
Well, in some religions, many deities can be considered aspects of one god. I believe Hinduism is like this. I don't know about the Inca or Nazca religions, but since they worshiped what turned out to be aliens, it could have been something like that.
fsb
Max_Rebo said:
but anyway 13 skeletons merge to form 1 alien what's that about?
but anyway 13 skeletons merge to form 1 alien what's that about?
Well, in some religions, many deities can be considered aspects of one god. I believe Hinduism is like this. I don't know about the Inca or Nazca religions, but since they worshiped what turned out to be aliens, it could have been something like that.
fsb
Maybe, but this is what I'm saying why do we have to explain it for ourselves? yes they has a hive mind but why do their skeletons merge into one being? the original films weren't like this there was actually very little supernatural content and we always knew what was going on i.e.:
Raiders - the Ark emits the wrath of god, but we saw a picture of that right at the beginning of the film so we understand what's happening.
Temple of doom - the stones heat up and burn through the bag, we knew they reacted to being close to each other from earlier in the film, there's a voodoo doll which needs no explanation and the guy can rip out hearts because he prays to an evil god but he'd already done this once so it made sense when he tried it later.
Last Crusade - the Holy grail heals people and grants long life - this is established very early on in the film so it comes as no surprise at the end.
Crystal Skull - up until the end of the film all we know is there are aliens that have magnetic skulls, the inter-dimensional portals the 13 -> 1 morphing and the 'army of the dead' are all completely unexplained.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Max_Rebo said:
but anyway 13 skeletons merge to form 1 alien what's that about?
but anyway 13 skeletons merge to form 1 alien what's that about?
I think it was just a representation of what she was learning. The skeletons were not actually becoming one, but their collective conscience was becoming one greater knowledge and being presented to Spalko - a knowledge that overwhelmed her. Jones had warned her about wanting to learn what they knew.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
*SPOILERS*
The effects were not as bad as the prequels except maybe for the alien spaceship at the end, and the fake prairie dogs at the beginning.
ox was comic relief by being a complete mind wiped retard by the alien crystal skull artifact
He was like the human equivalent of Jar Jar without all the racist charicatures .
Many of the scenes in the movie were inspired by the trilogy that came before, almost as if they tried to do the best of indiana jones rehash compilation without a story. The movie only works on nostalgia and does not stand on its own.
I will admit i clapped and cheered at the beginning when harrison first comes on screen and picks up the hat and puts it on.
To me the best thing about the movie was Karen Allen i found her and Harrison's characters reunion to be delightful. Mostly Because I love the film Raiders. I liked mutt the greaser character as well.
Spalko felt like right out of rocky and bullwinkle, or a bad 007 film. I love Cate Blanchett but this character was horribly unbelievable and poorly written.
I was almost as if they tried to make a female version of belloq.
also picking and choosing elements from 5 different scripts and trying to stitch together a single narrative from that did not work.
The reason Raiders and Last crusade are good movies if because of the scripts by Lawrence Kasden and Jeffrey Boam. The huycks script for doom sucks, but hey they also wrote howard the duck and radioland murders. The only good writing they ever did was on the first star wars and american graffiti.
After seeing how awful the film the mist was i'm not so sure the darabount script would have been any better though.
Kasden wrote brilliant sharp and witty scripts for both Raiders and empire strikes back and then his career took a nosedive. Every movie he made and script he wrote afterword sucked. Yeah the critics liked body heat, but ive never seen it so i cannot say since that is not a particular genre I dabble in.
I like primarily good drama, as well as science fiction and fantasy movies. Not always exactly working together Drama and sci fi, science fiction seen as for geeks and a bastard genre for trekkies who cannot get any.
As for the star wars prequels temple of doom and young indiana jones were prequels and perhaps George did not learn his lesson.
As for the Nazca drawings they reminded me of the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiha anime where she drew them on the school grounds to attract aliens, LOL.
Also the Area 51 wahehouse scene was Like X-files without Mulder and Scully being there or m snows music scored under the scene. Even the nazca drawings reminded me of the phenomenon of crop circles and the m night rammalammadingdong movie signs.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.