logo Sign In

zombie84

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Nov-2005
Last activity
12-Jan-2024
Posts
3,557

Post History

Post
#318900
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318900/action/topic#318900
Time
Its pretty much on par with the previous two sequels. Trust me, its not a prequel thing, it has good acting and decent writing and its a fun adventure, people just hoped it would be "great", but none of the original sequels are "great" in that sense either, but they are still considered great simply due to time and growing up with them. Like I said, I imagine if I was around for Temple of Doom my first reaction would be "better than most sequels, but you can't expect it to be better than Raiders," which is not a prequel-esque deluding myself into liking it type of excuse, you just need time to step back, have some perspective and watch it again. Thats my impression of Crystal Skull. I honestly don't think its really that much worse than the two sequels, I'd say its the weakest of the three in my personal opinion, but the difference is kind of negligable. T2, Aliens , ESB and Godfather II are all total anomolies, its totally unrealistic to expect or hope for that in any movie but when they happen you're thankful that somehow they improved upon the original, but I can't say that Indiana Jones series was an example of this either, they were just consistently entertaining films like Back to the Future trilogy, which has "average" sequels to a "great" original, but over time looking back we consider them all classics even when most series (Rocky, Jaws, etc) aren't, because those other series weren't consistently entertaining the way BTTF was. Indiana Jones was this way like BTTF and Crystal Skull is no exception, in my opinion. Like I said, its difficult to look at it from this perspective because this perspective requires time, which we have not yet had.
Post
#318895
Topic
Happy Anniversary Star Wars!
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318895/action/topic#318895
Time

Funny you should mention that rpvee, I just did an article on my website called Star Wars Memories, a lot of them taking from a thread that was on this place last month.

http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/starwarsmemories.html

 
 

Mod Edit - an archived and working link to the ‘Star Wars Memories’ article above:-

https://web.archive.org/web/20081210142255/http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/starwarsmemories.html
 

Post
#318894
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318894/action/topic#318894
Time
I also think that this is a movie that will grow on us over time as we get used to/desensitised to some of the more "out of place" aspects. I wasn't around for Raiders, but I imagine that if I was seeing Temple of Doom would have been a traumatic, confusing and disappointing experience--and Temple of Doom is my favorite of the four. I mean a horror film, peoples hearts being ripped out, some 5 year old asian sidekick, Evil Indy being brainwashed as a cult member, no butt-kicking leading lady, gross-out humor like the dinner scene, not much character development, no build-up just action all the way, more unrealistic stunt scenes...I imagine I would have though, "hmm thats a good movie, but its not Indiana Jones, and it can't a candle to the original."

So, right now, I'm going to say that I need at least a second viewing of Crystal Skull--which I intend to see in theaters again--to begin to have a larger perspective of how I feel about the film. My initial reaction is "that was pretty good but nothing that special, and its not a classic like the others," but I have this strange suspicion that over time I'll eventually start viewing it on more equal terms with the others.
Post
#318809
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318809/action/topic#318809
Time
I work in the film industry as a camera assistent (basically, the camera technician), and while HD is definitely creeping up, film is still the center piece of the art. Many TV shows shoot on HD because its cheaper and easier for a series, and its okay because TV is allowed to look like crap, but on big TV series like Lost its all 35mm, and on feature films its pretty much always all 35mm. You still see the odd 16mm TV series actually. Feature films that shoot digitally are experiments in the minority--and most the time they are the decision of the director, NOT the DP, DP's are almost unanimously against digital. People like James Cameron and Lucas and Rodriguez and Singer are making the decisions to shoot digitally, not their DP's, and its creating false propaganda, because its not easier, its not really cheaper in big budget shows, and its pretty much unanimous that it looks like utter shit. Most the time it limits you artistically as well, for technical reasons. People like Cameron and Lucas go on about HD but thats not because they are particularly informed or are making rational choices--its a sort of fetish, they have this obsession with "pushing technology," and they are right when they say HD is the future, but few cinematographers want to or choose to shoot on digitally, and not just because they are stubborn old men afraid of change. HD has much potential but its a slow curve that must be delicately transitioned, not irrationally jumped into for love of technology the way Lucas has done, its created a lot of public misconceptions. But on the indie side of things, its amazing HD has totally transformed budgetary issues on low/no-budget independent stuff.
Post
#318785
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318785/action/topic#318785
Time
College kids still shoot on film though, thats the "big thing" they aspire to do but sometimes can't because of costs, but even still about 50% of student films are on celluloid. American Cinematographer is definitely not centered around digital at all, its still centered around celluloid because the industry is centered around celluloid, especially on the big productions.

Modelwork and CG is another thing though, most FX students are CGI artists of some kind, though practical model work will still survive for a few more decades, it still gets passed down, but eventually I think it will wither away. The reason it will stick around for a while longer is because its not yet obsolete, its still an option in some scenarios.
Post
#318776
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318776/action/topic#318776
Time
skyjedi2005 said:

their are nobody trained to do traditional matte painting on glass, cinematography on film, or model builders anymore.


Uh, its actually the opposite. Its hard to find good DP's experienced with digital because nobody shoots digital, they all use film, nobody wants to touch digital because it looks like fucking shit.

But you are probably right about models though--you can still find plenty of modelmakers, just not at ILM, I mean Episode I had more practical models than all of the OT combined, and many FX houses still have a small model unit or have people available to do modelwork. If you want modelwork done, its not hard to find people. Glass matte painting, on the other hand, thats a dead art, you'd have to get people out of retirement or bring them back from wherever they went when the whole method imploded in the later 90's--they are still around though, its only the older guys (back then) that are done for good. Anyway, if Spielberg wanted to make the movie this way he easily could have.
Post
#318671
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318671/action/topic#318671
Time
Oh I agree, but after a 19 year absense, a 65 year old Harrison Ford, George "I lost my mind somewhere between 1977 and 1997" Lucas, and a script that was by all accounts rushed, realistically why should we expect greatness? Even were it made under ideal circumstances I wouldn't expect greatness because, much like the OT, the two Indy sequels were sort of lucky accidents, that normally doesn' t happen, and it happened twice (and even then, many people have issues with either Crusade or Temple of Doom). The original three were lightning in a bottle, that magic can never be re-captured, I would say even that Last Crusade was a very lucky sort of fluke. Crystal Skull is flawed but fun, the worst of the four but entertaining nonetheless, and I think thats sort of what we were realistically looking at from the outset. Not every film Spielberg makes is perfect, not every film Ford makes is perfect, and half of Lucas' filmography is crap; with the first three everyone beat the odds but this time they stumble--but only a bit. I'd say thats not as bad as wee've deluded ourselves to believe.
Post
#318593
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318593/action/topic#318593
Time
vbangle said:

I'm sorry but for those of you who have seen it already, your reports don't seem all that great....it just seems like a ho hum movie....nothing really there to grab my attention or imagination to motivate me to get up and go see the thing.....I was hoping you guys would come back with shinning reviews and say, "don't even think get off your ass and go see the thing", but that doesn't seem to be the case.....yawn.


Nope. Its not that special; but of course it IS special because its Indiana Jones and he's back. And thats a thrill. But the movie itself could be better. Its not that it bad, oftentimes it is quite good, but its uneven. Sort of like how ROTS has some really great moments in it where you think "yeah, this is great!" but then theres those two or three "what? for real?" moments that take you out. But then the film has good acting and good dialog so maybe its more like Return of the Jedi. Yeah, thats what its like. The "wtf moments" are inappropriate silliness like Mutt swinging through the jungle like Tarzan and backflipping into a jeep, or when he's stradling two racing jeeps through the jungle spread-eagle while still doing a swordfight and hitting his balls on plants and bushes that they drive through, and then an ending that falls flat without satisfying all the needed character resolutions. I'd say it's a 3/5 rating. Honestly some people are saying its amazing but its not, they are just excited to see Indy on the screen, and I've read even more about people saying its awful and a piece of crap that defiles the franchise but thats totally untrue too, its just a fun adventure that entertains for 2 hours but is flawed and not a classic the way the other 3 were. If you didn't expect that then I think you had unrealistic expectations here.
Post
#318523
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318523/action/topic#318523
Time
Saw it. Liked it. Didn't love it. Agree with most of the above post and dont have much to add.

Still--helluva movie. It was so much fun to see Harrison Ford as Indy. Mutt doing Tarzan was by the far the worst thing in the franchise. But I liked the ending--Mutt almost puts the hat on but then Indy takes it. Its like Spielberg acknowledging: "I know you all think we're going to have Mutt continue the Indy franchise but I'm not dumb enough to actually do it." Was a fun psyche.

All in all--good film, but by far the worst of the four. But this is Indiana Jones. The worst of Indiana Jones is still better than the best of James Bond and the best of The Mummy combined. But then I love Temple of Doom, so maybe most will think its the second-best. We always over-estimate new films because its so much fun to see it on the big screen, so I do think this will be seen as the fourth-best though. Its a good film, just not a great film, but I'm glad enough for a good one. Looking forward to seeing it again.
Post
#318478
Topic
Indiana Jones IV
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318478/action/topic#318478
Time
Romancing the Stone may have been inspired by Raiders but its much more than just a knock-off, its a terrific adventure film itself. Some people used to consider it the real sequel to Raiders rather than Temple of Doom. I wish they still made movies like Romancing the Stone. The closest we get is The Mummy and Tomb Raider, which are fun in their own, superficial way. But I don't recall any other explorer/jungle adventure film like Romancing the Stone that was made with adults in mind and had serious acting and writing. Everything sort of winks at the camera or is deliberately cheesy. Romancing the Stone was great because it had realistic characters written from an adult perspective--just like Raiders. Too bad its sequel sucked though, it could have been a very neat sort of alternative to Indiana Jones.
Post
#318409
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318409/action/topic#318409
Time
They certainly seemed to mix perfectly in Star Wars Revisited. And judging by the Black Magic examples posted, the detail level between the X0 and the DVD of the SE is pretty much inperceptable. Upconverting that for an HD version would result in some drop in quality, but not jarringly. OCP's Classic Edition sucked because the sources he had access to sucked. I think he was using Cowclops. He might as well have been using a VHS. PaulisDead is offering marked improvement with his Vintage Edit, and Adyway showed what more creative digital rotoscoping/compositing can do, but with a full roster of Black Magic corrected OOT shots the problem is effectively resolved.

This is my plea to the X0 crew: release the OOT-exclusive shots. I'm sure you have many of them done in the Black Magic process. The completed X0 cut still has merit, but if you want to aid the community I would offer that making available whatever work you guys have thusfar completed in this area would be the most beneficial gift we could have.
Post
#318388
Topic
.: The XØ Project - Laserdisc on Steroids :. (SEE FIRST POST FOR UPDATES) (* unfinished project *)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318388/action/topic#318388
Time
I wouldn't call the project officially dead, just in indefinite hibernation. I think the biggest problem is that by the time its released--IF it is released, or if eventually Zion and the guys decided to just put out whatever they have done at this point--it will become irrelevant. Projects like Paulisdead's Vintage Edit seem to be making most of X0 unnecessary.

What I do think is beneficial, however, is the OOT shots corrected with the Black Magic process that cannot be drawn out of the HD SE souces. For instance, shots of the starfields, shots where some detail has been lost in the crushed blacks, shots that were deleted from the SE like the original Mos Eisley entrance. Currently, our efforts to integrate the existing Laserdisk footage into the clean-up/O-neg sourced SE have been a little lacking--see OCP's Classic Edition, and the upcoming Vintage Edit is having similar problems; Adywan's Revisited resolved some problems through meticulous compositing, but it avoided some of the biggest OOT shots. The biggest contribution X0 can make is provided us with the elements to finally rescue these OOT-exclusive shots, and thats why I want to see it released, or at the very least concentrate on just these elements. X0 is sort of unnecessary now, color-correcting the HD SE is a much better option for about 90% of the film, but X0's gift could be providing some working elements to better fill in that missing 10%.
Post
#318387
Topic
The Empire Strikes Back - The Vintage Edit (Released)
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318387/action/topic#318387
Time
The Griff said:

I agree with zombie84. Film grain is a natural byproduct of photography and varies from shot to shot, depending on the film and lighting conditions. To simply add a layer of grain would betray its artificial source. And, surely the issue is not of the lack of grain itself but rather the detail that was removed along with the grain? Adding grain back into the picture will not restore any of that lost detail, no more than adding hiss to audio would enhance its texture or clarity.


wrong thread. ;)
Post
#318171
Topic
State of the Trilogy/ annual SW depression
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318171/action/topic#318171
Time
Digital matte paintings are computer generated imagery, also known as CGI.

I agree, Raiders is a product of its time, why bother changing it, the effects still hold up even though they don't look brand new, and theres lots of other instances of matte lines and such. The problem is that if you fix one then you open the pandoras box to fixing all of them, and thats not necessary. But theres the old HD broadcast of the original, untouched Raiders if people really want it, so its not a huge travesty. I mean it is, but unlike Star Wars we can live.
Post
#318101
Topic
Oh yeah!!! Lucas...clueless as ever.
Link
https://originaltrilogy.com/post/id/318101/action/topic#318101
Time
I thought ID4 had really realistic effects and really well-rounded characters. People pick on that film because the action is so over the top, but its terrifically written and well acted. Its a complete dishonor to the humorous and likeable performances in that film to compare it the prequels. ID4 is a guilty pleasure, but its well above dreck like Attack of the Clones or Wing Commander, it actually has some genuine heart in it, and I think thats because its was one of Devlin/Emmerich's first and most personal projects (along with Stargate--another terrific and fun film, even though its not anything extraordinary, like ID4). To me, its everything a great summer blockbuster should be, like Iron Man or Jurassic Park or Pirates of the Carribbean, it entertains with eye candy but keeps the characters front and center and thats the reason why all these films are talked about.