The Trouble City Forums
INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion - Printable Version

+- The Trouble City Forums (http://citizens.trouble.city)
+-- Forum: Main Street (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Focused Film Discussion (http://citizens.trouble.city/forumdisplay.php?fid=94)
+--- Thread: INDIANA JONES and you're actually fucking serious pre-release discussion (/showthread.php?tid=155331)



- agentsands77 - 03-24-2016

A[quote name="mcnooj82" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/450#post_4036840"]I kinda don't think he does!

But he should go for it!
[/quote]
Yeah, I don't think Spielberg has it in him, either. The fire in his gut just isn't there anymore, as far as I can tell. (I'd love to be proved wrong, though.)

What I think we'll get is something like a live action version of Spielberg's TINTIN. Which, really, is fine by me.


- ravi - 03-25-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

one magical (not sure how much basis the stones have in actual history....though I'm familiar with Thuggees and Shiva and all that).

The Sankara Stones are based on sacred symbols of Lord Shiva called Shiva Lingas. Shrines containing Lingams can be found in the remote areas of India and Nepal.



You can read about them here:



http://hinduism.about.com/od/lordshiva/a/What-Is-Shiva-Linga.htm



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lingam




- Stale Elvis - 03-25-2016

A[quote name="Agentsands77" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/450#post_4036852"]
Yeah, I don't think Spielberg has it in him, either. The fire in his gut just isn't there anymore, as far as I can tell. (I'd love to be proved wrong, though.)

What I think we'll get is something like a live action version of Spielberg's TINTIN. Which, really, is fine by me.[/quote]

I honestly think he can pull it off. Not bashing, but without Lucas I think Ford will look to Speilberg and say come on buddy, one last time. Remember when we were kings?

Ford's had a light under him since TFA and I think that's so much to do with Lucas being out of the picture and Disney giving the talent the space and belief to do what they do best and not interfere. I think they'll give Spielberg pretty much free reign on this knowing they're going to make bank on the talent and franchise name alone.


- Paul C - 03-25-2016

AWar Of The Worlds is the one I cling to to prove latter day Spielberg still has it in him to do rollicking action, stakes, tension etc, it was one of the main reasons I was hopeful for Crystal Skull to the last.

Tintin gives me pause though. That was basically Indy lite by design, but it just kind of washes over you and it's easy to forget it exists after it ends.


- mr. stockslivevan - 03-25-2016

AWhat's different with WAR OF THE WORLDS was that Spielberg was in it to horrify you, not provide the kind of excitement from Indy. I think that's the main difference. CRYSTAL SKULL and TINTIN are really where his mindset is at when it comes to adventure films for the family. I'll truly be surprised if he brings back the kind of grit he used to have in RAIDERS.


- agentsands77 - 03-25-2016

A[quote name="Mr. Stockslivevan" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/450#post_4036972"]What's different with WAR OF THE WORLDS was that Spielberg was in it to horrify you, not provide the kind of excitement from Indy. I think that's the main difference. CRYSTAL SKULL and TINTIN are really where his mindset is at when it comes to adventure films for the family. I'll truly be surprised if he brings back the kind of grit he used to have in RAIDERS.[/quote]
Yep.

Hopefully, INDY V will be more carefully crafted than KINGDOM. TINTIN could have been a spectacular movie if it had been live action, so I think Spielberg has it in him to do one or two more great cinematic roller coasters.

But tonally, I definitely expect it to be a lighter film. He views these as family movies.


- fraid uh noman - 03-25-2016

AIf anybody can rekindle their creative fire, it's gotta be Spielberg. Have we so little faith? How could he possibly let Crystal Skull happen again?


- agentsands77 - 03-25-2016

A[quote name="Fraid uh noman" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/450#post_4037018"]If anybody can rekindle their creative fire, it's gotta be Spielberg. Have we so little faith? How could he possibly let Crystal Skull happen again?[/quote]
O, I definitely believe he'll deliver something better than CRYSTAL SKULL. It might even be great. But quality and tone aren't the same thing.

Those expecting a harder edge to return to the series will almost certainly be disappointed.


- fraid uh noman - 03-25-2016

AI can live without the harder edge as long as it's good Indy..


- MichaelM - 03-25-2016

People forget about the exploding heads. The Indy films are generally viewed as "family" films by most people, I'd argue. A lot of folks would likely say not good for little kids but fine for middle school and up.




- fraid uh noman - 03-25-2016

AIndiana Jones was that great delicious type of terrifying and fucked up when you're 5 or so. I know. I remember Smile


- commodorejohn - 03-25-2016

A[quote name="Fraid uh noman" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/450#post_4037038"]Indiana Jones was that great delicious type of terrifying and fucked up when you're 5 or so. I know. I remember Smile[/quote]
Ditto. Who says little kids can't watch God melt a Nazi's face off?


- user_32 - 03-25-2016

I think Spielberg always thought of the Indy films as family films. Why else cast an 8 year old as Indy's sidekick in the second one.




- agentsands77 - 03-25-2016

A[quote name="User_32" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/450#post_4037047"]I think Spielberg always thought of the Indy films as family films. Why else cast an 8 year old as Indy's sidekick in the second one. 
[/quote]
This is true, but Spielberg's sense of what a family film should be has evolved a lot from where he was in the early 80s.


- user_32 - 03-25-2016

True. He didn't have kids of his own until 1985.




- Belloq87 - 03-25-2016

I've always viewed the Indiana Jones movies as basically "all ages" movies.  Yes, some of the violence (especially in the first two) is too rough for really young kids, but for the most part I think the movies appeal to pretty much everyone.  As they should.



What that's going to look like filtered through Spielberg at this point in his career is likely TINTIN-esque, as others have said, and I'm okay with that.




- agentsands77 - 03-25-2016

A[quote name="Belloq87" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/450#post_4037064"]
What that's going to look like filtered through Spielberg at this point in his career is likely TINTIN-esque, as others have said, and I'm okay with that.
[/quote]
Me too. As long as this film has energy and drive.

That said, I was reading through the big "Making of" book for the Indy films and was struck by just how much of these films is really George. Not just in ideas, but in story structure and characters. I wonder if Lucas contributed to the basic story idea for this new film in the past, but stepped aside now that Disney owns the character, or whether he wasn't really interested in the project to begin with (in interviews, he always seemed kinda reticent and hesitant about INDY V).

We'll see what Spielberg does when he has free rein.


- mr. stockslivevan - 03-26-2016

AThat's pretty much true for any film Lucas produced since EMPIRE when he started hiring directors to shoot his films, partly because he didn't like the actual process that came with directing and that he was busy running his LucasFilm empire. Every director from Spielberg to Ron Howard will tell you all those films are all George's. If he was able to find a director to do the prequels, he might have hired that person, but that's the only time every one of his peers encouraged him to direct those films himself. They wanted to see the director George Lucas finally come out of the cave he had been hiding since the 70s. Just watch Spielberg visiting the workshops for THE PHANTOM MENACE. He's not just excited for that film, he's excited to see his buddy George making his comeback after 20 years. It's kind of sweet.

It is kind of weird now, because so many of us think of Indy being more of Spielberg's project than Lucas', only because he's such a big director it's kind of odd to think of him as merely working for another. Again, this is why I'm very curious of how a Lucas-less Indiana Jones film will turn out. It's a whole new ballgame.


- mike j - 03-26-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

That's pretty much true for any film Lucas produced since EMPIRE when he started hiring directors to shoot his films, partly because he didn't like the actual process that came with directing and that he was busy running his LucasFilm empire. Every director from Spielberg to Ron Howard will tell you all those films are all George's. If he was able to find a director to do the prequels, he might have hired that person, but that's the only time every one of his peers encouraged him to direct those films himself. They wanted to see the director George Lucas finally come out of the cave he had been hiding since the 70s. Just watch Spielberg visiting the workshops for THE PHANTOM MENACE. He's not just excited for that film, he's excited to see his buddy George making his comeback after 20 years. It's kind of sweet.

It is kind of weird now, because so many of us think of Indy being more of Spielberg's project than Lucas', only because he's such a big director it's kind of odd to think of him as merely working for another. Again, this is why I'm very curious of how a Lucas-less Indiana Jones film will turn out. It's a whole new ballgame.


I'd be much more interested if this had happened twenty-five years ago. Crystal Skull pretty much poisoned the well for me, even if Ford was having fun in Star Wars.




- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

Indy has been an underdog in terms of physicality, but it was never because he himself wasn't physically able.  It was more due to the insanity of the situation or because of a big cartoony goon to fight.



It still crushes down to Indy being incredibly overmatched, and that's a great setup regardless of age.  If anything, Indy being old and more vulnerable only heightens the stakes and makes it more effective.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

I think him being more vulnerable due to age strikes a very different tone that would be very difficult to get right while still being a FUN adventure movie (because that's what these are obligated to be).


I don't follow this line of thinking because it suggests that Indy's previous dilemmas were FUN due to his age, and not the tone the movies were striking, the performance of Harrison or the audacity of his plan.  Those hopeless situations could have been portrayed in a more dire way by a different sort of movie, but Indy's not in that sort of movie, so instead the reaction to the scene is an excited "How's Indy gonna get out of this jam?"  It's Indy's "Aw shit" that sets the tone of the rope bridge scene, not his six-pack.



CRYSTAL SKULL makes this pretty demonstrable when it still has a robust Indy (in my opinion) and manages to make his escapes not fun because it doesn't actually pay off those cliffhanger setups with clever/crazy solutions.  Indy has two dozen Soviet rifles aimed at him!  What's his plan!?  Oh, he's just going to drop his rifle and run.  Indy and his friends are cornered by a vicious tribe of spear-wielding natives!  What's his solution?!  Oh, John Hurt's magic skull repels them.  It's like they didn't finish writing the escapes.  And it's not really played for laughs, so that's not an excuse.  It's just lazy.



The Doomtown sequence ironically (in light of its controversy) gets it right, but that's a single instance; the movie should have been full of them.  If the writing in Indy 5 is better and they design some classic setups without forgetting the payoff part, I think they will work wonderfully, especially with a 75 year-old hero.




- MichaelM - 03-29-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

It is kind of weird now, because so many of us think of Indy being more of Spielberg's project than Lucas', only because he's such a big director it's kind of odd to think of him as merely working for another. Again, this is why I'm very curious of how a Lucas-less Indiana Jones film will turn out. It's a whole new ballgame.


If we look at RAIDERS, Lucas's influence is easy to discern...but so is Spielberg's. Lucas may be the one helping to birth these stories, but it's Spielberg who breathed them to life and gave them some magic.




- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

Lucas was also straight-up a much better storyteller back then.




- Stale Elvis - 03-29-2016

ACrystal Skull was onTV the other day so I sat through it. The Doomtown bit really is the highlight of the whole thing. I'm even on board with the fridge thing now, it's a great scene. But the one thing that ruins it, that just nudges it into Looney Tunes territory is the way it flies over the Ruskies' car. Delete that one single shot and the thing works.


- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

I think people seize on the fridge thing because it's an easy target.  You're so frustrated about the confusing, detached feeling the movie leaves you with that you start complaining about implausibility when in a better movie you'd be too distracted by the fact that you're, y'know, entertained.



The diffusion filters that give every character a sheen and a halo kill the immediacy too.  The movie looks hazy and fake even when there isn't CGI on the screen, and when there is the thing just becomes SKY CAPTAIN.  If you're constantly second-guessing what's green-screen work and what isn't, does the fact that some real stunts and locations are surfing somewhere on the ocean of pixels really matter?




- Stale Elvis - 03-29-2016

AThere's an odd bit when Indy and Mutt are walking towards the hospital in South America - the very very bottom of the screen has a dark gradient filter for no apparent reason. Just odd.


- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

I know exactly what you're talking about, and I swear that's not the only scene impacted.  It's like the bottom of the frame isn't quite given a fully defined edge.  I'd love to know what this movie looks like if I could peel the fucking layer of gauze off, but I'm pretty sure Kaminski was using physical lenses to give that odious result.  Though I'm sure some generous DI work was performed to put it over the top.  The effort to wreck the Indiana Jones visual identity was consummate.




- MichaelM - 03-29-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post


The diffusion filters that give every character a sheen and a halo kill the immediacy too.  The movie looks hazy and fake even when there isn't CGI on the screen, and when there is the thing just becomes SKY CAPTAIN.  If you're constantly second-guessing what's green-screen work and what isn't, does the fact that some real stunts and locations are surfing somewhere on the ocean of pixels really matter?



I think this helped ruin the film even for the norms, even if most of them couldn't articulate or pinpoint why. I mean, the film is broken in a lot of ways outside of the cinematography, but the entire look of the film is hazy and fake.




- carnotaur3 - 03-29-2016

Slocombe was always interested in creating pools of light with characters. Kaminski is interested in lighting faces. It's just not suited. Occasionally you get an interesting shot in KINGDOM with Indy behind a shroud and a ring of silhouette, but there's nothing dynamic going on. None of the shots actually enhances or advances the story, say like in TEMPLE OF DOOM where Indy is succumbing to the Kali Ma and falls into darkness, then his face fills the frame in light to see his change. Half the time, KINGDOM feels like a made for TV movie from the late 90s.




- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

I find it hard to forgive Spielberg for signing off on the look of the movie given his claims about actively trying to be consistent with Slocombe's work.  Is the man blind?  Kaminski does get the colors about right (although it's too subdued) and the shot composition is generally old-school, but good gravy is the bleached shininess a deal breaker.





What were they thinking?!




- Stale Elvis - 03-29-2016

AThey were thinking that according to the sunlight on the back wall, the sun was coming in from the upper right of that frame so as nothing else in this movie makes sense let's put the sunlight shining on the people coming from the upper left.


- user_32 - 03-29-2016

I think they were also trying to go for that 1950s look.




- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

I don't get it.  Did the 50s look like garbage?  Are there 50s movies that look like that?  And even if there are, weren't Spielberg and Kaminski talking in specifics about making it look like the other films?



The best part of that screenshot is there's not a wink of CGI in the scene, and it was shot on film at extra expense.  Yet it looks like it was born in a hard drive.




- Paul C - 03-29-2016

Yeah I've always been iffy on Kaminski's glowing light antics, he almost veers into Thomas Kinkade territory at times.




- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

An actual 50s movie.  Filmic, with no halos!





An actual Indiana Jones movie.  Still looking sharp!





A fake Indiana Jones movie.  Washed out, glowy, and hideous in any context.






Most of the B-movies CRYSTALL SKULL was referencing, like EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS and THEM!, were black and white anyway.  Does anybody have any 50s movies that might have been used as an inspiration, aesthetically?  Seeing one wouldn't make what they went with any more appropriate for an Indiana Jones movie, but it would at least help me understand where they were coming from.




- carnotaur3 - 03-29-2016

The only 50's material Kaminski was copying was fucking Advertisements!