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)



- commodorejohn - 03-29-2016

AHoly shit, I forgot until now how bad KOTCS looked.

And yeah, I can't think of any '50s films that were conspicuously glowy. Even Norman Rockwell's paintings of that era weren't so over-lit. The Thomas Kinkade comparison is much more on the money, though for the life of me I can't think of what that would be doing in an Indy film.


- user_32 - 03-29-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post







The DVD cover for The Naked Jungle. Is that cheating?




- MichaelM - 03-29-2016

Does the actual film look like that?




- Stale Elvis - 03-29-2016

A[quote name="MichaelM" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/450#post_4039430"]Does the actual film look like that?
[/quote]

Yep. That's the question we were asking ourselves in 2008.


- carnotaur3 - 03-29-2016

That's what I'm getting at. Kaminski is riffing on the cultural idea of the 50's based on advertisement materials. It's interesting way to start the film with the teenagers and the car. After that, it just perplexes why he kept it going throughout the whole film.




- MichaelM - 03-29-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

Does the actual film look like that?

Yep. That's the question we were asking ourselves in 2008.


No, I meant The Naked Jungle. I had the unfortunate experience of seeing KOTCS twice in the theater and it looked like ass each time.




- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

I don't see the white diffusion halos in THE NAKED JUNGLE.



(I don't even know what these terms mean, I just know the movie looks bad.  Someone knowledgeable may be able to articulate just what Kaminski was doing from a technical standpoint.)




- commodorejohn - 03-29-2016

ANo, The Naked Jungle definitely does not look like that:
[IMG ALT=""]http://www.chud.com/community/content/type/61/id/220750/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]


- Belloq87 - 03-29-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post

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



Oh, man.  I remember having a vocal reaction to seeing this shot in the theater.  I believe I mumbled "Ick" to myself.  Just horrendous lighting.



The entire jungle chase is a nightmare.  There's some great practical stuntwork, but between the photography and the extra layer of CGI foliage Spielberg apparently felt was needed (to say nothing of the shots where the surroundings are entirely CG), the whole sequence is just ugly as hell to look at.  The sword fight section is especially atrocious from a visual standpoint.



So yeah... Kaminski better get his shit together for the next one.




- carnotaur3 - 03-29-2016

Something makes me think Spielberg wanted to get back on the Indy train after seeing The Force Awakens, a movie that actually went to exotic locations, had a bunch of practical effects and used its CGI really well. Something in his heart made him go, "Maybe I should try this again and do a better job."




- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

The problem is that we've seen no evidence that Spielberg felt he did a bad job with CRYSTAL SKULL.  He and Kaminski beamed with pride in the documentaries when they discussed how they put aside their ego and matched Slocombe's work.  Blergh.




- user_32 - 03-29-2016

Spielberg has said he's proud of the film but also acknowledges that he's aware fans dislike it.



Quote:
 "I'm very happy with the movie. I always have been... I sympathise with people who didn't like the MacGuffin because I never liked the MacGuffin. George and I had big arguments about the MacGuffin. I didn't want these things to be either aliens or inter-dimensional beings. But I am loyal to my best friend. When he writes a story he believes in - even if I don't believe in it - I'm going to shoot the movie the way George envisaged it. I'll add my own touches, I'll bring my own cast in, I'll shoot the way I want to shoot it, but I will always defer to George as the storyteller of the Indy series. I will never fight him on that."


And on the specifics of the criticisms, Spielberg takes some of them as a badge of pride. "The gopher was good. I have the stand-in one at home. What people really jumped at was Indy climbing into a refrigerator and getting blown into the sky by an atom-bomb blast. Blame me. Don't blame George. That was my silly idea. People stopped saying "jump the shark". They now say, "nuked the fridge". I'm proud of that. I'm glad I was able to bring that into popular culture."



http://www.empireonline.com/movies/news/spielberg-indy-jurassic-park/



Quote:

To Spielberg, the general opinion about the series is split down the middle. “I think audiences think we’re two for two. They love Raiders,” he said. “They love Last Crusade. They don’t love as much Temple of Doom or Crystal Skull.” Taking that into consideration, the director still feels no requirement for a fifth film.


“I would not make a fifth movie to prove any point. If we get a good story, I’ll make it. If George [Lucas] doesn’t think we should make any more, I’ll listen to him,” Spielberg said.


http://www.mtv.com/news/1675881/steven-spielberg-indiana-jones-5/




- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

Yeah but Spielberg is basically taking the position that the people who dislike the film dislike the alien aspect, because that's what his objection always was.  Even the gopher and the fridge aren't really emblematic of what makes the film weak.  If the movie's worst problem was, "These bits were too goofy," we'd hold it in vastly different esteem.




- user_32 - 03-29-2016

But he's also acknowledging he wasn't on board for the basic plot of the film. Just as he didn't make Temple of Doom 2 after that backlash he received, he won't be making Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 2 either.




- fatherdude - 03-29-2016

Doesn't he explicitly dislike TEMPLE OF DOOM though, in contrast with being happy with CRYSTAL SKULL?  His qualms with the former run deeper than the artifact.




- user_32 - 03-29-2016

Yeah but his comment about audiences thinking they're two for two points that he'll be aware of that when filming the fifth film. He makes these films for us after all. I think he's a little more on guard with this than the last time.




- arjen rudd - 03-29-2016

AThis is what he's saying publically, by the way. I trust him to have thoughts he doesn't share with us.


- carnotaur3 - 03-29-2016

Indiana Jones and the Last of the Malignant Tumor




I'm bored.




- user_32 - 03-29-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd View Post

This is what he's saying publically, by the way. I trust him to have thoughts he doesn't share with us.


"Fucking audiences! Don't know shit!!"




- arjen rudd - 03-29-2016

ASeriously, do you think he's saying anything close to his true feelings on the subject? To the Internet? This is the guy who refuses to record commentary tracks because they ruin the mystique.


- carnotaur3 - 03-29-2016

As a director myself, I kind of agree with him a bit. Why talk about your own art? If you wanted answers, go back to the artwork. That's where the director said all he wanted to say.




- mr. stockslivevan - 03-29-2016

AThe haziness reminded me of VERTIGO as that made a lot of use of that filter when the scene suited it. My mind only went to that because that was released in 1958, the same year as CRYSTAL SKULL is supposed to take place. And it goes without saying, Burks made better use of the method.



[IMG ALT=""]http://www.chud.com/community/content/type/61/id/220775/width/500/height/71000[/IMG]

[IMG ALT=""]http://www.chud.com/community/content/type/61/id/220776/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]


- hammerhead - 03-29-2016

If Crystal Skull had been about Indy obsessing over an unattainable woman and losing himself in a world where present and past co-mingle, I might have accepted that as a valid visual strategy.




- fatherdude - 03-30-2016

I believe there's more going on with CRYSTAL SKULL than the diffusion filters, though they're a major factor.  Slocombe actually busted those out on occasion in LAST CRUSADE, particularly in the Grail chamber, giving it a dream-like look that is extremely similar to the VERTIGO screenshots:






Note the soft, hazy look and the blooming of light sources.  From what I understand, this effect is achieved with physical filters on the camera.  It's one thing to use it to create a certain effect for specific scenes, but Kaminski left them on for the whole production, and blasting light on everyone's faces I'm sure aggravates the consequences.  CRYSTAL SKULL seems to also have a bit of a desaturated look, so I don't know if he also did some degree of bleach bypass (SAVING PRIVATE RYAN being a prime example of that effect) and digital intermediate.



Whatever his process, Kaminski's result is utterly artless and fails at its stated task of compatibility with the preceding films.



I've been trying to improve my understanding of this stuff, so I've been seeking out reactions circa the movie's release from quarters where people know how to articulate these things.  Here's what a guy on a cinematography forum had to say:



Quote:
I don't think anyones telling Kaminski how to light. Its also not the first time he's done this style. Ie: he didn't really grab hold of Slocombe's lighting cues (classic 3 point extemporized beautifully) but did pretty much what he always does.

Similar techniques (ie: heavy diffusion, blasted halating light, soft offside key in daylight situations, liberally overcooked use of negative fill in daylight situations, flare, lack of matching from shot to shot) have been used by him in Munich, Jurassic 2, AI, Amistad, Minority Report.

IMVHO I preferred the look of Spielbergs films as shot by Allen Daviau, Vilmos Zsigmond, Douglas Slocombe, and Dean Cundey. I find them more maturely photographed films whereas films shot by Kaminski I find to be slightly immature in photographic terms - like someone learning. (All great DP's IMVHO learn to respect story, immature ones show off (Smoke, backlight, bleach bypass, cross processing, excessive filtration (esp. diffusion), excessive flare, motion artifacts, dutch angles, etc, etc).

Film school usually works out those kinks in a cameraman - ie: you get them out of your system over a few years of shooting and learn to support the script more invisibly. All, repectfully, IMVHO.



- mondguy - 03-30-2016

Not to dump on Kaminski (I love his stuff on Schindler's/Ryan/A.I./Minority Report/WOTW), but I recall a review of 'Lost World' calling out the rookie 'mistake' of not having filters on the windows in Hammond's bedroom, resulting in a 'nuclear blast' look from outside.



I haven't seen it in a while, but I remember Kaminski's work on 'Catch Me If You Can' being more naturalistic.



Despite my misgivings with the film, I was greatly impressed by Dan Mindel's work on Episode VII.  He showed he could dump the stylized tics, and it was amazingly lush looking, closer to Slocombe's work by far.




- Stale Elvis - 03-30-2016

Love the look of Schidler's List but hate hate hate the bleached look of Minority Report and WotW.




- fatherdude - 03-30-2016

There's at least an argument to be made for Kaminski's style in the context of a science fiction thriller or horror film.  But when your overt intention is to respect the established visual style of the earlier Indiana Jones movies, well, I don't know how much room there is to defend his choices on CRYSTAL SKULL.




- Evi - 03-30-2016

Honestly, anyone who can call Kaminski's shooting immature must have rocks in his head. The guy's a fucking master, he's just not perfect. Crystal Skull is shot the absolute wrong way, but I can guarantee you 80% of that was Spielberg. It'd have been his decision to go for that look. If he really wanted Slocombe's photography emulated he sure as shit could've done so.




- fatherdude - 03-30-2016

Quote:


Originally Posted by Evi View Post
 

The guy's a fucking master, he's just not perfect. Crystal Skull is shot the absolute wrong way, but I can guarantee you 80% of that was Spielberg. It'd have been his decision to go for that look.



It was his decision to sign off on it, but I don't think it's even up for debate that the style originated from Kaminski seeing as he's employing many of his usual tricks here.



I worship Spielberg.  He's a master at what he does, but he's not a screenwriter, and his taste in screenplays has been highly questionable over the years.  See: Hiring David Koepp five (5) times.  Why couldn't his judgment of cinematography be equally suspect?  He told Kaminski he wanted to honor Slocombe, and the results that came back did not meet with his disapproval.  What can I say?  They're both to blame.




- carnotaur3 - 03-30-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead View Post
 

If Crystal Skull had been about Indy obsessing over an unattainable woman and losing himself in a world where present and past co-mingle, I might have accepted that as a valid visual strategy.


Yeah, it's not so much that it was used. It's that it had no reason to exist at all - and was ugly. I thought using it for the opening with the teenagers was a perfect way to use it. A few scenes later, having it hop a glow on Indy's face as he says "Russians" was already a step too far.




- fatherdude - 05-05-2016

Won't be much discuss on Indy 5 for awhile yet, but I did learn of another CRYSTAL SKULL missed opportunity today.  Apparently, at some point during pre-production, someone had the idea that Spalko would get part of her face chewed up in the ant attack.  Concept art by Miles Teves:





Spielberg must have nixed this during the same meeting he decided that Spalko's death should be bloodless and without impact.




- arjen rudd - 05-05-2016

AThat would have been fun. There aren't too many movies that actually needed to be more violent, but this was sure one of them.


- Paul C - 05-05-2016

A[quote name="Arjen Rudd" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/500#post_4060206"]There aren't too many movies that actually needed to be more violent[/quote]

I don't know, I can think of quite a few!


- MichaelM - 05-05-2016

Age of Innocence would've been vastly improved by DDL's character becoming a vampire and wreaking bloody vengeance on the stupid rules-obsessed upper class.




- user_32 - 05-05-2016

Scorsese, that G-Rated mother fucker! Always avoiding the violence!