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 - 10-20-2016

A[quote name="Fraid uh noman" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1080#post_4156009"]I could've sworn that Temple of Doom WAS what became of that haunted house idea. [/quote]
The haunted house idea was around for a while and took many different forms.


- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

AI think having the haunted castle for the second act would be fine. I wouldn't keep it around for the whole film though.


- fraid uh noman - 10-20-2016

AThis is a weird comparison but Speed came to mind. A whole action movie set on a bus doesn't sound feasible. It's very limited. And the bus is all most people remember. They forget that there's action scenes before and after the bus. I would think that a haunted house/castle Indy movie would do something structurally similar..


- fatherdude - 10-20-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

Disney has shown they're not totally averse to macabre elements - stuff in the PIRATES movies gets into horror-type territory



Every PIRATES film is substantially more frightening than CRYSTAL SKULL.



Here's an interesting exercise: compare the quicksand scene in Stephen Sommers' THE JUNGLE BOOK to the one in CRYSTAL SKULL.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post
 

A haunted house Indy would be really hard to pull off. Globe-trotting is a HUGE part of the character's appeal and DNA, and a haunted house is by nature a smaller, fixed location. A haunted fortress or castle might be more workable....maybe.



There is a risk of being claustrophobic with a haunted castle movie (we should assume it would be a castle), but Belloq87's point about TEMPLE OF DOOM is spot-on.  That movie delivered excellent location work before going subterranean.  You would just need to front-load the exotic locales.



Execution is part of this as well.  Despite half of it taking place in catacombs, TEMPLE feels more globe-trotting than CRYSTAL SKULL, because even though the second half of CRYSTAL SKULL takes place in South America, it never actually sells you on the idea that you've been transported there, because they didn't film there except for background plates.  So it left you with just a sense of hopping from backlot to soundstage.  Yes, the other movies often resorted to aping locations (RAIDERS subbed Tunisia for Egypt, etc.), but at least they actually brought the damn camera to real locations.  CRYSTAL SKULL lacks those genuine, evocative settings like TEMPLE had with Sri Lanka or LAST CRUSADE had with Petra.  Bizarrely, CRYSTAL SKULL's best locations were in the United States!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

I could've sworn that Temple of Doom WAS what became of that haunted house idea.


It's possible that it was explored both before and after TEMPLE, but the rumors are that it was one of the earliest ideas for the third Indy movie (and this was back when it would have just been INDY III, rather than a finale).  The story goes that Diane Thomas of ROMANCING THE STONE fame was approached before her death to write this version, but Spielberg nixed the idea for its similarity to TEMPLE and/or POLTERGEIST.



As noted by Agentsands77, the subsequent Monkey King script by Chris Columbus made the teaser a haunted mansion story, either to honor the fallen premise or simply in keeping with the Indy tradition of carrying over leftover ideas.



I think the holy grail was pitched somewhere in between by Lucas, but Spielberg initially rejected it because he could only associate it with Monty Python.  It wasn't until they came up with the father/son angle and the way that could parallel the quest for the grail that Spielberg came around.




- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

ASpielberg's smart like that. He really needs the emotional connection and heart for Indy to have a reason to go after something.

Skull is the exception but we all know that story.


- agentsands77 - 10-20-2016

AIf you guys are curious about this stuff and what was pitched when, check out the excellent Rinzler JONES book. It goes into the script progressions of the original trilogy in detail.


- Belloq87 - 10-20-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


It's definitely true.

His notion of what these movies should be has shifted so much since the 80s. I think he can still bring the magic, but no matter what, INDY V will be broad and cartoonish.

It's kind of frustrating, because he's shown that he can still bring an edge to things (the double whammy of WAR OF THE WORLDS and MUNICH, for example).  I don't know why he feels he needs to sanitize Indy to be more acceptable to kids; he must somehow not realize that the original three (despite some whining around TEMPLE OF DOOM) were acceptable to - and loved by - kids, as well as adults.


 

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

Execution is part of this as well.  Despite half of it taking place in catacombs, TEMPLE feels more globe-trotting than CRYSTAL SKULL, because even though the second half of CRYSTAL SKULL takes place in South America, it never actually sells you on the idea of being transported there, because they didn't film there except for background plates.  So it left you with just a sense of hopping from backlot to soundstage.


100%.  CRYSTAL SKULL's locations all have the same bland quality... because (for the most part) they were shot on stages and brought to life through hideous Kaminski lighting and photography.




- fatherdude - 10-20-2016

I think if they had plugged in even one brief montage where the actors are shown trekking across Peruvian landscapes, it would have made a material difference.  There was a perfect opportunity to depict the journey Indy and Mutt take from the asylum to the cemetery - I'm talking a twenty-second sequence here that isn't just stock footage - but instead they apparently thought it would be better to transition from some etchings on a stone floor to a CGI helicopter shot of the cemetery set.



LAST CRUSADE probably shot in Venice for one day, but that was worth it because it sells the illusion in a way that wouldn't be possible if it was all backlot.  I think of the birds on the jungle gym behind Tippi Hedren in THE BIRDS.  Because some of the birds were real, it didn't matter that most weren't, because just having that small degree of movement sells the whole illusion.  But CRYSTAL SKULL doesn't bother with one live bird!




- agentsands77 - 10-20-2016

A[quote name="Belloq87" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1080#post_4156037"]It's kind of frustrating, because he's shown that he can still bring an edge to things (the double whammy of WAR OF THE WORLDS and MUNICH, for example).  I don't know why he feels he needs to sanitize Indy to be more acceptable to kids; he must somehow not realize that the original three (despite some whining around TEMPLE OF DOOM) were acceptable to - and loved by - kids, as well as adults.
[/quote]
Yeah.

Oh, well. If we get a live-action TINTIN I'll be fine. INDY V doesn't have to bring me back to the 80s. It just has to have some energy.


- agentsands77 - 10-20-2016

A[quote name="FatherDude" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1080#post_4156049"]I think of the birds on the jungle gym behind Tippi Hedren in THE BIRDS.  Because some of the birds were real, it didn't matter that most weren't, because just having that small degree of movement sells the whole illusion.  But CRYSTAL SKULL doesn't bother with one live bird!
[/quote]
I love this illustration.


- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

A[quote name="Belloq87" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1080#post_4156037"]It's kind of frustrating, because he's shown that he can still bring an edge to things (the double whammy of WAR OF THE WORLDS and MUNICH, for example).  I don't know why he feels he needs to sanitize Indy to be more acceptable to kids; he must somehow not realize that the original three (despite some whining around TEMPLE OF DOOM) were acceptable to - and loved by - kids, as well as adults.

100%.  CRYSTAL SKULL's locations all have the same bland quality... because (for the most part) they were shot on stages and brought to life through hideous Kaminski lighting and photography.
[/quote]

I take great offense to saying "brought to life" in regards to Kaminski's lame duck imitation of Slocombe's technicolor photography.


- agentsands77 - 10-20-2016

AKaminski embalmed that movie.


- fatherdude - 10-20-2016

"Douglas Slocombe shot the first three Indy films, and his lighting style defined a genre of serialized action adventure. I needed to show them to Janusz, because I didn’t want Janusz to modernize and bring us into the 21st century. I still wanted the film to have a lighting style not dissimilar to the work Doug Slocombe had achieved, which meant that both Janusz and I had to swallow our pride."



- Steven Spielberg







You know what's interesting though - the new 4K version of RAIDERS, which is the same version the Blu-ray is sourced from - has had the color-correction controversially revisited (you may have heard wails about brown leaves and orange swastikas), and I'll be damned if it doesn't have a similarly yellow complexion to CRYSTAL SKULL.  Is Spielberg retroactively trying to make CRYSTAL SKULL look consistent, or is that really what RAIDERS was supposed to look like from the beginning?  Palette aside though, Kaminiski's bloom filter horseshit is still not consonant with the previous films.



TEMPLE OF DOOM and LAST CRUSADE still look like the 80s movies they are on Blu-ray, and did not undergo the same process.




- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

AGet that fucking green/yellow shit out of my Indy.


- agentsands77 - 10-20-2016

AThere is a fan edit that performed substantial color correction and did a pretty good job of it.

None of the YouTube clips are available anymore, alas.


- fatherdude - 10-20-2016

It's not just the color correction, though.  Kaminski put those damned diffusion filters on the physical camera lens.  It's inoperable.




- agentsands77 - 10-20-2016

A[quote name="FatherDude" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1080#post_4156090"]It's not just the color correction, though.  Kaminski put those damned diffusion filters on the physical camera lens.  It's inoperable.
[/quote]
Yeah. But the fan edit applied filters to minimize that.

It wasn't perfect, but it did look much closer to the OT Indy flicks.


- Belloq87 - 10-20-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post


I take great offense to saying "brought to life" in regards to Kaminski's lame duck imitation of Slocombe's technicolor photography.

Point taken!



Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

"Douglas Slocombe shot the first three Indy films, and his lighting style defined a genre of serialized action adventure. I needed to show them to Janusz, because I didn’t want Janusz to modernize and bring us into the 21st century. I still wanted the film to have a lighting style not dissimilar to the work Doug Slocombe had achieved, which meant that both Janusz and I had to swallow our pride."



- Steven Spielberg



I fucking hate this quote, but it's quite revealing.  It implies that Spielberg was aware of the necessity to make CRYSTAL SKULL feel of-a-piece with the first three films, visually, but it reveals that he and Kaminski either had no clue how to pull that off in the 21st century... or were deluded enough to believe they actually had!  In either case, I hope Spielberg's got his and Kaminski's heads screwed on straight for INDY V.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post

There is a fan edit that performed substantial color correction and did a pretty good job of it.

None of the YouTube clips are available anymore, alas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post


Yeah. But the fan edit applied filters to minimize that.

It wasn't perfect, but it did look much closer to the OT Indy flicks.

If you ever stumble across any of these clips, please do share them.  I'd love to see the attempt, even if it's not perfect.  Just for kicks.




- mr. stockslivevan - 10-20-2016

A[quote name="FatherDude" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1100_50#post_4156090"]It's not just the color correction, though.  Kaminski put those damned diffusion filters on the physical camera lens.  It's inoperable.
[/quote]

I always assumed he was trying to imitate a film from the 50s that used considerable diffusion, like VERTIGO. It just doesn't fit well with Indy.


- fatherdude - 10-20-2016

The diffusion filters are a Kaminski stand-by.  He was doing his usual thing despite the clear objective being to emulate Slocombe.




- atomtastic - 10-20-2016

Ugh, I hate Kaminski so much.




- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

AKaminski is only allowed two diffused shots per movie.


- fatherdude - 10-20-2016

The style has to serve the material.  His work felt appropriate for the likes of MINORITY REPORT and WAR OF THE WORLDS.  So maybe his indulgences just happen to be a better fit for dystopian stories?  I certainly find that easier to believe than the idea that it was some deliberate homage to 50s cinema gone horribly awry.



And Spielberg is absolutely culpable.  He was the guy who looked at the dailies and said, "Yup, nailed it!"  And the fact that he approved that new RAIDERS transfer makes him suspect enough that I can almost believe that he thought they were successful in "swallowing their pride."



I know I'm contributing to a retread of a Kaminksi dog-pile we already went through exhaustively upthread, but what can I say?  They messed it up that bad, and we're talking about the very look of the film, which is kinda fundamental.  And I'd be lying if I said I expect INDY 5 to look different.




- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

ASpielberg has said in the past that his ET alterations weren't a good decision. We'll have to wait and see.


- Stale Elvis - 10-20-2016

AI always get the impression that Spielberg owns up to his mistakes or 'artistic decisions' eventually - it's just that he can't admit them when he's too close to them, it takes time and distance for him to see where he didn't pull something off. And woe be tired anyone who points out any flaw in his decisions first.


- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

AAt least Spielberg can dissolve his ego in those instances.


- Stale Elvis - 10-20-2016

AYeah eventually. Which kind of gives me a bit of hope for Indy V - if he's got enough distance from KotCS he may well admit, if only to himself, that there were issues on pretty much every level.


- mr. stockslivevan - 10-20-2016

AFrom what I understand the blu-ray is more accurate to the 35mm prints with the warmer tones whereas the DVD had a cooler palette due to Lowry typically doing that to their transfers.


- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

ASpielberg will have already made up for Skull by making a movie in multiple locations that are exotic and thrilling to look at. Leave the sound stages to caves, temples and castles.


- fraid uh noman - 10-20-2016

AIf he hasn't come around to seeing Temple of Doom as one of his great movies by now, I don't have much hope of him throwing KOTCS under the bus (where it belongs) either. He doesn't give himself nearly enough credit for Temple of Doom. I can't imagine why he dislikes it so much....unless he had some sort of horrendously awful experience making it. That'd be most other director's best film..


- mr. stockslivevan - 10-20-2016

A[quote name="Fraid uh noman" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1100_50#post_4156300"]If he hasn't come around to seeing Temple of Doom as one of his great movies by now, I don't have much hope of him throwing KOTCS under the bus (where it belongs) either. He doesn't give himself nearly enough credit for Temple of Doom. I can't imagine why he dislikes it so much....unless he had some sort of horrendously awful experience making it. That'd be most other director's best film..[/quote]

I think he's just turned off to the gruesomeness of it. Notice that his films only play gruesome if they're meant to be horrifying, after DOOM he's no longer so casual about depicting graphic violence in films families will go see. Just different sensibilities from what he used to have.


- wd40 - 10-20-2016

The interesting thing is that I don't think KotCS is completely worthless. There is some fun to be had, and I love the general idea. It's just that stuff that sucks REALLY sucks, and they don't just lessen the movie, they flat out ruin it.




- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

AThose things are few and far between though. There isn't anything consistent in KOTCS. You cannot say that about the other films. What's hard for me to locate in Skull is its identity and uniquness. Doom Town has it, but what about everything else? Man, the CGI environments ruin a lot about the movie.


- fraid uh noman - 10-20-2016

AThe Lost World is pretty dang gruesome. A couple of the deaths in it are straight up brutal and mean.

That's another one that I've never understood people being so TOTALLY dismissive of. I get it to a point....sure it's not as good as JP....and it definitely qualifies as "lesser" Spielberg....but saying it's as bad (or worse) than Hook or Crystal Skull just smacks of hyperbole. It's also one of the better looking movies that Kaminski shot IMO. Doesn't look too jarringly different from JP and certainly richer looking than Indy 4..


- wd40 - 10-20-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

Those things are few and far between though. There isn't anything consistent in KOTCS. You cannot say that about the other films. What's hard for me to locate in Skull is its identity and uniquness. Doom Town has it, but what about everything else? Man, the CGI environments ruin a lot about the movie.

Fair enough. I have additional bias because I don't hate the character of Mutt quite as much as many others. I imagine there might be more successful scenes for me than some as a result.