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)



- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

A[quote name="wd40" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1110#post_4156307"]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.
[/quote]

It's not that everything is bad. They just don't rise to any sort of excitement. Mutt's fine... but just that.


- 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_4156306"]The 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..[/quote]

Good point about THE LOST WORLD, that's a pretty exceptional film in his post-SCHINDLER'S LIST years, for better or worse. Spielberg was pretty playful in that.


[video]https://youtu.be/9yNObSfUeM0[/video]


- fraid uh noman - 10-20-2016

AI hate it when people who talk shit about Crystal Skull can't think of any better criticism than "it was about fucking aliens." That was so not the problem there. I actually like that idea for a macguffin. It's different. There's no reason that couldn't have made a great movie..


- wd40 - 10-20-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

I hate it when people who talk shit about Crystal Skull can't think of any better criticism than "it was about fucking aliens." That was so not the problem there. I actually like that idea for a macguffin. It's different. There's no reason that couldn't have made a great movie..

That time period is cool because it reflects what was popular at the time: sci-fi movies. I love the idea that the movie tries to incorporate that.




- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

AI feel the movie didn't do enough with the aliens, but we know why that happened.

Wouldn't it have been cool to see Indy fighting people on flying saucers instead of tanks and trucks?


- fraid uh noman - 10-20-2016

ABy the end of it I wouldn't have been surprised if the alien turned out to be goddamn Jar Jar..


- Belloq87 - 10-20-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stale Elvis View Post

I 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.

I think Spielberg tends to be very clear-eyed about his work (and is likely harder on himself than we are when he has a miss), so I do think there's a chance he truly knows what they got wrong on CRYSTAL SKULL.  He's also an avowed reader of movie blogs, so at the very least he certainly knows the things in the movie that the fans don't like.  Whether he agrees or not is up in the air, but I do get the feeling that he's only making INDY V for one reason: to close out on a unanimously higher note than CRYSTAL SKULL.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

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:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post


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.

His reaction to TEMPLE OF DOOM looking back is almost certainly tinged by the "controversy" surrounding the movie's violence.  I think he feels the uproar was probably deserved, that he went too far in both TEMPLE - and also GREMLINS that summer.  But it is striking how quickly he turned his back on that sort of violence, only a couple of years removed from being the guy so giddy about the face-tearing scene in POLTERGEIST that he insisted on the hands being his hands.




- agentsands77 - 10-20-2016

AI'm sure Spielberg knows he needs to adjust some things for INDY V. He's acutely aware of how people feel about KINGDOM.


- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

ATo be fair, Spielberg was doing everyone's job on Poltergeist.


- draco senior - 10-20-2016

I heard he even handled the catering and transportation.




- fraid uh noman - 10-20-2016

ATobe Hooper held his Coke. So....he WAS there. I saw a picture!


- carnotaur3 - 10-20-2016

AIt's quite impressive for a director to hold both a can and a bag of it at the same time.


- fatherdude - 10-20-2016

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

From 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.


It's not just the Lowry transfer.  No prior home video release or telecast of RAIDERS is so gold-tinted, and some who saw the movie upon release testify it doesn't shakes hands with their memory either.  Which isn't proof of anything, but the people saying Spielberg was trying to better approximate his intended color timing with the new version are giving him the benefit of the doubt.  There's no real evidence pointing to that.



All I know is the movie looks different than what I grew up with, while TEMPLE and CRUSADE still look "correct."  And if RAIDERS has simply had the wrong colors since its theatrical release, why has this malady not affected JAWS, E.T., etc.?  I'm no expert on this stuff, but RAIDERS now looks suspiciously more "modern" with its modified color grading.



I dunno.  It's an interesting debate.  I know there's like a 500 page thread on Blu-ray.com of people bickering over it.



For those who don't know what Stock and I are talking about, here's a brief comparison reel ("WOWOW" is a Japanese TV station that aired an HD broadcast of RAIDERS):






- mr. stockslivevan - 10-20-2016

AThat's kind of the issue when one looks back to previous media versions like VHS and Laserdisc and assume they're truer to the original look of the film, when home media had more limitations.

I forget what forum it was, but someone took samples of the 35mm and compared it to the blu-ray and it didn't turn out to be all that different. Not blu-ray.com, as that forum seems to be filled with more argumentive people when it comes to picture presentation. I'll have to dig it up.

My only knowledge as far as film stock is that the ones used for RAIDERS had various issues that still crop up today for preservation. The 5247 Eastman, to be precise.


- mondguy - 10-20-2016

A[quote name="Fraid uh noman" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1110#post_4156312"]I hate it when people who talk shit about Crystal Skull can't think of any better criticism than "it was about fucking aliens." That was so not the problem there. I actually like that idea for a macguffin. It's different. There's no reason that couldn't have made a great movie..[/quote]

Absolutely. The problems are all in the execution. Even on a technical level, it's a mess. I can think of plenty of action beats I like from the prequels. None of the action scenes in KOTC had any effect on myself.


- fatherdude - 10-20-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

That's kind of the issue when one looks back to previous media versions like VHS and Laserdisc and assume they're truer to the original look of the film, when home media had more limitations.

I forget what forum it was, but someone took samples of the 35mm and compared it to the blu-ray and it didn't turn out to be all that different. Not blu-ray.com, as that forum seems to be filled with more argumentive people when it comes to picture presentation. I'll have to dig it up.

My only knowledge as far as film stock is that the ones used for RAIDERS had various issues that still crop up today for preservation. The 5247 Eastman, to be precise.


This is the best thread on the subject I could find.  Solid arguments in both directions:



http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Raiders-of-the-lost-ark-bluray-and-colour-timing-changes/id/15361/page/1




- mr. stockslivevan - 10-20-2016

AI like that forum. Very tempered folks just getting to the point.


- Belloq87 - 10-24-2016

Some very general thoughts from David Koepp on INDY V's development...



Exclusive: George Lucas Not Involved in ‘Indiana Jones 5’ Story; Writer David Koepp Talks ‘Crystal Skull’



Reading between the lines, it certainly seems like Koepp is very aware of CRYSTAL SKULL's perceived missteps.




- fatherdude - 10-24-2016

I'm pretty sure Spielberg previously stated that production is slotted for Summer '18, so it's interesting Koepp is musing about the possibility of filming this time next year.  Obviously, the earlier the better where Ford is concerned, but there's no reason not to spend as much time on the script as the release date generously gives them.



Good to hear the writing is going well from his perspective, though...




- Neil Spurn - 10-24-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post



Good to hear the writing is going well from his perspective, though...



I mean, what's he gonna say? That he just can't crack the damned thing and its a miserable slog?




- fatherdude - 10-24-2016

My ellipsis totally covered that sentiment!



With regard to Lucas...there's plenty of time for him decide he wants to make his mark on this.  Also, it sounds like the basic idea may have predated Koepp - maybe they're working off a concept Spielberg and Lucas had agreed to previously?




- Belloq87 - 10-24-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

My ellipsis totally covered that sentiment!



With regard to Lucas...there's plenty of time for him decide he wants to make his mark on this.  Also, it sounds like the basic idea may have predated Koepp - maybe they're working off a concept Spielberg and Lucas had agreed to previously?


I would be surprised if Spielberg - who clearly wanted nothing to do with the crystal skull/alien angle, but made the movie anyway - hadn't brainstormed a few ideas on his own in a "Boy, I really wish George had let me make a movie about this, instead!" kind of way.




- fatherdude - 10-24-2016

Interestingly though, I don't think Spielberg ever really had a counter-proposal for Indy 4 despite being cold on the alien idea.  His instinct was to let the series die.




- agentsands77 - 10-24-2016

A[quote name="FatherDude" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1140#post_4158451"]Interestingly though, I don't think Spielberg ever really had a counter-proposal for Indy 4 despite being cold on the alien idea.
[/quote]
Yep.

He didn't think the movie would ever really happen so he didn't really invest himself in its development.


- Belloq87 - 10-24-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

Interestingly though, I don't think Spielberg ever really had a counter-proposal for Indy 4 despite being cold on the alien idea.  His instinct was to let the series die.


That's probably true.  My thought was more the idea of Spielberg - while bogged down between setups of Cate Blanchett babbling nonsense about aliens and never-paid-off psychic powers - might have had some musings.




- fatherdude - 10-24-2016

Spielberg and Lucas made LAST CRUSADE a finale for different reasons - Spielberg because he wanted to move on, and Lucas because he felt he was out of ideas.  Lucas apparently would have been willing to keep making Indy if he felt he could find more stories (a responsibility he considered his own), and seeing middle-aged Harrison Ford years later during the Young Indy shoot apparently gave him that eureka moment.



Spielberg by his own admission "humored George" (his words) during the 90s, but it's more difficult to assess how he felt about the project in the 00s.  The Darabont version seems to have genuinely excited him, and I think he was also being won over by the pressures of the fan base and even his own children after a certain point.  The project appeared to be an enjoyable one for him as an opportunity to reunite with old friends, but I wonder what he really felt about the final version of the material, which after all Koepp wrote under his tight supervision.



The narrative that Spielberg simply threw his hands up and let George run amok is convenient but doesn't really feel accurate.  Lucas himself stated it wasn't the movie he wanted either (presumably that would have been SAUCER MEN).  I think Spielberg ultimately had way more creative authority over CRYSTAL SKULL than people want to credit him for.




- Belloq87 - 10-24-2016

Quote:

Originally Posted by FatherDude View Post
 

Spielberg and Lucas made LAST CRUSADE a finale for different reasons - Spielberg because he wanted to move on, and Lucas because he felt he was out of ideas.  Lucas apparently would have been willing to keep making Indy if he felt he could find more stories (a responsibility he considered his own), and seeing middle-aged Harrison Ford years later during the Young Indy shoot apparently gave him that eureka moment.



Spielberg by his own admission "humored George" (his words) during the 90s, but it's more difficult to assess how he felt about the project in the 00s.  The Darabont version seems to have genuinely excited him, and I think he was also being won over by the pressures of the fan base and even his own children after a certain point.  The project appeared to be an enjoyable one for him as an opportunity to reunite with old friend, but I wonder what he really felt about the final version of the material, which after all Koepp wrote under his tight supervision.



The idea that Spielberg simply through his hands up and let George run amok is convenient but doesn't really feel accurate.  Lucas himself stated it wasn't the movie he wanted either (presumably that would have been SAUCER MEN).


Sure, but then again, the picture Spielberg paints in the behind-the-scenes material is one of a man who was basically dragged - kicking and screaming - by George Lucas to a story he wouldn't have pursued if the choice was only his.  At minimum, he explicitly says Lucas wore him down.  He made the best of things with Darabont, and continued to make the best of things when Lucas balked at that draft by hiring his "closer," Koepp.



At the end of the day, it feels like a movie Spielberg made because of his friendship with Ford and Lucas, not because he actually liked the material.




- freeman - 10-24-2016

AHow the fuck does one "run out of indiana Jones story ideas"??

Four uncharted and two tomb raider games later that seems absurd.


- agentsands77 - 10-24-2016

A[quote name="Freeman" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1140#post_4158472"]How the fuck does one "run out of indiana Jones story ideas"??

Four uncharted and two tomb raider games later that seems absurd.[/quote]
Yeah, but I think Lucas was never satisfied with "run of the mill" artifacts. He wanted something he could personally get excited about.

Back to KINGDOM: yes, Spielberg had a lot of involvement in the film in the 00s and beyond. But he was still making the best of a story concept he didn't love, attempting to make a film that was a compromise between his vision and Lucas' vision.

I'll be very interested to see what results from a Spielberg-originated Indy film.


- Stale Elvis - 10-24-2016

AI honestly hope it's another religious artefact. Indy is a man of science and as much as the inter-dementional beings were kind of new to him, it's a kind of sciencey concept. Indy needs a religious/magical/unexplainable maguffin for him to be the audience's surrogate Wow!

ETA - The second something can be explained by science it loses its other-worldly amazeballs.


- freeman - 10-24-2016

AThat contrast of scientist meeting religious awe might not work as well after all he's been witness to.


- mr. stockslivevan - 10-24-2016

AIt hasn't been a convincing aspect since the end of first film. "It's just a story" without considering the wonderful possibility starts to make him seem like a doofus. At least Han Solo later admitted to being convinced about The Force. I'd like to see an Indy that's pretty cautious of the potential of a MacGuffin, and that it's the supporting characters who think it's all hocus pocus.


- agentsands77 - 10-24-2016

A[quote name="Mr. Stockslivevan" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1140#post_4158499"]It hasn't been a convincing aspect since the end of first film. "It's just a story" without considering the wonderful possibility starts to make him seem like a doofus. At least Han Solo later admitted to being convinced about The Force. I'd like to see an Indy that's pretty cautious of the potential of a MacGuffin, and that it's the supporting characters who think it's all hocus pocus.[/quote]
That'd be a nice reversal.


- agentsands77 - 10-24-2016

A[quote name="Stale Elvis" url="/community/t/155331/indiana-jones-and-youre-actually-fucking-serious-pre-release-discussion/1140#post_4158493"]I honestly hope it's another religious artefact.[/quote]
I have no doubt that it is.


- carnotaur3 - 10-24-2016

AI think the debate on who has what power in the making of Crystal Skull is fruitless. We know both guys were attempting to please the other. But the compromise churned out a movie where only half is agreed upon by both Spielberg and Lucas. That's why you have Spielberg just conceded, "okay George, they're interdimensional. I'll put them in the movie for you." They should've squashed the concept in favor of something they both wanted to make. I don't particularly find aliens to be an offensive concept for Indy, but if your director doesn't quite care about that, what is the point of having someone who isn't invested in seeing that concept through?