Jump to content

Indiana Jones 5 Confirmed


Iceheart
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oddly, Pratt was in line for a couple big roles around that time. He was turned down for the lead in Avatar and read for the role of Kirk in the Star Trek reboot. So the casting people always saw something in him.

 

For what it's worth, with the right script and approach, I might be able to accept Pratt as a young Kirk. Though the reboot's Kirk was doomed from the start from a poor concept that had no idea what Trek was about.

 

And really, as meh as Shia Laboof is, he wasn't really the problem with Mutt or that movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that he got turned down for those roles proves my point. He was an unknown. Parks and Rec didn't air until after Crystal Skull was released.

 

He may have impressed people enough to allow him to get an audition, but there's a huge jump from getting an interview to actually being considered for the job, much less hired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indy belongs with Nazis. The era is as important as the character. I think that was a problem with Crystal Skull, too. Commies just don't do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that was a problem with Crystal Skull, too. Commies just don't do it.

 

I didn't mind that it was set in the 50s. Even if it's not the same as the 30s, it's got a similar flavor.

 

But when you start getting to the 60s, you're starting to get into the era that Lucas and Spielberg were trying to escape from in the first place when they put together all these period films that took place in the 30, 40s, and 50s for a more innocent era. The only light-hearted 60s movie I recall from either of them was Catch Me If You Can.

 

My biggest issue with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull wasn't the setup at all. Nuked fridge aside, I liked the opening sequence and could live with the early Mutt scenes. Playing in the new era had some charm. There's a lot of silliness there, but it's tolerable and still enjoyable as long as Harrison Ford's walking around with his hat. You send Indy and Mutt on a classic adventure together and you've got yourself a passable movie, if not a great one.

 

It's once the plot gets going in earnest that things fall apart. Pretty much everything after Marion shows up. The whole second half was a just terribly executed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question, to me, is more of whether it worked or not. Not what some people said in interviews. The prairie dogs stuck to the rule of three, fulfilled their observer gag, and disappeared. The CGI wasn't obtrusive or fake looking either. It was a micro-story with a mildly amusing payoff that didn't detract from the movie.

 

If you want to go off on them for not keeping to their word on practical effects, by all means. That whole chase sequence was lousy with poor CGI when it should have been performed with practical effects and stunts or not at all (hello vine swinging Mutt and his army of well-coiffed monkeys).

 

Anyway, think that's as much time, thought, and effort as I feel like putting into this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak for everyone, but that's why it personally annoyed the hell out of me. I didn't want to see any CGI in the Indy films, part of the charm was the old fashioned special effects & practical stunts. So when I heard before I saw the movie that CGI would be limited to wire removals and cleaning up shots I was pretty excited. Then when the first shot in the film is the CGI mole popping out of the ground, that was the first sign that what I had heard was BS.

 

To answer your question about whether it worked well or not, I don't feel it did at all, it was unnecessary. But that's as much as effort as I can be bothered to type about a CGI rat. The Tarzan swinging later in the film was where I just gave up on ever seeing a return to form for those three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CGI wasn't obtrusive or fake looking either.

HAHAHAHAHahahahhahahahah ahHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaha

hahahahaha

weee

 

ohhhh

 

 

woo

 

I had considered that knowing too much about the PT may have ruined some of the experience so I went into KOTCS mostly spoiler free. I like to say Star Wars gave birth to my imagination, Blade Runner made me understand what master-filmmaking was-- but it was Raiders that actually made me want to make movies.

 

So I was AMPED for KOTCS.

 

So when the first thing THE FIRST THING I see, is some prequel type cutesy CGI bullcrap I was instantly filled with dread. No they weren't that obtrusive at the end of the day-- but they certainly set the tone for what was to follow.

 

Oddly, the thing that I hated most about KOTCS was that it looked terrible. Raiders is movie-making perfection-- from the lighting to the set design to the visual flair.

 

KOTCS looked and felt like it was shot on a green screen. And I know it wasn't-- but the lighting was awful and it had that same flat, overly sterile look the PT had because George was in charge of post and he took out every last grain he could and made the frames as busy as he could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest El Chalupacabra

At the time Shia was a Speilberg darling and no one else fit the bill. Pratt was still a tubby sitcom guy and no one knew how off the rails Shia would go.

So, basically Shia Laboof is the popular kid who peaked in high school, and Pratt is the nerd who grows up to be cool?

 

 

Indy belongs with Nazis. The era is as important as the character. I think that was a problem with Crystal Skull, too. Commies just don't do it.

There's always Nazis of the 4th Reich in Argentina, being commanded by Hitler's brain in a formaldehyde jar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is that KotCS is full of small, harmless things. There's almost nothing in the film that ruins it on an individual level, but rather a constant theme of just doing things for no reason. There was no reason to add moles or monkeys or make the villain a cartoon character or to have Indy hide in a fridge. Any of those taken individually would probably earn a chuckle or an eyeroll at worst, but there was zero restraint shown in any aspect so as a result each item is awful.

 

And I still hold that, especially since the early 90s, the Soviet menace just doesn't work as well as the Nazis. Fair or not, one group still inspires fear and awe, the other makes people think of Rocky IV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of those taken individually would probably earn a chuckle or an eyeroll at worst, but there was zero restraint shown in any aspect so as a result each item is awful.

 

I'd say there was restraint for the first hour of the movie or so. The first hour was somewhere about on the level of The Last Crusade's level of fan service and quick gags, and WELL below Temple of Doom's willingness to fly off the handle.

 

You take Indy and Mutt on an adventure together, no Marion, no crazy Oxley, and there's potential there. Mutt's certainly no worse a companion than Willie and Short Round. Marcus was offensively nerfed in The Last Crusade. And, as awesome as Sean Connery is, Henry Jones Sr. was pretty much there to be comedy and useless baggage for Indy outside the father/son plotline.

 

It really was the choices in the 2nd half of the movie that brought it down. That's where they went overboard on CGI and it went from being sprinkled into the movie to pretty much being the movie. That's where the gags went from silly to dumb. That's where Marion's involvement brought a halt on the could have been interesting developing relationship between Indy and Mutt and it becomes more about Indy and Marion with Mutt just sorta doing his thing. That's where the chase scene is a confusing, illogical, non-continuous mess. That's where they bring in John Hurt to play a crazy guy and drag him around for the whole second half of the movie.

 

You send Indy and Mutt together on an adventure where it's mostly the two of them learning from each other and coming to appreciate the other. Where Indy falters and Mutt has to take everything he's learned and save the day and... well you have The Last Crusade. But at least you have the part of The Last Crusade that actually works.

 

 

 

To answer your question about whether it worked well or not, I don't feel it did at all, it was unnecessary.

 

 

Unnecessary sure. But so was Chewbacca growling at the mouse droid in A New Hope. Not that far off from the same gag. Or the "Heil Hitler" monkey in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Didn't need to be there, pretty silly. But it worked.

 

It's in line with dozens of other silly Indy jokes that either worked or made you groan that have been a part of the series since the first movie and were expanded upon in the prequel/sequels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.