ShadowDog Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 I don't have the issue with CGI most people do unless its super bad. Everything in movies is fake. A person in a monster suit is just as fake as a digital character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 I agree, for the most part, although I think the only reason the first half shows restraint is because the second half is insane. And I don't hate the movie. I thought it more or less worked, mainly on the strength of the series and Ford. But the stuff from the first half is probably the equivalent of what would have been in an entire movie in terms of the cheese. It reminds me a little bit of the episode of Clerks where the last few minutes are animated by Korean animators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Wader Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 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. If it had been later in the movie or something but I feel having that as the first shot of the movie didn't come off the way they intended - instead of a silly gag it just felt like a sign of things to come, as has been mentioned. I get what they were trying to do but it didn't work well for me. I'm not against CGI either - I didn't have a problem with it in TFA or any other blockbuster this year. I just dislike when its overused, it doesn't need to be there and is the result of lazy filmmaking. I actually think the best example of it isn't the prequels but the Hobbit trilogy. LoTR was a perfect blend of CG and practical where the Hobbit was just lazy and almost turned into a Pixar movie. It felt like Jackson was just trying to get it out of the way and finished - which is exactly what Indy IV was to Spielberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLA Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 I think Indy could still work in a later setting, like the 60s or whenever! You have characters like Lara Croft and Nathan Drake who are pretty much Indiana Jones types in modern times. I don't think the villains of the movie have to be nazis or commies or whatever else, they just have to be people competing to try to find the same thing but use it for their own purposes! Kind of like Belloq in Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Yeah but then the stakes aren't high enough. Oh so the rival gets the treasure instead of Indy? They'll get rich and ... that sucks ... because they're a jerk? We go from preventing evil taking over the world to that? That's weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoLA Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Nah, there could still be that risk! The bad guys of the movie could be doing it for that purpose, getting powerful or whatever. Or they could be unwittingly unleashing something they don't understand but that Indy knows is dangerous, like the nazis in Raiders did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 If they go that route it works but still requires exposition to sell it. "Hey this guy is bad. He gonna blow up the world." With Nazis or Commies you don't need to explain that to the audience. I'm not saying you're wrong just saying it's easier to just stick with known evil tropes than create a new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 James Bond didn't seem to have trouble finding adversaries bent on world domination in the 60s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Sure. Other people have other villains, but the most successful Indy movies have been set in a particular era and had particular villains. Indy works in that setting. It also works because Hitler was obsessed with the occult and represents absolute evil. If a guy has fought Nazis, some random power hungry doof just doesn't seem Plus the setting is super important, otherwise it would've just been a modern setting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I was okay with him fighting Thugees. But sometimes I worry I'm the only one that loved Temple of Doom more than Last Crusade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Krawlie Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I don't like it as much as crusade but I also have nothing but love for temple of doom. YOU ARE IN A POSITION UNSUITABLE TO GIVE ORDERS is something I want to shout at people at work every day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Wader Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I'll never understand the hate for Temple of Doom (although that's one thing we can thanks Crystal Skull for, a lot of the hate for Doom dissipated). The last half hour of that has to be some of the best action sequences put onto film - nothing as good as the Desert chase sequence, but honestly there isn't many action scenes in general that are as good as that one. But the whole rope bridge scene is worth it all alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I was okay with him fighting Thugees. But sometimes I worry I'm the only one that loved Temple of Doom more than Last Crusade. Completely agree with you on that. Temple of Doom probably made more unwise choices than even Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but it was still a heck of a lot of fun. Made with energy to spare, they pretty much just went for everything and all the bad ideas they had oddly seemed to come together once they got to the climax. And I just LOVE the opening sequence. The Last Crusade, while on the surface a better film, also felt strangely lazy. Sure it hit the basics of Raiders of the Lost Ark a whole lot more, but felt like it was going to formula. It's why I said that Spielberg hasn't been on point for an Indy film since Temple of Doom. Really, that whole time after Kingdom of the Sun was rejected by critics and audiences was an oddly bored half decade for Spielberg. The Last Crusade, Always, and Hook are among his weakest efforts as a director in his career. Really wasn't until Jurassic Park gave him another signature blockbuster franchise and Schindler's List gave him his biggest accolades that he snapped his funk. And even Jurassic Park was a bit shaky at times. Though, in fairness, Spielberg rushed through that production to ensure he could get to Schindler's List. BTW, I'm probably crazy for saying this, but I think Willie would have made for a more interesting mother in Crystal Skull. You add 20 something years, the experience of being a mother, and probably some bitterness over giving up her career to raise their son and there are some interesting directions you can go while keeping the core character from Temple intact. And everyone doesn't feel so worried about hurting her character by keeping her kidnapped and out of the action so that Indy and Mutt can work together towards her rescue. A Willie in need of rescue just makes sense. Contrast that with Marion, who they basically tried to make the same as before and needed to be kept as a part of the action to stay true to her character in Raiders. Of course, the fanboys would have absolutely howled at that prospect. Particularly considering Capshaw's current marital status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Wader Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I love Temple of Doom and Last Crusade both equally - honestly I always felt both films were trying to recapture Raiders of the Lost Ark but both were never able to get the right balance - Temple of Doom leaned a bit too far into darker territory and Last Crusade a bit closer to the humour side. Raiders was the only one to get the perfect balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Honestly-- people who are mad at TFA because it rips off ANH so much? I feel exactly that way about Last Crusade. I feel like Temple of Doom was enough of a financial misstep that they panicked and took the exact same structure and villains of Raiders, added in Dad as a sidekick instead of Marion, and called it a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Other than Nazis being the bad guys, I don't see that. Each of the first 3 films have their own unique feel to me, and they are all awesome in their own ways. None of them have much to complain about, either. It's just Crystal Skull that is terrible, and most of the blame falls on the fact Shia Laboof was in it. I mean the Mummy movies seemed more like an Indy movie to me, than Crystal Skull did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Agree 100% Driver but this was a rare case where what I wanted was another Raiders so Crusade delivered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Wader Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 And Ford and Connery together on screen, one of the greatest on screen pairs of all time. The "Indiana. . .let it go" line might have been cheesy but it still gives me goosebumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Second best Indy story ever told: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowDog Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 And Ford and Connery together on screen, one of the greatest on screen pairs of all time. The "Indiana. . .let it go" line might have been cheesy but it still gives me goosebumps.Quoted for truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 The case you make for replacing Ford works just as well for replacing Spielberg. Like you say, it's nit high art. TFA just proved you can continue a beloved franchise with someone new at the helm and it thrive.So, not being "high art" means its just some filmed version of Legos--nothing special--just add and subtract pieces at the whim of whoever is playing with it at the time? The unique talents of Lucas, Ford and Spielberg is what made IJ--they were the creative genesis of it all, so replacing them is not such an easy thing. The only hiccup in that was continuing a concept that reached a natural conclusion in the 3rd film. Moreover, you believe SW is thriving in the hands of someone new? If by thrive you mean money, that's not thriving. For example, The Phantom Menace was a very big hit...but it spearheaded a weak series most sensible, non-"my identity is defined by Star Wars" types would rather forget. The jury is out on whether or not SW in the hands of others will thrive --as in have the lasting creative / cultural impact of a certain older part of the series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceheart Posted March 15, 2016 Author Share Posted March 15, 2016 Ford and Spielberg are confirmed as of today: http://www.ew.com/article/2016/03/15/steven-spielberg-and-harrison-ford-announce-new-indiana-jones-movie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poe Dameron Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Saw this. I'm interested. Didn't think Spielberg would ever come back to this. We'll see if he can rediscover his passion for pure popcorn entertainment. I also will re-submit my idea of parallel plots intertwining between a recast Young Indy and Ford to pass the torch and carry on the franchise. Indy has no obvious sidekick (married means no love interest, dad's dead, and I doubt Mutt will be the focus again), so make Indy's sidekick himself. Not just a prologue, but an actively alternating narrative where Ford's Indy explores piece of his past that he fell just a bit short when he was young. Abner Ravenwood could be the main supporting character addition acting as the mentor figure, and the lore building could be detailing exactly what happened between Jones and Marion. Raiders pretty much had Indy bang a teenager and then leave her cold, but it's easy to conceive a better story than that. It really could be a cool movie if done right. And it's really not all that hard to imagine the pieces falling into place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 What if he searches for the Fountain of Youth-- drinks from it, turns into Chris Pratt, an the franchise continues!? (kidding) OR AM I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted March 16, 2016 Share Posted March 16, 2016 Not gonna lie, I'm going to go see this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts