Shia and Koepp forced to adress the two major pseudo-complaints of KOTCS

B

Blade

New member
Darth Vile said:
Doug,

The repost will be "That's all very well and good... but in TOD it was 100% believable/realistic and it was all live action with proper stunts (no CGI or monkeys). Having your heart ripped out, surviving multiple plane crashes, speaking to immortal knights etc is all 100% possible (it could happen). Surviving an atom bomb or doing the splits on a car is impossible and destroys the good name of Indiana Jones."

Just preparing you for the usual guff and outlandish claims that comes back. ;)
Click to expand...

C'mon Darth, we've agreed that TOD is a terrible film. What KOTCS did was ridiculous and transformed the franchise from action adventure to science fiction / cartoon.

I don't think people being critical of the tarzan scene, the snake scene, the ant scene, the rubber tree, the waterfalls, the fridge can be defined as guff.

Finally, if you believe that the original trilogy is as barmy as KOTCS why the hell do you like them?
 
A

AtomicAge

New member
Darth Vile said:
Doug,

The repost will be "That's all very well and good... but in TOD it was 100% believable/realistic and it was all live action with proper stunts (no CGI or monkeys). Having your heart ripped out, surviving multiple plane crashes, speaking to immortal knights etc is all 100% possible (it could happen). Surviving an atom bomb or doing the splits on a car is impossible and destroys the good name of Indiana Jones."

Just preparing you for the usual guff and outlandish claims that comes back. ;)
Click to expand...


Oh I have no illusions.

It's simply a shame that so many people no interest or knowledge of film history or the influences that brought the Indy films to life in the first place. Most people today haven't see a film made before 1990, and wouldn't condescend to watch a B&W film.

Doug
 
A

AtomicAge

New member
Blade said:
C'mon Darth, we've agreed that TOD is a terrible film. What KOTCS did was ridiculous and transformed the franchise from action adventure to science fiction / cartoon.

I don't think people being critical of the tarzan scene, the snake scene, the ant scene, the rubber tree, the waterfalls, the fridge can be defined as guff.

Finally, if you believe that the original trilogy is as barmy as KOTCS why the hell do you like them?
Click to expand...


Who said that Doom was a terrible film? I love Temple of Doom. It is my 4th favorite Indy film, but I love it none the less. It's a big silly adventure film, as is Crystal Skull.

Doug
 
B

Blade

New member
AtomicAge said:
Who said that Doom was a terrible film? I love Temple of Doom. It is my 4th favorite Indy film, but I love it none the less. It's a big silly adventure film, as is Crystal Skull.

Doug
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Can you imagine Coppolla bringing out Godfather 4 and turing it into a silly film where Al Pacino dives down three waterfalls and Tom Hagan swings through the trees as a monkey.
 
A

AtomicAge

New member
Blade said:
Exactly.

Can you imagine Coppolla bringing out Godfather 4 and turing it into a silly film where Al Pacino dives down three waterfalls and Tom Hagan swings through the trees as a monkey.
Click to expand...

No. But then Al never jumped out of an airplane with only a rubber raft in Godfather Part 2 either.

Doug
 
M

Mickiana

Well-known member
Darth, I dress up in Indygear not to pretend to be Indiana Jones but to be Indiana Jones. Seriously, in mint condition the clothes are normal conservative outfit. But of course, under all the comfort and practicality, there is the secret desire to go adventuring. Thing is, the whip and holster will attract the attention of police. Though, the rest of the outfit can be worn in public quite readily while something like the Batman outfit will kinda stand out. This is a bit off topic, but I feel the need to defend this issue - that all Indy obsession (posting, dressing up, dedicated short films, etc) are just forms of homage and none of them are better or worse than each other. You should try the dress up. Get off the key board, grab a whip and go out and crack that sucker! :whip:
 
A

AtomicAge

New member
Blade said:
TOD is a terrible film for that very reason.
Click to expand...

Again I disagree. Doom is actually a more faithful homage than Raiders, to the serials of the 30s and 40s that inspired Indy in the first place.

Doug
 
Major West

Major West

Member
Sankara said:
And that's the big Problem of Skull: Almost ALL action scenes are over the Top. Nuke the Fridge, Shia-Tarzan, Shia fighting between two cars, the rubbertree-scene, the 3 (!) high waterfalls...

One or two over the top scenes are allright - but almost ALL Action-Scenes???
I guess this is the reason why most of people think that "Skull" is the worst "Indy"-Movie. According to rottentomatoes, imdb.com, empire magazine...
Click to expand...

I'm not addressing this to anybody here personally, but if some people think the film is bad just because of some over the top action sequences, they are idiots.

We've seen it all before in the previous films.
 
B

Blade

New member
AtomicAge said:
Again I disagree. Doom is actually a more faithful homage than Raiders, to the serials of the 30s and 40s that inspired Indy in the first place.

Doug
Click to expand...


Can you explain why TOD more of a faithful homage? I don't really know much about these serials they all go on about.

Personally I'm more concerned with whether the film is any good as opposed to how faithful it is to the source material. PLUS Spielberg and Lucas made Last Crusade because neither of them liked TD.
 
A

AtomicAge

New member
Blade said:
Can you explain why TOD more of a faithful homage? I don't really know much about these serials they all go on about.

Personally I'm more concerned with whether the film is any good as opposed to how faithful it is to the source material. PLUS Spielberg and Lucas made Last Crusade because neither of them liked TD.
Click to expand...

Doom is more faithful because the action in the serials was very exaggerated. Raiders, though it is my favorite film probably because of the realistic action, doesn't really reflect the style and spirit of the serials like Doom or the other two films do. You would expect to see someone in a serial jump out of an airplane with an improvised parachute of some kind. They did that kind of thing all the time. Sometime find a copy of Spy Smasher or The Masked Marvel and you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about.

Raiders is very grounded and I think much of that has to do with the fact that they had to make it very quickly and under very harsh conditions. For instance, Toht was originally supposed to have a robotic arm, but it was cut because of the budget. Raiders was also originally planned to have the mine car chase. Again it was cut for budget reasons and picked up again when Doom had more money to spend.

The truck that blows up, which Indy thinks Marion is in, was originally supposed to flip end over end, but when they did the shot it just rolled over on its side. The stunt coordinator wanted to do it again, but Spielberg was so sick by that point (from the heat not food poisoning like everyone else) that he said "no it's fine lets just get the hell out of here".

Spielberg states in interviews at the time that he simplified everything for Raiders, including his camera setups, just to get through it on budget and on time. You may notice that Raiders doesn't have nearly the number of elaborate camera moves as the other films do.

I honestly think if Raiders had been made under the somewhat more cushy conditions that the other films were, it may have been somewhat more fanciful.

Doug
 
Last edited:
Benraianajones

Benraianajones

New member
Darth Vile said:
Doug,

The repost will be "That's all very well and good... but in TOD it was 100% believable/realistic and it was all live action with proper stunts (no CGI or monkeys). Having your heart ripped out, surviving multiple plane crashes, speaking to immortal knights etc is all 100% possible (it could happen). Surviving an atom bomb or doing the splits on a car is impossible and destroys the good name of Indiana Jones."

Just preparing you for the usual guff and outlandish claims that comes back. ;)
Click to expand...

The difference with a talking hundred year old knight though is, it is more grounded than any large stunt in any of the movies which would = death. He is immortal due to drinking from the cup of christ with its ever-lasting life quality. It isn't realistic, but in sense of it being the result of a supernatural element, it isn't OTT and death isn't related to it at all. The knight is unrealistic, but within a believing range, as we know of God's supernatural powers from Raiders. But the fridge/waterfalls/falling from a plane in a dingy are OTT. Supernatural powers are something that can only ever be believed in (as opposed to fact), as they are supernatural. Physical things such as the large OTT stunts are "less believable" because we know we as meer humans probably couldnt survive it. I don't see why people have an issue with Mutt spread over the 2 jeeps though, it is like Shorty being stretched over the 2 mine carts. Plus stunt men can stand between 2 cars if they really wanted to as they moved, though it would be risky.
 
B

Blade

New member
AtomicAge said:
Doom is more faithful because the action in the serials was every exaggerated. Raiders, though it is my favorite film probably because of the realistic action, doesn't really reflect the style and spirit of the serials like Doom or the other two films do. You would expect to see someone in a serial jump out of an airplane with an improvised parachute of some kind. They did that kind of thing all the time. Sometime find a copy of Spy Smasher or The Masked Marvel and you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about.

Raiders is very grounded and I think much of that has to do with the fact that they had to make it very quickly and under very harsh conditions. For instance, Toht was originally supposed to have a robotic arm, but it was cut because of the budget. Raiders was also originally planned to have the mine car chase. Again it was cut for budget reasons and picked up again when Doom had more money to spend.

The truck that blows up, which Indy thinks Marion is in, was originally supposed to flip end over end, but when they did the shot it just rolled over on its side. The stunt coordinator wanted to do it again, but Spielberg was so sick by that point (from the heat not food poisoning like everyone else) that he said "no it's fine lets just get the hell out of here".

Spielberg states in interviews at the time that he simplified everything for Raiders, including his camera setups, just to get through it on budget and on time. You may notice that Raiders doesn't have nearly the number of elaborate camera moves as the other films do.

I honestly think if Raiders had been made under the somewhat more cushy conditions that the other films were, it may have been somewhat more fanciful.

Doug
Click to expand...

Cheers...and that would have been a shame.
 
A

AtomicAge

New member
Benraianajones said:
Plus stunt men can stand between 2 cars if they really wanted to as they moved, though it would be risky.
Click to expand...

They can and they did. Most of that sequence is a real stuntman, standing on real cars, really moving through the Hawaiian rain forest.

Doug
 
StoneTriple

StoneTriple

New member
Sankara said:
I hope you see the difference between a real stunt (dragging behind a Truck for example) and the Nuke the Fridge Scene...
Click to expand...

What I see is you changing the subject - yet again - when your hate spamming gets you backed into a corner.

Weak.
 
A

AtomicAge

New member
Blade said:
Cheers...and that would have been a shame.
Click to expand...

I agree. I like Raiders the way it is, but that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate what they are doing in the other films and enjoy them just as much.

I saw Raiders when I was 16 and first getting very serious about film making. It was and is my favorite film of all time.

Two years later when Doom came out I must say that it was a let down for me because the style had changed so much. But over the years it has grown on me and I really love the film now.

Doug
 
StoneTriple

StoneTriple

New member
AtomicAge said:
Again I disagree. Doom is actually a more faithful homage than Raiders, to the serials of the 30s and 40s that inspired Indy in the first place.

Doug
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that.

Raiders has too deep a story and characters to be faithfully compared to the action serials of the 30s. It's certainly in the style of them, but it's a little too cerebral.
 
Benraianajones

Benraianajones

New member
On the whole I think KOTCS is a good movie, I'd change some bits, I'd have liked them to have concentrated on plot/chracters a bit over some of the excessive scenes (waterfall drops), though I do appreciate the spirit of it. But a lot more could have been done with it I think. The monkey-scene is luckily very small, doesn't ruin the film, but taints a little an otherwise great jungle chase. I just can't imagine the likes of Elsa and Walter Donovan being in the same universe as that monkey swinging scene, even Indy, and he is in the movie. I think the scenes issue is how it is on screen, it just looks very childish and poorly done. Just Mutt swinging on a real vine (rope!) with a couple of monkeys swinging by his side at least would have made the scene look as if it fitted in better. Kind of like Chewie in Star Wars, the entire ting didn't change to obscure cartoony CGI in the middle of all the action.
 
A

AtomicAge

New member
StoneTriple said:
I'd agree with that.

Raiders has too deep a story and characters to be faithfully compared to the action serials of the 30s. It's certainly in the style of them, but it's a little too cerebral.
Click to expand...

Indeed Raiders is really more like an adventure film from the 1950s.
King Solomon's Mines (1950), The Naked Jungle (1954), Secret of the Incas (1954). I'll even go so far as to say it owes more to Casablanca (1942) than the serials.

Of course much of this has to do with Lawrence Kasdan's very witty script, and I don't think he gets enough credit. It is a shame that they couldn't get him to write another one.

Doug
 
A

AtomicAge

New member
Benraianajones said:
On the whole I think KOTCS is a good movie, I'd change some bits, I'd have liked them to have concentrated on plot/chracters a bit over some of the excessive scenes (waterfall drops), though I do appreciate the spirit of it. But a lot more could have been done with it I think. The monkey-scene is luckily very small, doesn't ruin the film, but taints a little an otherwise great jungle chase. I just can't imagine the likes of Elsa and Walter Donovan being in the same universe as that monkey swinging scene, even Indy, and he is in the movie. I think the scenes issue is how it is on screen, it just looks very childish and poorly done. Just Mutt swinging on a real vine (rope!) with a couple of monkeys swinging by his side at least would have made the scene look as if it fitted in better. Kind of like Chewie in Star Wars, the entire ting didn't change to obscure cartoony CGI in the middle of all the action.
Click to expand...

I think if I had been making the film I would have done things differently. One way to do the vine swinging, and take the taint off of it for the audience would have been to make it not work at first. Have Mutt grab a vine that is going the wrong direction and swing backwards into a tree. That would have been very in keeping with Indy action where the hero just isn't quite up to the task.

With the waterfalls I think I would have had our heroes spill out into the river and create some suspense there, while they try to get back into the Duck.

Doug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top