Why are people so hard on Indy IV?

Major West

Member
Udvarnoky said:
It just didn't look like an Indiana Jones movie.

For balance though, ToD looks nothing like Raiders, tonally or stylistically.

In fact, none of the sequels look like Raiders. Raiders looked like a proper film that just happened to be an action adventure. All the sequels looked like big budget glossy popcorn fare and KOTCS in particular had a different DoP, was made 20 years later, when different film stocks and film techniques are being used.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
There is nonetheless absolutely a visual consistency to the trilogy that the fourth movie fails to adhere to. And I have to reject the idea that the dramatic difference has to do with film stock and changing technology. The filters Kaminski applied have squadoosh to do with the 19 intervening years. It was a conscious choice.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
There is nonetheless absolutely a visual consistency to the trilogy that the fourth movie fails to adhere to. And I have to reject the idea that the dramatic difference has to do with film stock and changing technology. The filters Kaminski applied have squadoosh to do with the 19 intervening years. It was a conscious choice.

I think Last Crusade looks quite different from Raiders and TOD. Last Crusade has a very warm, "Hollywood" look to it. Almost like a faux-Technicolor sort of feel to it. Whereas Raiders looks like a regular film, and TOD looks like what it was: A gritty, dark mid 80s film.
 

Major West

Member
Udvarnoky said:
There is nonetheless absolutely a visual consistency to the trilogy that the fourth movie fails to adhere to. And I have to reject the idea that the dramatic difference has to do with film stock and changing technology. The filters Kaminski applied have squadoosh to do with the 19 intervening years. It was a conscious choice.

I don't see why there needs to be a visual consistency other than costume and music. It's a movie about a guy who wears a hat and a leather jacket and goes on adventures. As far I know he wears that gear in all 4 movies and the music is still there. However 20 years has passed in the story as well. Things are not the same. I thought the film struck a good visual balance. It would be ridiculous to try and make the movie look like it been made in a 1989 style just to please a few nostalgic fans online.

Always remember what the inspiration of the series was. 1940s adventure serials. It was never meant to be a masterpiece.
The important visuals are there. The costume. The music. The adventure. (script and story maybe not).
 
Last edited:

Drones33

New member
Raiders112390 said:
People are acting like it's the worst film of all time...Sorry, disagree!
Nobody is saying it's the worst film of all time, but I think the general consensus that it's the weakest of the four; that's it's not as good as any of the others, is absolutely true.
 

Lao_Che

Active member
Drones33 said:
Nobody is saying it's the worst film of all time, but I think the general consensus that it's the weakest of the four; that's it's not as good as any of the others, is absolutely true.

Dr. Tyree's philosophy class is right down the hall.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Even if it was the weakest of the four, which I personally disagree with, the overreaction to the film by many - both on this forum and off - has been pretty unfair. If KOTCS is anything, it is a B movie in a family of A graders - That's not a sin. On this forum, I've seen people treat it as an abomination, or on par with The Phantom Menace. I've seen people say that the mindlessly dumb Mummy sequels were better than KOTCS. I just think people are too hard to please.

Last Crusade - which for me is a weaker film than Crystal Skull outside of Sean Connery's excellent performance and River Phoenix's Young Indy - gave the audience a perfect Hollywood ending; The Mega-Happy Ending, literally riding off into the sunset. Indy discovered the literal Holy Grail - the end all, be all - in that movie.

How could any sequel not only top only those elements, but also compete with almost 20 years of hope, hype and expectation?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Major West said:
I don't see why there needs to be a visual consistency other than costume and music. It's a movie about a guy who wears a hat and a leather jacket and goes on adventures. As far I know he wears that gear in all 4 movies and the music is still there. However 20 years has passed in the story as well. Things are not the same. I thought the film struck a good visual balance. It would be ridiculous to try and make the movie look like it been made in a 1989 style just to please a few nostalgic fans online.

This has nothing to do with a 1989 style versus a 2008 style, and I don't see how you can characterize it as such without willfully misreading what I said. There are plenty of movies from 2008 that resemble Indiana Jones more than this movie does. You are trying to cast this as resistance to a "modern" style, when it is a resistance to something far more specific: Kaminski's style.

It was never meant to be a masterpiece.

This is the second time in this thread I've seen a made-up position chastised. It's weird, defensive and without substance. Make an argument.
 

Major West

Member
Udvarnoky said:
There are plenty of movies from 2008 that resemble Indiana Jones more than this movie does.

Such as? This will be interesting, seeing as KOTCS is very clearly an Indiana Jones movie. Please don't mention those god awful Nic Cage movies.

Udvarnoky said:
You are trying to cast this as resistance to a "modern" style, when it is a resistance to something far more specific: Kaminski's style.

I think Kaminski's style is very fitting for a 1950s setting, which no surprises, is the period the film is set, but if you have a keen eye, his KOTCS style is more similar to Raiders, than ToD and LC.

The previous three movies, were set in the 1930s.

If anything should be 'adhered' to. It's taking note of the fact that 20 years has passed. Which is what was done by the filmmakers.

Udvarnoky said:
This is the second time in this thread I've seen a made-up position chastised. It's weird, defensive and without substance. Make an argument.

I'm not here to make an argument. I think the film ranks as forth in terms of how good it is. Could have been better but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy parts of it. It's obvious where the films failings are I just think some of the criticisms are missing the bullseye.
 
Last edited:

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Major West said:
I think Kaminski's style is very fitting for a 1950s setting, which no surprises, is the period the film is set.

I'm very curious about how you drew this conclusion. What about 50s cinema to you evokes a desaturated palette and excessive halating light sources?

Many of the movie's 50s influences, like Earth vs. the Flying Saucers and Them! are black and white productions. A good color example of a 50s B-movie would be The Naked Jungle, and though it appears a bit soft it certainly boasts a filmic look with vibrant colors and none of the bleached shininess of the movie you feel represents the 50s.

Again, many of the techniques employed in Crystal Skull are identifiable as Kaminski mainstays. This suggests a DP that is putting his personal stamp on the material rather than trying to honor the aesthetic of a particular decade or, more to the point, a particular franchise.

Could you cite a movie or two from the 50s that you believe functions as a visual antecedent to Crystal Skull?

Major West said:
It's obvious where the films failings are I just think some of the criticisms are missing the bullseye.

That's cool, but it's hard for me to understand your case if your basis is disingenuous, "What were you expecting, Citizen Kane?!" type sentiments.
 

Major West

Member
His own style is there in some scenes, but why shouldn't it be? Did somebody tell him he should have to copy Douglas Slocombe? Does this mean that future directors have to copy the style of Spielberg when making Indiana Jones movies? Do future actors have to act the same way as Harrison Ford? You see what I mean when I try to point out the fallacy of the idea that it's a valid criticism of the movie?

Some shots from the blu-rays, comparing. Click for larger. I'm just not getting the sense that it doesn't look like Indiana Jones.





 

Stoo

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I stand corrected. This article purports that half of the six-minute jungle chase had CGI (whether to augment the foliage or for the blue-screen work). It does say, though, that "most" of the stunts were not shot on location, so mrman7 might be on to something after all.
Thanks for the link, Udvarnoky. That's a great article!:hat: However, mrman7 complained that "most of the stunts" in the entire movie were done with bluescreen, which was not the case.

Re: the jungle chase:
Computer Graphics World said:
“Although they did shoot some stuff with LaBeouf in a ‘hangman’s rig’ so he could straddle the two vehicles, there was no way to do most of the stunts in the jungle—the road was bumpy and it was too dangerous,” says Marshall Krasser, associate visual effects supervisor. Thus, of the six-minute sequence, about half the shots had CG effects. Of those, some were bluescreen shots with synthetic jungles; others were location shots with digital jungle added to the roads.
I meant to say before that it was about 50/50 for "molested" VS. "unmolested" shots during the jungle chase so my estimate would've been correct. As for "most" of the jungle stunts being too dangerous to perform on location, Krasser must be referring to the shots surrounding the Mutt/Spalko/Marion portion...as in, too dangerous for actors...because the vehicle-to-vehicle jumps, soldiers falling off & guy dragging behind are, clearly, live-action stunts done ON SITE by professionals.

Major West said:
I think Kaminski's style is very fitting for a 1950s setting,
Wha-a-at?:confused: Udvarnoky is right on this. The photography does not, at all, reflect the general look of 1950s films (and I've seen over 200 of 'em). Anyway, I agree with you that its lighting & colour tones are closer to "Raiders" than the other movies. "Doom" & "Crusade" are much more juicy and pristine...which was a noticeable change, to me, back in the day.

Udvarnoky said:
This suggests a DP that is putting his personal stamp on the material rather than trying to honor the aesthetic of a particular decade or, more to the point, a particular franchise.
You mean, 'a particular movie series', right?. :confused:
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Stoo said:
Anyway, I agree with you that its lighting & colour tones are closer to "Raiders" than the other movies.

Well, which version of Raiders? We all recall the controversy brought on by the 4k transfer in which Spielberg (or someone whose work he approved) digitally revisited the color timing:

039.jpg


6666_1.jpg


The color palette is only one facet of a movie's visual identity, anyhow. I don't recall everyone basking in a heavenly glow throughout the original trilogy.

492.jpg
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
There is no one Iniana Jones color grading. All of the films have differences. As far as that aspect goes, KOTCS and Last Crusade have the best color grading in my opinion. Very Hollywood. I swear I've seen old '50s print ads and such that have the vivid colors of KOTCS. I know the different color dynamics helped to demonstrate this is Indiana Jones in a new era. There are some very beautiful uses of the color:
crystal_skull_movie_screencaps_com_2201.jpg

crystal_skull_movie_screencaps_com_2313_1.jpg

crys.jpg

indy_4_2.jpg

peru.jpg


The movie has a similar look to old Kodachrome photographs:
kodachrome_1964_lg.jpg

garden_of_the_gods_park_1950s.jpg

Spain_1950s_2.jpg
 
Last edited:

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I'm really not seeing the correlation between the screengrabs and the photographs. Maybe if you described what you think the similarities are?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
I'm really not seeing the correlation between the screengrabs and the photographs. Maybe if you described what you think the similarities are?

Okay, it's obvious we're just going to disagree. You hate the film and think it's the worst thing ever. I don't. I'm an Indiana Jones fan, you're not. So you can go be cute and obtuse with someone else. Or go hang out on a Bat freak fansite. Might suit you better.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
I mean, I explained myself clearly in the post - saying I felt the film's aesthetic is similar to old Kodachrome photography from the 1950s, thus establishing an aesthetic/visual link with the 1950s. I thought that point was articulated clearly. There was no "correlation" between the screenshots and the photographs; it was to show KOTCS' look is inspired by the 1950s and has antecedents in the decade it takes place within. Given that Spielberg and Lucas grew up and love the 1950s, I have no doubt that this Kodachrome look was as such suggested to Kaminski probably by Spielberg to help visually establish this Indy film as being set in the 1950s (as well as the Beards indulging in their tendency to give a shout-out whenever possible in their films to their childhoods). It was no accident, and while not many '50s FILMS have this aesthetic, it is clear that KOTCS' visual aesthetic can be linked to the 1950s. But, for people like Udv, it's just something else to attack the film with.

For myself, it makes sense that the films each have a different sort of look to them.

Raiders is the most grounded film of the series, and has the most 'real' visual aesthetic, which suits it given it is the most serious entry.

Temple is the grittiest film and it has a lower grade, duller visual aesthetic; it looks like Silver Age comic books, which suits the over-the-top stunts and action; it looks and feels pulpy.

Last Crusade is the most sentimental film in the series and has a warm, juicy, quasi-30s Technicolor look to it.

KOTCS is set in the 1950s and has the nostalgic look of an old '50s Kodachrome photograph. Thematically, it works, and it helps to establish that this is Dr. Jones in the Atomic Era.

Given Udvarnosky's tendency to be purposely obtuse and given his hate for all things KOTCS, however, I blew my lid. For which I apologize.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
There's a lot to unpack here. Is there some backstory between you and me about Batman that I'm forgetting about? For the life of me I can't remember bringing up that series -- a series I don't have a particular attachment to. Don't wanna second-guess you, though. I'm sure you had your reasons?

But being pressed for time, let me just address your "obtuse" point with some exhibits. Here's what you have to say about me:

Raiders112390 said:
You hate the film and think it's the worst thing ever.

Raiders112390 said:
Given Udvarnosky's tendency to be purposely obtuse and given his hate for all things KOTCS.

Now here's me, from six days ago:

Udvarnoky said:
I still think this movie has great concepts behind it. I mean, that's part of the tragedy of it.

The way Lucas endeavors to connect the purpose of the Nazca lines with the story of El Dorado, the myth of Akakor and Von Däniken pseudo-science is a pretty terrific basis for an Indiana Jones movie.

I guess my "hate for all things KOTCS" has a loophole clause. By the way, in this very thread, I used the word "mediocrity" to sum up the film. How does that reconcile with my supposed position that it's the "worst thing ever"? If you're not going to bother to read what I write, why should I bother to defend it?
 
Last edited:

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
There's a lot to unpack here. Is there some backstory between you and me about Batman that I'm forgetting about? For the life of me I can't remember bringing up that series -- a series I don't have a particular attachment to. Don't wanna second-guess you, though. I'm sure you had your reasons?

But being pressed for time, let me just address your "obtuse" point with some exhibits. Here's what you have to say about me:

I guess my "hate for all things KOTCS" has a loophole clause. By the way, in this very thread, I used the word "mediocrity" to sum up the film. How does that reconcile with my supposed position that it's the "worst thing ever"? If you're not going to bother to read what I write, why should I bother to defend it?

Well, I don't know, you seem to want to attack every aspect of it, even down to such nitty gritty nitpicking kind of stuff as the color grading to imply it's not an Indiana Jones movie. And then you act totally obtuse when I point out exactly the kind of look they were going for and show examples and give reasons why thematically it works.
 
Top