Udvarnoky said:It just didn't look like an Indiana Jones movie.
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.
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.
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.Raiders112390 said:People are acting like it's the worst film of all time...Sorry, disagree!
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.
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.
It was never meant to be a masterpiece.
Udvarnoky said:There are plenty of movies from 2008 that resemble Indiana Jones more than this movie does.
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.
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.
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.
Major West said:It's obvious where the films failings are I just think some of the criticisms are missing the bullseye.
Thanks for the link, Udvarnoky. That's a great article! However, mrman7 complained that "most of the stunts" in the entire movie were done with bluescreen, which was not the case.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.
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.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.
Wha-a-at? 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.Major West said:I think Kaminski's style is very fitting for a 1950s setting,
You mean, 'a particular movie series', right?.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.
Stoo said:Anyway, I agree with you that its lighting & colour tones are closer to "Raiders" than the other movies.
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?
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.
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.
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?