Darth Vile said:
Of course its a constraint if one doesn't afford Indiana Jones movies the same choices that other contemporary movies have.
Every movie has the same choices. What separates them is the choices that they make, and why. Spielberg had the choice to make Indiana Jones 4 a CGI animated movie like The Clone Wars. If that would have happened and you would have found yourself disappointed by that, would you appreciate someone giving you lip about how you're denying the film makers their right to make the choices they see fit? Would you have much patience if I reminded you that making an Indy movie that way is not intrinsically bad film making?
You're essentially saying that no one has the right to complain about anything - we should lap up everything we're given and be glad about it because you can find some tangential similarity between something in one film to another film. It doesn't change what a person's impression of a movie was.
Darth Vile said:
For example, why limit an Egypt scene to some generic desert in Tunisia? As I've mentioned before, Raiders set/location dressing is great, but it never really looked like Cairo did it??? If you limit your choices in realising an effect, that's a constraint.
I was always completely fooled, actually, as was 99% of the public. It's a real desert, and that is an effect impossible to fake. (At least, yet?) Substitutions like that are an accepted part of the medium anyway, going back to the beginning of time. It's not like when I grew up and found out it wasn't really Cairo I felt cheated. The setting was a desert, and they went to a real desert to film it - it is as simple as that. As Robert Watts said, since the script never calls for shots of the pyramids or the Sphinx, it just wasn't necessary to go to Egypt. (Besides which, the reason for much of the bluescreen work in Indy4 had nothing to do with money.) What, should I criticize the Tunisia scenes in Star Wars for not being shot on location on a real alien planet? The illusion is effectively captured, which is all that matters. You recognized Petra? You knew better than Raiders being filmed an Cairo? Good for you - it's still a real, historic piece of architecture and it's still a real, faraway place, and you can tell. On the other hand, nobody
couldn't tell that
this was Los Angeles.
It's the same reason I would never criticize the intro of Indy4 for being filmed in New Mexico instead of Nevada, or the Hawaii jungle doubling for South America in the Raiders prologue. They're still real locations that might as well be the real deal, and they capture an exotic look that can't be replicated. Honestly, I can't even begin to understand how doubling one country for another is the same as the characters being in front of bluescreens anytime the need to show Peru background scenery is called for.
Darth Vile said:
Of course. I have zero issue with anybody who doesn't like/wasn't entertained by an Indiana Jones movie... and I can completely understand why some didn't like KOTCS.
Except you're all too happy to state that people who have problems with Indy4 equate individual choices with "intrinsically bad film making," even though I"m pretty sure you're the only person who's ever used those words. Maybe if you were less eager to put words in people's mouths I'd have an easier time believing your "I have zero problem" remark.