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

@stranger
You mean this, right?


?The thing about Bourne,? Lucas says, ?I would put that on the credible side, because he?s trained in martial arts and all that kind of stuff, and we know that people in martial arts, even little old ladies, can break somebody?s leg. So you kind of say, O.K., that?s possible. But when you get to the next level, whether it?s Tomb Raider or the Die Hard series, where you?ve got one guy with one pistol going up against 50 guys with machine guns, or he jumps in a jet and starts chasing a car down a freeway, you say, I?m not sure I can really buy this. Mission: Impossible?s like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it.?

No Ticket said:

You just DON'T GET IT. It's not how many ants there were. It's one thing to pretend snakes are afraid of fire... it's another thing to CGI them to band together and create a snake monster or some crazy ass thing like that, that belongs in MUMMY movies not Indy movies. Ants do not devour live people in seconds and carry grown men into holes.

Click to expand...

Why are you shouting at me? I have no wish to debate with you anymore if that's what you think is acceptable behaviour.
However, I will say this about what you've said here: you're saying that ants don't behave the way they are portrayed in KOTCS (you're right). I'm saying that snakes don't behave in the way they are portrayed in Raiders (I'm also right). Animals are unrealistically portrayed in Indiana Jones in order for the film to be entertaining. End of story.

Sankara said:

@stranger
You mean this, right?


?The thing about Bourne,? Lucas says, ?I would put that on the credible side, because he?s trained in martial arts and all that kind of stuff, and we know that people in martial arts, even little old ladies, can break somebody?s leg. So you kind of say, O.K., that?s possible. But when you get to the next level, whether it?s Tomb Raider or the Die Hard series, where you?ve got one guy with one pistol going up against 50 guys with machine guns

Click to expand...

Remind me: how many Nazis/Hovitos/Thugee was he up against in the first bunch of films? How many pistols did Indy have?

You've already proven that the makers of KOTCS are unreliable sources when it comes to what they perceive to be in the film and what isn't; why do you think their mistaken view is only confined to KOTCS? It seems that he doesn't correctly describe the original films to me here, either.

@emtiem
That's the reason why he was running away...

I think Lucas comments apply to Raiders, but not to the prequel/sequels.

Sankara said:

@emtiem
That's the reason why he was running away...

Click to expand...

Funny; I remember him chasing the Nazis at several points in Raiders. There's a bit where he chases a truck with the Ark in; not sure if you remember that. He hops on top of a submarine with a load of Nazis in too. You might want to give it another look.

I was talking about the Hovitos. The 50 guys statement was only an example by GL. Important is this part:

or he jumps in a jet and starts chasing a car down a freeway, you say, I?m not sure I can really buy this. Mission: Impossible?s like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it.?

What do you say abou this?

Darth Vile said:

Also, you state the difference between the "impossible" and "implausible" and then you use the Mutt/Spalko sword fight and the vine swing as an example of the "impossible"??? Not a sound argument.

Click to expand...

Nice try, but a little weak. And now I'm gonna tell you why.

I know that the two scenes you mentioned don't have anything strictly impossible in 'em. I know it. But I am also sure you would not argue that they indeed become impossible within the context of the film. Indeed.
I mean, I could have believed those two scenes, if there was the premise of Mutt Williams being an exceptionally skilled and very highly trained stuntmaster. In that case it would have been possible for him to have success, even in those over the top circumstances.

But, well, since in the film Mutt is described as a common American teenager... ehr... I think you too would agree with me that the things he does are definitely a little too much, wouldn't you??
So, in the very context of the film, the entire swordfighting sequence and the Tarzan-style swing ARE impossible. If Mutt was Zorro, maybe not. But Mutt is Mutt... so, no Zorro for us.

Darth Vile said:

I can think of three things in the first 30 minutes of each Indy movie that are more impossible than those examples.

Click to expand...

Oh, come on. You know perfectly that there's an ENORMOUS difference.
I'm talking about the luck. Think about it. In the first three films, Indiana Jones managed to survive a lot of dangerous situations. Yes, but he never, NEVER did anything extraordinary. He was simply there, right place, wrong time... he was running, jumping, falling... he was simply doing things that every one of us could do... and then, always because of his luck, he somehow managed to survive and come out as a winner. See?? It was all a matter of luck. I can believe in luck. All of us can believe in luck. Because being lucky can actually happen.

In the new film, instead, Mutt Williams does many things that go FAR BEYOND the realm of casual fortune. Damn, he managed to win a sword fight with a professional female soldier, while also mantaining a perfect balance in a definitely too unbelievable situation!! The sword fighting scene lasts more than five or six minutes. Luck is a matter of few seconds...

So, no. Mutt is not only lucky in "Kingdom". He is definitely a superhero, judging by how he appears in the film. And that's what makes it all too hard to believe, because COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE.

Sankara said:

@stranger
You mean this, right?


“The thing about Bourne,” Lucas says, “I would put that on the credible side, because he’s trained in martial arts and all that kind of stuff, and we know that people in martial arts, even little old ladies, can break somebody’s leg. So you kind of say, O.K., that’s possible. But when you get to the next level, whether it’s Tomb Raider or the Die Hard series, where you’ve got one guy with one pistol going up against 50 guys with machine guns, or he jumps in a jet and starts chasing a car down a freeway, you say, I’m not sure I can really buy this. Mission: Impossible’s like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it.”

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly!!

The scene where our dear old John McClane jumps on the wing of that airplane was almost universally deemed as bulls**t. But damn, I could bet that it is at least ten times more realistic that "Mutt-on-the-jeep" or "Indy-in-da-"fridge!! And what a shame!!!

I would put that on the credible side, because he’s trained in martial arts and all that kind of stuff, and we know that people in martial arts, even little old ladies, can break somebody’s leg...

Click to expand...

Oh, they can do far more, George...

The Man said:

Oh, they can do far more, George...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yi-qO-4razA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Yi-qO-4razA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​

Click to expand...

I love that...

The Stranger said:

Nice try, but a little weak. And now I'm gonna tell you why.

I know that the two scenes you mentioned don't have anything strictly impossible in 'em. I know it. But I am also sure you would not argue that they indeed become impossible within the context of the film. Indeed.
I mean, I could have believed those two scenes, if there was the premise of Mutt Williams being an exceptionally skilled and very highly trained stuntmaster. In that case it would have been possible for him to have success, even in those over the top circumstances.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree. The argument you put forward seems to be based purely on a response to a movie you don’t like. Of course you don’t have to like KOTCS or look for reason to enjoy it… but at least acknowledge the fact that your argument is biased. It’s so easy to forgive movies one enjoys... and damn those one dislikes.

There is little in Raiders, TOD or TLC that is any more believable that those two specific scenes you mention (Mutt/Spalko swordfight and vine swing). Was there any suggestion in the first 3 movies that Indy was Superman, or at the very least an Olympian athlete? I don’t think there was. So how come he can dodge poisonous darts, outrun a speeding boulder (don’t get me started on the physics of that), or even outrun a tribe of Hovitos warriors (and that’s just the first 15 minutes of Raiders)? Luck?

I'm sure you don't really expect anyone to take seriously (apart from those who will state anything to damn KOTCS), the claim that swinging on a vine or having a sword fight between two vehicles is less possible than dragging behind a truck at high speed (and suffering minor abrasions), hanging onto a submarine or surviving God’s “Angels of Death”? Where does "luck" come into any of that?

Or are you just pulling my leg?

Mutt the swordsman

Pretty sure that the film had a line illustrating that Mutt had an extensive classical education and that he specifically remarked about fencing training as something he embraced and excelled at.

Honestly the minutiae being needled here reveals more about the viewer than any possible issue with the movie. I'm reminded of a friend of mine that watched "Honey I Shrunk The Kids" with me many years ago getting all indignant about the plausibility of that film....I tried to remind him that the title was "Honey I Shrunk The Kids" but it didn't seem to get through his movie law filter.

I'm also reminded of a line about a forest and some trees....

As far as the believability of the sword fighting goes, I'm ok with that. And while it's refreshing to hear a different complaint about kotcs, I think that the anger towards the believability of the sword fight is a bit misplaced. The only thing wrong with it is that Mutt gets too much screen time with it, while Indy is relegated to driving a car in the background. If Indy had duelled with Spalko, or Mutt's fight had been interrupted by Indy taking it over, or Mutt's fight had just been half as long, you wouldn't be looking for a way to hate it. But to say that Mutt's sword fight with Spalko is completely unbelievable in the IJ universe is to ignore all the other unbelievable stuff in the previous installments, of which there was plenty.

Indy's brother said:

As far as the believability of the sword fighting goes, I'm ok with that. And while it's refreshing to hear a different complaint about kotcs, I think that the anger towards the believability of the sword fight is a bit misplaced. The only thing wrong with it is that Mutt gets too much screen time with it, while Indy is relegated to driving a car in the background. If Indy had duelled with Spalko, or Mutt's fight had been interrupted by Indy taking it over, or Mutt's fight had just been half as long, you wouldn't be looking for a way to hate it. But to say that Mutt's sword fight with Spalko is completely unbelievable in the IJ universe is to ignore all the other unbelievable stuff in the previous installments, of which there was plenty.

Click to expand...

Spot on...

Also, I'm not sure if Harrison’s age had something to do with it, or whether it was just the ethos of making an ensemble movie, that led to that particular scene involving Mutt and not Indy. However, I would point out that as far as dialogue and focus is concerned… Sean Connery had just as much as Shia. One may prefer Sean’s role/acting to Shia’s (or neither), but the principle remains pretty much the same I think.

Darth Vile said:

Also, I'm not sure if Harrison’s age had something to do with it, or whether it was just the ethos of making an ensemble movie, that led to that particular scene involving Mutt and not Indy.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm certain it was the latter. Harrison did some pretty crazy stuff in this movie.

Anyway, my problem with the swordfighting (at least on my anticipation-fueled first viewing) was not that Mutt was a good swordfighter, because as said the movie had a line about that, but just how "bluescreen" it all looked. There are shots of the fencing sequence where it looks like little more on the screen is real than Shia and Cate. In the meantime Mutt's being hit in the groin with CGI foilage, and Marion's windshield is being shattered by megabytes....it was just one special effect too many for me, I guess, and sort of defeated the purpose of having two actors actually have a choreographed sword fight.

On subsequent viewings though I didn't mind at all, and totally enjoyed it, so, go figure.

Udvarnoky said:

Oh, I'm certain it was the latter. Harrison did some pretty crazy stuff in this movie.

Anyway, my problem with the swordfighting (at least on my anticipation-fueled first viewing) was not that Mutt was a good swordfighter, because as said the movie had a line about that, but just how "bluescreen" it all looked. There are shots of the fencing sequence where it looks like little more on the screen is real than Shia and Cate. In the meantime Mutt's being hit in the groin with CGI foilage, and Marion's windshield is being shattered by megabytes....it was just one special effect too many for me, I guess, and sort of defeated the purpose of having two actors actually have a choreographed sword fight.

On subsequent viewings though I didn't mind at all, and totally enjoyed it, so, go figure.

Click to expand...

I agree.

I certainly don't think it was Ford's ability... Rather that it's possible that Lucas/Spileberg tried to take some of the onus of Ford (in the script) by giving some action to another character.

Visually speaking, there is definitely a large air of blue screen about that particular scene. However, I’m not clear as to what extent… as I’ve seen much behind the scenes footage of Shia and Cate rigged up on location/on set... So is the CGI minimal, but a little too gratuitous? Is the “air of blue screen” somehow doing the actual extent of live action a disservice (i.e. are we imagining it)? Or was the aforementioned original footage largely re-shot against blue screen?

Perhaps we’ll get further clarity on the DVD special features docs.

Well I think at least one shot of it was from a soundstage in front of a bluescreen. But even when the scene's in Hawaii, the problem is it's so hard to tell. Since the foilage is being rendered with a computer anyway and the visuals already have that "tinge" to it, why would we assume that, for example, the jeeps are moving as well? There's just too much computer stuff going on that you start second guessing the things that could very well be real. So it's almost like the extent of the CGI being used doesn't matter. I might not be able to tell exactly what's CGI and what isn't, but enough of it is that on some level I'm kind of taken out of it.

Someday I'd really love to see some of the dailies of what the scene looked like on the man made Hawaiian rodes, just so I can see how different it really looks.

I don't think the CGI bothered me you see people we are in the 21st century so we can just accept that it used CGI or will we just go on and on.

Spielberg wanted the scene to play out like the vehicles were plowing through unspoiled jungle.

They scouted and considered Nicaragua before settling on a private estate in Hawaii that had what they needed.

For safety reasons they needed to cut roads into the foliage for the vehicles. They used a combination of set dressing and digimatte effects to put trees, plants, shrubs, etc. back into the road/between vehicles to achieve the look Spielberg was trying to get. Some close ups were done using a 360 degree bluescreen on an LA set later but Shia did the straddling the vehicles on location supported by a rig from one of the vehicles.

One thing that I've observed with many films in the modern effects era is that their image quality is significantly different (perhaps even degraded) in the transfer to film. To be sure effects artists should compensate properly but I'm thinking particularly of the first time I saw Attack of the Clones for example and how "muddy" things looked projected on film (and most theatres project at substandard quality at that) compared to digital projection and later DVD/digital playback. Sometimes this muddiness is more pronounced when there are digital elements amid more live action but not nearly as conspicuous when seen digitally. Just an observation I have.

I still personally think however that the complaints about this scene are grossly overstated and that it plays very well. If it suffers at all I think it's just one more niggle to put put on a large pile that people dissatisfied with the film (and you don't really need to qualify why if it didn't leave you pleased) have built up. There was much more physical, set and model work on this film than the anti-CGI crusaders are willing to acknowledge as well in my opinion.

Udvarnoky said:

Well I think at least one shot of it was from a soundstage in front of a bluescreen. But even when the scene's in Hawaii, the problem is it's so hard to tell. Since the foilage is being rendered with a computer anyway and the visuals already have that "tinge" to it, why would we assume that, for example, the jeeps are moving as well? There's just too much computer stuff going on that you start second guessing the things that could very well be real. So it's almost like the extent of the CGI being used doesn't matter. I might not be able to tell exactly what's CGI and what isn't, but enough of it is that on some level I'm kind of taken out of it.

Someday I'd really love to see some of the dailies of what the scene looked like on the man made Hawaiian rodes, just so I can see how different it really looks.

Click to expand...

Well again I kind of agree... At this point, I'm not sure whether it's over analysis/too much insight into the production on our part, or whether it?s a valid criticism of the production. I?m starting to suffer from over analytical blindness (if you know what I mean).

Regardless (similar to yourself), I still enjoy the scene a lot.