Rocket Surgeon said:
Those comments are fantastic! What a bunch on maroons!
Check out the comments from the 'these-people-don't-understand' category:
---
Metexie: Nothing to see here. Move along folks.
Azishome: @StooTV Yeah, directors watch movies, singers listen to songs, and painters look at paintings, Artists have influences, that's how they learn!
shmutzdawg: why dont you rip apart the stones and the beatles now for ripping off every chuck berry and buddy holly lick...
NoobPwnr000: A logical side by side comparison? Heck no. ?One guy jumps off a building, and Indiana jumps across a hole. SEE!! RIP OFF!!!?
FullazInTheHood: Maybe this would have been interesting had it been footage from one or two or even five films. But 30 films! I?m sure you could easily do the same for any modern masterpiece.
gentlefury: This is EXTREMELY flimsy! You could basically do this with any and all movies. Take a movie and cut together completely unrelated shots that look similar to said movie from movies that preceded it.
DynamicUnreality: So there are only so many ways to shoot people in the jungle walking away from the camera, or standing there with a donkey, of course the shots would look similar.
eduran1: Idk, they are trying too hard to prove something that I don't think is really there. You could probably do this with tons of other modern movies and get the same result.
branoar: if you know anything about editing it is very clear to see that it's all been idiotically edited to match every single shot, trying to prove something that's not true. if you find the original movie you'll see what I'm talking about.
Mrdayz: I appreciate the effort you've gone to, and maybe you have a point, but I, for one don't get it. Dialogue scenes, and groups of people (camel trains etc) walking though the shot are stock footage for many many movies. I'm sure, without too much trouble, you could have included LotR (or whatever the capitalisation should be) footage in the same comparison.
Ash*taka6: To StooTV: You've got clips from color movies (e.g. THE NAKED JUNGLE, SECRET OF THE INCAS, the 1950 version of KING SOLOMON'S MINES, the 1973 version of TRADER HORN) in your "archive" montage, but you show them all in black-and-white only. That's incredibly misleading. Why did you do that?
danielearwicker: It's worth noticing that very few of these scenes actually match up - the person who edited together the old clips has made more effort (and used more sophisticated technology) than went into the original films, slowing footage down or repeating it to create the appearance of a match.
How many old films don't contain the following elements: hats, men walking slowly, men talking, men running, a man putting something in a bag...? You could probably replace most of the footage with scenes from Sesame Street and get equally good matches, if you use the same range of editing techniques.
badrabbit0077: You can't be serious... If I made a movie about football and I put it side by side with other football movies, wouldn't you say I borrowed from those movies? Oh wait, what if I made a movie set in Japan, god forbid my movie should have any similarities to other movies made in Japan as well.
These are hardly evidence of imitation, similarities perhaps, but not imitation. It's like saying a shot of a person walking in a crowd of people was imitated from XXXX number of movies with the same shots.
awezoom:@StooTV I liked finding similar movies in style and with similar characters with the hat, the leather jacket or elements, like the rock ball, but the rest of the montage is too manipulative. You can find scenes in every movie similar to other movies, due to influence, or just because it's a cool way to show something. This would be a great montage if every material came from only one or two movies, but you've just looked bits of movies that just resemble the same scene in Indy, no matter who appears or what's happening in the other scene. Any person unfamiliar with this kind of videos or not very familiar with cinema will directly believe the indy movie was a complete rip-off of other movies, because they won't waste time trying to read the explanation about the video. They'll just get the idea 'Indy was completely copied from 30's movies, frame by frame'. And that's the problem of this video. It's getting popular and it will become part of the common knowledge.
---
What makes me howl is the people who say that it would have been better if I had just used clips from 1 or 2 movies! "Raiders" is an amalgamation of MULTIPLE influences but, sadly, a fraction of folks are failing to fathom the entire purpose of the montage.