Is KotCS too Fake?

JP Jones

New member
Lots of people think kotcs pushed the limit of plausibility.
My question is does this bother anyone? Or does it just add to the fun?:gun:
 

Meerkat

New member
Well, the only thing that really ticked me off were the ALIENS. I mean, come on, KOTCS was the movie in which my favorite character was featured, but aliens in an Indiana Jones movie? It just doesn't...fit. But I guess after 20 years of looking for the artifact, Lucas and Spielberg were getting pretty desperate.
 

deckard24

New member
While all the films are filled with plenty of implausible moments, the fridge scene takes the prize! Now as to whether KOTCS as a whole is too fake, I'd have to say all the films are pretty fake, with Raiders being the most grounded. Like I said in a separate thread, it's the all over tone of Skull which hurts it more then the 'fake' quality. If it wanted to be one giant campy cartoon of a movie, it should have stuck with the TOD formula. If it wanted to be more serious but fun, it should have gone with the Raiders template. And if it wanted to be more of an adventure spoof ala Abbot and Costello, it should have followed LC. It just never seems to decide what type of Indy film it wants to be.

Now some might gripe about aliens being too 'fake', but that is really just subjective and biased, as aliens are just as sci-fi and fantastical as religious mysticism and supernatural artifacts.
 

JP Jones

New member
deckard24 said:
While all the films are filled with plenty of implausible moments, the fridge scene takes the prize! Now as to whether KOTCS as a whole is too fake, I'd have to say all the films are pretty fake, with Raiders being the most grounded. Like I said in a separate thread, it's the all over tone of Skull which hurts it more then the 'fake' quality. If it wanted to be one giant campy cartoon of a movie, it should have stuck with the TOD formula. If it wanted to be more serious but fun, it should have gone with the Raiders template. And if it wanted to be more of an adventure spoof ala Abbot and Costello, it should have followed LC. It just never seems to decide what type of Indy film it wants to be.

Now some might gripe about aliens being too 'fake', but that is really just subjective and biased, as aliens are just as sci-fi and fantastical as religious mysticism and supernatural artifacts.
I think the formula they tried to use was the " just have as much fun as you can, and people will come too see it"formula. I think it's pretty obvious that they weren't trying to make a movie as serious as Raiders. After 19 years the majority of fans wanted an Indy movie that crams all the action it can in and doesn't care about the minority people who want a movie like the dark night, Bourne series, or Quantom of solace.
 

deckard24

New member
mr.kotcs said:
I think the formula they tried to use was the " just have as much fun as you can, and people will come too see it"formula. I think it's pretty obvious that they weren't trying to make a movie as serious as Raiders. After 19 years the majority of fans wanted an Indy movie that crams all the action it can in and doesn't care about the minority people who want a movie like the dark night, Bourne series, or Quantom of solace.
Yeah, but Raiders was never in the same vein as The Dark Knight, the Bourne series, or Quantum of Solace, and it was action packed, fun, gritty, humorous, intelligent, and campy all at the same time. Aside from the jumbled tone and pacing of Skull, you have a really flat, dull, and uninspired screenplay to boot. They tried to combine all the successful elements of the first three films, but unfortunately lost the magic they had somewhere in translation.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Indy4 is too fake, but not because of implausibility. It's because the movie looks fake. It's got a glowy, processed, off-putting look to it that takes you completely out of the proceedings. Combine all that with the constant use of thick smoke/fog/mist (I guess to cover up the CGI?) and you end up with an over-the-top visual aesthetic that looks nothing like the original trilogy - and not due to any kind of natural, modern progression, but because of a conscious DP choice. Yes, the composition is in line with the older films, complete with the proclivity for wide shots, long takes and deep focus, but how can I notice that when I'm so distracted by blinding light sources that only exist because somebody was feeling self-indulgent?

The other movies looked "fake" in that appealing, romantic adventure movie way, with warm colors and high contrast. Indy4 was Kaminski going, "Hey guys, check out what the arbitrary use of pro-mist filters looks like!" The grit and the majesty that could occasionally be felt in the older films can't be mustered here because the suffocatingly overbearing style denies it.

mr.kotcs said:
I think it's pretty obvious that they weren't trying to make a movie as serious as Raiders.

There are moments in Indy4 that are more serious, thematically, than in Raiders, and Raiders could be a pretty darned silly film at times. (Nazi monkeys saluting Hitler?) deckard24 is right in that Indy4's problem is the lack of consistency. It constantly shifts tone like it's going out of style. I happily lapped up all the cheese Temple of Doom served me, because Temple knew what kind of movie it was. Indy4 was still trying to figure that out when Indy was kissing his bride.

Forbidden Eye said:
Of course its fake.

Why would anyone want a non-documentary film to be "real"?

That's sort of patronizing, isn't it?

Realism is relative. Every movie, even a fantastical one, has to create a sense of "realism," or more accurately a set of rules, which have to be followed to ensure a consistency. It's an essential part of creating a compelling and fully realized world for a story. Even places like Neverland have rules. How can you believe in the world of a movie (and therefore keep caring) if the rules are constantly re-invented? Don't willfully misunderstand what I mean by "believe" here.

Here's an intelligent take on the subject.
 
Last edited:
In 2007, thousands of people literally blamed "Die Hard 4" because it felt fake.
In that film, the most incredible thing the protagonist does is jumping off an airplane, which basically consists only in a mere jump...
Now, I'm ok with the consolidated fact that THAT particular scene IS actually a little over the top... but this doesn't mean that an action like that, for what I know, could have been done even by a kid. Even by me, even by you.

And also surviving that sort of exploit wouldn't actually be a problem at all, given that our good ol' John McClane only fell from a five/six metres height (nothing super-human), and when he subsequently managed to recover he was clearly shown to be limping in pain.

The things seen in "Kingdom", as opposite, couldn't have been done even by the best professional acrobatic stuntmen in the world... in fact, for many of those manoeuvers (particularly the Tarzan scene and the swordfight in the jungle... but also the rocambolesque escape from the warehouse) the production team was forced to heavily rely on computer graphics and on massive cable/wiring deletion.

But the fact that the film itself felt so fake is not strictly a consequence of those (undoubtly) ridicule choices. Instead it's mainly because in "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" there are TONS of impossible action stunts that are presented as if they actually were nothing special, almost as if any average guy in this world could do the same.

And I'm not even gonna mention the other guilty scene, for it speaks loud enough for itself by just passively watching it... everybody knows what I'm referring to...

Udvarnoki said:
Indy4 is too fake, but not because of implausibility. It's because the movie looks fake. It's got a glowy, processed, off-putting look to it that takes you completely out of the proceedings. Combine all that with the constant use of thick smoke/fog/mist (I guess to cover up the CGI?) and you end up with an over-the-top visual aesthetic that looks nothing like the original trilogy - and not due to any kind of natural, modern progression, but because of a conscious DP choice. Yes, the composition is in line with the older films, complete with the proclivity for wide shots, long takes and deep focus, but how can I notice that when I'm so distracted by blinding light sources that only exist because somebody was feeling self-indulgent?

So true... not one single shot that didn't remind me of the digital film-making style made so famous by the Matrix trilogy. Don't know... :sleep: is it because of that annoying greenish tint, perhaps.
 

deckard24

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Indy4 is too fake, but not because of implausibility. It's because the movie looks fake. It's got a glowy, processed, off-putting look to it that takes you completely out of the proceedings. Combine all that with the constant use of thick smoke/fog/mist (I guess to cover up the CGI?) and you end up with an over-the-top visual aesthetic that looks nothing like the original trilogy - and not due to any kind of natural, modern progression, but because of a conscious DP choice. Yes, the composition is in line with the older films, complete with the proclivity for wide shots, long takes and deep focus, but how can I notice that when I'm so distracted by blinding light sources that only exist because somebody was feeling self-indulgent?

The other movies looked "fake" in that appealing, romantic adventure movie way, with warm colors and high contrast. Indy4 was Kaminski going, "Hey guys, check out what the arbitrary use of pro-mist filters looks like!" The grit and the majesty that could occasionally be felt in the older films can't be mustered here because the suffocatingly overbearing style denies it.
Here's an intelligent take on the subject.
Good point! Kaminski's cinematography does play a huge part in the mess that is KOTCS. Now in his defense, there are a handful of scenes that mesh well with the look of the original three films, but overall the film itself does feel like one overlong glowy dream sequence.

Just for the sake of comparison, here's a good article on the amazing work of Douglas Slocombe (DP of the original films):
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/05/20/a-look-back-the-iconic-cinematography-of-douglas-slocombe/

Here's an intelligent take on the subject.
Nice find, it's an interesting read!:hat:
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
deckard24 said:
Just for the sake of comparison, here's a good article on the amazing work of Douglas Slocombe (DP of the original films):
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/05/20/a-look-back-the-iconic-cinematography-of-douglas-slocombe/

You could also just look at The Lost World, which also takes place in jungle scenery and proves that Kaminski is perfectly capable of doing good work when he's willing to back the hell off of a previously established style. With all the hoopla about he and Spielberg supposedly "swallowing their pride" and approximating the older movies I was hopeful, but I guess he couldn't help himself. Don't know what Spielberg was thinking when he gave his stamp of approval.
 
Udvarnoky said:
You could also just look at The Lost World, which also takes place in jungle scenery and proves that Kaminski is perfectly capable of doing good work when he's willing to back the hell off of a previously established style. With all the hoopla about he and Spielberg supposedly "swallowing their pride" and approximating the older movies I was hopeful, but I guess he couldn't help himself. Don't know what Spielberg was thinking when he gave his stamp of approval.


That said, I still can't help but prefer Dean Cundy's work to Kaminski. I've heard the argument of Kaminski's darker style being more appropriate for the follow-up now that the ilse had been over-grown. But I still prefer Cundy's bright and expansive photography for the first film. It perfectly suited the theme park aesthetic but is also generally just attractive. And Cundy's still is more in-keeping with Slocombe's. Both men seem to lean more toward warm, natural hues.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
The point is, whatever our personal preferences for individual cinematographers is, Kaminski was perfectly capable of putting his ego aside and delivering results that looked like an Indiana Jones movie.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
Indy4 is too fake, but not because of implausibility. It's because the movie looks fake. It's got a glowy, processed, off-putting look to it that takes you completely out of the proceedings. Combine all that with the constant use of thick smoke/fog/mist (I guess to cover up the CGI?) and you end up with an over-the-top visual aesthetic that looks nothing like the original trilogy - and not due to any kind of natural, modern progression, but because of a conscious DP choice. Yes, the composition is in line with the older films, complete with the proclivity for wide shots, long takes and deep focus, but how can I notice that when I'm so distracted by blinding light sources that only exist because somebody was feeling self-indulgent?

The other movies looked "fake" in that appealing, romantic adventure movie way, with warm colors and high contrast. Indy4 was Kaminski going, "Hey guys, check out what the arbitrary use of pro-mist filters looks like!" The grit and the majesty that could occasionally be felt in the older films can't be mustered here because the suffocatingly overbearing style denies it.

Actually, if you look at the film, you'll see that outside of the obvious clip(Aliens, ants, fridge) that the film was mostly shot CGI-free. Even scenes where Indy busts through the barrels was done live with any CGI as shown on the DVD features.

What you're noticing is the coloring which is digitally-processed as opposed to chemically processed like the originals.

I think this clip explains it better like I can. Frankly this is why every film looks different today than the 1980's or films like Fargo or No Country For Old Men look different despite being only a decade apart. We just don't ever really notice because those films aren't in a series and have fans that can compare scenes unfairly, frame by frame. ;)

I think its unfair to expect Kingdom to have looked exactly like the first 3 films like you seem to have expected, as it was always going to look different, even if the 95-year-old Slocombe had enough energy to have returned. Because like typing a screenplay on a type-writer instead of a computer, it'd just too much of a hassle.

I think Kingdom and does a really good job at capturing the original colors considering(the best example being the graveyard scenes). But as for why it doesn't look like it was shot in the 1980's, well that's because it was not shot in the 1980's.

EDIT: To bring The Lost World into the debate like you have, well, like the original Indy trilogy, the colors were shot with chemically. So there's just not much hope to please you in the 21st century I'm sorry to say.
 
Last edited:
Udvarnoky said:
The point is, whatever our personal preferences for individual cinematographers is, Kaminski was perfectly capable of putting his ego aside and delivering results that looked like an Indiana Jones movie.


Yes and no... My point was that Cundy better approximated Slocombe. Kaminski did Lost World which looks nothing like his other works, granted, but it also doesn't look terribly much like Slocombe. It's dark and it's a bit metallic. It certainly lacks the natural vibrancy of Slocombe or Cundy.
 

deckard24

New member
Udvarnoky said:
You could also just look at The Lost World, which also takes place in jungle scenery and proves that Kaminski is perfectly capable of doing good work when he's willing to back the hell off of a previously established style. With all the hoopla about he and Spielberg supposedly "swallowing their pride" and approximating the older movies I was hopeful, but I guess he couldn't help himself. Don't know what Spielberg was thinking when he gave his stamp of approval.
It's really just a matter of familiarity and complacency where Spielberg is concerned. He's used Kaminski now for 16 years and 11 films, yet some of his best films all had different DPs, Duel-Jack A. Marta, Jaws-Bill Butler, Close Encounters of the Third Kind-Viilmos Zsigmond, E.T.-Allen Daviau, The Indy Series-Douglas Slocombe, and Jurassic Park-Dean Cundey.

Yeah the looks of The Lost World was surprisingly more akin to the original 3 Indy films, which only makes me wonder why Kaminski felt so inclined to shower Skull in his signature haze.


Originally Posted by Resident Alien
That said, I still can't help but prefer Dean Cundy's work to Kaminski. I've heard the argument of Kaminski's darker style being more appropriate for the follow-up now that the ilse had been over-grown. But I still prefer Cundy's bright and expansive photography for the first film. It perfectly suited the theme park aesthetic but is also generally just attractive. And Cundy's still is more in-keeping with Slocombe's. Both men seem to lean more toward warm, natural hues.
Agreed! Cundey should have been brought on board, but god forbid Spielberg shoot one film without Kaminski.:rolleyes:
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Forbidden Eye said:
I think its unfair to expect Kingdom to have looked exactly like the first 3 films like you seem to have expected

You are completely wrong about my expectations. There are countless modern films that don't have the issues I've cited as my problems, which you chose to ignore in favor of deciding that my problem is with the look of modern cinema in general or with the growing popularity of DIP (which I fully believe is often arbitrarily overused, but that is another issue).

Go to this youtube video and watch at 0:47. It's footage from the movie Knowing, the prologue of which takes place at an elementary school in the 50s - the part I've pointed you to is the interior of a classroom. Note the color and the style - it is distinctly 50s, and may remind you an awful lot of how Indy's classroom looks in Indy4. If you compare the scenes though, Knowing's counterpart lacks the ridiculous bloom effects while still completely capturing that nostalgic 50s feel, complete with that dreamy look but without going completely crazy.

Forbidden Eye said:
Actually, if you look at the film, you'll see that outside of the obvious clip(Aliens, ants, fridge) that the film was mostly shot CGI-free.

Define "mostly." Just because scenes weren't effects-heavy does not mean that there wasn't CGI present. The classic example is the jungle chase, which was shot on location but nonetheless had ample CGI enhancement. Most of the film's practical effects were like this, like the main Akator temple (which was mostly real but with CGI used to complete the sides) and probably even that crate smashing effect you alluded to. A little dose of CGI is used to dot the i's and cross the t's of tons of scenes in the film, including the quiet ones. Note that I'm not complaining about any of this, but I also don't think the observation about how much smoke is in the movie is totally irrelevant here, considering how noticeably prevalent it is.

Forbidden Eye said:
So there's just not much hope to please you in the 21st century I'm sorry to say.

I'm sorry you so thoroughly misunderstood me that you could have reached that conclusion.
 
Last edited:

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
Go to this youtube video and watch at 0:47. It's footage from the movie Knowing, the prologue of which takes place at an elementary school in the 50s - the part I've pointed you to is the interior of a classroom. Note the color and the style - it is distinctly 50s, and may remind you an awful lot of how Indy's classroom looks in Indy4. If you compare the scenes though, Knowing's counterpart lacks the ridiculous bloom effects while still completely capturing that nostalgic 50s feel, complete with that dreamy look but without going completely crazy.

Interesting, but still, I think you'd agree that scene doesn't look anything like the classroom scenes in Raiders or Crusade, which you were complaining about earlier. Frankly, I actually much prefer that scene at Kingdom than in that clip from Knowing as the scene in Kingdom looks closer to the originals, but I guess that's all personal taste.

Frankly, I'm not arguing Kaminski's cinematography couldn't be improved. What I am arguing is that Kaminski's cinematography doesn't look like Raiders or Crusade as that should be expected.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Forbidden Eye said:
Interesting, but still, I think you'd agree that scene doesn't look anything like the classroom scenes in Raiders or Crusade, which you were complaining about earlier.

I used the comparison to make an observation about the bloom lighting specifically, not to say that the clip from Knowing would have been my dream look for Indy4. What it's proof of is that it's perfectly possible to capture the nostalgic 1950s look that Spielberg and Kaminski were likely going for without indulging in the pointless excess seen in Indy4.

Frankly, I'm not sure you even understand what I was complaining about. I cite pretty specific aspects of Indy4's look as personal bones of contention and you magically transform it into me arguing that Indy4's problem was that it did not look "exactly" like the other movies despite inevitable changes in processing techniques after two decades. What are we achieving if you're going to attack arguments that never existed?
 

Dayne

New member
290.jpg


This is great. Look at Mutt; you can't capture 1950's swashbuckler better than that shot. Come to think of it, with the bloom lighting and colour saturation, this shot captures a comic book quality that most superhero and other comic book movies fail to capture at all. Also, the heavy haze throughout this scene works especially well as it fleshes out the experience of being in a hot and humid rainforest.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Dayne said:
290.jpg


This is great. Look at Mutt; you can't capture 1950's swashbuckler better than that shot. Come to think of it, with the bloom lighting and colour saturation, this shot captures a comic book quality that most superhero and other comic book movies fail to capture at all. Also, the heavy haze throughout this scene works especially well as it fleshes out the experience of being in a hot and humid rainforest.

I love KOTCS, but I think that is the worst looking shot in the film...
 
Top