Is KotCS too Fake?

Cole

New member
Attila the Professor said:
I'm not sure why should you expect them, since there's no real reason to engage with someone who starts throwing "hypocrite" around - it's a sure-fire way to either turn a discussion into a debate or to shut it down entirely.

The point, though, is that there are things that might have happened in the prior films that did not happen because they did not have the capabilities - and we are better for it. If they had more money when making Raiders, one expects the mine car chase finale would likely be intact. Never mind that it would throw in an action sequence where it would be out of place.

I have no doubt that Spielberg - the fellow who thinks a hero with a whip should spend his time getting pants to fall down - liked the prairie dog, but that's ultimately not a good reason to include it, especially since they apparently felt it could not be done with a real animal, or that was not worth putting in the effort to see if it could. A similar thing could be said of the lack of any real location shooting.
Then it would seem much more logical to blame the people using the effects, and not the effects themselves, right?

By the same token, something like the ants scene could never have been dreamt of doing 20 years ago. I don't think you can ignore the amazing advantageous aspects of modern special effects. It would be outrageous to do so.

For a series with a reputation of physical stunts such as Indiana Jones.......I agree that there is a line in regards to digital effects, and I don't think 'Crystal Skull' crossed it. If they were doing digital Indys flying around like Spiderman.......then I would say they crossed the line. But they did not digitalize any human beings.

Because Spielberg liked it.......that's not a good enough reason to include it? Then what is a good reason for including anything in the movie?

To me, it was a fresh humorous take on the Indy tradition of the Paramount logo fading into the picture. And it is astonishingly realistic, so I really don't see how that is an issue.

To get a real praire dog to pop out of a moundhill, on cue, look around, and then narrowly jump out of the way of a speeding roadster.......that is nowhere near the realm of possibility. Not to mention you'd probably have PETA or something knocking on your door.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Cole said:
Because Spielberg liked it.......that's not a good enough reason to include it? Then what is a good reason for including anything in the movie?

Just because a director has an idea doesn't mean it fits into the piece. Art's a balancing act, and if you put on too many things in one direction, the thing will ultimately topple. Artistic decisions need to be justified by some means other than "I felt like it."

The ants sequence is superb, and could not have been done without CGI. The initial prairie dog entrance surely could have, though not the part with the cars.

Any tool can become a crutch at times and a boon at others.
 

StoneTriple

New member
Udvarnoky said:
the incredibly fake matte cliff in Raiders never bothered me in the slightest - in fact, I think I actually enjoyed it partially because of the camp factor.
I completely understand that feeling, and agree. The fakeness of that shot keeps me in the movie because it requires me to use my imagination - something the younger generation seems to struggle with.
 
Last edited:

Cole

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Just because a director has an idea doesn't mean it fits into the piece. Art's a balancing act, and if you put on too many things in one direction, the thing will ultimately topple. Artistic decisions need to be justified by some means other than "I felt like it."

The ants sequence is superb, and could not have been done without CGI. The initial prairie dog entrance surely could have, though not the part with the cars.

Any tool can become a crutch at times and a boon at others.
Sifting through all the ideas until your left with the best ones is the challenge.

Like I said, I think Spielberg probably thought it was a fresh humorous take on this Indy tradition and I think that's all the reason he needed. As far as I understand it, the prairie dogs were actually Spielberg's idea.

I disagree that it could have been done with a real prairie dog. Unless you get some footage from a nature program or something of a prairie dog getting out of its hole, but by then, it doesn't really fit with what they were trying to do.
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
StoneTriple said:
I completely understand that feeling, and agree. The fakeness of that shot keeps me in the movie because it requires me to use my imagination - something the younger generation seems to struggle with.

Are you trying to argue that the younger generation is more likely to have a problem with CGI and garbage computer effects than the older generation because they lack imagination? That is not my impression, and seems a very convenient point of view for someone who happens to like CGI. CGI doesn't force you to use your imagination, it's a sensory/perceptual substitute for the real thing. It requires no additional processing, and most often is not even noticed (unless done badly, as in this case).
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
The matte paintings and composite work in Raiders was flawless...from the Raven exterior to the Warehouse...the artistry and execution still holds up today
I agree with you but "someone" out there didn't think so and the cliff shot was redone with CGI for TV!:eek: As for "old time camera tricks", we've been down that road before.;)

Rocket Surgeon said:
We did?!?What ever it was I've long since forgotten it!
"Just wanted to say HELLO!":p (Couldn't resist.)
Cole said:
For a series with a reputation of physical stunts such as Indiana Jones.......I agree that there is a line in regards to digital effects, and I don't think 'Crystal Skull' crossed it. If they were doing digital Indys flying around like Spiderman.......then I would say they crossed the line. But they did not digitalize any human beings.
While understanding what you're trying to say, I just thought I'd point out there are a few shots in "Skull" where digitized humans were used. The fact that they may have gone unoticed are a testament to their quality.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Artistic decisions need to be justified by some means other than "I felt like it."

I'm not sure any artistic decision needs to be justified by the "artist". Art is after all an overt expression/manifestation of ego (especially if one presents it for public display)...
 
Stoo said:
I agree with you but "someone" out there didn't think so and the cliff shot was redone with CGI for TV!:eek:
I have yet to watch the revised adventures, is there any improvement?

Were you able to find evidence of any further changes? Did the erase the stunt chair on the fender of the truck? I understand the name Shielman made it to the new release!

Stoo said:
"Just wanted to say HELLO!":p (Couldn't resist.)
Hey! how's Guy Lafleur's son? What a shame! Big fan of Guy and The Canadiens back then...by the way you remember Spielberg wearing that rugby shirt with their stripes? I had that one too!(y)


Oh,CS is too fake...
 

Cole

New member
Stoo said:
While understanding what you're trying to say, I just thought I'd point out there are a few shots in "Skull" where digitized humans were used. The fact that they may have gone unoticed are a testament to their quality.
Where were they used?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
I would imagine he's referring to the shot of the heroes flying out of the jeep during the final waterfall and the Soviets being sucked up into the portal.

Of course, we've seen similar effects before, such as that pretty jarring shot where that Thuggee falls off the severed rope bridge past Indy. The thing all of these things have in common is that you can't do that to human beings in real life, so nobody's going to complain about it. There's a difference between that and some of the things being singled out of Indy4.

Darth Vile said:
One could argue that if Spielberg/Lucas had not included the mine cart chase (TOD), we wouldn't have had all those dodgy back projection and miniature effects that stand out like a sore thumb. Does it mean they should have rejected the concept back in TOD pre production?

Come on. You're going to take a sentiment about the necessity of a CGI prairie dog and try to apply it to Temple of Doom's centerpiece action sequence which, unlike a truck chase, tank chase, or even jungle chase, could never have been replicated in a complete, to-scale environment?

Darth Vile said:
Was the rubber snake/rhino really required for the TLC prologue? Did those few seconds undermine everything else in the movie???

The snakes were necessary because the movie wanted to establish Indy's snake phobia in that prologue. Now, whether or not that idea was really required is a good question, and one probably best not asked of me if you want to hear anything positive. I mean, it's a really fun prologue, but it managed to unravel a substantial amount of the character's mystique by deciding to explain how he got his scar, fear of snakes, whip, fedora...oh, and it all happened in the same afternoon! Pretty silly.

I don't see what makes the circus animals analogous to the prairie dogs anyway. Indy's on a circus train. There are animals on it. It pretty much writes itself that he would run into a variety of them to complicate his escape. The prairie dogs are just there for reaction shots to squeak and/or run away. At least the rhino was a threat to Indy's balls.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Come on. You're going to take a sentiment about the necessity of a CGI prairie dog and try to apply it to Temple of Doom's centerpiece action sequence which, unlike a truck chase, tank chase, or even jungle chase, could never have been replicated in a complete, to-scale environment?

The snakes were necessary because the movie wanted to establish Indy's snake phobia in that prologue. Now, whether or not that idea was really required is a good question, and one probably best not asked of me if you want to hear anything positive. I mean, it's a really fun prologue, but it managed to unravel a substantial amount of the character's mystique by deciding to explain how he got his scar, fear of snakes, whip, fedora...oh, and it all happened in the same afternoon! Pretty silly.

I don't see what makes the circus animals analogous to the prairie dogs anyway. Indy's on a circus train. There are animals on it. It pretty much writes itself that he would run into a variety of them to complicate his escape. The prairie dogs are just there for reaction shots to squeak and/or run away. At least the rhino was a threat to Indy's balls.

Ha, ha. I was counting the minutes until you responded... ;)

C?mon? We were getting broader with the conversation than simply debating, ?Does the gopher look fake??. If we are indeed containing the discussion to that level, than I?d say yes it does? and then go onto list hundreds of fake looking things in the other movies.

However, broadening the conversation?. if one agrees, accepts or acknowledges that moviemakers will/should use visual effects to create shots that would otherwise be impossible, or impractical, then it's easy to see the association between jeeps going over cliffs, to rubber rhinos, to animatronic rats, to CGI gophers. For example, James Bond movies have had real vehicles going over cliffs since the 1960's. So why did Raiders have to have a visual effects shot to achieve the same thing? Because that is the nature of these movies.

The Indiana Jones movie aesthetic/style, e.g. period setting, live stunt work etc. actually belies its utilization of special/visual effects? something uncommon in period action/adventure movies until the advent of Raiders. Sure, the CGI gopher is ?cutesy? and pretty insignificant to the movie, but it is borne out of the same underlying principle of including such irrelevancies in Spielberg/Lucas movies.

As far as the TLC examples are concerned, I agree, I'm not a fan of the prologue? but still, it could have easily established Indy's phobia to snakes without using a big rubber one. It was a cheap visual gag (just like the gophers). The point being that KOTCS is made with the same principles (for better and worse).
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Darth Vile said:
I'm not sure any artistic decision needs to be justified by the "artist". Art is after all an overt expression/manifestation of ego (especially if one presents it for public display)...

I disagree. There are people who throw feces on a canvas and claim that it's representative of their feelings on war, and perhaps they can think that, but that doesn't make it art, and it doesn't make it art that communicates that particular thing. There has to be some sort of logic to these things. If you make the off-the-wall choice, there had better be a good reason for it that either fits into the world you are creating in your narrative or differs from the rest of it in some meaningful way that doesn't destroy the rest of the work.

I'm not saying that the prairie dogs destroy anything, but they do seem to have been undertaken carelessly. (Much like the unexplained bizarre dinner in Temple of Doom, say, or that ridiculous 5 seconds of arrow-fire after Mola Ram's death but before the arrival of the British troops.)
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Ha, ha. I was counting the minutes until you responded... ;)

What, did I say I was leaving?

Darth Vile said:
C’mon… We were getting broader with the conversation than simply debating, “Does the gopher look fake?”. If we are indeed containing the discussion to that level, than I’d say yes it does… and then go onto list hundreds of fake looking things in the other movies.

I love how your definition of broadening the discussion is changing it completely to fit your needs. You responded to an argument about Indy4 featuring CGI-generated throwaway gags that aren't comparable to the other movies with the argument that "moviemakers will/should use visual effects to create shots that would otherwise be impossible, or impractical." You do realize that everyone agrees with that, right? I'm just trying to save you the embarrassment of arguing with yourself. Or is it your intent to confuse the beliefs of the people you're disagreeing with?

I also don't know how you took an observation about the necessity of a CGI prairie dog and turned it into a nonexistent debate on whether or not the gopher "looks fake," but the frequency at which you twist things like that is getting kind of hard to ignore. The breadth of the discussion has nothing to do with it.

Darth Vile said:
For example, James Bond movies have had real vehicles going over cliffs since the 1960's. So why did Raiders have to have a visual effects shot to achieve the same thing? Because that is the nature of these movies.

It's the nature of these movies to embrace the pulp factor of its inspirations, and impossibly huge cliffs fall into that territory. Using a matte shot to accomplish the jeep flying off the cliff in Raiders would fall far more neatly into the territory of "impractical to do in real life" rather than laziness. Maybe if you could Youtube me a clip from a 1960s Bond where a vehicle falls off a comparable cliff I could understand better where you're coming from?

Darth Vile said:
The Indiana Jones movie aesthetic/style, e.g. period setting, live stunt work etc. actually belies its utilization of special/visual effects… something uncommon in period action/adventure movies until the advent of Raiders. Sure, the CGI gopher is “cutesy” and pretty insignificant to the movie, but it is borne out of the same underlying principle of including such irrelevancies in Spielberg/Lucas movies.

I agree with everything up to "irrelevancies." The Indiana Jones movies have indeed, despite their shoestring budgeted origins, tended to boast state of the art special effects (such is having the creator of Star Wars as the executive producer). The difference is where and when those special effects are employed. How many ILM-produced "irrelevancies" can you point out to me in the original trilogy?

Darth Vile said:
As far as the TLC examples are concerned, I agree, I'm not a fan of the prologue… but still, it could have easily established Indy's phobia to snakes without using a big rubber one. It was a cheap visual gag (just like the gophers). The point being that KOTCS is made with the same principles (for better and worse).

You may notice that I never addressed the realism of the snake, because I don't care. As I already said, the difference between the gopher and the snake is that the snake serves a purpose. Also, "cheap" or not, I think you can understand how a big, poised, fanged snake might not promote the same cringe that a cutesy prairie dog would - the snake is designed to add to the mayhem, not undermine it. On a completely different subject, that was the kind of snake they should have used for the quicksand scene.
 

Perhilion

New member
I don't believe any Indy movie can be accused of being too fake when held up against ToD. That being said, ToD ties first with RotLA as my favorite Indy movie, so realism isn't really an issue with me.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
What, did I say I was leaving?
Because it?s become somewhat predictable that you?ll respond in your usual belligerent manner. This is a shame, because the anti KOTCS sentiment you bring (which you are entitled to of course) often turns reasonable debates into a squabble. And your last little personal tirade just comes off as you trying to create a pis*ing contest for no good reason. Which is I think more reflective of your mindset than mine.

So again? without wishing to get caught in a protracted conversation about how you can demonstrate that even the catering on KOTCS was inferior to the earlier movies, I?ll sum up my opinion to the thread title?

No - KOTCS isn?t too fake. There has been an evolution in special/visual effects that means it?s become more practical to use CGI for certain effect shots. Indy movies have always looked ?fake? in that they are "hyper reality". Raiders used effects for a jeep going off a cliff that was achieved practically 20 years earlier in Bond movies (watch Dr. No). And if anyone believes that ghostly angels of death, mannequin/stop motion mine cart chases and rubber rhino?s/giraffes and snakes are more realistic, then I?d ask them to convince me otherwise?
 

JP Jones

New member
Perhilion said:
I don't believe any Indy movie can be accused of being too fake when held up against ToD. That being said, ToD ties first with RotLA as my favorite Indy movie, so realism isn't really an issue with me.
I agree, I know a lot people who say "I can except the other films, but this just pushed the limits,so it's the worst one". Now, if you like ToD which was very fake, then why does one hate CS. CS had America in the 50s, Russian communists, and a greaser. All these are very real. Only about half of the film was ToD-ish, meaning it had an overall crazy plot. My point is WHO CARES ! they're fictional movies and I enjoyed them.:hat:
 
Darth Vile said:
Because it’s become somewhat predictable that you’ll respond in your usual belligerent manner. This is a shame, because the anti KOTCS sentiment you bring (which you are entitled to of course) often turns reasonable debates into a squabble. And your last little personal tirade just comes off as you trying to create a pis*ing contest for no good reason. Which is I think more reflective of your mindset than mine.
It seems to me he goes to great lengths to address your posts, and you jump to another dimension to avoid them.;)

To paraphrase Mr T: "you're duckin him"

mr.kotcs said:
My point is WHO CARES ! they're fictional movies and I enjoyed them.:hat:
Obviously you don't. Face it, without Raiders, Indy would not enjoy the popularity he has. Temple would have been successful but it wouldn't have appealed to as wide an audience, (untill CS it was the LEAST liked of the series) would not have supported three additional movies. The love that Raiders inspired, just look at the host of the raven, has been turned into a joke.

Who cares? The name of the thread is: IS CS too fake.
You see, the way Indiana Jones was created was the polar opposite.
That thread would have been: Is Raiders real enough?

I like Indiana Jones, but Crystal Skull was a joke.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
It seems to me he goes to great lengths to address your posts, and you jump to another dimension to avoid them.;)

To paraphrase Mr T: "you're duckin him"

Udvarnoky can speak for himself. It's incredibly bad form to be taking sides in a disagreement like this. This does not feel like mediation or diffusion on your part, and can tantamount to enflaming the situation further.
 
Darth Vile said:
Udvarnoky can speak for himself.
...and so can I and I do and there you have it.
Darth Vile said:
It's incredibly bad form to be taking sides in a disagreement like this.
I can see where you would think that, however as you're so fond of noticing, I never said I agreed with him, (although I do more times then not). I'm echoing a sentiment that he's expressed, one I've expressed to you in other threads...your penchant to run away from a train of thought, go off on a tangent and simply inject new and totally disjointed arguments.

That's not taking sides...

Darth Vile said:
This does not feel like mediation or diffusion on your part, and can tantamount to enflaming the situation further.

It could if you're defensive and as I see it, you are and rightfully so. However you do so enjoy turning these topics into philisophical circle jerks.:rolleyes:

...no offense.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Because it’s become somewhat predictable that you’ll respond in your usual belligerent manner. This is a shame, because the anti KOTCS sentiment you bring (which you are entitled to of course) often turns reasonable debates into a squabble. And your last little personal tirade just comes off as you trying to create a pis*ing contest for no good reason. Which is I think more reflective of your mindset than mine.

So again… without wishing to get caught in a protracted conversation about how you can demonstrate that even the catering on KOTCS was inferior to the earlier movies, I’ll sum up my opinion to the thread title…

This was written with such a transparent intent to provoke that I'm taking it as your way of saying that you're no longer interested in civil discussion with me, if indeed you ever were.
 
Top