I knew you would be totally cool with that. Something made it inevitable. Just to further explain my point , if Raiders or a similarly great movie were released for the first time today, I think the lack of CG would be one of its winning points. Amongst all the CG laden flicks nowadays, Raiders would exhibit a charm and an authenticity, in fact, critics and movie goers would hail it a success even more now than when it was released in 1981 because of this 'return to non CG'. As pointed out many times, Raiders wins out on story, characterisation, edge-of-your-seat action sequences and great acting all achieving a down-and-dirty, gritty and edgy adventure action flick. I don't hate Crystal Skull, but when I think of the possibilities that weren't fulfilled and the resources that Lucas and Spielberg have at the finger tips and didn't use, well, poor ol' CS is like the limping dog that everyone kinda likes but moreso feels sorry for.
Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds
- Thread starter seasider
- Start date
Darth Vile
New member
Mickiana said:
I don't think Raiders would be the success if released today. Movies move on... and whilst Raiders is obviously a classic movie (and the best Indy movie to date IMHO), I'm pretty sure modern audiences (as in anyone under the age of 25), with no frame of reference (if we are to pretend Raiders didn't come out in 81), would probably find it way too pedestrian (and cliched) by todays standards.
Montana Smith
Active member
Darth Vile said:
I also think this would be the case.
In 1981 ROTLA was state of the art movie making, with fantastic set design and the special effects which especially came to the fore when the Ark was opened. Back then they had to do stunts the hard way. It was a modern film in its day. Every year cinema audiences expect to see a 'modern film', so it would take a brave producer to satisfy nostalgia buffs, while hoping to also win over a mass audience. KOTCS was inevitable, just as TOD was inevitable.
The problem is that 'bigger and better' isn't always bigger and better in the eyes of everyone.
Cole
New member
It's vastly more difficult to impress audiences today than it was in 1981. Audiences take what they see on screen for granted today - the industry is saturated with modern special effects and movies that cost $100-$200 million and above. We've become immune to spectacular visuals.
So mostly for this reason, I'd probably say it would be popular, but it would not have the same impact.
It would be impossible to take the special effects seriously.....they'd probably be interpreted more as an intentional joke/spoof of the genre. Hardly "spectacular."
So mostly for this reason, I'd probably say it would be popular, but it would not have the same impact.
It would be impossible to take the special effects seriously.....they'd probably be interpreted more as an intentional joke/spoof of the genre. Hardly "spectacular."
Montana Smith
Active member
Cole said:
I agree that this would be the ideal situation. There are some modern films that are so devoid of real character or emotion that they have to rely on relentless action. There are times, when I've decided to watch a DVD to the end, that I'll fast forward through the action, until the film returns to some form of story.
Indy is an interesting and engaging character to follow, so that for most of the time the action is also involving. However, with KOTCS there are times where I find the involvement is not as strong as in the ealier movies. The tendency for spectacle to dominate over substance was definitely creeping into the formula.
It was just as well that Harrison was still fully committed to the role, so that enough of the original Indy survived to hold the movie together. He was, however, also struggling against the 1950s, which was challenging him for star-billing.
Cole said:
The original death scenes of Belloq, Toht and Dietrich always struck me as leaning more towards comedy than to horror, and the same with Donovan in TLC. This was likely intentional, since more horrific special effects were present in other movies of the time. I just think that back then Lucas and Spielberg were interested in a tale of 'scary' action adventure, as opposed to a 'horror' action adventure. From the outset Indiana Jones was family friendly viewing (with parental guidance), though Lucas and Spielberg were pushing the elements of taste as far as they could go - especially with TOD.
With KOTCS any shock value was finally muted, making it a pretty safe family film.
Cole
New member
Right, Transformers 2 comes to mind. I'm not even joking - I was sitting in the theater straight up bored for the last hour of that movie.Montana Smith said:
Indiana Jones is an action/adventure movie, so action/adventure is expected. The character moments usually happen along the adventure and usually the pace and tempo of the film is pretty quick. So expecting some grand, complex characters or something........we just got to remember to keep it in context.
An advantage of something like 'Crystal Skull' is that the audience is already familiar with some of the characters - there's already a chemistry there. And I think that's what makes a scene like "They weren't you honey" even more gratifying for the audience. Or when Marion shoves the bouqet in the minister's face and lays a big one on Indy. I thought these were little nuances that complimented and built on what we already knew about Indy and Marion.........so, I don't know, I thought they were pretty successful in those regards.
Mutt was the major new character and I thought they were pretty successful in making an appealing character. The whole greaser thing with the bike and always combing his hair, the generational gap with Indy that results in some comedic play between the two, he's got some action scenes of his own in the film........Shia did a good job.
But when you're comparing to the original 3, it's almost bound to come up short - especially 'Raiders' and 'Last Crusade.'
I don't know if the Ark death scene in 'Raiders' is meant to be comedic........I do think they tried to do the best special effects they could at that time - they won an Academy Award for it if I'm not mistaken. But the whole exagerration of the special effects and the fact that it wasn't 100% realistic - I don't think it bothered them. They knew the spirit behind the film - inspired by the 1930's/1940's Saturday serials.
If the scene were done today using digital effects, it would look much more realistic - although the exaggeration of the death might retain some of its "cartoony" elements. Look at Spalko's death.
Spielberg may have been a bit more family conscientous with 'Skull,' but it's still a PG-13 film, so I don't think they went TOO soft and fluffy. They did for some people's taste, but I think modern audiences are pretty cynical today, and that's not really Indy to me. And obviously neither was it to Spielberg or Ford or Lucas. If you actually READ Shia's controversial comments from a few months ago - I think this is really what his criticism was about. He was talking about how they did not "update" the series and how they needed to satiate the audience's appetite but misappropriated what they were satiating. And then that turned into "Shia thinks Indy 4 sucks too."
Last edited:
Then I must be misjudging the current audiences and not the movie. Special effects saturation is creating a problem in expectations, it seems. It would be interesting to test this by screening Raiders on the big screen today to an audience not privy to it. But where is that demographic? Somewhere in western China where the internet and movie theatres are a bit rare? Of course not, we are referring to our 'entertainment-hardened' current crop of youth in the western world who I suppose are more savvy than ever I was. My comments must be deriving from an aging sentimental outlook.
Darth Vile
New member
Cole said:
Interesting points... I don't think there is much argument that Raiders was on the cusp of being 'unsuitable' for kids. At heart it is of course a big family adventure, but Lucas/Spielberg did manage to tread a fine line. Raiders was at no point 'horrific' but it was (and I use the word was to highlight the past tense) scary/shocking in places (for younger audiences).
So when I say, "movies have moved on", I ask myself, what would Lucas/Spielberg have to now do (if we were to travel back in time to pre production) to ensure KOTCS trod that same fine line in the 'younger audience' suitability stakes (given the sophistication of 'modern audiences')? That was a largely rhetorical question, but for example, when I saw Raiders (and TOD) as a kid, I was genuinely shocked (in a 'wow that was unexpectedly cool' sense) by the use of the words bast**d and sh*t. Given the proliferation of expletives in modern culture, which swear words would Indy now have to use to shock the average 10 year old? F*ck? Tw*t? Is that the type of movie a much older Spielberg/Lucas/Ford would now make? And would the vast majority of cinema audiences accept a new Indy movie which challenged the boundaries of 'suitability for younger audiences' in that way? Like it or not, the answer was always going to be 'no'.
Montana Smith
Active member
Cole said:
Funny you should pick out that film, as I watched Transformers 1 yesterday. It's not the sort of movie I would normally go for, but I'm a sucker for cheap DVDs! It was also another chance to judge Shia's acting. Firstly, the film was a curious blend of serious military reportage, and comedy slapstick (the little Decepticon making his way from Air Force One shielding his face!) It was a fun movie, but I did find myself fast forwarding towards the end. Shia also still struck me as an 'adequate' actor, as he did in KOTCS.
Cole said:
When I talk about characterization in an Indy movie, I'm not talking about the great character actors, but like you mentioned, the little nuances of character that certain actors can bring to a role. In ROTLA there was Belloq and Toht, Marcus and Sallah played by good actors wringing the most out of their roles. In KOTCS some of the acting felt a little forced, maybe strangled by the script as a consequence of the difficult situation of re-introducing characters after such a long absence. It's the little things, that combined reduce "loving" a movie to "liking" it.
Cole said:
That's why I tried to ignore KOTCS at first. Then a cheap DVD was staring at me, saying "buy me"! After my first viewing I wasn't blown away, but intrigued enough to watch it again - then my opinion of it improved, and I could see how it fitted into the series. There's some good things in it, and a few bits that still don't sit right in my mind.
Cole said:
Exaggeration is a good description. With realistic horror sitting dead centre, ROTLA exaggerated it to the side where it would cause less offence. More like the horror in the least offensive of the Hammer films. Horror movies of the time tended to exaggerate to the opposite side where the blood and gore went over the top. (For me the most horrific of all is that dead centre point - such as displayed by the Chinese war film, Assembly).
Cole said:
Ratings are a strange phenomenon. I'm sometimes bemused that certain films get away with a '15', such as Silent Hill, which would have been 'X' or '18' rated if it had been made in the days of ROTLA. The censors seem to go through phases of leniency and strictness, motivated by the events of the day.
The original Indy trilogy are all rated PG in the UK, but KOTCS is a '12'. So a child under 12 has to have a parent allow them to see the first three, but they wouldn't be able to see KOTCS at all. Yet, KOTCS seems far less problematical than ROTLA and TOD.
Last edited:
Darth Vile said:
I think part of the secret to the timeless appeal of Indiana Jones and a lot classic movies (particularly older ones) is that it's not really made for a specific demographic. I don't think Indy is "at a heart a big family adventure." I don't think it was designed for families, just like I don't think it was designed specifically for kids or specifically for adults. I think Spielberg and Lucas were mindful of all audiences in that they wanted as many people as possible to see the movies. So, for example, they weren't going to have Indy dropping f-bombs or throw in some **** just for the hell of it, which can very much be the case nowadays where studios so desperately want to attract that lucrative teenager demographic who may very literally associate a movie's legitimacy or "coolness" with its rating. But they weren't going to compromise the movie's vision by getting rid of stakes altogether or by denying the hero a gun. (At least, 1980 Spielberg/Ford wouldn't have.) At the end of the day, the Beards just approached Indy as an entertaining movie that hopefully large audiences would find something to like.
This is kind of a big aside here, but I think there's so much we can learn from really old films, which also didn't seem to suffer from trying to target a really narrow subset of audiences and were better for it. Genuinely good, "all ages" adventure films are truly dead - we no longer have the swashbucklers of the past that were both thrilling and intelligent/funny without taking themselves super seriously. Nowadays you just have films that are completely safe and hollow, or obnoxiously dark and violent but just as brainless. I think kids films have suffered a similar fate, in their own way. There should really be no such thing as a "kids movie" - there should be simply be movies that kids are not actively denied from participating in. It's why everybody loves Pixar and classic Disney - they don't make "kids movies," or even "family" movies - they simply make movies, without catering inordinately to people of a specific age. Kids are smart, and they deserve smart, edgy (which doesn't have to mean "obscene") entertainment instead of the soulless, unchallenging dreck they're served instead. Where, noawadays, are The Princess Brides, The NeverEnding Storys and, yes, the Indiana Joness?
Last edited:
StoneTriple
New member
Mickiana said:
"Entertainment-hardened"? - absolutely. "Savvy"? - not even close. It's more of a case of being raised on 2-images-a-second TV shows, commercials, and films - scenes edited so quickly that they lose their architecture (I think that's the term Spielberg uses), CGI sequences where the laws of physics aren't even considered, and constant shaky-cam.
The current youth don't seem to be able to sit still long enough to take in scenery, emotion, story, or thoughts. They can't make sense of long shots and quiet passages. Raiders would fail today because the youth wouldn't know how to process it.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
No way! The film would be considered deep, mysterious, creepy and dare I say it "realistic"!StoneTriple said:
As apposed to the encroachment of Far East sensibilities in todays films, (do we really need MORE anime poses by our heroes?) including the hyper exaggerated and suspention of physics, Raiders would stand as tall as ever.
Montana Smith
Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
We would hope that there were some civilized youth among the hordes of savages!
Rocket Surgeon said:
Definitely no more of those sensibilities.
The hero jumping out of a tenth storey window and landing on one knee with one hand firmly placed on the concrete is now such an old cliche.
For Far East sensibilities in film-making we can look instead to Assembly for emotion, story-telling and graphic realism.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
Montana Smith said:We would hope that there were some civilized youth among the hordes of savages!
...and that's where they dropped the ball on Crystal Skull. They didn't go back to basics, they employed all this technology to provide a spectacle (the fridge) instead of simple challenges that create tension, (jumping over a pit). Seeing Harrison's face in those segments was a big deal, watching an airborn appliance was hollow and souless.
A shot that made me cringe watching Iron-Man 2. What a shame.Montana Smith said:
Thanks for the recommendation...Montana Smith said:
The main reason Raiders wouldn't set the world on fire if released as-is today is because it introduced a lot of action/adventure staples that are now cliche and taken for granted. It's the same reason that if a kid watches Citizen Kane they won't understand what the fuss is about - a degree of education and perspective is required to appreciate the fact that Welles was making all of these technological innovations and introducing new storytelling techniques and camera setups etc. that no one had ever done before, but that everyone did after. Raiders of the Lost Ark may have been designed as a throwback, but it was also innovative. It may have been intentionally "old-fashioned," but at the same time it was cutting edge. In short, it set the standard for adventure flicks. For a movie to do that again it would have to be a reinvention of its genre. That's the thing, even though Raiders borrowed very liberally from bare-knuckled serials of the days of yore, it was very successful in being its own thing as much as it was a tribute. Every movie essentially steals its ideas from other movies, but it's how you do the stealing and where you do it from that makes the difference between an end result being derivative or original.
Montana Smith
Active member
Udvarnoky said:
ROTLA owed a lot in genre to the early Connery Bond movies. Think Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Then along came Thunderball / Temple of Doom.
By the time we get KOTCS the analogy would be the later and campier of the Roger Moore Bond offerings.
Just as Bond had to throttle back (the Daniel Craig era), I hope it's time that Indy can also throttle back a bit.
The question, then, is: would Dr. No set the world on fire if released today?
It's hard to go back over broken ground, and as I wrote above, it would be a brave move.
Rocket Surgeon said:
Now I liked the scene for its absurdity. Yet, film can't show a character's feelings without words or the visual frame of the character's face. The scene conveys much more in text, in flight and post-landing. As it stands we have to amuse ourselves with the sight of a flying fridge. If Indy had done this at the end of ROTLA in order to escape the power of the Ark it would have been way out of place. Yet, TOD and TLC prepare us for the event. It's a logical step for a character who over the years increasingly defies logic.
Same goes for the waterfalls, the monkeys, the snake in the sandpit etc etc. Maybe just one of those scenes, but all of them add up to so much more than their total. For me the fridge is still a keeper. A few less other wild rides could have made room for more suspense, more exploration, more mystery, all accompanied by witty character-creating dialogue. That would have made me love the movie, rather than relegating to the merely "likeable" stack.
Last edited:
Well, when it comes to sequels, the film makers have to juggle between originality and meeting audience expectations of "same old same old." In this regard, I think Indy4 took the right approach by trying to be more like the older films rather than breaking new ground. I personally think the film's real issues have little to nothing to do with that balancing act.
Also, I think your Bond analogy is a little off. Personally, I think we're still in the "Connery era" of the Indy franchise. When Ford and the Beards croak and Indy inevitably gets rebooted by new blood, that will be when we start getting the Timothy Dalton and Roger Moore equivalents, and will be telling our kids about how much better Indy was when Harrison Ford was playing the character.
Also, I think your Bond analogy is a little off. Personally, I think we're still in the "Connery era" of the Indy franchise. When Ford and the Beards croak and Indy inevitably gets rebooted by new blood, that will be when we start getting the Timothy Dalton and Roger Moore equivalents, and will be telling our kids about how much better Indy was when Harrison Ford was playing the character.
Montana Smith
Active member
Udvarnoky said:Also, I think your Bond analogy is a little off. Personally, I think we're still in the "Connery era" of the Indy franchise. When Ford and the Beards croak and Indy inevitably gets rebooted by new blood, that will be when we start getting the Timothy Dalton and Roger Moore equivalents, and will be telling our kids about how much better Indy was when Harrison Ford was playing the character.
Okay, KOTCS was like Moonraker, but with Connery still in the role of Bond. (Since Harrison is the one consistent ingredient!)
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
If there were a stumbling block to the "set the world on fire" aspect, it would have to be the life span of a film in the theaters today. Raiders was an event for many reasons, but a film that was officially re-released to theaters a year after it's premier WHILE it's first release was STILL in theaters is a sign of it's time. In that respect I agree. The fact that it wasn't in multiplexes and thousands of theaters, that plots weren't outlined on the internet gave it some mileage as well, so much so it's still screened in theaters, parks and on the sides of battleships today.Udvarnoky said:
The film was a different kind of spectacle, one that, if executed today would still stand apart from the hyper kinetic ultra comic book stylized fare we get in droves.
Agreed, but the ability to indulge yourself is what poisoned the film. Originaly Spielberg said he cried when he saw all the set pieces planned for Raiders, that it would be impossible to film.Montana Smith said:
Today nothing is impossible and KotCS is the result. It's a shame really because if they had shunned CGI they might have reached a little deeper into themselves and cut the comicbook scenes and brought it all a little more down to earth, so to say.
I have to say once again, all these ideas could have been achieved, but it would have become more organic. Indy swinging on the vine in Raiders was originally supposed to be more heroic and iconic, but as a result of the phisical limitations and the location's limitations it became a sort of comic bit where the music swells but he falls a bit short. He still escapes and the vine helped, but also showed he was NOT a superhero.Montana Smith said:
To bring it full circle, I doubt ANYONE will be showing KotCS in theaters or Parks in 30 years time, and if they do I'll be willing to wager it's become the Rocky Horror Picture Show of it's time where people come and throw stuffed monkeys and rice during the wedding scene, bark like a dog when Mutt makes and entrance and sing the Raiders March when it comes on.
Last edited:
Darth Vile
New member
I don't disagree with what you put... and when I say "at heart", I mean that whilst I don't believe Raiders aspired to be anything more than what it was i.e. a big old fashioned action/adventure romp that appealed across generation/demographic... it was a movie that always had mass appeal.Udvarnoky said:
I think we should take into account that the Indiana Jones movies (and original Star Wars movies) were the exception and not the rule. I think The Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, the new Batman and even the latter Harry Potter movies, have come close over recent years in showing that well crafted fantasy/action movies can still be made.Udvarnoky said:
Udvarnoky said:
Completely agree. Just like Star Wars, Raiders took some classic themes/ideas, and did something completely new and different with them. I think that point is lost on many people now who didn't experience them first hand (or are unaware of the historical/social context). Ironic that both Star Wars and Raiders are viewed by some as being great examples of 'old fashioned technique/sensibilities' when they were, as you state, classic examples of movies that were made with "cutting edge" technology and that we viewed at the time as "cutting edge" and bombastic effects movies (but not at the expense of the audience).
Last edited: