Cinemassacre Defends KotCS

Sharkey

Guest
Great quotes, I agree with everything BUT the Temple comment. The Mine Cart jump was just as bad as the fridge ride. Implausible, and stupid...cartoon crap.. I'm tired of reading the bullsh-t comments about Indy dragged behind the truck. It's TOTALLY plausible. The truck sped up to crush Indy between vehicles but once he crawled under he had to downshift and SLOW DOWN so he didn't run he staff car off the road like Indy did later. So being pulled 30 seconds under/behind a truck going 30 mph is no where near as stupid crazy and lazy as the cart/fridge.
agull said:
"Indy 1 - 3": Many-many real stunts, many-many believebale action-scenes, some over-the top-action-scenes in "Temple" but never as implausible as the "Skull"-actions-scenes.

"Skull": only a few real stunts. Most action-scenes are implausible. Nuke the fridge, you can't jump with a car on a rubber tree, Mutt is Tarzan, the three Waterfalls... and-and-and...


But... hey... let's see what the makers think about it: :)


1)

Source: Complete Making of Book / page 244

The first thing Steven said was he didn't want this look like a slick action-adventure movie with digital backgrounds and effects or stunts that you couldn't do in reality," Kennedy says. "Part of an Indiana Jones story is that you want to believe that Indy - and consequently Harrison Ford - is doing his own stunts..."


2)

Vanity Fair-Interview

GL is talking about the great REAL Stunts in the "Bourne"-Movies and then...
"... 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 up against 50 guys with machine guns, or he jumps in a jet and starts chasing 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."



3)

You also produced the Bourne films. Did the success of that franchise influence your approach on Crystal Skull?

Marshall: There?s been so many films that have tried to copy the Indiana Jones franchise and most of them have failed, except for the Bourne films. I think the reason people like Bourne is that he?s a credible, believable hero, much like Indiana Jones. Jason Bourne does some amazing things but that?s because he?s been so well trained in martial arts and different forms of killing so it?s not totally unbelievable, like the Mission Impossible films.

We looked at the Bourne films, and we thought that maybe Indiana Jones could do some more dangerous things in this film, and still have that seem BELIEVEABLE. The key is you have to believe that Indiana Jones can do the things he does and not say ?There?s no way he could?ve survived that situation!?, so you walk a fine line. What sets the Indiana Jones films apart is that you can?t just call them action movies. They?re supernatural mysteries with elements of action and comedy and, in this film, some science fiction.

4)

"I think Tom Cruise proved that people are getting bored with that kind of stuff," Lucas said when asked about over the top action sequences. "What they want to see is something different. And 'Indiana Jones,' if nothing else, is always different."


5)

Marshall about "Indy I - III":

"One of the things I enjoy about these movies is that they do recall the old cliffhanger serials of the thirties and forties," said Marshall. "We didn't have computer effects in those days, we couldn?t easily erase things and I think one of the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers lazy. You become more creative when you have to hide ramps with a tree rather than erase it later as you can today."

"In Raiders, that's a real ball rolling behind him so Harrison really is in some danger running in front of that; these are real situations and that adds to the excitement and the creative energy on the set."

Marshall about a part 4 in 2003

We're not done with the script on Indy 4 but I think we're going to try and rely, like the first two movies, on realism and not try to do too many things with the computer.


Marshall:
When you start getting into computers you get fantastical situations like in The Matrix or movies like that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-Movie feel. We want to make Indy 4 like we made the first three."



6)

George Lucas / Empire Magazine

"A lot of people think Indiana Jones is so outrageous, it is believable. That was the thing what we did that James Bond didn't do - especially in that middle period where they weren't very interesting"


7)

"Indiana Jones redifined the classic American hero as someone who did not have a backbone made of steel and skin made of Teflon. The idea that our intrepid archaelogist could actually do himself bodily injury made him accessible."
 
Last edited:

Cole

New member
Lol as if the filmmakers' quotes matter......aren't they the ones who made the film?

If you're going to argue the 100% realism of Indiana Jones action, you miss the point....
 
This thread is epic.

Irrational, inarticulate and rabid members of either camp duke it out in the battle of the century. Never before has such inanity come head to head.

On the left weighing in at 210lb of pure inarticulation, we have Sanka-- ergh agull! On the right, a strong contender for seizure-causing claptrap, Cole!


Ah... just sit back with my beer and watch things progress. This is awesome. (y)
 

Sharkey

Guest
Cole said:
Lol as if the filmmakers' quotes matter......aren't they the ones who made the film?

If you're going to argue the 100% realism of Indiana Jones action, you miss the point....
Well nobody's arguing anything is 100%. YOU are bring that one up. The idea, which. he's painstakingly researched, (and YOU'VE provided nothing but contempt) is believability. Lol as if the film makers quotes don't matter...
 

teampunk

Member
Sharkey said:
Well nobody's arguing anything is 100%. YOU are bring that one up. The idea, which. he's painstakingly researched, (and YOU'VE provided nothing but contempt) is believability. Lol as if the film makers quotes don't matter...
because actually finding the ark and then it melting people is believable?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Sharkey said:
I'm tired of reading the bullsh-t comments about Indy dragged behind the truck. It's TOTALLY plausible. The truck sped up to crush Indy between vehicles but once he crawled under he had to downshift and SLOW DOWN so he didn't run he staff car off the road like Indy did later. So being pulled 30 seconds under/behind a truck going 30 mph is no where near as stupid crazy and lazy as the cart/fridge.

Complete Making of..., page 94:

"Though the truck had been specially made, a long narrow trench had to be dug on location because, as is it turned out, the truck didn't have enough clearance."

The point being that if something's impossible, then it's impossible. If we come to degress of impossibility, then KOTCS takes implausibility much further.

As a kid I thought the truck scene looked impossible, or at least highly unlikely. Indy needed a lot of luck to survive that - if the driver had sped up, Indy would have swung under the wheels, which was the concern of the stuntmen involved.

As an adult I look upon many of the events in KOTCS as also impossible and highly unlikely. The scale is bigger, and I don't think it was necessary to be so. Nevertheless, I view the impossibility angle as part of Indy's world. Many things are implausible, such as the ever-returning fedora.

Indy was experiencing bigger cliffhangers from TOD onwards. Either you just accept ROTLA as the only Indy movie ever made, or you accept that the vision of GL and SS was for Indy to face ever greater dangers. Indy's world is absurd, and we can't judge it by the standards of our own. Pulp is not reality, but I agree that it's time to go down a gear for Indy V.
 

Cole

New member
Sharkey said:
Well nobody's arguing anything is 100%. YOU are bring that one up. The idea, which. he's painstakingly researched, (and YOU'VE provided nothing but contempt) is believability. Lol as if the film makers quotes don't matter...
You're going off on the cart jumping in 'Temple' being silly because it's unrealistic, and why the truck dragging in 'Raiders' is realistic.......so obviously I'm not the one who brought it up.

The quotes are supposed to prove what? Why 'Crystal Skull' isn't "true" Indy?

Lucas and Spielberg made 'Skull'......the ones who created the whole thing, right? So obviously it was Indy to them. So what are those quotes suppose to show me?
 

Sharkey

Guest
teampunk said:
because actually finding the ark and then it melting people is believable?

We're comparing stunts...pay attention.

All the other films waited for the finale to showcase the supernatural. Skull was too weak a story to survive without it, and by survive I mean vegetative state in a coma.
 

teampunk

Member
Sharkey said:
We're comparing stunts...pay attention.

All the other films waited for the finale to showcase the supernatural. Skull was too weak a story to survive without it, and by survive I mean vegetative state in a coma.
my bad. just so i know, stunts have to be believable, but then supernatural endings are ok. got it.
 

Cole

New member
Sharkey said:
How this new Indiana Jones film took the special effects crutches the other leaned on at times and made it it's foundation.
The quotes prove/show no such thing...
 

Sharkey

Guest
teampunk said:
my bad. just so i know, stunts have to be believable, but then supernatural
endings are ok. got it.
You're getting there.

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the idea of a finale, or a reveal. You see, when you treat the material more realistic, building suspense, the fantastic show stopper has more impact.

Just read the quotes from the film makers agull posted.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Cole said:
Spielberg was at least an early advocate/pioneer of the technology. 'Jurassic Park' was a landmark film,...

...So I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that he used it in Indy.....
'Jurassic Park' was a landmark film? Gee, thanks for bestowing that little-known fact upon me.:rolleyes: CGI was used in Indy 4 because it's the industry norm these days. End of story.
Cole said:
And even something like the ants? That scene was great. Try doing that 20 years ago.
It was already done 54 years before "Crystal Skull"!:whip:
Wilhelm said:
The knight warrior was used in a movie executive produced by Spielberg ("Steven Spielberg presents") so he was the man who introduced this new kind of effect in a commercial movie and then accepted the challenge of using CGI dinosaurs instead of motion capture in Jurassic Park. So Pixar/Lucasfilm invented the concept, but the decision to use it comes from Spielberg.
Well, you said he "practically invented it". Spielberg is a director, not a computer programmer. Pixar/Lucasfilm didn't 'invent the concept' of CGI. Other companies (like Digital Effects) were around before Pixar and to paraphrase Homer Simpson: "Does anyone remember 'TRON'?" from 1982 (or "The Last Starfighter" 1984)? Two non-Pixar and non-Spielberg projects which pre-date "Young Sherlock Holmes". You guys are giving too much credit to Steve-O.
Wilhelm said:
using CGI dinosaurs instead of motion capture
The choice was using CGI dinosaurs instead of filming articulated models/puppets. The movements of the dinos were still created using 'old-school' stop-motion animation of metal armatures. Each move was recorded with motion capture sensors and fed into the computer.
 

Cole

New member
Sharkey said:
Sure they do.


It also shows that they were aware of the pitfalls of technology that they didn't want to suffer...but embraced.
Only in your opinion.........obviously Lucas/Spielberg didn't think so since they made the film. Hence, the comments "prove" nothing.
 

Sharkey

Guest
Cole said:
Only in your opinion.........obviously Lucas/Spielberg didn't think so since they made the film. Hence, the comments "prove" nothing.
agull's last two quote go well beyond opinion when discussing the fridge.
 

Cole

New member
Stoo said:
'Jurassic Park' was a landmark film? Gee, thanks for bestowing that little-known fact upon me.:rolleyes: CGI was used in Indy 4 because it's the industry norm these days. End of story.
You don't think 'Jurassic Park' was a landmark film in terms of special effects? I think you'd find most would disagree with you. The sarcasm isn't warranted.

Filmmakers use CGI because they feel it's the best way to serve their story.

It was already done 54 years before "Crystal Skull"!:whip:
'Crystal Skull' is obviously far more complex and I think far more exciting.

Sharkey said:
agull's last two quote go well beyond opinion when discussing the fridge.
The two quotes from George Lucas? The same guy who created Indiana Jones, wrote the story for 'Crystal Skull' and green lit the script?

Ya, that makes a lot of sense.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sharkey

Guest
Cole said:
The two quotes from George Lucas? The same guy who created Indiana Jones, wrote the story for 'Crystal Skull' and green lit the script?

Ya, that makes a lot of sense.:rolleyes:
I can see where someone who can compare a movie he/she's a fan of with one they don't know much less haven't seen would see things so skewed.

Duh.
 

Cole

New member
Sharkey said:
I can see where someone who can compare a movie he/she's a fan of with one they don't know much less haven't seen would see things so skewed.

Duh.
......huh?
 
Top