What's up with Spielberg and Kaminski?

Finn

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Mod note

Don't freak out - though I usually post these only when I see something I don't like I'll make an exception this time, as I must applaud you folks.

After skimming through the last few pages I saw stuff that would no doubt cause frustrations in some people, yet I see no signs of an argument that's going to get too hot to handle. Makes me glad to see that you guys here are smart enough not to get upset over something that's mostly a matter of opinion.

Keep it up, gang.
 
J

James

Well-known member
Sankara said:
@james
Well, I have to say I'm very happy that "the world" hates this movie so much. All these indicators (imdb, rottentomatoes, empiremagazine) show this: Even "South Park" is a kind of indicator.
Click to expand...

I'm beginning to think the concept of a "demographic" may just be getting lost here. Then again, for most fanboys, the sources you list do represent much of their world view.

But as I said, none of my points are attempts to change your opinion of the movie. I'm happy for those that were disappointed, and encourage them to still be nursing those feelings years from now. By all means, don't just dwell on films that make you unhappy, but allow this mentality to extend to every part of your life. ;)

Darth Vile said:
At this point? I?m actually unsure as to whether you just don?t get it, or whether you do, and you are just having a laugh?
Click to expand...

I tend to always suspect the latter...but maybe that's just me giving the benefit of the doubt? I kind've hope some of the detractors are just kidding around, and aren't really that obsessed over the film.
 
D

deckard24

New member
Getting back to the subject of Kaminski and Spielberg, I don't know if once again it has something to do with watching KOTCS at home in the comfort of my living room, but the glaring differences between his style and Slocombe's just wasn't as jarring! Yeah there are still certain scenes which greatly differ from Slocombe's look, not to mention the films color palette is not nearly as warm, but instead cooler with a metallic feel, but overall the film's look didn't bother me as much. Some of the haziness needs to go for sure, but the overall feel of an Indy film is intact! There's definitely something to be said about taking time in between viewings, and the difference between a theatrical experience and a home theater one!
 
Finn

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
James said:
I tend to always suspect the latter...but maybe that's just me giving the benefit of the doubt? I kind've hope some of the detractors are just kidding around, and aren't really that obsessed over the film.
Click to expand...
That's called "trolling", by the way, and it has a tendency to make person a subject of forced removal.

So it's a tough choice with one to be; a moron or a troll...
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
deckard24 said:
There's definitely something to be said about taking time in between viewings, and the difference between a theatrical experience and a home theater one!
Click to expand...

100% agree... Even as someone who enjoys the movie, some distance has allowed me to re-evaluate both the good and the bad.
 
Dr.Jonesy

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
100% agree... Even as someone who enjoys the movie, some distance has allowed me to re-evaluate both the good and the bad.
Click to expand...

Not trying to bring up a dead thread, but damn that was fun to read!
:whip:

DarthVile,
When I saw the film I only saw the bad. After watching it 1,123 times since the DVD, I see alot more good than bad.
 
D

Darth Vile

New member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Not trying to bring up a dead thread, but damn that was fun to read!
:whip:

DarthVile,
When I saw the film I only saw the bad. After watching it 1,123 times since the DVD, I see alot more good than bad.
Click to expand...

That?s good to read Dr. Jonesy.

I think everyone who still hates the movie circa 12 months on, will probably always hate it. I think some of those who love it, in retrospect and after multiple viewings, may just end up liking it a lot. I think those that at first felt indifference/disappointment, will probably now appreciate it simply for being just another slice of Indiana Jones.

My view has been fairly consistent... in that KOTCS, why certainly not the best Indy movie, is certinaly not the worst i.e. it's a "solid/good" action/adventure. My appreciation/enjoyment of the movie was, and always has been tinged with slight regret that? A) They didn't make it when Ford was 10 years younger (so we could have had a modern trilogy). B) They tried too much to keep it to the Indiana Jones formula of the 1980's (so it?s therefore somewhat old fashioned). And that regret it mostly reflective of me than it is of the actual movie itself.
 
J

jamiestarr

New member
A) They didn't make it when Ford was 10 years younger (so we could have had a modern trilogy). B) They tried too much to keep it to the Indiana Jones formula of the 1980's (so it?s therefore somewhat old fashioned). And that regret it mostly reflective of me than it is of the actual movie itself.

This is my biggest complaint/regret as well. I enjoyed Crystal Skull very much, and I wish that from 98 to 08 we would have gotten a new trilogy illustrating Indy's actions in WWII and so forth...
 
J

James

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
A) They didn't make it when Ford was 10 years younger (so we could have had a modern trilogy).
Click to expand...

I'm sure we all share this regret- at least those of us that had been waiting since 1989. During that first day of shooting, even Spielberg admitted he felt like they should be up to Indy seven, as opposed to four.

It would've been interesting to see a couple of films set in the 1940s, and then a couple set in the 1950s. In this way, we could have followed Indy across three decades- both onscreen and off.

I still think an Indy 5 is a very feasible idea, and possibly even an Indy 6. But there will always be that huge span of time during the 90s, in which Indy could have encountered everything from WWII to Roswell.
 
D

dr.jones1986

Active member
jamiestarr said:
A) They didn't make it when Ford was 10 years younger (so we could have had a modern trilogy). B) They tried too much to keep it to the Indiana Jones formula of the 1980's (so it?s therefore somewhat old fashioned). And that regret it mostly reflective of me than it is of the actual movie itself.

This is my biggest complaint/regret as well. I enjoyed Crystal Skull very much, and I wish that from 98 to 08 we would have gotten a new trilogy illustrating Indy's actions in WWII and so forth...
Click to expand...

Ya, we got Germans in the 30s and Russians in the 50s. I would have loved to see some Japanese baddies in the 40s, with indy fighting them after Pearl Harbor. Whip vs Samurai Sword action would have been cool...
 
Dewy9

Dewy9

New member
James said:
I'm sure we all share this regret- at least those of us that had been waiting since 1989. During that first day of shooting, even Spielberg admitted he felt like they should be up to Indy seven, as opposed to four.

It would've been interesting to see a couple of films set in the 1940s, and then a couple set in the 1950s. In this way, we could have followed Indy across three decades- both onscreen and off.

I still think an Indy 5 is a very feasible idea, and possibly even an Indy 6. But there will always be that huge span of time during the 90s, in which Indy could have encountered everything from WWII to Roswell.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I feel the same way. I am so thankful that we got this movie, but it's just too easy not to look back and wish they would have made some back in the 90's. Even if they did one every 4 or 5 years, we'd have 7 or 8 by now.
 
I

Inbanana

New member
dr.jones1986 said:
Ya, we got Germans in the 30s and Russians in the 50s. I would have loved to see some Japanese baddies in the 40s, with indy fighting them after Pearl Harbor. Whip vs Samurai Sword action would have been cool...
Click to expand...
Indy vs. ninjas!
 
kongisking

kongisking

Active member
Bantu_Wind said:
I hated the cinematography. Liked the movie though.
Click to expand...

Okay, you are now officially a stupid jackass.

"Kaminski should be shot." Childish and predictable. Put your thumb back in your mouth, dope. :mad: :mad: :mad:
 
R

Raiders90

Well-known member
Bump...Thought this was a worthy thread and for me it's one of KOTCS' sticking points. It's like Kaminski didn't even TRY to emulate the look of the original films and that helps KOTCS stick out even more from the original three, which all have a similar look. Even the YIJC has a pretty similar look to the movies (I'd say in some ways it actually looks better since most of the locations were real and not sets.)

IMO, LC is the worst film in terms of SFX (some of the sets and the like look just fake) and KOTCS is the worst in terms of the look of the film. LC, however, is the best looking--it almost has a technicolor-ish sort of look to it.
 
I

Indy's brother

New member
From 10-17-2008 in this thread:

FILMKRUSC said:
I also got sick and tired of seeing all the lens flares in KOTCS. For me lens flares are not stylistic but sloppy uninspired lighting.

Slocombe was a genius with lighting. I would have rather have seen Dean Cundey shoot KOTCS.
He could have kept it closer to a Slocombe look.
Click to expand...

THAT, people, is a GREAT idea, should a 5th film drop out of the sky! A much more sensible choice, I love it!
 
U

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Kaminiski was more than capable of holding back. He chose not to, and Spielberg chose to sign off on it. The irony is that they did a pretty commendable job of following the tradition of the older movies from a composition/staging perspective. (Note the abundance of wide shots and long takes that makes the film stand out aesthetically from most modern action movies.) The pains they took in that regard makes the fact that they imposed a horrid and distracting bleached look all the more frustrating, at least for me. You've either captured the look of the previous movies or you haven't. They could have gone ahead and adopted the style of a Jason Bourne movie while they were at it and it wouldn't have disappointed me more.

Also, anyone seen the trailer for War Horse, a movie brought to life by the same crew? It cuts me to the quick to know how much potential for beautiful location shots Indy4 was robbed of by the decision not to bring the production outside the United States. For an Indiana Jones movie. What a waste.
 
Dr. Gonzo

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Indy's brother said:
From 10-17-2008 in this thread:



THAT, people, is a GREAT idea, should a 5th film drop out of the sky! A much more sensible choice, I love it!
Click to expand...
I'm on board for Dean! Dean lights wonderfully. He lit the original Halloween for Carpenter in 78. But Indy 5 is no closer to being made so... yeah.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
Could have sworn I contributed to this one...maybe one just like it.

Anyway, this sums it up:
Udvarnoky said:
Kaminiski was more than capable of holding back. He chose not to, and Spielberg chose to sign off on it. The irony is that they did a pretty commendable job of following the tradition of the older movies from a composition/staging perspective. The pains they took in that regard makes the fact that they imposed a horrid and distracting bleached look all the more frustrating...
Click to expand...

Sums it up perfectly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top