New Indy 4 images from Monopoly
- Thread starter tnswman
- Start date
No Ticket
New member
Darth Vile said:
It's got more to do, for me, with the fact that when I'm watching it... there's something about the "LOOK" of the film. The picture quality. I don't know how to explain it. It doesn't look cinematic in any way. It just looks funny somehow. If I knew more about film maybe I could tell you what I'm talking about.
A lot of "made for television" movies and some shows have this look and I hate it.
WillKill4Food
New member
I know what you mean. I think that's one thing what seperates the original Indys from other adventure films like Romancing the Stone. Of course, the story was way better, but the picture quality was, too.No Ticket said:
Adamwankenobi
New member
No Ticket said:
I suspect it has something to do with the fact that YIJC was shot on 16mm film (rather than the more expensive 35mm, which most films and TV series use today) in order to have more money to spend on the actual production. As a result, the image has less quality/detail compared to the feature films, which were shot on 35mm.
OmegaSeamaster
New member
Did anyone notice that the Indy Monopoly pictures that were on "Throw Me the Idol" have been taken down?
I wonder if Hasbro or Lucasfilm told them to cease and desist?
I wonder if Hasbro or Lucasfilm told them to cease and desist?
jasperjones
New member
I have to say, as a non-religious person, the likelihood of aliens existing is far more plausible than the Holy Grail, the Ark with the powers it has in the film or the sankara stones. Out of 9 planets in our solar system One has advanced life in a variety of forms, one species of which is actively trying to visit other planets using space craft and technology. Surely the law of averages suggests that at least one other planet in the universe has a similar situation...
Darth Vile
New member
Shhhhhh - don't use logic.. some around here may not like it 
Matt Holcomb
New member
You're right; it's far more plausible, but the problem with having an alien MacGuffin in an "Indiana Jones" film is the baggage associated with aliens -- baggage, which, ironically, is rooted in the sci-fi B-movies of the 1950s that "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is supposed to pay homage to.jasperjones said:
jasperjones
New member
I take your point but I also feel that there have been plenty of films that have handled aliens really well, and Spielberg has always handled them well, as has Lucas for the most part, with the odd glaring hiccough. I also feel that the 50's b-movie feel relates more to the aliens and a-bomb elements as opposed to the Blob. Before anything else, this will feel like an Indiana Jones film. I highly doubt this film will have a tone vastly different from the other films - I think there'll just be science fiction elements (i.e aliens, a-bombs, hangar 51, diners) where before there were more spiritual elements (ghosts, divine power, leaps of faith, temples) and having just typed that I think all those secondary elements are going to play a part in this story as well...any way we're all just guessing at this point so who knows? I do see what you mean though Matt, especially after the saucermen script!
OmegaSeamaster
New member
My uneasiness has nothing to do with realism. It's introducing sci-fi into a series firmly set in the archeology treasure-hunting genre. To me it's no different than having the plot of the next Bond movie be about Bond traveling back through time to battle pirates or something.
"I wanted ... the idea that Harrison would be 20 years older," says Lucas. "So that put it in the mid-50s ... I looked around and I said, 'Well, maybe we shouldn’t do a '30s serial, because now we’re in the '50s. What is the same kind of cheesy-entertainment action movie, what was the secret B movie, of the '50s?’' So instead of doing a 30s Republic serial, we’re doing a B science-fiction movie from the '50s. The ones I’m talking about are, like, 'The Creature from the Black Lagoon,' 'The Blob,' 'The Thing.'"
This guy absorbed too many rays on his ranch in Marin, if you ask me. If you want to make a creature feature, don't call it Indiana Jones. Most people are expecting an A-list action adventure, not a cheesy sci-fi film.
"I wanted ... the idea that Harrison would be 20 years older," says Lucas. "So that put it in the mid-50s ... I looked around and I said, 'Well, maybe we shouldn’t do a '30s serial, because now we’re in the '50s. What is the same kind of cheesy-entertainment action movie, what was the secret B movie, of the '50s?’' So instead of doing a 30s Republic serial, we’re doing a B science-fiction movie from the '50s. The ones I’m talking about are, like, 'The Creature from the Black Lagoon,' 'The Blob,' 'The Thing.'"
This guy absorbed too many rays on his ranch in Marin, if you ask me. If you want to make a creature feature, don't call it Indiana Jones. Most people are expecting an A-list action adventure, not a cheesy sci-fi film.
Last edited:
jasperjones
New member
I know this sounds dumb, considering he's the creator, but from listening to everyone else on the project the message is that the film is consistent in tone with the others...It almost feels like they've gone: :yes George, of course that's what we're doing and just gone and made an Indy film in the same mould as teh others but with alien elements involved...The 50's b-movie is still an Indy film (which have always been b-movies only done with A-movie production values) but with updates relevant to the 50's - Soviets, the atom bomb, Roswell, aliens, etc. You can tell from the trailer that it feels like an Indy movie and there is nothing to suggest b-movie science fiction remake of Indian Jones meets the Thing.
WillKill4Food
New member
Well, actually there has to be at least one Grail, unless you intend to assume that Jesus never drank anything from a cup. I'm saying that this cup would still exist or have any powers, but one did exist at one time.jasperjones said:
The "Sankara" stones were the product of Doom's writers, but they were based on the existence of Hindu "holy" rocks.
There are only eight planets in our solar system: Pluto got euthanized by the planet vets.jasperjones said:
jasperjones
New member
Oh yeah! Good point!
In fact all good points. I'm not saying the actual artifacts can't exist, I'm just doubtful that they would have had the powers others may believe them to have had.
In fact all good points. I'm not saying the actual artifacts can't exist, I'm just doubtful that they would have had the powers others may believe them to have had.
No Ticket
New member
tnswman said:
You act as though there's no such thing as a bad movie. Just because a franchise continues, even if some of the same people are involved, doesn't mean it's not going to bomb.
Batman & Robin. A lot of the same people as Batman Forever. A movie I liked a lot better. But the stuff in B&R was much much more lame. "Alright everybody! Freeze!!" Is not clever. It's lame. And if that was the only pun it would be ok. But NOOO... they crossed the line and had everything every bad guy said be a pun to batman itself or whatever they're character is based on. Poison Ivy to plants or Mr. Freeze to ice/cold puns. Etc. That makes the audience cringe at how dumb the lines are. You think, "That was cheesy." This in turn takes the audience out of the story and is what makes you look at your watch because the movie just sucks.
I've said it before. There's a line. It's hard to judge exactly where it is. But when you cross it, the movie is in trouble. So being cautious about KOTCS having lame lines is just something the lot of us who have seen this kind of thing happen before picked up. It doesn't make us "SAD" as you put it.
There's a "suspension of disbelief" line too. I can believe a lot in Die Hard 4. It was a pretty good movie. But I'm pretty sure that John McClane couldn't take down a fighter jet all by himself without any kind of real weapons.. he was standing on top of it. We've seen how he handled himself in the past, but that moment with the jet took me out of the film to go "That's kind of ridiculous." I can believe him doing a lot of things... but defeating a fighter jet all by his lonesome self? Whatever. They mostly got his character right, but I feel the movie was still flawed compared to the others. And it has nothing to do with losing my ability to enjoy the films. Rambo III is another example where I think, if I remember correctly, Rambo goes up against tanks and helicopters with one or two friends. Don't remember that one as well but still...
A movie sets up how crazy this suspension of disbelief can be as well. It's far easier to believe things like this in The Matrix because we know that it's not real and they can be given super-human like powers. But the previous Raiders pictures all show us that Indy gets hurt pretty realistically... sure he can survive things we'd probably die in but you can't push him too much farther than the edge of believability. So it is, in fact, rooted in reality more so than films like The Matrix. Therefore, there is an element of reality to the movie. No movie is completely realistic because reality is boring.
Ok so my point is, don't tell us we aren't going to like KOTCS. If the movie actually doesn't suck, we should be able to enjoy it no matter what. And if the only way to enjoy it is to ignore the lame stuff. It doesn't change the fact that it was lame... it just means you're in denial. It's either good or it's not. But it IS Indiana Jones. So it will probably be good no matter what. We'll see eh?
Last edited:
OmegaSeamaster
New member
I totally agree with you about Die Hard 4. It was good, but just didn't have the magic of the others. Scenes like the car flipping over Bruce, or Bruce on the jet just made me groan.
No Ticket said:
Actually, it was a different lead for Batman...which made it really suck. But, wow, all those movies sucked but the first one with Jack and Mike Keaton...just terrible, nonsensical sequals by an inferior director, writers and actors. This does not count the new "prequals" with Bale, etc.
No Ticket
New member
Rob67 said:
I know it was a different lead... but it was the same director and Chris O'Donnel (Whatever happened to him?) was back along with Alfred, etc. Batman Forever was much better and less lame then B&R. Even though the originals are better IMO. Even so, Batman Returns wasn't as good as the original Batman either. But it wasn't a bad movie IMO. B&R is a great example of just how bad a Batman movie could get. THAT MOVIE IS AWFUL!!
My point remains however. If the movie is worth praising, it will have to earn it. You shouldn't just ignore the faults.
Adamwankenobi
New member
jasperjones said:
I think a lot of times, fans take Lucas's words too literal. When you actually listen to him talk, he speaks in half sentences and vague concepts. What he probably meant is that elements of the film are an homage to 50s B-movies, not that the film itself will have flying saucers and ray guns.
xVendetta17x
New member
And hopefully that is what separates it from Saucer Men From Mars
crowmagnumman
New member
No Ticket said:
I totally agree with everything you said here. I get tired of people tell me to just quit nit-picking and enjoy the ride. Indy 4 could be awesome, but if it's lame, then it's lame. That's all there is to it. Sequels have been lame before, and they will be lame again.