Darth Vile said:
That was a disappointing response Stoo. Ok… just for you…
Debating with you can be a pointless affair because you're often inconsistent in your arguments and flip-flop like a caught fish.
Darth Vile said:
1) Perhaps it’s just that some are less perceptive than others, but I think Spielberg has a very specific style. Of course he has matured as a movie maker, but he’s basically the same man with the same aesthetic taste, the same directors eye. Ergo, I think it’s quite reasonable to state that he’s “basically the same director he was 20 years ago”. It’s not like he’s rejected Hollywood or is now directing small European art house cinema is it??? Personally, I think what he's gained in being able to capture the drama of small moments, he's lost when it comes to nailing 'edge of seat' and exciting action scenes (I personally can't think of anything in War of the Worlds, Minority Report, IA that compares to the tank chase in TLC).
Sure he has a certain 'aesthetic taste' but, as you say, he has 'matured'. That is a CHANGE!
By your own admission, you think that the action in "Crusade" was outdated when it was released in 1989. The tank chase? Personally, I CAN find an 'edge-of-the-seat-exciting-action-scene' in "War of the Worlds" that compares (and also in "Jurassic Park II", for that matter). I don't find the tank chase in "Crusade" to be very 'edge of the seat' at all...except for
one moment....
Darth Vile said:
2) Re. Spielberg’s taste for the saccharine. If you prefer… It is my opinion that one of the justifiable critisms of Spielberg is that he often overly sentimental in his movies, to the point where the emotion feels forced and artificial rather than natural/organic. For me, this is evident in many of his movies such as Jaws, ET, Jurassic Park I&II, IA, War of the Worlds, and even Saving Private Ryan/Schindlers List… and more specific to this thread, KOTCS.
Have you ever seen "Duel"? One would be hard-pressed to find sugary sweetness in there...
Darth Vile said:
3) My point about ‘absolutes’ was in response to a specific point about opinion being used as an empirical fact e.g. I/we think your opinion is wrong. Therefore it’s an absolute fact that you are wrong and ill informed.
Right...and when supplying
personal opinion as fact, the absolutes, "always" and "never", shouldn't be used either.
Darth Vile said:
I personally wouldn't categorise Saving Private Ryan as an action/adventure movie, just as Schindlers list or Raiders of the Lost Ark aren’t war movies. Therefore comparing an action scene between the two is comparing apples with oranges i.e. just because the Omaha beach scene is a great depiction of the horrors of conflict in WWII doesn’t automatically mean that Spielberg can still direct an action/adventure movie that’s relevant to 2011 (which is what I thought we were sort of discussing???).
Action is ACTION, whether it's in an adventure movie, war film, science fiction, western, police story, etc. so there's no need to keep pigeon-holing things into the 'action/adventure' genre simply because it suits your position. If one can't compare Indy-action to "Saving Private Ryan", then why did you compare "War of the Worlds", "Minority Report" or "IA"? They aren't 'adventure' films either.
(In this thread, you also compared "LAST CRUSADE" to "Die Hard", "Lethal Weapon", "Batman" and "Aliens"!)
Why are you fixated on the Omaha beach scene? Have you not seen the entire film? There's much more to it than just the opening 30 minutes. That said, the Omaha beach scene is (by definition) an ACTION scene!
Darth Vile said:
That is the essence of the thread, rather than some of the unconstructive sniping you've been revelling in. To reiterate, it appears to me that many people here would like an Indy V to be as a significant a movie (read game changer) as Raiders was (or at least to be attempting something as significant). KOTCS however, provides evidence to suggest that Spielberg may only have the ability to mirror the style of past glories when it comes to action/adventure movies. Perhaps he is then, in terms of where he is as a director, "too old for Indy".
Being 'relevant to 2011' (as you said) does not equate to being a 'game changer'. Bringing a new Indy film up to speed with the times doesn't necessarily mean it has to set a new standard.
'Many people' want Indy 5 to be a 'game changer'??? You and who else?
Montana & IndyFan89 have said that someone new should be at the helm but never expressed that they'd like Indy 5 to redefine cinema. Mickiana was in the same camp as those two but also said that Spielberg is still the man for the job. Rob/TheIndyOpinion is right, this should have been a poll because I did a count and the LARGE MAJORITY (in this thread) believe that Spielberg is capable for a possible next Indy film.
Isn't it fairly common knowledge among fans that Spielberg's direction of "Skull" was a CONCIOUS effort to make it similar to the original 3? You even said to me 'bring it on' for Indy 5 to be done in a "Saving Private Ryan" fashion, so you KNOW he has the ability!
Darth Vile said:
What about KOTCS? Isn't his last action movie representative of the way he directs action movies?
Are you for real? Your position keeps switching, Vile. You've been maintaining that Spielberg 'mirrored/payed homage to' his own, outdated, '80s style with "Skull" so, according to you, it's NOT representative of the way he can direct action films. (Also, I thought "Skull" had the distinction of being 'action/adventure' rather than just simply an 'action movie'?)
Spielberg's style HAS changed so the REAL question is the other way around:
IS INDY TOO OLD FOR SPIELBERG?