Ford sets LaBeouf straight for criticising Indy!

Nurhachi1991

Well-known member
I think everyone is over thinking everything.... It was a good movie Shia was cool sure there were some flaws the monkeys and cgi but in the end it was a good movie not as good as the original 3 but hey nothing ever is. If Harrison said that than who cares?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Should just post this in Stupid Indy Headlines. F'ing NME can't, (won't) get the quote right.

What a bunch of horsesh!t!

No wonder Ford won't talk to anyone.

Intentional media misdirection? If so in this case, then it's why I'm wary of most reports until they can be independently verified, and even then...it's bad enough wresting the truth from academic history books.

There must be a large section of the public who just can't get their kicks without hearing some controversy, no matter whether it's real or invented. Movie critics thrive on creating it, unless they can't help but fall in love with a movie themselves, or they risk find themselves on the wrong end of public sympathies.
 
Montana Smith said:
Intentional media misdirection?
Carnival Barkers, Hit generators...that some keep going back for more tells you what?

Montana Smith said:
There must be a large section of the public who just can't get their kicks without hearing some controversy, no matter whether it's real or invented.
BINGO!

Montana Smith said:
Movie critics thrive on creating it, unless they can't help but fall in love with a movie themselves, or they risk find themselves on the wrong end of public sympathies.
Unfortunately there are too many starving zombies milling around. People complain about no new news, but they're the kind who have no emotional connection to the characters or the films. It's bubble gum. Nothing appeals to them beyond consumption. They swill at the trough with nary a thought to appreciate flavor, temperature, texture.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Unfortunately there are too many starving zombies milling around. People complain about no new news, but they're the kind who have no emotional connection to the characters or the films. It's bubble gum. Nothing appeals to them beyond consumption. They swill at the trough with nary a thought to appreciate flavor, temperature, texture.

I like that. I like that a lot!

These movies may be outwardly pulpy money-spinners, but the first three at least have the power to inspire. A quality of care and an emotional input, something overtly special that occurs when an ensemble team unite, and re-unite with the same level of committment to a character and a project. They may not be equal in final quality, but that wasn't for want of trying. I can't bring myself to say the same for KOTCS. It was, perhaps, just too late in the day, and the blame can't all be laid at Shia's door.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
I like that. I like that a lot!

These movies may be outwardly pulpy money-spinners, but the first three at least have the power to inspire. A quality of care and an emotional input, something overtly special that occurs when an ensemble team unite, and re-unite with the same level of committment to a character and a project. They may not be equal in final quality, but that wasn't for want of trying. I can't bring myself to say the same for KOTCS. It was, perhaps, just too late in the day, and the blame can't all be laid at Shia's door.

But as we discussed in the other thread, I'm not sure it has anything to do with 'commitment' or 'quality of care'... rather it's akin a 70 year old Paul McCartney trying to recapture the spirit/aesthetic of 'Can't Buy Me Love' in 2011. On a technical level he's a better, more sophisticated songwriter/musician than he was in the 1960's... so why can't he replicate/reproduce something as popular or as significant as a Beatles tune now (rhetorical question of course)? I obviously am more in line with your 'late in the day' comment, as if KOTCS had been made shortly after TLC... it would have had much more relevance.
 
Darth Vile said:
... so why can't he replicate/reproduce something as popular or as significant as a Beatles tune now (rhetorical question of course)?
Sorry, I have to answer!

It's a matter of choice of course! Why would he let Linda sing backup? Have you heard the isolated tracks of her "singing"?

When you place the value of relationships OVER the "art," it becomes inferior!

This "trend" extends to his contemporary choice of musicians/singers as well.

That no one could criticize Linda, (McCartney by proxy) though they drowned her vocals significantly, is like allowing Capshaw to dictate content. Though they made adjustments and pounded Doody in the casting process illustrates a desire to create a quality product, it didn't inspire them to invest in development as fully.

Good for Shia speaking his mind. When Dreyfuss SLAMMED Jaws it made no difference to the film or his career.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
But as we discussed in the other thread, I'm not sure it has anything to do with 'commitment' or 'quality of care'... rather it's akin a 70 year old Paul McCartney trying to recapture the spirit/aesthetic of 'Can't Buy Me Love' in 2011. On a technical level he's a better, more sophisticated songwriter/musician than he was in the 1960's... so why can't he replicate/reproduce something as popular or as significant as a Beatles tune now (rhetorical question of course)? I obviously am more in line with your 'late in the day' comment, as if KOTCS had been made shortly after TLC... it would have had much more relevance.

Being 'late in the day' covers many sins, Darth.

It's a time long past relevance, and after a change of creative outlook. I get a greater sense of 'craft' from the original three, which was a committment to a project spanning a decade.

When almost two decades pass, I'd imagine it's difficult to reunite that special something, to bring back that sense of care, committment and involvement. KOTCS was so long after TLC that it's like beginning anew, yet conscious of recreating the past. The creators may have cared and put 100% committment into KOTCS, but they must have felt compromised as to who they were pitching the movie at. The result was probably unvoidable, because the ambition was bold, but the product clumsy.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sorry, I have to answer!

It's a matter of choice of course! Why would he let Linda sing backup? Have you heard the isolated tracks of her "singing"?

When you place the value of relationships OVER the "art," it becomes inferior!

This "trend" extends to his contemporary choice of musicians/singers as well.

That no one could criticize Linda, (McCartney by proxy) though they drowned her vocals significantly, is like allowing Capshaw to dictate content. Though they made adjustments and pounded Doody in the casting process illustrates a desire to create a quality product, it didn't inspire them to invest in development as fully.

Good for Shia speaking his mind. When Dreyfuss SLAMMED Jaws it made no difference to the film or his career.

Of course Linda's been dead for over 10 years now, and McCartney's released circa 5 albums since her death... so whilst there is of course a period where her vocal was part of 'his' sound, and reflected his editorial/production choices (I'd say early to mid 70's), there's still plenty of other material (sans Linda) to compare and contrast with to aptly demonstrate the sophistication of his solo material versus Beatles material. And picking up on your point re. choices... not forgetting that Ringo Starr (who was a very average drummer even in the 60's) got to play on some of the most historic/culturally significant albums ever.... so the value of relationships certainly didn't hinder the art in that little pop combo. ;)


As far as Shia's comments are concerned... he should feel free to comment on whatever he wants to comment on... although I can't help feel a little cynical about his motives when he is mostly associated with a set of movies (Transformers) which I'd consider to be representative of everything that's bad/wrong in modern Hollywood cinema.

Montana Smith said:
Being 'late in the day' covers many sins, Darth.

It's a time long past relevance, and after a change of creative outlook. I get a greater sense of 'craft' from the original three, which was a committment to a project spanning a decade.
I personally see more craft in KOTCS than I do in TOD... but I respect that you see it the other way. But my point was that I think it has little to do with 'craft' or 'commitment', I just think Lucas/Spielberg find it much more difficult (like anyone would) to reproduce/replicate the style of a movie they made 20/30 years ago.
 
Last edited:

StoneTriple

New member
Darth Vile said:
I can't help feel a little cynical about his motives when he is mostly associated with a set of movies (Transformers) which I'd consider to be representative of everything that's bad/wrong in modern Hollywood cinema.
I fully agree. Shia's claim to fame is being the lead in a franchise of disposable CGI fests. He really needs to take a step back and give some serious thought to how lucky he was to be cast in a legendary franchise, directed by Steven Spielberg, and working with Harrison Ford.


I personally see more craft in KOTCS than I do in TOD...
Agree to that also. Both are fine, but Kingdom came across as having paid more attention to detail. Kingdom was also much more of a new adventure, as opposed to Temple being a play-it-safe rehash of the first film. That has a lot to do with why I prefer it over Temple.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
I personally see more craft in KOTCS than I do in TOD... but I respect that you see it the other way. But my point was that I think it has little to do with 'craft' or 'commitment', I just think Lucas/Spielberg find it much more difficult (like anyone would) to reproduce/replicate the style of a movie they made 20/30 years ago.

What I'm trying to say is that when a team makes three movies within a decade, the craft, care and committment to the world of the character are more evident. The movies and the world depicted within feel more connected. To illustrate the point I'd cite Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy as an example. Or the original Star Wars trilogy. From those, and from Indiana Jones I get a great sense that the creators knew that they were in on something special, and their pride shows.

When almost two decades pass that level of connectedness will have to be rebuilt. Add to that the compromises required to bring Indiana Jones back to the big screen and to a varied audience, where the original children who saw ROTLA may now be the parents of those now seeing the character for the first time in a cinema.

Through that compromise, no matter how much care and committment was put into KOTCS, it will remain separated from the original by some degree. In that it was too late in the day. This displays itself most through the often stilted dialogue, misplaced CGI animals, actors who weren't giving their best performances, and above all, a sense that the creators were aware of their influence and intending to play safe.

Agree to that also. Both are fine, but Kingdom came across as having paid more attention to detail. Kingdom was also much more of a new adventure, as opposed to Temple being a play-it-safe rehash of the first film. That has a lot to do with why I prefer it over Temple.

I would argue that Temple was rare in second movies in that it took a very bold line, taking the character completely away from his base location, and from his friends and associates. It was also unafraid of showing the less than valiant nature of it's supposed 'hero', or of upping the violence and horror, despite aiming for a similar audience to ROTLA.

With 'craft' I also have in mind the innate skill of knowing what works. A craftsman with natural ability may see the final sculpture in a rough block of stone. I just don't feel that with KOTCS that they knew what that final sculpture should be. The result was a laboured exercise, rather than a natural product. Technically superior, yet missing some essence.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
I would argue that Temple was rare in second movies in that it took a very bold line, taking the character completely away from his base location, and from his friends and associates. It was also unafraid of showing the less than valiant nature of it's supposed 'hero', or of upping the violence and horror, despite aiming for a similar audience to ROTLA.

With 'craft' I also have in mind the innate skill of knowing what works. A craftsman with natural ability may see the final sculpture in a rough block of stone. I just don't feel that with KOTCS that they knew what that final sculpture should be. The result was a laboured exercise, rather than a natural product. Technically superior, yet missing some essence.

I think TOD was mostly an empty vessel of a movie. It substituted style over substance. BUT (and it's a big but ;) ) the pace and kinetic energy do make the movie (or did) a genuine and entertaining rollercoaster ride. TOD of course has great production values, but the only real genuine craft I sense is in the virtualisation of Lucas'/Spielberg's imagination. Two guys who are firing on all cylinders when it comes to inventing mine cart chases, spike rooms and fights on rope bridges. The boldness you speak of seems more of a "f*ck you. We're making it our way" type of boldness from Lucas/Spielberg rather than anything cinematically 'bold' in terms of production/direction or creativity. But I'd agree, there is a certain boldness to their approach nonetheless.

As far as KOTCS is concerned... picking up on your post... I think the thing that it's missing is 'relevance'. If it had one of the best action scenes ever put to film, it would have justified itself a little more. With the action sections of KOTCS being somewhat pedestrian, one is left with a feeling of 'so what'? Alternatively, if Indy had been portrayed as a Rooster Cogburn/Walt Kowalski type of character, perhaps narratively it would be justified and perhaps the movie would have had more relevance. Finally, if Lucas/Spielberg had embraced a completely different stylistic approach to making it, then we'd have possibly seen an Indy fit for the 21st century; its relevance secured. Perhaps they needed to approach it with that "f*ck you" attitude they had for TOD???

Saying that, I do believe KOTCS is a very well crafted and intelligent (in context of its peers) blockbuster. Its flaws (IMHO) are not around craft, effort or application particularly... but are more nebulas/intangible than that e.g. the approach taken/mindset of its creators who have progressed/evolved way beyond that particular genre.
 
Darth Vile said:
Of course Linda's been dead for over 10 years now, and McCartney's released circa 5 albums since her death... so whilst there is of course a period where her vocal was part of 'his' sound, and reflected his editorial/production choices (I'd say early to mid 70's), there's still plenty of other material (sans Linda) to compare and contrast with to aptly demonstrate the sophistication of his solo material versus Beatles material. And picking up on your point re. choices... not forgetting that Ringo Starr (who was a very average drummer even in the 60's) got to play on some of the most historic/culturally significant albums ever.... so the value of relationships certainly didn't hinder the art in that little pop combo. ;)
I started with Linda, but his guitarist has a horrible voice, it's a condition that's similar to Water-less Pink Floyd. Both John Carin and Guy Pratt sounded like crap, but they kept their mics on anyway, (Run Like Hell is right!). There are many instances of McCartney constructing solo works around riffs and melodies from Beatles albums, (presumably his own)...and with regards to Ringo, they hammerd him relentlessly and he ran away a few times.

McCartney felt fine playing drums on The Ballad of John and Yoko, (and who knows how much more)...


Darth Vile said:
As far as Shia's comments are concerned... he should feel free to comment on whatever he wants to comment on... although I can't help feel a little cynical about his motives when he is mostly associated with a set of movies (Transformers) which I'd consider to be representative of everything that's bad/wrong in modern Hollywood cinema.
I'm not too worried about what he says until he puts something out there substantial, so I agree for the most part. I think he's got great potential, and he's made influential connections. We'll see where he goes from here. Regarding what's wrong with Hollywood, I see those films as part and parcel, my problem is when they become more than that, when they become the entire post.

Darth Vile said:
I personally see more craft in KOTCS than I do in TOD... but I respect that you see it the other way. But my point was that I think it has little to do with 'craft' or 'commitment', I just think Lucas/Spielberg find it much more difficult (like anyone would) to reproduce/replicate the style of a movie they made 20/30 years ago.
I don't see it in terms of quantity but of quality. Most notably the departure of Norman Reynolds and his art department. Different artists/different product, and I think it's glaringly obvious from ToD's matte problems to the fake lens flares and harsh lighting of Skull.
 

JuniorJones

TR.N Staff Member
A direct quote from Indiana Jones!!:cool:

idiot.jpg
 
Top