Prairie dogs - who's to blame? A great mystery - solved.

Cole

Cole

New member
Yep, the lights and flame coming from the sled against the black of the night sky made for a cool image.

And I think Ben Burtt did the sound effects again for this film? Because like I said, the sound effect of the sled whizzing by is really unique, and really gives a sense of speed. It's great.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
tambourineman said:
I have to disagree too, I loved the shot of the sled streaking across the screen, one of my favorite shots in the film.
Click to expand...

It was a good start, but not quite enough...as I said:

While there's nothing wrong with the long shot, (it's wise to use as an establishing shot), a view (or two) from close up might have given us a greater sense of the speed and fury...(and deafening sound) of a rocket sled.


To see and hear the sled comming then going would have only made it better! A great opportunity for the Doppler effect!
 
Cole

Cole

New member
I think we already get a sense of the Doppler effect with the current sound effect used.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
Cole said:
I think we already get a sense of the Doppler effect with the current sound effect used.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a sense...but if you're right next to the tracks it's a better sense...I think that's the whole point!:rolleyes:

You see, the closer you get to the source, the more powerfull the impression.

But I understand VERY well, you're happy to sit behind the gophers...
 
Cole

Cole

New member
We seem to be treading some very insignificant territory now. If you're happy tearing the movie apart at the seams, trying to come up with stuff you think you could have done even better, than be my guest.

I'm not saying you have to agree with everything they did in the movie and you are free to have your own opinion of course........but when you start to get on to little tiny intricate details of the technicalities in filmmaking - as if you know more than Steven Spielberg himself - then you start coming off as being extremely egotistical, pompous, and most of all, laughably ignorant.
 
R

ResidentAlien

Guest
Cole said:
We seem to be treading some very insignificant territory now. If you're happy tearing the movie apart at the seams, trying to come up with stuff you think you could have done even better, than be my guest.

I'm not saying you have to agree with everything they did in the movie and you are free to have your own opinion of course........but when you start to get on to little tiny intricate details of the technicalities in filmmaking - as if you know more than Steven Spielberg himself - then you start coming off as being extremely egotistical, pompous, and most of all, laughably ignorant.
Click to expand...


First of all, and speak of ignorant, switch around than and then as you used 'em-- the correct usage is the exact opposite. You know... it looks pretty ignorant when you use them incorrectly.


Secondly, heaven forbid that someone should attempt to question someone else. Heaven forbid someone should dare be judgmental and seek to raise themselves above the true pettiness that is blind acceptance by deigning to ask questions and to seek enlightenment. Seems to me that that is the exact opposite of ignorance, pompousness and egotism. In fact, I implore you to look those words up in the dictionary lest you keep using them incorrectly... it smacks of ignorance to be sure.

If Spielberg were the man you make him out to be, I'm sure he'd welcome the critique. No artist can grow without learning to question and interpret their surroundings and the works of others. Art is, largely, that very thing-- interpretation. Critique is mutually beneficial for both the artist and the interpreter.
 
Dayne

Dayne

New member
I think we already got the full rocket sled experience as it was launching: we got some good close-up shots of the rocket igniting (as well as cooking a few commies alive), some track shots and a few shots in the tunnel as it really begins to gain speed. It's loud. It's intense. The cinematography was definitely up close and in your face. Any more of that when the sled is outside would have just been repetitive and would have dragged the scene out for too long.

As for the shot of the group of praire dogs, well that probably wasn't necessary. At least, it wasn't for me.
 
J

James

Well-known member
Dayne said:
I think we already got the full rocket sled experience as it was launching
Click to expand...

Yeah, the rocket sled was great. It was never intended as anything more than a minor set piece before the real cliffhanger in Doom Town anyway. If we're really going to be objective here, such 'broad strokes' are present in each of the Indy films. Today people would complain that they missed a great opportunity to show Indy surviving rapids or being hopelessly outnumbered in Berlin.

As for the prairie dogs, I hardly noticed them on my first viewing. I had to go online to learn what a major "distraction" they were in the film. But if I had to pick one to omit, it would probably be the group shot. You need the first, and the third could be viewed as a subtle way of letting us know Indy is safely out of range.
 
Cole

Cole

New member
Of course it's not nescessary........not anymore nescessary than the whole thing with the librarian stamping the books at the same time Indy nails the floor with the pole.

Just a couple of fun little moments.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
ResidentAlien said:
First of all, and speak of ignorant, switch around than and then as you used 'em-- the correct usage is the exact opposite. You know... it looks pretty ignorant when you use them incorrectly.


Secondly, heaven forbid that someone should attempt to question someone else. Heaven forbid someone should dare be judgmental and seek to raise themselves above the true pettiness that is blind acceptance by deigning to ask questions and to seek enlightenment. Seems to me that that is the exact opposite of ignorance, pompousness and egotism. In fact, I implore you to look those words up in the dictionary lest you keep using them incorrectly... it smacks of ignorance to be sure.

If Spielberg were the man you make him out to be, I'm sure he'd welcome the critique. No artist can grow without learning to question and interpret their surroundings and the works of others. Art is, largely, that very thing-- interpretation. Critique is mutually beneficial for both the artist and the interpreter.
Click to expand...

Thanks RA...

Instead of focusing on the gophers and the rocket sled being relegated to the background, the film might have benefitted from a shot that showcased the sled and illustrated its power...(a little better).

Cole's just a little bound up from an exchange on another thread...don't mind him so much, he'll figure it out eventually.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
Cole said:
No, you're right. You know more than Spielberg...
Click to expand...

Wow how were you able to type that on your cell while still on your knees in front of Spielberg?

Becareful! Make youre you get it all down! Liquids and cell phones don't mix!
 
R

ResidentAlien

Guest
Cole said:
No, you're right. You know more than Spielberg...
Click to expand...


See, THAT is pompousness. Cold dismissal because you can't counter my argument. That's called being a pompous ass.

Now, I never claimed to know more than Spielberg. Neither did Rocket Surgeon. Of course, holding Spielberg on some pedestal and pompously refusing to see anything else is frankly ignorant. The greatest artists in history (of which Spielberg is by no means one of) have all had output that's been at times subpar. And it's our responsibility as interpreters (audience) to critique and analyze the work. To not do so is to stagnate.
 
Robyn

Robyn

New member
Cole said:
as if you know more than Steven Spielberg himself - then you start coming off as being extremely egotistical, pompous, and most of all, laughably ignorant.
Click to expand...


Oh come on Cole, there are ordinary people who DO know more than Steven does.. just not as much money as he does..;) Steven has some great ideas but that's not to say someone else doesn't have a better one.. remember it was Karen Allen who came up with a better idea for the tent scene.. I thought Rocket's idea for the sled could have made for a really cool scene...
 
Cole

Cole

New member
That's why I made a point in one of my previous posts of saying we don't all have to agree and we are free to have our own opinions (obviously).

I just think arguing the technicalities of filmmaking is like telling Jeff Gordon how to drive a race car.
 
Forbidden Eye

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
ResidentAlien said:
See, THAT is pompousness. Cold dismissal because you can't counter my argument. That's called being a pompous ass.

Now, I never claimed to know more than Spielberg. Neither did Rocket Surgeon. Of course, holding Spielberg on some pedestal and pompously refusing to see anything else is frankly ignorant. The greatest artists in history (of which Spielberg is by no means one of) have all had output that's been at times subpar. And it's our responsibility as interpreters (audience) to critique and analyze the work. To not do so is to stagnate.
Click to expand...

That is a little shocking to hear from you, because in that case, the average joe is one that people should put emphasis on. There are a lot of people who bought tickets and enjoyed Transformers 2. Should Spielberg(or anybody for that matter) be concerned if those people don't happen to like their work?

I can see where you were coming from if film critics were in question(most of which actually liked Kingdom), but even then, if one is a true artist, shouldn't he make work that he wants to make as oppose to what others want him to make? After all, you can't literally please everyone.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
Forbidden Eye said:
shouldn't he make work that he wants to make as oppose to what others want him to make?
Click to expand...


That is a great question! Spielberg went so far as to say who he's making this film for, and it wasn't for him or for art.

It's funny when you write about things you'd have liked to have seen there's always that contingent that willfully misrepresent and misinterpret what you write and strike out at you as though they have some greater grasp of the subject.

Upon further review it's apparent they do not.

Kind of like expressing what you enjoy in a film and the response is so twisted they can't help but put their own baggage on display.

They invariably come off as extremely egotistical, pompous, and most of all, laughably ignorant.

I just think arguing the opinion of a post is like telling Jeff Gordon how to pick his wives.
 
Last edited:
Cole

Cole

New member
No, you're right Rocket. Adding a shot by the tracks would've made all the difference in the world. By goodness you should've shot this film.
 
Rocket Surgeon

Rocket Surgeon

Guest
Cole said:
No, you're right Rocket. Adding a shot by the tracks would've made all the difference in the world. By goodness you should've shot this film.
Click to expand...

You still don't get it Nat King! :rolleyes:

It's something I would have liked to see...I DON'T GIVE A RATS ASS what would have made the film better for YOU.

It's something I would have liked to see, I just love how you can't grasp that and continue to argue OPINION!

Shoo fly Shoo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top