I think the formula they tried to use was the " just have as much fun as you can, and people will come too see it"formula. I think it's pretty obvious that they weren't trying to make a movie as serious as Raiders. After 19 years the majority of fans wanted an Indy movie that crams all the action it can in and doesn't care about the minority people who want a movie like the dark night, Bourne series, or Quantom of solace.deckard24 said:While all the films are filled with plenty of implausible moments, the fridge scene takes the prize! Now as to whether KOTCS as a whole is too fake, I'd have to say all the films are pretty fake, with Raiders being the most grounded. Like I said in a separate thread, it's the all over tone of Skull which hurts it more then the 'fake' quality. If it wanted to be one giant campy cartoon of a movie, it should have stuck with the TOD formula. If it wanted to be more serious but fun, it should have gone with the Raiders template. And if it wanted to be more of an adventure spoof ala Abbot and Costello, it should have followed LC. It just never seems to decide what type of Indy film it wants to be.
Now some might gripe about aliens being too 'fake', but that is really just subjective and biased, as aliens are just as sci-fi and fantastical as religious mysticism and supernatural artifacts.
Yeah, but Raiders was never in the same vein as The Dark Knight, the Bourne series, or Quantum of Solace, and it was action packed, fun, gritty, humorous, intelligent, and campy all at the same time. Aside from the jumbled tone and pacing of Skull, you have a really flat, dull, and uninspired screenplay to boot. They tried to combine all the successful elements of the first three films, but unfortunately lost the magic they had somewhere in translation.mr.kotcs said:I think the formula they tried to use was the " just have as much fun as you can, and people will come too see it"formula. I think it's pretty obvious that they weren't trying to make a movie as serious as Raiders. After 19 years the majority of fans wanted an Indy movie that crams all the action it can in and doesn't care about the minority people who want a movie like the dark night, Bourne series, or Quantom of solace.
mr.kotcs said:I think it's pretty obvious that they weren't trying to make a movie as serious as Raiders.
Forbidden Eye said:Of course its fake.
Why would anyone want a non-documentary film to be "real"?
Udvarnoki said:Indy4 is too fake, but not because of implausibility. It's because the movie looks fake. It's got a glowy, processed, off-putting look to it that takes you completely out of the proceedings. Combine all that with the constant use of thick smoke/fog/mist (I guess to cover up the CGI?) and you end up with an over-the-top visual aesthetic that looks nothing like the original trilogy - and not due to any kind of natural, modern progression, but because of a conscious DP choice. Yes, the composition is in line with the older films, complete with the proclivity for wide shots, long takes and deep focus, but how can I notice that when I'm so distracted by blinding light sources that only exist because somebody was feeling self-indulgent?
Good point! Kaminski's cinematography does play a huge part in the mess that is KOTCS. Now in his defense, there are a handful of scenes that mesh well with the look of the original three films, but overall the film itself does feel like one overlong glowy dream sequence.Udvarnoky said:Indy4 is too fake, but not because of implausibility. It's because the movie looks fake. It's got a glowy, processed, off-putting look to it that takes you completely out of the proceedings. Combine all that with the constant use of thick smoke/fog/mist (I guess to cover up the CGI?) and you end up with an over-the-top visual aesthetic that looks nothing like the original trilogy - and not due to any kind of natural, modern progression, but because of a conscious DP choice. Yes, the composition is in line with the older films, complete with the proclivity for wide shots, long takes and deep focus, but how can I notice that when I'm so distracted by blinding light sources that only exist because somebody was feeling self-indulgent?
The other movies looked "fake" in that appealing, romantic adventure movie way, with warm colors and high contrast. Indy4 was Kaminski going, "Hey guys, check out what the arbitrary use of pro-mist filters looks like!" The grit and the majesty that could occasionally be felt in the older films can't be mustered here because the suffocatingly overbearing style denies it.
Here's an intelligent take on the subject.
Nice find, it's an interesting read!Here's an intelligent take on the subject.
deckard24 said:Just for the sake of comparison, here's a good article on the amazing work of Douglas Slocombe (DP of the original films):
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/05/20/a-look-back-the-iconic-cinematography-of-douglas-slocombe/
Udvarnoky said:You could also just look at The Lost World, which also takes place in jungle scenery and proves that Kaminski is perfectly capable of doing good work when he's willing to back the hell off of a previously established style. With all the hoopla about he and Spielberg supposedly "swallowing their pride" and approximating the older movies I was hopeful, but I guess he couldn't help himself. Don't know what Spielberg was thinking when he gave his stamp of approval.
Udvarnoky said:Indy4 is too fake, but not because of implausibility. It's because the movie looks fake. It's got a glowy, processed, off-putting look to it that takes you completely out of the proceedings. Combine all that with the constant use of thick smoke/fog/mist (I guess to cover up the CGI?) and you end up with an over-the-top visual aesthetic that looks nothing like the original trilogy - and not due to any kind of natural, modern progression, but because of a conscious DP choice. Yes, the composition is in line with the older films, complete with the proclivity for wide shots, long takes and deep focus, but how can I notice that when I'm so distracted by blinding light sources that only exist because somebody was feeling self-indulgent?
The other movies looked "fake" in that appealing, romantic adventure movie way, with warm colors and high contrast. Indy4 was Kaminski going, "Hey guys, check out what the arbitrary use of pro-mist filters looks like!" The grit and the majesty that could occasionally be felt in the older films can't be mustered here because the suffocatingly overbearing style denies it.
Udvarnoky said:The point is, whatever our personal preferences for individual cinematographers is, Kaminski was perfectly capable of putting his ego aside and delivering results that looked like an Indiana Jones movie.
It's really just a matter of familiarity and complacency where Spielberg is concerned. He's used Kaminski now for 16 years and 11 films, yet some of his best films all had different DPs, Duel-Jack A. Marta, Jaws-Bill Butler, Close Encounters of the Third Kind-Viilmos Zsigmond, E.T.-Allen Daviau, The Indy Series-Douglas Slocombe, and Jurassic Park-Dean Cundey.Udvarnoky said:You could also just look at The Lost World, which also takes place in jungle scenery and proves that Kaminski is perfectly capable of doing good work when he's willing to back the hell off of a previously established style. With all the hoopla about he and Spielberg supposedly "swallowing their pride" and approximating the older movies I was hopeful, but I guess he couldn't help himself. Don't know what Spielberg was thinking when he gave his stamp of approval.
Agreed! Cundey should have been brought on board, but god forbid Spielberg shoot one film without Kaminski.Originally Posted by Resident Alien
That said, I still can't help but prefer Dean Cundy's work to Kaminski. I've heard the argument of Kaminski's darker style being more appropriate for the follow-up now that the ilse had been over-grown. But I still prefer Cundy's bright and expansive photography for the first film. It perfectly suited the theme park aesthetic but is also generally just attractive. And Cundy's still is more in-keeping with Slocombe's. Both men seem to lean more toward warm, natural hues.
Forbidden Eye said:I think its unfair to expect Kingdom to have looked exactly like the first 3 films like you seem to have expected
Forbidden Eye said:Actually, if you look at the film, you'll see that outside of the obvious clip(Aliens, ants, fridge) that the film was mostly shot CGI-free.
Forbidden Eye said:So there's just not much hope to please you in the 21st century I'm sorry to say.
Udvarnoky said:Go to this youtube video and watch at 0:47. It's footage from the movie Knowing, the prologue of which takes place at an elementary school in the 50s - the part I've pointed you to is the interior of a classroom. Note the color and the style - it is distinctly 50s, and may remind you an awful lot of how Indy's classroom looks in Indy4. If you compare the scenes though, Knowing's counterpart lacks the ridiculous bloom effects while still completely capturing that nostalgic 50s feel, complete with that dreamy look but without going completely crazy.
Forbidden Eye said:Interesting, but still, I think you'd agree that scene doesn't look anything like the classroom scenes in Raiders or Crusade, which you were complaining about earlier.
Dayne said:
This is great. Look at Mutt; you can't capture 1950's swashbuckler better than that shot. Come to think of it, with the bloom lighting and colour saturation, this shot captures a comic book quality that most superhero and other comic book movies fail to capture at all. Also, the heavy haze throughout this scene works especially well as it fleshes out the experience of being in a hot and humid rainforest.