Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

avidfilmbuff said:
There's no need for rudeness. I realize that I'm in the minority, but that's simply the way I feel. If you wonder how I can harbor such an opinion, you'll find my explanation here.

http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=19407

Relax Buff, I hardly wrote it rudely, though I can imagine you're dry reading.

If I wanted to be rude it would be more like:

nah...I'll save that if things escalate.

My comment merely expreses a first impression that shows so well the enormous gaping hole, the weeping fissure that exists between our two camps. It's just inconceivable to me, your comment, and I'm having a hard time trying to understand such a comment from someone who repeats the names of "classic" films including The Bycicle Thief, (ect. ad nauseum), and can lump Skull in with Raiders.

It's as difficult to understand as a guy prefering man meat to puss...uh girl meat.
I don't get it, (in or out of a kilt).
Now that COULD have been rude, but it wasn't about YOU.:hat:
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Relax Buff, I hardly wrote it rudely, though I can imagine you're dry reading.

If I wanted to be rude it would be more like:

nah...I'll save that if things escalate.

My comment merely expreses a first impression that shows so well the enormous gaping hole, the weeping fissure that exists between our two camps. It's just inconceivable to me, your comment, and I'm having a hard time trying to understand such a comment from someone who repeats the names of "classic" films including The Bycicle Thief, (ect. ad nauseum), and can lump Skull in with Raiders.

It's as difficult to understand as a guy prefering ***** to puss...uh ******.
I don't get it, (in or out of a kilt).
Now that COULD have been rude, but it wasn't about YOU.:hat:

Oh I see, well then I apologize. It's sort of difficult to read people's emotions when you can't see their face or hear their tone of voice. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
 
avidfilmbuff said:
Oh I see, well then I apologize. It's sort of difficult to read people's emotions when you can't see their face or hear their tone of voice. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Well we understand that much about each other...:hat:
 

kongisking

Active member
avidfilmbuff said:
There's no need for rudeness. I realize that I'm in the minority, but that's simply the way I feel. If you wonder how I can harbor such an opinion, you'll find my explanation here.

http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=19407

Rocket is rapidly growing infamous for his sometimes-ambiguous sense of sarcasm.

P.S. THAT was a joke, not me trying to pick a fight with Rocket Surgeon. So why the hell did I post that if I'm worried about misunderstandings? Guess I just feel left out in the "Misunderstandings Club."
 
kongisking said:
Rocket is rapidly growing infamous for his sometimes-ambiguous sense of sarcasm.

P.S. THAT was a joke, not me trying to pick a fight with Rocket Surgeon. So why the hell did I post that if I'm worried about misunderstandings? Guess I just feel left out in the "Misunderstandings Club."

With this firmly in mind, (though I'm unaware of any stigma I've nurtured) you PongisPing strike me as someone who judges with his/her crotch and heart when it comes to films and actors, and not with her/his head. I hope you're not a betting man/girl.

To each...;)
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Montana Smith said:
I have to agree with that.

I couldn't believe it when they said that the snake was real! Not CGI, and not a rubber snake. And still it is one of the most cringe-worthy moments! It was the lamest of gags.
2 years already, how time flies.

The quick sand / snake scene just seemed so pointless to me. It wasn't even funny. To top it off, the bumbling Dr Ox goes and gets the Russians to help them.

I'd even say its worse than the campfire scene in TOD.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sorry, to me it's just the beginning of a good idea, and it came out half baked.

Compared to the truck or tank chase then yes, I'd agree. But compared to KOTCS' contemporaries e.g. Iron Man, Batman etc. I think the jungle chase has them beat hands down. As mentioned in another thread, if we're talking more contemporary techniques of selling action, then the jungle chase doesn't stand up to the more modern movies... but if we are talking real imaginative ideas and stunts, then KOTCS is a lot closer to the spirit/quality of Raiders than Iron Man or Batman could ever hope to be... This of course it still very subjective, as I have many friends who think I'm just an old fart for liking Raiders, as they find it very dull and moribund. Hey ho.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
This of course it still very subjective, as I have many friends who think I'm just an old fart for liking Raiders, as they find it very dull and moribund. Hey ho.

That's the trouble. These young 'uns are leaving us nostalgic oldies behind. Every movie has to be more spectacular that the previous one, and in the process there's the great danger that the original magic will be lost or misplaced.

Sometimes that magic is something as simple as a look in the eye, a turn of the head, a wry smile, or a witty line. Sometimes the most exciting aspects of a movie are the conversations where you're hanging onto a character's every word. Without such subtlety even the most glorious of action sequences have no meaning or impact. You have to care about and believe in the characters.

In KOTCS Harrison is the glue that holds the movie together, but it's a glue that's getting stretched apart from all directions. There are characters in KOTCS that I just don't care enough about, and some that I do care about, who were woefully under-used.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Every time I think I can stop at a certain thought because I think that it's all thought out, one or some of you guys goes and makes a really good point and gets me rethinking my thoughts all over again. How can I love Harry as Indy and at the same time suggest he get replaced in a reboot? Must attain doublethink, two plus two equals five, INDY5!!! I'm learning to love my torturers. Damn you for your insane logic, you O'briens of The Raven. Sorry, ranting there, forgot myself. Now what was I talking about? Ah yes, Raideresque Revisionism of the most subversive kind....
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Mickiana said:
Every time I think I can stop at a certain thought because I think that it's all thought out, one or some of you guys goes and makes a really good point and gets me rethinking my thoughts all over again. How can I love Harry as Indy and at the same time suggest he get replaced in a reboot? Must attain doublethink, two plus two equals five, INDY5!!! I'm learning to love my torturers. Damn you for your insane logic, you O'briens of The Raven. Sorry, ranting there, forgot myself. Now what was I talking about? Ah yes, Raideresque Revisionism of the most subversive kind....

KOTCS seems to have that effect.
 

kongisking

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
With this firmly in mind, (though I'm unaware of any stigma I've nurtured) you PongisPing strike me as someone who judges with his/her crotch and heart when it comes to films and actors, and not with her/his head. I hope you're not a betting man/girl.

To each...;)

Now I'm REALLY confused. :rolleyes:
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
kongisking said:
Now I'm REALLY confused. :rolleyes:

Well, you do have a way of being (overly) fervent in your views.

Apart from that, I agree with what Darth Vile says about the action in KotCS compared to, say, The Dark Knight. Now, the Nolan is a film I really appreciate, but I find the action almost entirely uncompelling. Part of that, to be fair, is not choreography but rather cinematography, which left me never quite sure what I was seeing throughout such sequences as the chase sequence involving the truck. The converse of this (and in this respect I agree with Rocket Surgeon) is that there were certainly some design flaws in the chase...monkeys and crotch shots, namely, both of which could have been avoided easily. But the first couple minutes of that sequence? It's just exciting to see the back and forth of the six main characters involved, plus soldiers, plus the skull.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Attila the Professor said:
Apart from that, I agree with what Darth Vile says about the action in KotCS compared to, say, The Dark Knight. Now, the Nolan is a film I really appreciate, but I find the action almost entirely uncompelling. Part of that, to be fair, is not choreography but rather cinematography, which left me never quite sure what I was seeing throughout such sequences as the chase sequence involving the truck.

If you're talking poor cinematography during action sequences I have to cite Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. In places the action moves so fast I literally can't watch it. I've tried watching this film several times, but can never watch it in its entirety in one go. Compared to that KOTCS is a dream to watch!
 

Darth Vile

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Well, you do have a way of being (overly) fervent in your views.

Apart from that, I agree with what Darth Vile says about the action in KotCS compared to, say, The Dark Knight. Now, the Nolan is a film I really appreciate, but I find the action almost entirely uncompelling. Part of that, to be fair, is not choreography but rather cinematography, which left me never quite sure what I was seeing throughout such sequences as the chase sequence involving the truck. The converse of this (and in this respect I agree with Rocket Surgeon) is that there were certainly some design flaws in the chase...monkeys and crotch shots, namely, both of which could have been avoided easily. But the first couple minutes of that sequence? It's just exciting to see the back and forth of the six main characters involved, plus soldiers, plus the skull.

Montana Smith said:
If you're talking poor cinematography during action sequences I have to cite Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes. In places the action moves so fast I literally can't watch it. I've tried watching this film several times, but can never watch it in its entirety in one go. Compared to that KOTCS is a dream to watch!

I agree. I think there is a distinct difference between ferocious acting/editing that is designed to disorientate and elicit a sense of unrelenting pace/momentum/realism e.g. Bourne 2 & 3, and even the new Star Trek… and movies that just use fast edited action sequences as smoke and mirrors to hide a distinct lack of imagination and poor choreography e.g. 'Pirates of the Caribbean', 'Transformers' etc. etc. At the very least KOTCS never really tried to be a Michael Bay, McG or Bret Ratner type of movie (the worst kind of directorial evil in Hollywood IMHO). KOTCS at least tried to reference it’s own history/style (for better and worse).
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
I agree. I think there is a distinct difference between ferocious acting/editing that is designed to disorientate and elicit a sense of unrelenting pace/momentum/realism e.g. Bourne 2 & 3, and even the new Star Trek? and movies that just use fast edited action sequences as smoke and mirrors to hide a distinct lack of imagination and poor choreography e.g. 'Pirates of the Caribbean', 'Transformers' etc. etc. At the very least KOTCS never really tried to be a Michael Bay, McG or Bret Ratner type of movie (the worst kind of directorial evil in Hollywood IMHO). KOTCS at least tried to reference it?s own history/style (for better and worse).


"Ferocious" editing is a good description. I didn't notice it too much in Nolan's Batman movies, but in Burton's Apes it was a complete turn-off.

I'm of the opinion that if you pay to see a film, whether at the cinema or on DVD, you want to see what's happening on screen. KOTCS accomplished that. We get to sit back and see the scenery and action presented clearly. Overly fast editing give the impression that the director is hiding something, faking suspense.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Darth Vile said:
KOTCS at least tried to reference it’s own history/style (for better and worse).
Which is a good thing in my book. At the least its familiar and consistent with the previous films in the series. If they had made the action scenes too modern it wouldnt have seemed to fit in the Indy universe (imo). And after a 19 year gap then surely making the audience feel at home with the film must have been one of the goals of the film makers?
 

Darth Vile

New member
AndyLGR said:
Which is a good thing in my book. At the least its familiar and consistent with the previous films in the series. If they had made the action scenes too modern it wouldnt have seemed to fit in the Indy universe (imo). And after a 19 year gap then surely making the audience feel at home with the film must have been one of the goals of the film makers?

And I think that's the key dilemma. Do you adapt and do something different with the genre... something new (which is exactly what Raiders did in 81)? Or do you just reference your own history, and by default, deliver something familiar/tried and tested... but also something potentially unoriginal/passe?

They are of course rhetorical questions, because either would alienate certain sections of the audience. I certainly couldn't blame Spielberg/Lucas for making a movie that's stylistically much closer to the originals than it is to modern action movies. However, I personally would have had more of a preference for something tangibly different... and that's not to say dour and dark (which is simply a modern trend), but just something fresh, exciting and done in a different style. But I guess that's something for younger filmakers to do rather than Spielberg/Lucas.
 
Top