Dr.Jonesy
Well-known member
Indy's brother said:That's a great find, Cap'n! Got a link for that?
I got it;
http://www.netflix.com/Top100
General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities
- Thread starter tnswman
- Start date
I got it;
http://www.netflix.com/Top100
Dr.Jonesy
Well-known member
Captain Craig said:I wish those quotes from Karen included a phrase such as "things are near completion".
I soo want an Indy 5!!!
No matter the bashing that genre film snobs hurl upon KOTCS it's obviously liked by the mainstream. It's been in the Netflix 100 since it's release on DVD over a year ago. Currently at #53
I concur with all of this.
Though it's gonna be 3 years since it's release by this October
Montana Smith
Active member
Mickiana said:
Yep, another 16 still to go!
DaveTheHutt
New member
So Spielberg's a bad action director now? Come on!
At least with Spielberg's work you can work out what the hell's going on - most modern directors rely on digital editing tricks to make the action so staccato and close-cut you can't follow the geography or flow of the sequence.
Sorry, but Indy with the likes of Micheal Bay at the helm would NOT be Indy!
At least with Spielberg's work you can work out what the hell's going on - most modern directors rely on digital editing tricks to make the action so staccato and close-cut you can't follow the geography or flow of the sequence.
Sorry, but Indy with the likes of Micheal Bay at the helm would NOT be Indy!
Darth Vile
New member
DaveTheHutt said:
I don't think it's a question of Spielberg being a bad action director, rather that his style has become dated (or that he was mimicking his own style from the 1980's - which is, in itself, dated). I think we'd all agree that Michael Bay is probably the antithesis of good movie making. However, that doesn't negate the fact that Spielberg is no longer making the kind of movies he was making in the 70's/80's. Using my previous analogy, it's like expecting Paul McCartney or Eric Clapton to produce cutting edge music in 2011. That's not trying to take anything away from them, it's just being realistic and recognising the fact that trail blazers are usually younger artists with new voices/different things to say.
Darth Vile
New member
Mungi said:
You are on an Indiana Jones discussion board... we care. That's what these boards are all about i.e. discussion. Perhaps we should preface every single topic with 'Who Cares?'...
punisher5150
Member
Spielberg's action scenes
One thing SS was good at was building tension as the action scene progressed. For Indy 4, I just never felt any tension at all. The jungle chase had too many comedic elements intertwined to let any real tension build. He had a little comedy dispersed in the action scenes of ToD (esp the mine car chase) but that scene was fairly long and the comedy release was followed by more tension building. I remember literally being on the "edge of my seat" from the time Indy fought on the rock crusher until the end of the rope bridge in the theaters. I don't think he's lost that ability. I think he was just being lazy on Indy 4.
One thing SS was good at was building tension as the action scene progressed. For Indy 4, I just never felt any tension at all. The jungle chase had too many comedic elements intertwined to let any real tension build. He had a little comedy dispersed in the action scenes of ToD (esp the mine car chase) but that scene was fairly long and the comedy release was followed by more tension building. I remember literally being on the "edge of my seat" from the time Indy fought on the rock crusher until the end of the rope bridge in the theaters. I don't think he's lost that ability. I think he was just being lazy on Indy 4.
Darth Vile
New member
punisher5150 said:
I'm not sure why Spielberg would be lazy on a movie that he and his professional colleagues clearly have some emotional investment in. But for the sake of argument, lets agree that you are correct with your assumption. I would point out however, that the tank chase in TLC has a copious amount of comedic moments (notably the scenes containing Henry Jones Senior & Marcus), so it can't be the comedy per se. I personally never found the mine cart chase in TOD tense or that thrilling, but it was more kinetic than the jungle chase for sure (largely due to the rollercoaster 1st person view effect employed).
I'd agree. At worst, Spielberg's action scenes are imaginative and well thought out. I also like the action in KOTCS (although I recognise that some scenes work better than others). I was simply highlighting the notion that the way action is directed/edited has changed... and that Spielberg's direction in KOTCS is closer to the originals than it is to say Iron Man, Casino Royale, Inception, The Dark Night etc. etc. Wether one is better than the other is largely subjective... however, there is some justification in stating that Spielberg's direction of action is no longer progressive (as it was in the 1980's).Mungi said:What I wanted to say is that the action in his newer films is still great, in my opinion.It might be different, but I still have my fun watching the jungle chase or the warehouse chase in Indy 4 for example.
Montana Smith
Active member
Darth Vile said:
I don't think there's anything wrong with Spielberg's directing style. Just that with KOTCS it was the material he and his fellow creators gave themselves to work with. It was the material that stifled the actors, and made their performances under-par. While they all talked the buddy talk in interviews, I was never convinced that the likes of Hurt or Winstone were really into this.
KOTCS was out of touch, it wasn't as bonded as ROTLA or TLC. The long years since the latter drove a wedge into the series. It doesn't bode well for an Indy V, so I'd rather they didn't even try.
Indy's brother
New member
Mungi said:
Sure anything can happen, but this makes it seem like it'll get made. After all, the reason KOTCS took 19 years was because they couldn't agree on the story, right? Who knows how fleshed out the script is (if there actually is anything resembling one), but Shia's mentioned it, and now Karen. What troubles me is that if the core of the story is agreed on, why don't they have a writer on the books?
*crosses fingers*
"NotKoeppNotKoeppNotKoeppNotKoeppNotKoeppNotKoepp........"
Darth Vile
New member
Montana Smith said:
Can't agree with the first part of your post Montana i.e. the material weakening the quality of action (if that's what you are saying). The action in Indy movies is not really dialogue driven. Also, the action scenes follow a very similar pattern/premise in all the movies e.g. vehicular chase, escape from something that's collapsing, being trapped in an impossible situation etc. etc. If you look at it on the page (sans monkeys/vines), there is no reason why the jungle chase should be any inferior to the tank chase from TLC... similar objective, similar standard of dialogue. Sure, the dénouement of the tank chase has it heading towards a ravine (which ups the anti somewhat in the last couple of mins), but even prior to that the action appears more snappy (there is also the standout stunt of a leap from galloping horse to tank). If we, for the sake of argument, agree that the tank chase works better; then for me it must be either because we're just a bit bored with the formula (seen it all before) or that something didn't click either with direction on set or in the editing room.
I think it's a fine line, and when we talk about something not working as well as it should, it's usually by small degrees things fall short. However, if an action scene doesn't work, or is bland, logic dictates that it shouldn't be the material as action is pretty much self contained and visual. The trench run in Star Wars ANH would still be a great action scene even if you'd not seen the previous 1.5 hrs of the movie. Same goes for the dénouement of Jaws or the truck chase in Raiders or the train station shoot out in The Untouchables. Good action/set pieces will get you emotionally involved without the need for complex plotting or dialogue... that's the art of direction/editing/musical scoring.
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
There are a couple of important points to further.Montana Smith said:
They probably approached the work, (the chase) in a similar way though Raiders was a second unit shoot and not helmed by Speilberg.
This makes a difference along with the sensibilites of the cast and crew.
A big problem in my estimation is the casting of actors with established careers. John Hurt points out in interviews that he was disappointed with his role. The material suffers because the cast isn't as invested in the project, (as last night's oscars show:if it's not on the page...), John Hurt, Cate Blanchet, Ray Winstone, will be remembered for their roles in other films and not their characters in Crystal Skull.
Belloq, Dietrich, Toht. The characters were memorable for their economy of speech, for their performances, and for the writing...in one case the actor improvised a scene.
The material relied on too much exposition, people telling you they were important and to be feared and it was never adequately illustrated. The movie suffers for this, and a fault that seems to have been illustrated by last nights oscars: if it's not on the page...
A shared failure of appoving a half baked script and uninvested actors.
Darth Vile
New member
A point well made...Rocket Surgeon said:
I've not seen anything to suggest that John Hurt was expecting anything more than what he got. I'm assuming he was doing it for the financials, CV or opportunity to work with Spielberg, as I seem to remember him saying on a BBC interview that he wasn't even familiar with the other Indy movies (apart from Raiders - and I'm not even sure he'd watched that all the way through). I agree that the particular characters you mention won't be the highlights of those actors careers... as you state, that's what happens when you employ well known, established actors who already have a wealth of great work to their names.Rocket Surgeon said:
As far as Raiders/KOTCS comparisons are concerned, yep - Raiders wins out every time... but I wouldn't hang KOTCS for that.
Darth Vile said:Can't agree with the first part of your post Montana i.e. the material weakening the quality of action (if that's what you are saying). The action in Indy movies is not really dialogue driven. Also, the action scenes follow a very similar pattern/premise in all the movies e.g. vehicular chase, escape from something that's collapsing, being trapped in an impossible situation etc. etc. If you look at it on the page (sans monkeys/vines), there is no reason why the jungle chase should be any inferior to the tank chase from TLC... similar objective, similar standard of dialogue. Sure, the dénouement of the tank chase has it heading towards a ravine (which ups the anti somewhat in the last couple of mins), but even prior to that the action appears more snappy (there is also the standout stunt of a leap from galloping horse to tank). If we, for the sake of argument, agree that the tank chase works better; then for me it must be either because we're just a bit bored with the formula (seen it all before) or that something didn't click either with direction on set or in the editing room.
I think it's a fine line, and when we talk about something not working as well as it should, it's usually by small degrees things fall short. However, if an action scene doesn't work, or is bland, logic dictates that it shouldn't be the material as action is pretty much self contained and visual. The trench run in Star Wars ANH would still be a great action scene even if you'd not seen the previous 1.5 hrs of the movie. Same goes for the dénouement of Jaws or the truck chase in Raiders or the train station shoot out in The Untouchables. Good action/set pieces will get you emotionally involved without the need for complex plotting or dialogue... that's the art of direction/editing/musical scoring.
Though I do like KOTCS and the Jungle Chase as a whole, there is something inherently wrong with it: A passive Indy. Past the first 2 minutes or so of the 8 minute chase, Indy does nothing but drive. Meanwhile, Shia and even Marion have a little more to do in the last part of that scenes. While the cliff section and the Ants fight did make up for that somewhat, that long section of scene where Indy is just driving is weak - and that's due to the script
The Drifter
New member
indy4242 said:
Yep, because we all know he never drove a truck in Raiders!
Stoo
Well-known member
Welcome back, everyone...for another edition of "The General Movie Critique Show"! Starring your HOST...Mister Darth Vile!Darth Vile said:I think it's a fine line, and when we talk about something not working as well as it should, it's usually by small degrees things fall short. However, if an action scene doesn't work, or is bland, logic dictates that it shouldn't be the material as action is pretty much self contained and visual. The trench run in Star Wars ANH would still be a great action scene even if you'd not seen the previous 1.5 hrs of the movie. Same goes for the dénouement of Jaws or the truck chase in Raiders or the train station shoot out in The Untouchables. Good action/set pieces will get you emotionally involved without the need for complex plotting or dialogue... that's the art of direction/editing/musical scoring.
So how about that Indy 5?
Maybe Violet might have gleaned some info from Karen Allen the other day. We'll have to wait & see...