Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

avidfilmbuff

New member
Lego Indy said:
With CGI there is no need to develop storylines. Movies like Crystal Skull, Star Wars 1-3, Avatar, Transformers, Iron Man, etc are all flash with no substance. (n)

Besides the Jungle Chase, some of the animals, and the climax of the film, could you tell me where else you saw cgi.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
avidfilmbuff said:
Besides the Jungle Chase, some of the animals, and the climax of the film, could you tell me where else you saw cgi.

There's the little matter of that cool flying fridge, and the mushroom cloud...
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
Montana Smith said:
There's the little matter of that cool flying fridge, and the mushroom cloud...
ResidentAlien said:
And the graveyard was one big, ugly CG composite shot.

Hmmh, I forgot about those. But still, in terms of the amount of special effects, it's pretty much the same as Temple of Doom. The only thing that's changed is the method. I really feel that people have been exaggerating the amount of cgi in the film.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
The desert truck chase in Raiders looked so darn good and was so darn exciting. Seeing Mutt standing on what was obviously not moving vehicles getting whacked in the nuts while boring us to death with his sword skills just didn't cut the mustard. The vine swing thing didn't help either. But that's not Shia's fault, although I hope to whatever god may be that we never see Mutt again.

Some parts of CS I like, some parts I hate and some parts I wonder what the hell were they thinking. The whole movie just lacked its own original impetus. I think that was the major problem and the details we pick apart here just flow from that.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Mickiana said:
The desert truck chase in Raiders looked so darn good and was so darn exciting. Seeing Mutt standing on what was obviously not moving vehicles getting whacked in the nuts while boring us to death with his sword skills just didn't cut the mustard. The vine swing thing didn't help either. But that's not Shia's fault, although I hope to whatever god may be that we never see Mutt again.

Some parts of CS I like, some parts I hate and some parts I wonder what the hell were they thinking. The whole movie just lacked its own original impetus. I think that was the major problem and the details we pick apart here just flow from that.

KOTCS, if anything, is 20 years too late. It demonstrates rather well how action movies have moved on. And whilst, IMHO, it is a rather worthy addition to the original 3, KOTCS represents the past and not the future of action adventure movies. And that's the real problem I think...
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Give us an analog Indy movie with some STUNTS.

I agree that you can't beat reality. Stunts done for real can have that true "wow" factor. Whereas, stunts done by CGI can have that "whatever" factor. CGI has made everything possible for film makers, so there's little 'real' work involved in creating a given spectacle. It takes a strong director or producer to insist on keeping it real.

After watching the making of The Dark Knight, I'll always think of the truck flip that was done for real on a real street, or the blowing up of the hospital with Ledger walking away without looking back. (Okay, so they had to CGI the windows back into the building as they'd been removed in between locating the building and setting it up for filming - but Heath Ledger, the explosion, and everything else was real).

Just because something's possible doesn't mean a director has to do it - but then it's the marketplace that drives movies. If the majority of movie goers get a kick out of CGI magic then the dedicated Indy fan doesn't stand a chance of going back to the good ol' days...
 

Darth Vile

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Give us an analog Indy movie with some STUNTS.


Montana Smith said:
I agree that you can't beat reality. Stunts done for real can have that true "wow" factor. Whereas, stunts done by CGI can have that "whatever" factor. CGI has made everything possible for film makers, so there's little 'real' work involved in creating a given spectacle. It takes a strong director or producer to insist on keeping it real.

After watching the making of The Dark Knight, I'll always think of the truck flip that was done for real on a real street, or the blowing up of the hospital with Ledger walking away without looking back. (Okay, so they had to CGI the windows back into the building as they'd been removed in between locating the building and setting it up for filming - but Heath Ledger, the explosion, and everything else was real).

Just because something's possible doesn't mean a director has to do it - but then it's the marketplace that drives movies. If the majority of movie goers get a kick out of CGI magic then the dedicated Indy fan doesn't stand a chance of going back to the good ol' days...

Whilst I agree that action movies are better for having 'real' stunt work, and should look to incorporate as much as possible, I'm hard pushed to think of many a modern action flick that has substantially more "analog" or "real" stunts than KOTCS did. For me, the only part of The Dark Knight that impressed, stunt wise, was the opening swing between buildings... the other action scenes were relatively run of the mill (although I still liked it). In truth, I'd be struggling to think of action in movies such as the Iron Man, Star Trek, Harry Potter (trying to think of contemporary comparisons) where they were not significantly underpinned/realised by CGI.

Again, if one finds fault with the action scenes/stunt work of KOTCS, then I think that has more to do with the direction/editing than it does with the amount of actual real/live stunts involved... and for me, I've always believed that Spielberg directed KOTCS very much like an 80's movie than a 00's movie, and that's why much of the action isn't as fast and as furious as the action in something like the JJ Abrams Star Trek movie.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
You can't beat stunt work. There might be less explosions and acrobatics, but it's far more satisfying. It lends credibility. CG detracts from credibility. I know I'm sounding like Sankara here, but I think this is one of the problems of CS following up on the first three, where inventiveness and physical display were brought to bear.
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
There were stunts in Crystal Skull, if you don't believe me then watch the special features. The only cgi in the film was used for backgrounds, like a matte painting. There was no cgi Harrison Ford, nor a cgi replica of any of the other actors.
 

Darth Vile

New member
avidfilmbuff said:
There were stunts in Crystal Skull, if you don't believe me then watch the special features. The only cgi in the film was used for backgrounds, like a matte painting. There was no cgi Harrison Ford, nor a cgi replica of any of the other actors.

I think it would also be true to say that with the advent of CGI, to remove wires etc., Harrison Ford was able to do a lot more stunt work himself (more so than the other movies I'm led to believe). So it's all about perception i.e. does Harrison Ford being able to do more stunts make the movie more realistic than having to use a double for every shot?

Unfortunately, as others have mentioned before, some of the gratuitous CGI moments in the jungle chase, for example, take away from the fact that it's a really imaginative, well choreographed sequence (with lots of good stunt work).
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
Darth Vile said:
I think it would also be true to say that with the advent of CGI, to remove wires etc., Harrison Ford was able to do a lot more stunt work himself (more so than the other movies I'm led to believe). So it's all about perception i.e. does Harrison Ford being able to do more stunts make the movie more realistic than having to use a double for every shot?

Unfortunately, as others have mentioned before, some of the gratuitous CGI moments in the jungle chase, for example, take away from the fact that it's a really imaginative, well choreographed sequence (with lots of good stunt work).

The only two scenes that you can really accuse of using too much cgi, are the jungle chase and the finale. With the finale, it's understandable, and in my opinion, well done. However, I must admit, with the jungle chase, the cgi is way overdone. I don't think adding all those extra plants were necessary.

I do think, however, that the reason they used cgi for that particular scene, was because it's hard to shoot a chase in an actual jungle; while shooting a chase in a desert or a street is less hazardous. This also explains why Temple of Doom used so many matte paintings for the raft and the mine car scene.

I only have one more complaint for Crystal Skull; they really should have shot the film in another country, that really benefitted the first three films. But besides the jungle chase and the country issue, Crystal Skull is just as great as the other three films.
 

kongisking

Active member
avidfilmbuff said:
The only two scenes that you can really accuse of using too much cgi, are the jungle chase and the finale. With the finale, it's understandable, and in my opinion, well done. However, I must admit, with the jungle chase, the cgi is way overdone. I don't think adding all those extra plants were necessary.

I do think, however, that the reason they used cgi for that particular scene, was because it's hard to shoot a chase in an actual jungle; while shooting a chase in a desert or a street is less hazardous. This also explains why Temple of Doom used so many matte paintings for the raft and the mine car scene.

I only have one more complaint for Crystal Skull; they really should have shot the film in another country, that really benefitted the first three films. But besides the jungle chase and the country issue, Crystal Skull is just as great as the other three films.

You're absolutely right on everything here.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
avidfilmbuff said:
There were stunts in Crystal Skull, if you don't believe me then watch the special features. The only cgi in the film was used for backgrounds, like a matte painting. There was no cgi Harrison Ford, nor a cgi replica of any of the other actors.
Sorry, avidfilmbuff, but this is incorrect. There are at least 5 shots which use CG replicas of actors.

-the Russians in the CG car when it becomes consumed by the shock wave.
-the long shot of the Russians on the cliffside.
-Indy & Co. falling out of CG the amphib when it goes over the falls (not sure on this one but would seem likely).
-the Russians getting pulled into the portal.
-Flying Mac when he gets sucked away back into the throne room.

As you said, "if you don't believe me then watch the special features".;) Other uses of CG elements are the jets flying overhead, the bending tree, Indy's ant-ridin' fedora and digital face replacement during the motorbike chase.

It's exactly 2 years after the release date and people are still b*tching & moaning over "Skull"! You guys make me laugh.:D While I'm in this thread, let me say that the worst scene in Indy 4 is the sandpit/snake gag. A cringe-worthy moment for me but 2 years ago today, the audience was laughing (where I was, anyway).
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
While I'm in this thread, let me say that the worst scene in Indy 4 is the sandpit/snake gag. A cringe-worthy moment for me but 2 years ago today, the audience was laughing (where I was, anyway).

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.
 

JP Jones

New 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.
Oh, Come on, It was funny,it had witty dialouge, and it a nice reveal. Really amusing.
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
Stoo said:
Sorry, avidfilmbuff, but this is incorrect. There are at least 5 shots which use CG replicas of actors.

-the Russians in the CG car when it becomes consumed by the shock wave.
-the long shot of the Russians on the cliffside.
-Indy & Co. falling out of CG the amphib when it goes over the falls (not sure on this one but would seem likely).
-the Russians getting pulled into the portal.
-Flying Mac when he gets sucked away back into the throne room.

As you said, "if you don't believe me then watch the special features".;) Other uses of CG elements are the jets flying overhead, the bending tree, Indy's ant-ridin' fedora and digital face replacement during the motorbike chase.

It's exactly 2 years after the release date and people are still b*tching & moaning over "Skull"! You guys make me laugh.:D While I'm in this thread, let me say that the worst scene in Indy 4 is the sandpit/snake gag. A cringe-worthy moment for me but 2 years ago today, the audience was laughing (where I was, anyway).


Okay, you've got me on those scenes.
 

Darth Vile

New 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.

I thought the campfire scene in TOD was far worse (the only other scene I can compare it to).
 
Wire work is nothing new, especially to Indiana Jones movies, (i.e. whip swing to the floor of The Temple of Doom), there was none in Raiders.

Stunts in the other films were lame in comparison and the CGI work in the sky over Hangar 51 sucked, like watching a Barbara Walters vaseline lensed interview.

Montana Smith said:
Just because something's possible doesn't mean a director has to do it - but then it's the marketplace that drives movies.
Best point so far, and the market place drove Crystal Skull.

avidfilmbuff said:
besides the jungle chase and the country issue, Crystal Skull is just as great as the other three films.
You have your opinion, as far as mine...Really? Wow.
Darth Vile said:
Unfortunately, as others have mentioned before, some of the gratuitous CGI moments in the jungle chase, for example, take away from the fact that it's a really imaginative, well choreographed sequence (with lots of good stunt work).
Sorry, to me it's just the beginning of a good idea, and it came out half baked.
 
Top