Is KotCS too Fake?

Stoo said:

Agreed on both counts but there is CGI set extension all over the place in the jungle chase. There are over 560 visual effects shots in the entire film with more than 320 digital mattes. It was the largest number of mattes, ILM had done since "Revenge of the Sith".

In the bonus stuff on the DVD, you can see they set up walls of bluescreen curtains in the actual jungle.

Click to expand...

That's impressive- I'd never really thought there was that much. I have nothing against that sort of stuff; the warehouse looked great for example and would have been much worse without CGI. In fact, watching Casino Royale on the weekend they do a similar thing with the Miami Airport chase, sticking on the lights of a city and bustle of a real airport behind the action. Impossible to detect unless you know it's not real and it adds hugely to the scene.

emtiem said:

Well you failed! I didn't see any of those things in the jungle in Crystal Skull. Some Russians turned up, that's about the extent of it. Otherwise the grass was still green, the monkeys were furry, the natives were angry and the ruins were still old.

Click to expand...

The point is that the World had changed.......a LOT....between the 1930's and the 1950's.

I think you might have missed my point. But that's OK.

Lance Quazar said:

Seriously? You don't see how "Iron Man" is superior to KOTCS in nearly every respect? In almost all of those criteria and many, many more?!?!

Click to expand...

Personally, I like Iron man the character and I liked the film when I first seen it, but for some reason I like it less and less with every viewing. I don't know, I find it kind of pretentious. Honestly, I think IM is the better film, and I totally understand why people could like it more, but for me it's the opposite with KOTCS because I enjoy it more with every viewing.

Most of it has to do with nostalgia I guess. The same way I enjoy Batman more than The Dark Knight. Dark Knight is the better film, but I grew up with burton's Batman and just enjoy it more.

Lance Quazar said:

Seriously? You don't see how "Iron Man" is superior to KOTCS in nearly every respect? In almost all of those criteria and many, many more?!?!

Click to expand...

Totally and utterly "Nope"... I don't see any superiority in Iron Man whatsoever (other than a leading actor I respect)... and to be honest, with all due respect, that's the type of completely unsubstantiated comment I'm on about... Where are the examples of really good direction, dialogue, plotting, cinematography music etc. etc. in Iron Man? Give me an example of one of its major set pieces that differs completely (in the positive sense) to KOTCS in the way it's constructed/executed.

Now don’t get me wrong, I liked Iron Man, but at the same time I realize it’s nothing more than a live action cartoon linked together with unbelievable situations/characters and set pieces. So why be so forgiving to that movie and so damning of KOTCS???

monkey said:

The point is that the World had changed.......a LOT....between the 1930's and the 1950's.

I think you might have missed my point. But that's OK.

Click to expand...

Hardly. It's you missing mine. If you restaged the opening Idol's temple scene of Raiders in the 50's, how would the existence of Atomic weapons change how fast Indy can run in front of a boulder?

Indy's not a social commentary. The McCarthy stuff in Skull was about as close as it's ever come, in fact.

Iron Man is really tricky, yeah. I liked it a lot, and it does move a bit faster than Skull with some probably more impressive set pieces, but I also think it's very bitty and by the end has turned into a slightly dull superhero smash-up film. It also succeeds by way of being fresher; we've got an unconventional lead, situations we haven't seen superheroes in before (including just simply being in the Middle East) and, yes, some very sparkling dialogue and zippy, funny scenes. It's not a simple film, though and suffers from having too many disparate bits. I remember coming out of the cinema thinking 'I enjoyed that' but also thinking that it wasn't anything special particularly; it had just been lifted above being average, mostly by the cast.
Skull is a little pedestrian next to it, I'd say; but yeah- the level of workmanship on it is no different and the sense of reality conjured is about the same. Indy's possibly more stylised (and I like that) and so maybe looks a little further removed from reality, but that's fine- it's a film which wants to be a comic book whereas Iron Man is a comic book which wants to be a film.

emtiem said:

Iron Man is really tricky, yeah. I liked it a lot, and it does move a bit faster than Skull with some probably more impressive set pieces, but I also think it's very bitty and by the end has turned into a slightly dull superhero smash-up film. It also succeeds by way of being fresher; we've got an unconventional lead, situations we haven't seen superheroes in before (including just simply being in the Middle East) and, yes, some very sparkling dialogue and zippy, funny scenes. It's not a simple film, though and suffers from having too many disparate bits. I remember coming out of the cinema thinking 'I enjoyed that' but also thinking that it wasn't anything special particularly; it had just been lifted above being average, mostly by the cast.
Skull is a little pedestrian next to it, I'd say; but yeah- the level of workmanship on it is no different and the sense of reality conjured is about the same. Indy's possibly more stylised (and I like that) and so maybe looks a little further removed from reality, but that's fine- it's a film which wants to be a comic book whereas Iron Man is a comic book which wants to be a film.

Click to expand...

Nicely put...

I'm not trying to assert one movies superiority over the other... just stating that (IMHO) broadly speaking, both Iron Man and KOTCS are of a similar quality… and for the reasons mentioned (and I agree with your points), one is perceived by some as being “hip”, and “now” (and is not broadly criticized for its modern overuse of effects/narrative banality/lack of reality or realism/rather obvious and aimed at the lowest common denominator soundtrack), whilst the other is perceived by some as being somewhat “crusty”, “lacking in realism” and "too effects ridden".

As I said, I do like Iron Man, but I can't think of any stand out set piece (all seemed like the Transformers to me), or set piece that didn't feel like I was watching an arcade game. At least with KOTCS I actually felt like I was seeing Harrison Ford perform

Random alert: The ONLY thing that bothered me about Crystal Skull (besides the aliens) was that I was pre-occupied with the fedora and the fact it looked too tall too big. I knows thats petty but hey... it bothered me!

Darth Vile said:

For example, (rhetorical questions) why can one watch The Mummy I/II & III, Iron Man, Spiderman, Harry Potter etc. etc. and accept the wall to wall CGI as part of the movies reality?

Click to expand...

Your rhetorical questions would only be in any way pertinent if wall-to-wall CGI is something that had always been associated with Indiana Jones. Since you yourself have repeatedly pointed out the old-fashion-ness of Indy, even in the 80s, and Spielberg and Frank Marshall constantly advertised Indy4 as going out of its way to be like the old films, isn't it more odd that people would assume Indiana Jones to be as much of a modern action/adventure flick as Harry Potter or superhero adaptations?

Udvarnoky said:

Your rhetorical questions would only be in any way pertinent if wall-to-wall CGI is something that had always been associated with Indiana Jones. Since you yourself have repeatedly pointed out the old-fashion-ness of Indy, even in the 80s, and Spielberg and Frank Marshall constantly advertised Indy4 as going out of its way to be like the old films, isn't it more odd that people would assume Indiana Jones to be as much of a modern action/adventure flick as Harry Potter or superhero adaptations?

Click to expand...

I don't think one can automatically equate expectations not being met with something that constitutes intrinsically bad filmmaking. Even if Spielberg lied through his back teeth and claimed the movie was shot on gossamer gold from the Gods, such half-truths/over exaggerations can only alter perception and not the reality. And I agree, perception is important... But I think it's crucial to distinguish between the two when critiquing it or comparing it to the other movies. Hence me citing Iron Man as an example of a fairly similar movie in terms of quality (IMHO), that is perceived as being somewhat better.

Darth Vile said:

I don't think one can automatically equate expectations not being met with something that constitutes intrinsically bad filmmaking.

Click to expand...

Park the brakes, pal. You're above that.

Darth Vile said:

But I think it's crucial to distinguish between the two when critiquing it or comparing it to the other movies. Hence me citing Iron Man as an example of a fairly similar movie in terms of quality (IMHO), that is perceived as being somewhat better.

Click to expand...

The problem is that Iron Man and Indiana Jones are completely different kinds of movies, with completely different intentions and audience expectations. They have completely different styles, tones, and influences. If Indy4 had been shot entirely handheld with frenetic camera cuts, or if it was shot like 300, entirely in front of green screens with incessant slow-motion impalings, it would have failed on some level to be an Indiana Jones movie. Nobody would care if the quality of the shaky camerawork or the richness of the CGI backgrounds was impeccable. What's right for one movie is not right for another. An Indiana Jones movie has to succeed at being an Indiana Jones movie first and foremost, the quality of the craftsmanship of any individual aspect (CGI, editing, whatever) being completely secondary, and really shouldn't even be a factor when watching. (After all, the technical aspects aren't really supposed to call attention to themselves during the movie, but picked apart after.) It's why I don't understand why you're so concerned with comparing extremely specific aspects of one movie to another completely out of context as some sort of argument about the similarity of the films' quality. It just doesn't make any sense. Like, at all.

The success of a movie rests on all of its pieces coming together. That's why you can have a mindblowing lead performance in a bad movie, or Oscar worthy craftsmanship in a bad movie. The final product is the sum of its parts, and the correct value of that sum is different for different kinds of movies. If the second unit camerman did an amazing job, then that's going to enhance an already great movie. If the movie isn't that hot in general, his efforts aren't going to matter.

Udvarnoky said:

The problem is that Iron Man and Indiana Jones are completely different kinds of movies, with completely different intentions and audience expectations. They have completely different styles, tones, and influences. If Indy4 had been shot entirely handheld with frenetic camera cuts, or if it was shot like 300, entirely in front of green screens with incessant slow-motion impalings, it would have failed on some level to be an Indiana Jones movie.

Click to expand...

I know you believe KOTCS to be a poorly crafted movie, just as I believe it to be a well crafted movie (as well crafted as the other sequels anyway)… However, I think I was trying to talk more philosophically and get underneath the notion of audience perception i.e. Is/Should/Can a movies artistic merits and achievements be limited/constrained by pre conditions and its audience expectations? Or, in a less philosophical more straightforward way, did the movie meet its core requirement of being both accessible and entertaining to a wide audience (despite the fact that the movie is stylistically 30 years out of date)? And if it did... what's there to really complain about? Movies like Indiana Jones and Iron Man are created to entertain, not change the world.

Udvarnoky said:

It's why I don't understand why you're so concerned with comparing extremely specific aspects of one movie to another completely out of context as some sort of argument about the similarity of the films' quality. It just doesn't make any sense. Like, at all.

Click to expand...

Critiques are usually based on comparing and contrasting are they not??? Comparing KOTCS use of effects, locations and its sense of quasi reality to a movie like Iron Man is entirely logical (It’s not like I’m comparing KOTCS to a movie like Modern Times). After all (regardless of original intent), like it or not, Indiana Jones is much closer to a movie like Iron Man, Superman and Batman than it is to the early James Bond movies (or the more modern Jason Bourne). Given that some who dislike KOTCS hold Iron Man in great esteem, it’s entirely sensible to compare when countering a specific criticism. What doesn’t make sense to me, for example, is using the use (overuse) of effects as a critism of one movie, but not for another. What doesn’t seem logical to me is the picking apart of a movie like KOTCS and critising it for its lack of “reality” or “lack of emotional depth” when the premise of these movies is based on the fantastical and broad brush stroke characters (some may say cliché characters). Now if one didn’t like all the Indy movies (certainly all the other sequels) because of their cartoon/fantastical nature, or clichéd characterization, I could understand that... and I'd say fair enough. But excusing one and not the other, IMHO, is logically problematical and doesn’t make sense “Like, at all”.

Alittle too longwinded Darth Vile, but some fine points.

Well, I watched it again last night. I enjoyed the first hour just fine. I even turned a blind eye to the prairie dogs. I was liking it alot. Maybe I was just too drunk the first time I saw it. But no, I knew what lay in store for me. The jungle sequence is so God-awful that I simply cannot rebound from it. It is a ridiculous series of events.

I am irritated from the get-go by the giant CGI jungle lawnmower. Bothered more by blue-screen Shia getting stretched between the two jeeps and getting hit in the groin by the occasional brush, and then completely and utterly disgusted by the insane image of Shia and a gang of monkeys swinging vine to vine. It's madness. The icing on the cake is Marion smiling deviously as she drives the jeep over a cliff and onto a tree which graciously lowers them down to the river. Hurrah.

My brain sort of shuts down after that, no longer in touch with the story. The ending is a swirl of incomprehensible computer effects. The final scenes is nice, but the way Indy's hat blew over to Shia (driven by the power of Lucas' flatulents, I imagine), is exactly the sort of thing I was dreading - leaving the door open for ****ty The Beef to head the next films. Yuck.

Anyway, the second half of the film is so bad that it undoes the enjoyment I found in the first half. They could have had a good movie but made some really inane choices. It's too bad.

Matinee Idyll said:

Alittle too longwinded Darth Vile, but some fine points.

Well, I watched it again last night. I enjoyed the first hour just fine. I even turned a blind eye to the prairie dogs. I was liking it alot. Maybe I was just too drunk the first time I saw it. But no, I knew what lay in store for me. The jungle sequence is so God-awful that I simply cannot rebound from it. It is a ridiculous series of events.

I am irritated from the get-go by the giant CGI jungle lawnmower. Bothered more by blue-screen Shia getting stretched between the two jeeps and getting hit in the groin by the occasional brush, and then completely and utterly disgusted by the insane image of Shia and a gang of monkeys swinging vine to vine. It's madness. The icing on the cake is Marion smiling deviously as she drives the jeep over a cliff and onto a tree which graciously lowers them down to the river. Hurrah.

My brain sort of shuts down after that, no longer in touch with the story. The ending is a swirl of incomprehensible computer effects. The final scenes is nice, but the way Indy's hat blew over to Shia (driven by the power of Lucas' flatulents, I imagine), is exactly the sort of thing I was dreading - leaving the door open for ****ty The Beef to head the next films. Yuck.

Anyway, the second half of the film is so bad that it undoes the enjoyment I found in the first half. They could have had a good movie but made some really inane choices. It's too bad.

Click to expand...

Thank god Spielberg was nowhere near the filming of the truck chase in Raiders...

Darth Vile said:

Critiques are usually based on comparing and contrasting are they not??? Comparing KOTCS use of effects, locations and its sense of quasi reality to a movie like Iron Man is entirely logical (It?s not like I?m comparing KOTCS to a movie like Modern Times). After all (regardless of original intent), like it or not, Indiana Jones is much closer to a movie like Iron Man, Superman and Batman than it is to the early James Bond movies (or the more modern Jason Bourne). Given that some who dislike KOTCS hold Iron Man in great esteem, it?s entirely sensible to compare when countering a specific criticism. What doesn?t make sense to me, for example, is using the use (overuse) of effects as a critism of one movie, but not for another. What doesn?t seem logical to me is the picking apart of a movie like KOTCS and critising it for its lack of ?reality? or ?lack of emotional depth? when the premise of these movies is based on the fantastical and broad brush stroke characters (some may say cliché characters). Now if one didn?t like all the Indy movies (certainly all the other sequels) because of their cartoon/fantastical nature, or clichéd characterization, I could understand that... and I'd say fair enough. But excusing one and not the other, IMHO, is logically problematical and doesn?t make sense ?Like, at all?.

Click to expand...

Perhaps people are simply happy and expect to see a character like Iron Man (who is a fairly impossible-to-achieve-in-real-life character) in CGI -especially after pretty much all other superheroes being rendered in CGI- whereas Indy, or to a similar extent, Bond are characters they expect to see with less effects simply because they feel it should be possible without them.
In the case of Iron Man, incidentally, I did feel there was too much CGI: some shots really felt like they didn't need a full CGI IM but we seemed to get that every time.

emtiem said:

Perhaps people are simply happy and expect to see a character like Iron Man (who is a fairly impossible-to-achieve-in-real-life character) in CGI -especially after pretty much all other superheroes being rendered in CGI- whereas Indy, or to a similar extent, Bond are characters they expect to see with less effects simply because they feel it should be possible without them.
In the case of Iron Man, incidentally, I did feel there was too much CGI: some shots really felt like they didn't need a full CGI IM but we seemed to get that every time.

Click to expand...

Yep - I'd definitely think most people would expect to see the "real" Harrison Ford in an Indy movie... That would indeed be a step too far.

I was more referring to the wide spread use of blue/green screen and "virtual sets/environments" in modern movies such as the aforementioned Iron Man, Harry Potter etc.

Darth Vile said:

Yep - I'd definitely think most people would expect to see the "real" Harrison Ford in an Indy movie... That would indeed be a step too far.

I was more referring to the wide spread use of blue/green screen and "virtual sets/environments" in modern movies such as the aforementioned Iron Man, Harry Potter etc.

Click to expand...

Yeah I know what you're saying, but once you've opened your audience to accepting CGI with a fully CGI leading man, a virtual environment is a much smaller step. It's rather the same thing.
Although saying that, I can't think of many replacement backgrounds in Iron Man, anyway.

I'm not really sure where the issue with the bluescreen stuff is, anyway: is it just the jungle stuff? Why's that not acceptable when something like the '12 o'clock' plane bit from LC is? I suppose maybe by the end of the waterfall sequence it's a bit tiring: the actors don't appear to have been in a real location for quite some time by then.

I still think it makes perfect sense that someone would go into an Indiana Jones movie with different expectations than Iron Man and Harry Potter. I honestly can't wrap my head around the notion that that wouldn't be obvious.

emtiem said:

Yeah I know what you're saying, but once you've opened your audience to accepting CGI with a fully CGI leading man, a virtual environment is a much smaller step. It's rather the same thing.
Although saying that, I can't think of many replacement backgrounds in Iron Man, anyway.

I'm not really sure where the issue with the bluescreen stuff is, anyway: is it just the jungle stuff? Why's that not acceptable when something like the '12 o'clock' plane bit from LC is? I suppose maybe by the end of the waterfall sequence it's a bit tiring: the actors don't appear to have been in a real location for quite some time by then.

Click to expand...

I think I/we were trying to take it a bit broader than a specific scene or moment, rather that it was about wether an Indy movie must constrain itself with using real sets/locations in order to be considered a "good" movie (or as good as the other sequels).

I think we all probably feel (and agree) that we want our Indy movies to have some sense of realism/reality e.g. live stunt work, explosions etc... but my argument was basically - is it fair that Indy movies can't be afforded the same modern day techniques (and volume of effects) of similar populist cinema being made today? Does the CGI in KOTCS make the movie intrinsically bad (as some suggest)? Is the fact that we demand our Indy movies to be less effects driven and more like the "originals" just a sign that an Indy movie, by definition, cannot be regarded as a contemporary action flick... and is perhaps past it's sell by date?

Darth Vile said:

I think I/we were trying to take it a bit broader than a specific scene or moment, rather that it was about wether an Indy movie must constrain itself with using real sets/locations in order to be considered a "good" movie (or as good as the other sequels).

Click to expand...

I find it interesting that you would consider the use of real locations to be a "constraint," rather than a conscious stylistic choice.