Cinemassacre Defends KotCS

Cole

New member
Darth Vile said:
To be honest, I think the days are gone where you can impress an audience simply by using real stunts. That's not too say that the original Indy movies relied purely on that aspect... but I honestly don't believe you could better (as far as real stunt work is concerned) something like the jump to the tank from the horse (TLC). That why, IMHO, most modern movies have to go with frenetic editing and/or CGI in order to create some sense of 'event'/spectacle i.e. modern audiences demand more (even if that demand is misplaced).
Audiences are far more sophisticated today, and you're right - amazing special effects are largely taken for granted I think. It amazes me when you compare something like Batman (1966) to Batman Begins (2005).

Today's generation has grown up with computers, cell phones, video games, and the movie industry is saturated with $100+ million productions. Anything that's kind of "campy" in spirit like Batman (1966) is blasted for being silly and stupid.

But I think Indy's still fairly unique because of its reputation, which is built on great physical stunts.........some people obviously exaggerate about the CGI. It's not like the first 3 films didn't have special effects (heck, didn't they all win Oscars for special effects?). So this film has modern special effects (which only seems logical), but there's no CGI Indys swinging around like Spiderman or something........if that was the case, I'd probably join the disappointment. But I don't think they crossed the line.

Did they top 'Raiders?' No, but it's still damn entertaining.
 

agull

Guest
Firts of all: There is CGI. They removed the safety-wires via CGI. All animals are cgi, cgi-plants in the jungle chase, CGI-Faces on stuntactors, jumping on a rubbertree was no real stunt, Mutt is Tarzan was no real stunt, Shia standing on two cars is no real stunt, nobody could survive nuke the fridge, the three waterfalls...

As you can see... the are not many real stunts in "Indy 4"...
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
agull said:
Firts of all: There is CGI. They removed the safety-wires via CGI. All animals are cgi, cgi-plants in the jungle chase, CGI-Faces on stuntactors, jumping on a rubbertree was no real stunt, Mutt is Tarzan was no real stunt, Shia standing on two cars is no real stunt, nobody could survive nuke the fridge, the three waterfalls...

As you can see... the are not many real stunts in "Indy 4"...

:sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep: :sleep:

You act as if you're compiling evidence to prove KOTCS sucks. Sorry pal, but not even you can prove an opinion.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
agull said:
As you can see... the are not many real stunts in "Indy 4"...

If that was true, then why would they have to add actor's faces to the stuntmen if there were hardly any stunts to add them to?
 

agull

Guest
You can even see it when Mutt and Indy just begin to start driving with the motorcycle. At the beginning, they have cgi faces, when they drive through the sunlight in the same shot, the faces seem to be their own ones again.


But that's not really a stunt - I don't know why Ford and Shia did this scene.
 

Cole

New member
Bruhn has obviously made his return......he's incapable of having a rational, intelligent conversation.

Spreading the "anti-Indy" message is apparently his life's work.
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Cole said:
Bruhn has obviously made his return......he's incapable of having a rational, intelligent conversation.

Spreading the "anti-Indy" message is apparently his life's work.

Yeah, StoneTriple, Montana and I smelled this stink return by his first post. He's obviously taking a vacation from IMDb and come back here.

@agull/Sankara/Bruhn, "Skull" is not a true Indiana Jones movie because there is no Indiana Jones in it. If you love Indy, you must hate "Skull".

Oh wait, that's your opinion.
:p
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Dr.Jonesy said:
Yeah, StoneTriple, Montana and I smelled this stink return by his first post. He's obviously taking a vacation from IMDb and come back here.

@agull/Sankara/Bruhn, "Skull" is not a true Indiana Jones movie because there is no Indiana Jones in it. If you love Indy, you must hate "Skull".

Oh wait, that's your opinion.
:p

Being an "Indiana Jones-Fan and Indiana Jones-Expert since 1981" is apparently a full-time occupation. ;) Therefore, countering his obsession would also be a full-time occupation for anyone else.

I would, therefore, advocate treating the situation as you would treat a landmine. Give it a wide berth!
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
Montana Smith said:
Being an "Indiana Jones-Fan and Indiana Jones-Expert since 1981" is apparently a full-time occupation. ;) Therefore, countering his obsession would also be a full-time occupation for anyone else.

I would, therefore, advocate treating the situation as you would treat a landmine. Give it a wide berth!

Haha I made that mistake of making it my occupation for awhile there...needless to say it was during the summer when I had the most free time.:eek:

Actually you could probably carry on a more enjoyable conversation with a landmine.

I really think that we need a Dennis Bruhn avatar!:gun:
 

Dr.Jonesy

Well-known member
You know, in relation to that video, I think 'Temple of Doom' is also a sequel that isn't as bad as everyone says. Some people in the comments also thought it should've been considered alongside KOTCS. But, if it was released today, here is what the angry fanboy would say:

"-Jumping out of a plane on a raft about 1000 feet, then a 2000 foot drop off a cliff and it doesn't even flip over?! Jeez...talk about impossible.
-Stones? Really?!?! We waited years for stones? To top the Ark? Sheesh.
-Voodoo Dolls. Need I say more?
-What the hell was with that annoying campfire scene? What point did it serve?
-Jumping out a window and you don't die because you go through some awnings?
-So...a rock helps support an entire village? And when it's gone things all go to s#it?
-And the stones just light up. And burn things. This is great stuff Lucas.
-Bugs. Eating bugs and snakes. Wtf?
-Great portrayal of Hindus.
-Willie screaming.
-Waaaaaaaaaay too much matte screen shots.
-Removing a heart and the guy still living?!? Seriously?!
-Lame sidekicks. Are we supposed to care about them?
-A short little kid for a sidekick?! C’mon
-Little kid taking down grown men??!
-There was no danger at all. We were just..watching him do whatever.
-LAME greenscreen effects and horrible/too much miniature sets.
-Did anyone else see that obvious dummy in the mine cart? Ugh.
-Black magic does not belong in an Indy film.
-Jumping a mine cart off the track and back on? C'mon...
-Stopping a speeding mine cart with your feet?! Yeah...really.
-Who the hell can outrun water?!?!
-And can’t anyone hit anything with a bow and arrow?!?

They raped Indy..."

:p
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
agull said:
Firts of all: There is CGI. They removed the safety-wires via CGI. All animals are cgi, cgi-plants in the jungle chase, CGI-Faces on stuntactors,...
Not all of the animals are CGI. Believe it or not, the snake is real.:eek: (Anyway, there is CGI in "Crusade", too...)
 

Wilhelm

Member
The Indy movies from the 80s were made using the best technology of those days, so it's logical that they used CGI in 2008. For example, in the James Bond movies we could see that evolution: all the effects and stunts in "Dr No" (1962) are updated in each sequel.

By the way if there's someone who could use CGI beacuse he practically invented it is Steven Spielberg. Remember the CGI knight warrior in Young Sherlock Holmes (1985), the CGI destruction of Donovan in LC (1989) or the CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic Park (1993).
 

Lance Quazar

Well-known member
Wilhelm said:
By the way if there's someone who could use CGI beacuse he practically invented it is Steven Spielberg. Remember the CGI knight warrior in Young Sherlock Holmes (1985),

The Knight was created by Pixar (when it was still part of Lucasfilm).

Wilhelm said:
the CGI destruction of Donovan in LC

Not CGI.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Wilhelm said:
By the way if there's someone who could use CGI beacuse he practically invented it is Steven Spielberg.
Erm...no.
Lance Quazar said:
The transitional 'morphing' between each stage of decay was computer generated so, technically, it is.:hat:
 

Cole

New member
Stoo said:
Erm...no.
Spielberg was at least an early advocate/pioneer of the technology. 'Jurassic Park' was a landmark film, and Stanley Kubrick was apparently so taken back he bugged Spielberg for a year about it.

So I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that he used it in Indy......but let me stress, he could've used it waaaaay more. People exaggerate the amount of CGI used. If you don't count digital enhancements to the background, or the ants - there's very, very little.

And even something like the ants? That scene was great. Try doing that 20 years ago.

It's one aspect I was interested in seeing - modern special effects in a modern Indy film. And something I still enjoy about it.
 

Wilhelm

Member
The knight warrior was used in a movie executive produced by Spielberg ("Steven Spielberg presents") so he was the man who introduced this new kind of effect in a commercial movie and then accepted the challenge of using CGI dinosaurs instead of motion capture in Jurassic Park. So Pixar/Lucasfilm invented the concept, but the decision to use it comes from Spielberg.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Cole said:
So I guess it shouldn't come as a surprise that he used it in Indy......but let me stress, he could've used it waaaaay more. People exaggerate the amount of CGI used. If you don't count digital enhancements to the background, or the ants - there's very, very little.

It's one aspect I was interested in seeing - modern special effects in a modern Indy film. And something I still enjoy about it.

Completley agree. I was really looking forward to seeing the world of Indiana Jones opened up to impossible sweeping vistas and hordes/armies of dark forces etc. Using CGI shouldn't automatically equate to "bad movie". It's the old adage of how it's used which is important. There were of course some bad choices e.g. flying fridges monkeys/vines etc. but for the vast majority of the movie, the use of CGI was spot on and quite subtle.
 

agull

Guest
Black Magic is the supernatural part of an Indiana Jones-Movie. There is nothing wrong with it.

But nuke the fridge is not supernaturaland that's the point.

The main-problem is: Most action-scenes in "Skull" are implausible. As we all know "Indiana Jones" means real stunts and beleievable action-scenes:

"Indy 1 - 3": Many-many real stunts, many-many believebale action-scenes, some over-the top-action-scenes in "Temple" but never as implausible as the "Skull"-actions-scenes.

"Skull": only a few real stunts. Most action-scenes are implausible. Nuke the fridge, you can't jump with a car on a rubber tree, Mutt is Tarzan, the three Waterfalls... and-and-and...


But... hey... let's see what the makers think about it: :)


1)

Source: Complete Making of Book / page 244

The first thing Steven said was he didn't want this look like a slick action-adventure movie with digital backgrounds and effects or stunts that you couldn't do in reality," Kennedy says. "Part of an Indiana Jones story is that you want to believe that Indy - and consequently Harrison Ford - is doing his own stunts..."


2)

Vanity Fair-Interview

GL is talking about the great REAL Stunts in the "Bourne"-Movies and then...
"... but when you get to the next level, whether it's Tomb Raider or the Die Hard series, where you've got one guy with one pistol up against 50 guys with machine guns, or he jumps in a jet and starts chasing down a freeway, you say, I'm not sure I can really buy this. Mission Impossible's like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it."



3)

You also produced the Bourne films. Did the success of that franchise influence your approach on Crystal Skull?

Marshall: There?s been so many films that have tried to copy the Indiana Jones franchise and most of them have failed, except for the Bourne films. I think the reason people like Bourne is that he?s a credible, believable hero, much like Indiana Jones. Jason Bourne does some amazing things but that?s because he?s been so well trained in martial arts and different forms of killing so it?s not totally unbelievable, like the Mission Impossible films.

We looked at the Bourne films, and we thought that maybe Indiana Jones could do some more dangerous things in this film, and still have that seem BELIEVEABLE. The key is you have to believe that Indiana Jones can do the things he does and not say ?There?s no way he could?ve survived that situation!?, so you walk a fine line. What sets the Indiana Jones films apart is that you can?t just call them action movies. They?re supernatural mysteries with elements of action and comedy and, in this film, some science fiction.

4)

"I think Tom Cruise proved that people are getting bored with that kind of stuff," Lucas said when asked about over the top action sequences. "What they want to see is something different. And 'Indiana Jones,' if nothing else, is always different."


5)

Marshall about "Indy I - III":

"One of the things I enjoy about these movies is that they do recall the old cliffhanger serials of the thirties and forties," said Marshall. "We didn't have computer effects in those days, we couldn?t easily erase things and I think one of the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers lazy. You become more creative when you have to hide ramps with a tree rather than erase it later as you can today."

"In Raiders, that's a real ball rolling behind him so Harrison really is in some danger running in front of that; these are real situations and that adds to the excitement and the creative energy on the set."

Marshall about a part 4 in 2003

We're not done with the script on Indy 4 but I think we're going to try and rely, like the first two movies, on realism and not try to do too many things with the computer.


Marshall:
When you start getting into computers you get fantastical situations like in The Matrix or movies like that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-Movie feel. We want to make Indy 4 like we made the first three."



6)

George Lucas / Empire Magazine

"A lot of people think Indiana Jones is so outrageous, it is believable. That was the thing what we did that James Bond didn't do - especially in that middle period where they weren't very interesting"


7)

"Indiana Jones redifined the classic American hero as someone who did not have a backbone made of steel and skin made of Teflon. The idea that our intrepid archaelogist could actually do himself bodily injury made him accessible."
 
Top