TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Indiana Jones Trilogy
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-15-2011, 06:44 PM   #26
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuch‚tel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 7,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Stoo - I think you're making the assumption that when I say "effects" I'm talking blue screen, compositing and CGI. But that doesn't tell the entire story... Raiders has its fair share of effects sequences... be it in the rotting corpses of archaeologists, giant boulders, collapsing South American temples, fun in the the Well of Souls, and the power of the Ark sequences. Even it's matte paintings were bloody good.
Darth, twist it any way you wish, however...

You DID say "based on the use of technology" in reply to Henry W, who was also talking about the same thing. In the same paragraph, you also spoke about Lucas & Speilberg being embracers of said technology.

-Matte paintings were included in my (less than) 4.5% calculation. Each painting was combined with other elements.
-The ENTIRE Ark opening sequence was also included in my (less than) 4.5% percentage. Don't know why you think I didn't take this into account.

As for your other examples:
-The rolling boulder = 14 secs.
-Collapsing Chachapoyan altar room = (less than) 8 secs.
-Forrestal's turning head was a dummy - puppeteered by hand. Technology? (3 secs.)
-What non-optical, technological effects were used inside the Well of the Souls? (Stagehands dropping fake rocks onto a set?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
In comparison to movies being made now, of course Raiders effects look small. But lets view it within context of the time it was made. In 1981, Raiders was big, bold and glossy. Not many movies could match its effects and action sequences (even though there were many about - they did't quite have the production budget/values of Raiders)... and the effects (both visual/practical) played a significant part (for me anyhow) in allowing Raiders to transcend the action/adventure genre and inhabit the realms of fantasy too. This is, IMHO, one of the fundamental reasons why Indiana Jones is so compelling...
Darth, I *was* speaking about 1981 (perhaps you missed that bit). The QUALITY of the effects in "Raiders" bears no relation to their QUANTITY and, by it's very definition, the word "lavish" means abundant & excessive...an overwhelming amount. "Raiders" doesn't have an abundant amount of effects compared to its contemporaries (nor its predecessors).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
So whilst I'd agree, yeah it uses optical effects sparingly, that doesn't equate to the use of effects overall.
The other (dubious) effects you mention total 25 secs of screentime. With these, you can attempt to raise the ante from 4.2% to a whopping 4.6% of the film! (WOW! What a big difference! 0.4 extra!) None of your (dubious) examples elevate "Raiders" to the status of a 'big LAVISH effects movie'...and certainly aren't in the same league as "Doom", "Crusade" and the orignal "Star Wars" trilogy.
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2011, 05:12 AM   #27
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Darth, twist it any way you wish, however...

You DID say "based on the use of technology" in reply to Henry W, who was also talking about the same thing. In the same paragraph, you also spoke about Lucas & Speilberg being embracers of said technology.

-Matte paintings were included in my (less than) 4.5% calculation. Each painting was combined with other elements.
-The ENTIRE Ark opening sequence was also included in my (less than) 4.5% percentage. Don't know why you think I didn't take this into account.

As for your other examples:
-The rolling boulder = 14 secs.
-Collapsing Chachapoyan altar room = (less than) 8 secs.
-Forrestal's turning head was a dummy - puppeteered by hand. Technology? (3 secs.)
-What non-optical, technological effects were used inside the Well of the Souls? (Stagehands dropping fake rocks onto a set?)
Darth, I *was* speaking about 1981 (perhaps you missed that bit). The QUALITY of the effects in "Raiders" bears no relation to their QUANTITY and, by it's very definition, the word "lavish" means abundant & excessive...an overwhelming amount. "Raiders" doesn't have an abundant amount of effects compared to its contemporaries (nor its predecessors).
The other (dubious) effects you mention total 25 secs of screentime. With these, you can attempt to raise the ante from 4.2% to a whopping 4.6% of the film! (WOW! What a big difference! 0.4 extra!) None of your (dubious) examples elevate "Raiders" to the status of a 'big LAVISH effects movie'...and certainly aren't in the same league as "Doom", "Crusade" and the orignal "Star Wars" trilogy.

F*ck me. You are aware that Raiders actually won awards for special/ visual effects and sound right??? I think you need to reflect on what the 'industry' refers to as being an "effect" - because that's the basis of the response i.e. most filmmakers, with the technology at their fingertips, wouldn't now necessarily construct/rig up expensive sets designed to topple/collapse (e.g. the well of the Souls) if it could be done post production for a quarter of the cost. Which is the whole f**king point.

Secondly, The OP was asking if Spielberg/Lucas had 21st century technology, when making Raiders, what would the movie be like? Several posters are suggesting that they believe Spielberg/Lucas would still want the movie to be largely grounded in reality - ergo minimum CGI (a valid argument). However, I'm suggesting that because Raiders was an effects movie (it employed over circa 70 people to produce sound effects, visual effects, special effects), that if Lucas/Spielberg did have todays technology, they would have fully embraced it to 1) heighten the hyper reality and 2) to bring production costs down. The result? Raiders, I'm sure, would have been a lot more fantastical in comparison to what we got in 81.

If you don't think Raiders can be acknowledged as an effects movie (after sitting through the movie with your stop watch???), good for you... but I know many people who worked on the movie (and won awards) who think the effects are very much a key part of the movies success.

Last edited by Darth Vile : 10-16-2011 at 05:17 AM.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2011, 02:25 PM   #28
Stoo
IndyFan
 
Stoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Neuch‚tel, Switzerland (Canadian from Montreal)
Posts: 7,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
F*ck me. You are aware that Raiders actually won awards for special/ visual effects and sound right??? I think you need to reflect on what the 'industry' refers to as being an "effect"
Of course I'm aware of its awards (I even watched the live broadcast of the Oscars on TV) and am more familiar with the industry than you may think. The quality of the effects garnered the wins, not the amount of them. At the dawn of the '80s, designing sets in "Raiders" to topple/collapse & puppeteering Forrestal's head weren't done with new technology or innovation so it's unlikely that these 'effects' were what impressed voters (in both the visual effects and production design categories).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Raiders, I'm sure, would have been a lot more fantastical in comparison to what we got in 81.
This could be true but we'll never know for sure. As Montana suggested, CG could have allowed for larger scenic shots and serviced the tangle of snakes a great deal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
If you don't think Raiders can be acknowledged as an effects movie (after sitting through the movie with your stop watch???), good for you... but I know many people who worked on the movie (and won awards) who think the effects are very much a key part of the movies success.
Whoa, Darth, I never said that "Raiders" isn't an 'effects movie'! It IS but not a 'lavish' one (even in 1981) which is how you described it - a 'big lavish effects movie'. No matter how excellent & well received they were, the optical & mechanical effects are few in number. Lavish = Excessive. That, quite simply, is my point.

P.S. For the percentages, I used the DVD time counter while jumping to each FX scene. Didn't take very long.
P.P.S. You know many people who worked on "Raiders"? That's cool.
Stoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2011, 06:11 PM   #29
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Of course I'm aware of its awards (I even watched the live broadcast of the Oscars on TV) and am more familiar with the industry than you may think. The quality of the effects garnered the wins, not the amount of them. At the dawn of the '80s, designing sets in "Raiders" to topple/collapse & puppeteering Forrestal's head weren't done with new technology or innovation so it's unlikely that these 'effects' were what impressed voters (in both the visual effects and production design categories).
Stoo – I don’t think it’s about volume of effects… it’s more to do with the amount of time, effort and expense put in to achieve them, and of course there impact on screen. As mentioned, Raiders had a big effects team – Spielberg/Lucas clearly wanted the effects, be they sound, visual or special to look good and help realise their vision. As far as technology is concerned… Yes – they were embracing the contemporary technologies of the day to achieve the effects required. Therefore, it’s not a stretch to think that if CGI had been about when Raiders was made, they would have used CGI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
This could be true but we'll never know for sure. As Montana suggested, CG could have allowed for larger scenic shots and serviced the tangle of snakes a great deal.
It’s an assumption on my part, but one based on Spielberg/Lucas’ 'previous' – which is that they like their effects, and they like to make movies that require effects; and that if CGI had been around for Raiders, we’d more than likely have had a lot less practical effects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
Whoa, Darth, I never said that "Raiders" isn't an 'effects movie'! It IS but not a 'lavish' one (even in 1981) which is how you described it - a 'big lavish effects movie'. No matter how excellent & well received they were, the optical & mechanical effects are few in number. Lavish = Excessive. That, quite simply, is my point.
Semantics I think Stoo - you may have misunderstood my wording (I could have worded it better). When I say “big lavish effects movie” I don’t mean that the effects were excessive, too much or unnecessary… I mean that the movie was a relatively expensive movie to make (was it circa $20m?) and a sizeable amount of monies were spent achieving the effects… and that its production values are evident on screen i.e. it looks and feels like a big budget Hollywood movie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoo
P.P.S. You know many people who worked on "Raiders"? That's cool.
Nothing to write a book about, and unfortunately not Spielberg or Lucas.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 06:48 AM   #30
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry W Jones
So I was thinking..... When the filming of Raiders of the Lost Ark began, if technology had been where it is today, would Raiders of the Lost Ark be the gritty, stunt spectacular it was and is or.... would it be CGI'ed to death and look and feel like KOTCS?
I think if you look at the origins of the movie and the fact it was inspired by the old fashioned serials then I'd like to think that they still would of gone down the more gritty and realistic approach anyway

However they would probably have made use of the cgi for some of the scenes, specifically the opening of the ark, the well of souls snakes. They could also have been tempted to use it on the establishing shots of Cairo, or the jungle, or the Tanis dig, or the backgrounds of the desert chase scene more detailed and larger too. I'm thinking similar to those we saw in The Mummy.

I often think that because cgi is available that the temptation to use it is too easy, when in the case of a film like Raiders you could ask the question is it really necessary? There could be the temptation to take it that little bit further so it stands out like a sore thumb.

As it stands now I think although the effects at the time were cutting edge, but a lot of the effects in Raiders I find to be unobtrusive. Yet if you look at the following 3 movies I find there are scenes where some of the effects were to the detriment of the scene, like the mine car chase, the fight hanging from the broken rope bridge, the boat explosions in Venice, the plane chase from the Zeppelin, the monkey swinging, the trip down the river....... I can understand they were only using what technology was available at the time, and its great that they were pushing the movies to show their vision on screen, but of all the films I think Raiders benefits the most from its more understated use of effects, (arguably apart from the face metling of course).
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 09:59 AM   #31
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
I think if you look at the origins of the movie and the fact it was inspired by the old fashioned serials then I'd like to think that they still would of gone down the more gritty and realistic approach anyway

However they would probably have made use of the cgi for some of the scenes, specifically the opening of the ark, the well of souls snakes. They could also have been tempted to use it on the establishing shots of Cairo, or the jungle, or the Tanis dig, or the backgrounds of the desert chase scene more detailed and larger too. I'm thinking similar to those we saw in The Mummy.

I often think that because cgi is available that the temptation to use it is too easy, when in the case of a film like Raiders you could ask the question is it really necessary? There could be the temptation to take it that little bit further so it stands out like a sore thumb.

As it stands now I think although the effects at the time were cutting edge, but a lot of the effects in Raiders I find to be unobtrusive. Yet if you look at the following 3 movies I find there are scenes where some of the effects were to the detriment of the scene, like the mine car chase, the fight hanging from the broken rope bridge, the boat explosions in Venice, the plane chase from the Zeppelin, the monkey swinging, the trip down the river....... I can understand they were only using what technology was available at the time, and its great that they were pushing the movies to show their vision on screen, but of all the films I think Raiders benefits the most from its more understated use of effects, (arguably apart from the face metling of course).

Yep - I would agree with what you state Andy. Raiders is probably the most timeless Indy movie because of its economy in scale (by comparison to what the bigger budgets to follow allowed). The other movies may have been more imaginative in scope (as far as set pieces/scale is concerned), but the technology used can result in a movie looking dated (5/10 years after release).

The only thing I'm not sure about is your first point - as I think the premise of Raiders was very much about taking an old style/concept and making it appeal to modern audiences. I think the Raiders concept was already tried and tested with what Lucas did in 77 (Star Wars), and once that was successful, he was applying the formula to a slightly different genre. I'm not sure if they ever set out with a mantra of making Raiders a "gritty" or "realistic" movie... rather they just wanted to replicate the movies/serials they'd seen in their youth and make them fit for audiences of the 1980's.

I was very much a kid of Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Raiders appealed to me in exactly the same way as Star Wars did (even though different genres) and in a way that the James Bond movies (or similar) of the time couldn't. Primarily because Raiders has the same heart and underlying principals/concepts as Star Wars (although I obviously couldn't understand/articulate that at the time).

Last edited by Darth Vile : 10-17-2011 at 10:11 AM.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 02:46 PM   #32
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Yep - I would agree with what you state Andy. Raiders is probably the most timeless Indy movie because of its economy in scale (by comparison to what the bigger budgets to follow allowed). The other movies may have been more imaginative in scope (as far as set pieces/scale is concerned), but the technology used can result in a movie looking dated (5/10 years after release).
My point exactly Raiders doesnt need CGI to convey huge scope and scale that film makers often use today especially in establishing shots and backgrounds. Raiders already conveys that in bundles for me with seemingly minimal or no effects in some shots. Thats the beauty of the film for me. It seems so effortlessly simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
The only thing I'm not sure about is your first point - as I think the premise of Raiders was very much about taking an old style/concept and making it appeal to modern audiences. I think the Raiders concept was already tried and tested with what Lucas did in 77 (Star Wars), and once that was successful, he was applying the formula to a slightly different genre. I'm not sure if they ever set out with a mantra of making Raiders a "gritty" or "realistic" movie... rather they just wanted to replicate the movies/serials they'd seen in their youth and make them fit for audiences of the 1980's.
I think what I was trying to say was that in their effort to re-capture the spirit of those Saturday matinee serials they also managed to successfully capture something that was a bit more dirty and less polished than maybe the previous movies Lucas and Spielberg had made. And yes to take that matinee serial concept and push it to the audiences of the time, right now I cant think of anything close in style to Raiders that was released in a relatively close time frame before it. I'm sure someone can though.

At the time of me watching Raiders when I was 10 in the early 80's I had never really seen anything like it on film, yes I'd seen the Zorro serials on TV, but I never made the link between that style of film/tv making. So they must of succeeded in their goal because Raiders was something new and exciting for me.

Now looking at it I see that Raiders was old but new if you get what I mean.

Last edited by AndyLGR : 10-17-2011 at 03:09 PM.
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 04:35 PM   #33
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
And yes to take that matinee serial concept and push it to the audiences of the time, right now I cant think of anything close in style to Raiders that was released in a relatively close time frame before it. I'm sure someone can though.

At the time of me watching Raiders when I was 10 in the early 80's I had never really seen anything like it on film, yes I'd seen the Zorro serials on TV, but I never made the link between that style of film/tv making. So they must of succeeded in their goal because Raiders was something new and exciting for me.

Now looking at it I see that Raiders was old but new if you get what I mean.

Yes indeed. We're obviously of a similar generation and the staple diet of holiday television was old Flash Gordon, Zorro, King of the Rocket Men etc. So when Star Wars, Raiders came out... I think they seemed somewhat familiar to me (at a subconscious level I think). Either way, 2 seminal movies of my childhood (probably the 2 most important movies to me).
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 04:47 PM   #34
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Yes indeed. We're obviously of a similar generation and the staple diet of holiday television was old Flash Gordon, Zorro, King of the Rocket Men etc. So when Star Wars, Raiders came out... I think they seemed somewhat familiar to me (at a subconscious level I think). Either way, 2 seminal movies of my childhood (probably the 2 most important movies to me).
Same here, but why I connected with Raiders I cant place, maybe it is just the quality, maybe the familiarity of it too. But the stuff that I can vividly remember as a child watching were the old b&w serials, Raiders, Star Wars and the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies. I think that Raiders and Star Wars have shaped the films I like and my tastes in cinema and still cant be surpassed for me.
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2011, 05:10 PM   #35
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
Same here, but why I connected with Raiders I cant place, maybe it is just the quality, maybe the familiarity of it too. But the stuff that I can vividly remember as a child watching were the old b&w serials, Raiders, Star Wars and the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies. I think that Raiders and Star Wars have shaped the films I like and my tastes in cinema and still cant be surpassed for me.

Yep - same for me. Loved those old Basil Rathbone movies...
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 12:40 AM   #36
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Montana Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Yep - same for me. Loved those old Basil Rathbone movies...

What are you, like eighty?

Just joking!

There's something intriguing about some of the old films and serials, if not only for the period detail you get from them.

If Lucas and Spielberg were inspired to do ROTLA today, having recently created the Indy character, I would imagine that it was because they'd been inspired by the old pulps. Rather than overpower that inspiration with the latest technology, they would, I'm pretty sure, rather go back to basics where possible to replicate the originals.

Yet, having established that source material in the first movie, in time they would find themselves dealing with a character who's more in the public conscience than his pulp heritage. And in that way we would see more elaborate cliffhangers, more spectacular scenes, and CGI would be employed in a greater number of instances. Four movies down the road (sometime in 2038!) the latest movie would be as CGI heavy as KOTCS.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2011, 03:05 AM   #37
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montana Smith
What are you, like eighty?

Just joking!

There's something intriguing about some of the old films and serials, if not only for the period detail you get from them.

If Lucas and Spielberg were inspired to do ROTLA today, having recently created the Indy character, I would imagine that it was because they'd been inspired by the old pulps. Rather than overpower that inspiration with the latest technology, they would, I'm pretty sure, rather go back to basics where possible to replicate the originals.

Yet, having established that source material in the first movie, in time they would find themselves dealing with a character who's more in the public conscience than his pulp heritage. And in that way we would see more elaborate cliffhangers, more spectacular scenes, and CGI would be employed in a greater number of instances. Four movies down the road (sometime in 2038!) the latest movie would be as CGI heavy as KOTCS.

Yeah but remember if Lucas/Spielberg had the time/money they probably would have tried to get the mine cart chase into Raiders. So Raiders less effects heavy approach (when compared to TOD/TLC) is probably bourn out of circumstance/economics rather than anything else. And as mentioned, Star Wars was heavily influenced by the Republic serials/Flash Gordon etc., but Lucas quickly ruled out the notion that the effects would be achieved 'old school' e.g. a model on a piece of string.

Re. Basil Rathbone... not quite that old... but old enough to remember when they were the staple diet of BBC2 school holiday television (along with repeats of old Star Trek, Flash Gordon etc.).
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2011, 02:59 AM   #38
AndyLGR
IndyFan
 
AndyLGR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 625
If you think about Raiders and how many shots could be improved (or ruined) by adding CGI I canít think of too many. I think its definitely when they upped the scale of the set pieces and effects in the later films that the constraints of the technology at the time show badly, and thatís true of many other movies from the 80ís too, even though they were pioneering movie effects and steadily improving them all the time. So really I think CGI could of greatly improved some of the scenes in TOD and TLC, but not necessarily Raiders, because it doesnít have that scale of set piece in terms of needing an outlandish concept or different setting that would require much CGI enhancement. But that doesnít diminish it any way, in fact it has the opposite effect and makes it better for me. The biggest set pieces (opening temple scenes, market place fight, flying wing fight, desert chase, well of the souls) are all accomplished using old style techniques with virtually everything being there in the studio or on the location. But I donít look at those scenes and think, wow imagine what they could of done using CGI if it was made now. Thatís the charm of the film too, and thatís something that was a problem for me with KOTCS with the use of some not so great CGI that was used in the action scenes. It wouldnít have been so bad had it been used to enhance the location backgrounds, but not when CGI was a huge part of the action itself.

Iím sure though that in years to come though when they remake Raiders, Iím convinced someone will, that they use CGI in a big way in the movie, to expand the locations and to get Indy doing more outlandish things in action scenes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
Re. Basil Rathbone... not quite that old... but old enough to remember when they were the staple diet of BBC2 school holiday television (along with repeats of old Star Trek, Flash Gordon etc.).
We were watching the same stuff
AndyLGR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2011, 05:45 AM   #39
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyLGR
If you think about Raiders and how many shots could be improved (or ruined) by adding CGI I canít think of too many. I think its definitely when they upped the scale of the set pieces and effects in the later films that the constraints of the technology at the time show badly, and thatís true of many other movies from the 80ís too, even though they were pioneering movie effects and steadily improving them all the time. So really I think CGI could of greatly improved some of the scenes in TOD and TLC, but not necessarily Raiders, because it doesnít have that scale of set piece in terms of needing an outlandish concept or different setting that would require much CGI enhancement. But that doesnít diminish it any way, in fact it has the opposite effect and makes it better for me. The biggest set pieces (opening temple scenes, market place fight, flying wing fight, desert chase, well of the souls) are all accomplished using old style techniques with virtually everything being there in the studio or on the location. But I donít look at those scenes and think, wow imagine what they could of done using CGI if it was made now. Thatís the charm of the film too, and thatís something that was a problem for me with KOTCS with the use of some not so great CGI that was used in the action scenes. It wouldnít have been so bad had it been used to enhance the location backgrounds, but not when CGI was a huge part of the action itself.

Iím sure though that in years to come though when they remake Raiders, Iím convinced someone will, that they use CGI in a big way in the movie, to expand the locations and to get Indy doing more outlandish things in action scenes.
Agreed - I'm actually very pro CGI (although not in the case of monkey and vine swings), but other than some digital matte enhancements to widen the geography e.g. Cairo, I can't actually think of anything I'd want to see changed in Raiders. As you say, its major set pieces are very tight and self contained (one of the core reasons they work well).
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:43 AM.