TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-17-2009, 11:43 PM   #101
James
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Seeing the kind of film he wanted does not even factor into it!

I said he made it because Lucas and Ford wanted to do another one, and that it was a similar case when he made TOD and LC.

However, if you were referring to my comment about KOTCS being "family-friendly", that is how Spielberg repeatedly described what he wanted to make. I'm not suggesting that's what motivated him to tackle the project, but he did obviously make "the kind of film he wanted".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Money is top 3

But that's not what you said:

Quote:
I think you'll see money was the prime mover and peer pressure the second.

There's just not a lot of evidence to support money as his chief motivation. His candor in interviews seemed to suggest he bowed to peer pressure more than anything else.

He certainly didn't need an Indy 4 to bolster his reputation, since his previous works had fared pretty well with critics: Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, War of the Worlds, and Munich.
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2009, 11:56 PM   #102
WilliamBoyd8
IndyFan
 
WilliamBoyd8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 772
There is a large prairie dog colony at Devil's Tower, Wyoming.
WilliamBoyd8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 12:50 AM   #103
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
I said he made it because Lucas and Ford wanted to do another one, and that it was a similar case when he made TOD and LC.
The "seeing the kind of film he wanted" was a general statement and not specifically for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
But that's not what you said:
I'm merely being conciliatory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
There's just not a lot of evidence to support money as his chief motivation. His candor in interviews seemed to suggest he bowed to peer pressure more than anything else.
...and any director of actors worth the accolades he's been attributed would understand this and not openly play Montgomery Burns to the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
He certainly didn't need an Indy 4 to bolster his reputation, since his previous works had fared pretty well with critics: Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, War of the Worlds, and Munich.

Faired pretty well is not exactly glowing praise. I think he's had his share of dogs and he's made some fantastic films. They all knew people would be chomping at the bit to see another Indy. So why make it? Security. Once you make your money you tend to spend your thought and energy on how to keep it.
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 10:36 AM   #104
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,882
Spielberg stopped worrying about money a long time ago...

Spielberg's DreamWorks closes on $825 mln funding
LOS ANGELES — One of Hollywood's most famous directors, Steven Spielberg, has finally closed a deal to secure $825 million in funding from India's Reliance Big Entertainment, JPMorgan and The Walt Disney Co., his company announced Monday.
While the funding situation was in limbo, Spielberg and Reliance had split the costs of keeping the outfit running, including spending $26.5 million in January to buy 17 movie projects that were in development while DreamWorks was with Paramount.

Losses in Madoff Case Spread
A representative of Mr. Spielberg confirmed that the foundation has suffered losses on its investments with the Madoff firm. He said he didn't know the size of the losses and couldn't comment further, including on whether Mr. Spielberg had any of his own money invested with the Madoff firm.

Steven Spielberg, Universal Orlandotheme park in contract talks
ORLANDO -- Universal Orlando officials are negotiating with Steven Spielberg over whether to renew a consulting contract.



You never stop worrying

Last edited by Rocket Surgeon : 08-18-2009 at 10:49 AM.
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 01:26 PM   #105
James
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
You never stop worrying

Just to be clear, you're supporting your argument with events that happened after KOTCS?

Regardless, my statement was a generalization. Fortunately, I made it in the context of a message board, where such things are fair game.

I simply think the "he did it for the money" argument is a lazy one. It implies that Spielberg's relationship with money is the same as that of the average moviegoer. Disgruntled fans can't understand why they were disappointed, so they assume, "Oh, well he must've done it for the money. I know I would have."

But obviously, Spielberg's relationship to money is far different than the average fan's.

Does this mean he is no longer careful about money? Does this mean he no longer has the occasional trouble? Of course not. Merely that his relationship to it is different than when he was just starting out.

Unlike the average fan, Spielberg doesn't have to look at any film project and think, "Damn. I have to get up and go to work tomorrow." It's why he's currently planning a remake of Harvey (ie. generally doing whatever he wants).

It is far more logical to assume that his motivation for making Indy 4 was thus: "Lucas and Ford really want to do it. The public's been asking for 20 years. And my kids want to see another one. What the hell. It'll be fun."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Faired pretty well is not exactly glowing praise.

Yes, but "glowing praise" is.

And that's exactly what Spielberg was getting back in the 90s, when he originally decided to make Indy 4. As the decade drew to a close, the success of Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, and Saving Private Ryan far outweighed the disappointments of Hook, Amistad, and The Lost World.

He then agreed to make Indy 4 the followup to Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can- still his most critically-acclaimed films of the current decade. (92% and 96% on the TomatoMeter, respectively.)

So when agreeing to make Indy 4, he was hardly in a position where he needed to bolster his resume. Even after War of the Worlds and Munich, most people were simply impressed with the speed at which Spielberg had completed them. Were they among his best works? Not really, but he had definitely proven to studios that he could still bring a project in on time. (Read: Security.)

This brings us back to the most likely reason: Lucas and Ford wanted to make another one.

As Kate Capshaw recently noted, "As long as those guys want to make an Indy film, there will be Indy films." Obviously, I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea. She knows- better than any of us- that the payday isn't Spielberg's strongest motivation when it comes to Indiana Jones. If it were, we could be on Indy 9 by this point.
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 01:57 PM   #106
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Just to be clear, you're supporting your argument with events that happened after KOTCS?
God knows these concerns are the only ones, (and times) he has(ever had).
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
I simply think the "he did it for the money" argument is a lazy one. It implies that Spielberg's relationship with money is the same as that of the average moviegoer.
To you, surely. It's implications are as "generalized" as your own, specifically to EVERYONE,(as in human nature).

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Disgruntled fans can't understand why they were disappointed, so they assume, "Oh, well he must've done it for the money. I know I would have."
Disgruntled fans...I can't relate so I'll have to take your word on that one. Doing it for the money isn't solely the "cry of the disgruntled".

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
But obviously, Spielberg's relationship to money is far different than the average fan's.
Glad to see you recognize this, if you read the posts on this board...it's hardly safe to assume ANYTHING. But we'll get to that more later I'm sure.


Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Unlike the average fan, Spielberg doesn't have to look at any film project and think, "Damn. I have to get up and go to work tomorrow." It's why he's currently planning a remake of Harvey (ie. generally doing whatever he wants).
However with each successive project the perception of his artistry and relevance wanes or waxes, these are the ever present worries...and being pressured into making another Indiana Jones, (as his own words indicate) especially one with a script he doesn't believe in doesn't require assumptions to consider the weight of alternate motivations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
It is far more logical to assume

Wow...that phrase as a premise to an argument is so flawed it's moot to argue...OR discuss.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
that his motivation for making Indy 4 was thus: "Lucas and Ford really want to do it. The public's been asking for 20 years. And my kids want to see another one. What the hell. It'll be fun."

Why assume, he said as much while promoting the film...that came off as genuine right? So why not give as much weight to him saying he had moved on...didn't want to do another Indy and didn't like the aliens?

...as I said in an effort to be concilliatory that sentiment was top 3, but AFTER money!

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Yes, but "glowing praise" is. And that's exactly what Spielberg was getting back in the 90s, when he originally decided to make Indy 4.
With an adequate script...you see even then he was cautious. I wouldn't call acquiescing to Ford and Lucas deciding to do it...sounds a lot more like he gave up arguing for a decent script.
Glowing praise? In the 90's? He was 3 for 6 in the 90's!

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
As the decade drew to a close, the success of Schindler's List, Jurassic Park, and Saving Private Ryan far outweighed the disappointments of Hook, Amistad, and The Lost World.
Don't think so...The Lost World and Hook were harder to watch then Schindlers List. We don't agree simple as that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
He then agreed to make Indy 4 the followup to Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can- still his most critically-acclaimed films of the current decade. (92% and 96% on the TomatoMeter, respectively.)
The best reviewed of his 90's films is a pretty particular argument and weak, almost as weak as those films. Tomato Meter...good lord. if you're basing your argument on Rotten Tomatos, we're never going to get anywhere!

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
So when agreeing to make Indy 4, he was hardly in a position where he needed to bolster his resume.
Well I don't agree with you from the get go so you shouldn't be surprised we don't agree on your extrapolation of those "points".


Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Even after War of the Worlds and Munich, most people were simply impressed with the speed at which Spielberg had completed them.Were they among his best works? Not really, but he had definitely proven to studios that he could still bring a project in on time. (Read: Security.)
Funny thing...bringing in a project on time was not that same worry since he had become the studio! What ever happened to SKG? They didn't have money problems did they? His "speed" at completing those films...what did that help again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
This brings us back to the most likely reason: Lucas and Ford wanted to make another one.
I'm not going to argue your assumptions...I already mentioned it was a motivating factor, just not the prime.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
As Kate Capshaw recently noted, "As long as those guys want to make an Indy film, there will be Indy films." Obviously, I'm paraphrasing here, but you get the idea. She knows- better than any of us- that the payday isn't Spielberg's strongest motivation when it comes to Indiana Jones. If it were, we could be on Indy 9 by this point.
It could also support the argument that it's a sure thing...and nothing more. A PAY DAY. The Indy 9 thing is just silly!

Last edited by Rocket Surgeon : 08-18-2009 at 02:08 PM.
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 02:33 PM   #107
James
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
I'm not going to argue your assumptions.

I already mentioned it was a motivating factor, just not the prime.

You've already argued the assumptions. (And in a manner that actually takes time to format, I might add. )

Whether or not money was the prime factor was the entire argument here.

You said it was the prime mover. I said it's more likely that he did it because his friends wanted to do another one.

If you don't agree with how I arrive at that conclusion, that's perfectly fine.

The bottom line is that we both agree money was not the "prime mover" when he decided to make the film.
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 02:57 PM   #108
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
You've already argued the assumptions. (And in a manner that actually takes time to format, I might add. )

Good...you've admitted your arguments are all assumptions!


Check it...what order is it in?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Money is top 3, the optimist in me says working with friends again is top 3, releasing a sure thing, (maintaining reputation) was probably top 3 but I don't think that one worked out as expected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by James
The bottom line is that we both agree money was not the "prime mover" when he decided to make the film.
That wouldn't be an assumption would it?
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:17 PM   #109
James
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Check it...what order is it in?

In your argument, money went from "the prime mover" to "Top 3". So it wasn't clear that you intended those reasons to be listed in any particular order.

But if you're sticking with the "he did it for money" belief, that's fine. You simply haven't convinced me that it was a stronger motivating factor than peer pressure.
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:22 PM   #110
Rocket Surgeon
Guest
 
Rocket Surgeon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 8,882
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
So it wasn't clear that you intended those reasons to be listed in any particular order.
Exactly!

...and I did lay out some pretty solid examples of how Spielberg DOES worry about money, even now.
Rocket Surgeon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2009, 03:42 PM   #111
James
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Exactly!

Yes, but good communication is about getting your point across.

There are good points to be made regarding an Indy sequel's appeal as a sure thing. Even Lucas admitted, "Hey, we're probably going to make a lot of money on this." It's just not the strongest one, when you begin looking at the whole picture. (As Lucas was pointing out with that observation.)
James is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2014, 11:43 PM   #112
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,617
After watching War Horse I'd say it was perfectly credible that the prairie dogs were Spielberg's idea.

KOTCS looks very much like the warm-up act for that sentimental, clichéd, virtually bloodless, Disney-styled animal story.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2014, 10:11 AM   #113
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,422
I liked War Horse. It was unabashedly in that "Old Hollywood studio epic" vein, replete with the aggressive sentimentality, but if you don't find it too cloying there's really nothing wrong with that. It's one of those movie movies, and I thought it was more successful than the similarly intentioned Australia! (as much as I admired that movie's visuals and scope). Spielberg was definitely channeling John Ford with that film.

Indy4 doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as War Horse on the basis of the visuals alone. Many scenes for War Horse were filmed on location, and boy do they look it. Imagine if Spielberg had actually gone and filmed in Peru, as he filmed in Devon? Imagine if we'd had even a little bit of this



and less of this



We needed some legit South America for the characters to trek against so that there could be a LITTLE something to break up the uninterrupted marathon of sets and backlots and background plates, as Sri Lanka did for Temple. Indy spends the whole second half of the damned movie on Californa soundstages and in a Hawaian jungle so digitally molested and so artifically tinted by Kaminski's lenses it may as well have been on one, too.

Last edited by Udvarnoky : 01-28-2014 at 10:21 AM.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2014, 10:50 AM   #114
Montana Smith
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
I liked War Horse. It was unabashedly in that "Old Hollywood studio epic" vein, replete with the aggressive sentimentality, but if you don't find it too cloying there's really nothing wrong with that. It's one of those movie movies, and I thought it was more successful than the similarly intentioned Australia! (as much as I admired that movie's visuals and scope). Spielberg was definitely channeling John Ford with that film.

Indy4 doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as War Horse on the basis of the visuals alone. Many scenes for War Horse were filmed on location, and boy do they look it. Imagine if Spielberg had actually gone and filmed in Peru, as he filmed in Devon? Imagine if we'd had even a little bit of this

There was certainly nothing wrong with the filming in War Horse, apart from the final over-saturated sunset and long shadows with the sun still so high in the sky.

The battle scenes were great with all the explosions and gunshots whizzing round the speakers in the room. You could almost be there, except for the conspicuous lack of blood and guts. Though there was an age rating to bear in mind.

I didn't like the over-sentimentality, the predictability or the coincidence required to make the story work. Or when Joey galloped through two separate rows of barbed wire, dragging them behind him until they caught up causing him to somersault.

That's a ripped to shreds dead horse, and a shorter movie...if this were anything but an old-style animal movie. Which is why I put it in the land of the prairie dogs. And assign Spielberg the probable guilty party.
Montana Smith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2014, 03:00 AM   #115
Toht's Arm
IndyFan
 
Toht's Arm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
We needed some legit South America for the characters to trek against so that there could be a LITTLE something to break up the uninterrupted marathon of sets and backlots and background plates, as Sri Lanka did for Temple. Indy spends the whole second half of the damned movie on Californa soundstages and in a Hawaian jungle so digitally molested and so artifically tinted by Kaminski's lenses it may as well have been on one, too.

Erm, not to start an argument, but I LIKED the use of sets instead of real locations. I thought it gave the film that real old school movie serial feel, and isn't that how most of the Indy movies were filmed?

Sure, I always found it distracting that it was obvious body doubles running out of the ruins in Jordan at the end of TLC, followed by the awful close-ups of the greenscreen/rear projection/whatever rock face behind the real actors, but at the same time, this seemed right for the genre.
Toht's Arm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2014, 10:50 AM   #116
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toht's Arm
Sure, I always found it distracting that it was obvious body doubles running out of the ruins in Jordan at the end of TLC, followed by the awful close-ups of the greenscreen/rear projection/whatever rock face behind the real actors, but at the same time, this seemed right for the genre.

I don't think this is a process shot. Anyone know differently?



[quote=Toht's Arm]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toht's Arm
Erm, not to start an argument, but I LIKED the use of sets instead of real locations. I thought it gave the film that real old school movie serial feel, and isn't that how most of the Indy movies were filmed?

The first films came a lot closer. They didn't go to Egypt, but Tunisia played the part well, in city streets, dusty roads, and a massive dig site. The Nazi sub base and the Bantu Wind's dock were both in France, if memory serves. Macau played Shanghai and Sri Lanka played India. The marginally less exotic Last Crusade still has the real Venice (as itself!) and Spain filling in for Turkey, arguably the beginning of the trend in which the production says, "eh, let's not go quite so far from home." But they did still go to Petra, of course, actors included.



So, yeah, the Tanis interiors, even Belloq's tent, were filmed at Elstree, and so was Pankot and the temples beneath. But in Raiders and Crusade, nearly all the primary action sequences (give or take a fight sequence and a couple temple interiors) were actually filmed outside without drastic process shots.

Compare this:



and this:



to this:



And the first and last of those are both filmed in Hawaii!

The location work has arguably always been the primary thing in these films that doesn't hearken back to the serials, but that is instead has Spielberg much more interested in having the film look like something borrowed from David Lean or John Ford.

But why am I going on like this? It's already been said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
We needed some legit South America for the characters to trek against so that there could be a LITTLE something to break up the uninterrupted marathon of sets and backlots and background plates, as Sri Lanka did for Temple. Indy spends the whole second half of the damned movie on Californa soundstages and in a Hawaian jungle so digitally molested and so artifically tinted by Kaminski's lenses it may as well have been on one, too.

What does this have to do with digital prairie dogs? Well...

Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2014, 01:55 PM   #117
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
What does this have to do with digital prairie dogs?

It doesn't; I went off on a well-worn tangent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toht's Arm
Erm, not to start an argument, but I LIKED the use of sets instead of real locations. I thought it gave the film that real old school movie serial feel, and isn't that how most of the Indy movies were filmed?

Even the highly stagebound Temple made strategic use of location footage to achieve that sense of being transported, which is why I cited it. All the preceding films had that sense for me, and the fourth did not.

Spielberg filmed only in the U.S. (at greater expense, apparently) in order to be closer to his family. The domestic location shooting (New Mexico, New Haven) looks good and already violates your standard. But I think it was more crucial for scenes after Indy left the States. For logistical reasons the film would still have been largely backlot-based in the second half, but I also think that a few pieces of genuine South America would have worked wonders in cinching an illusion that honestly didn't even feel attempted.

I guess I'm just bitter that Spielberg decided to impose this mandate to film only in the U.S. for Indy4 then lifted it for next film.

Last edited by Udvarnoky : 01-30-2014 at 02:16 PM.
Udvarnoky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2014, 04:37 PM   #118
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Udvarnoky
It doesn't; I went off on a well-worn tangent.

I do think the comparison with the monkey is instructive, though. It's there for animal humor, yeah, but he also played a role in the plot and was a real animal who they had doing much more complicated things than A) coming out of his hole in the ground and B) looking at stuff.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2014, 05:32 PM   #119
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
...who they had doing much more complicated things than A) coming out of his hole in the ground and B) looking at stuff.


So the prairie dogs are akin to Mutt?
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2014, 06:59 PM   #120
Toht's Arm
IndyFan
 
Toht's Arm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
I don't think this is a process shot. Anyone know differently?

The first films came a lot closer. They didn't go to Egypt, but Tunisia played the part well, in city streets, dusty roads, and a massive dig site. The Nazi sub base and the Bantu Wind's dock were both in France, if memory serves. Macau played Shanghai and Sri Lanka played India. The marginally less exotic Last Crusade still has the real Venice (as itself!) and Spain filling in for Turkey, arguably the beginning of the trend in which the production says, "eh, let's not go quite so far from home." But they did still go to Petra, of course, actors included.



So, yeah, the Tanis interiors, even Belloq's tent, were filmed at Elstree, and so was Pankot and the temples beneath. But in Raiders and Crusade, nearly all the primary action sequences (give or take a fight sequence and a couple temple interiors) were actually filmed outside without drastic process shots.


The shots I'm thinking of are the reverse of that one, with the temple effectively behind the camera. I will recheck my DVDs, but I could have sworn the rockface behind them was never convincing. Could have been weird lighting, however.

And the actors did go to Petra? Huh, I didn't realise that. Apologies.

And whilst I enjoyed the use of sets, the jungle chase in KotCS always looks bad, even when it's apparently NOT greenscreen.
Toht's Arm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2014, 10:09 PM   #121
Udvarnoky
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,422
I think it's a combination of Kaminski's diffusion filters, the aggressive use of digital intermediate and the incorporation of some CGI on top of it all that left the jungle chase, and to some extent the whole movie, with that distracting, bleachy, artificial sheen that renders the practical stuff almost pointless. It also seems like a huge waste to have shot this movie on 35mm when that origin is basically processed out of recognition by the end of it.
Udvarnoky 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 12:03 AM.