TheRaider.net
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-17-2008, 12:09 PM   #51
Dr. Joenes
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 63
I like Kaminski on some of Spielberg's films but I agree that for all the talking they did about trying to recapture Slocombe's look the results were a bit uneven. Several sequences hold up extremely well compared to the others but that diffuse, hazy sky and the other "tricks" in Kaminski's arsenal did intrude a little for me here and there.

I do think that Spielberg's work over the last 10+ years or whatever has been too defined by Kaminski though. I love almost all his movies but I prefer the look of the pre-Kaminski stuff (with some exceptions) much more overall.
Dr. Joenes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2008, 09:10 PM   #52
FILMKRUSC
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard24
I still haven't decided how I feel overall about KOTCS, but when I see it for the second time tomorrow I'll have a better idea of where I stand. One thing is for sure Janusz Kaminski's cinematography was as distracting and out of place as I knew it would be!! It seems Spielberg's continual use of him for his films, really gives weight to the argument that he's gotten complacent, comfortable, and somewhat lazy in his advancing years.

If you go back to Jaws in 1975, Spielberg used Bill Butler for his cinematography, then for Close Encounters of the Third Kind he used Vilmos Zsigmond, for 1941 William A. Fraker, for Raiders of the Lost Ark , Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Douglas Slocombe, for E.T. Allen Daviau, for The Twilight Zone:The Movie Allen Daviau, John Hora, and Steven Larner, for The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun Allen Daviau again, for Always Mikael Saolomon, for Hook and Jurassic Park Dean Cundey. Then from Schindler's List(1993) to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull( 2008), 11 films in total plus 4 more over the few years including the upcoming Lincoln, Spielberg has used and will use Kaminski! 15 films?!

I don't get it! Spielberg switched up cinematographers continually for some of his greatest films Jaws, Close Encounters, and E.T., the Indy series with exception, but now he's gotten into this trend of Kaminski and Kaminski only! I for one am sick of Kaminski's visual style! His blue/grey metallic palette, overly lit, hazy atmospheric look has gotten stale. I personally think KOTCS would have been light years better if someone other then Kaminski was behind the lens. Come on Spielberg, get out of your rut and mix things up again!!

What do you guys think?

I agree. I hated the look as well. Some scenes when they were driving were bright on the actors and the background darker. huh... I thought the look was distracting and after reading how he studied the look of the original films - he should have studied more and harder. Didn't look like a Indiana Jones film at all.
FILMKRUSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2008, 12:25 AM   #53
segask
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Holcomb
All will be revealed in the upcoming American Cinematographer article.

here it is: http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynam...kull/page1.php

a few quotes:
says Kaminski. “An Indiana Jones film has to have that glossy, warm look with strong, high-key lighting. It’s suspenseful but not too dark — you always see things clearly. We also had to recognize that we couldn’t use some of the same tricks that worked 20 years ago because the audience has become more sophisticated; today, you can’t use a torch in a cave scene and have light coming from other directions. We were always asking, ‘How can we do this as well as Douglas Slocombe but make it a bit more contemporary?’ ...

... Kaminski frequently softened the image with Schneider Classic Soft filters to create “an idyllic Americana look.” ...

...A 4K Xenon lamp was used to create the hard shadow on the car in full daylight. “We were in New Mexico, and it was 108°, and all of our electronic lights kept shutting off because of the heat, . . . We ended up giving a lot of star treatment to all the electronic lighting because it just hated being in that kind of temperature. Steven just smiled and said, ‘Well, that’s why we used arcs last time!’” ...

...Kaminski muses, “It was a tremendous honor to follow in Douglas Slocombe’s footsteps and continue the visual style he established. At the same time, I was happy to be able to create my own interpretation of the material, because this movie takes place 20 years later. Overall, it was great to be part of the legacy of Indiana Jones.”
segask is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2008, 09:01 PM   #54
torao
Moderator Emeritus
 
torao's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 998
There's an old thread from pre-release times containing some potentially interesting (I'm unable to judge) stuff about Skull's cinematography:

Quote:
Originally Posted by playmountain
According to David Mullen ASC (DP on The Astronaut Farmer among others) over at Cinematography.com:

"I talked to someone working on the movie who said that they were shooting 35mm anamorphic, Panavision C and E-Series, and did not plan on doing a D.I. (Digital Intermediate) except for the digital efx that had to be transferred to film, otherwise a traditional film post."

C and E-series Panavision anamorphics do date back to the original films.

I did hear that Kaminski was using his usual diffusion filters, which the original series of films did not really do (except for a few scenes shot with Dior nets, particularly in "The Last Crusade"). But I also heard that they were lighting to deeper stops like Slocombe used to do, shooting on average around a T/8."

***

So, overall... very good news! For those keeping track, this will be Spielberg's first 2.40:1 aspect ratio film shot with anamorphic glass since Hook in 1991. His last film, Munich was shot in the Super 35 format using spherical glass with a 2.40:1 theatrical AR.

There has also been this thread about all film stock questions, btw.
torao is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2008, 09:15 PM   #55
Mickiana
IndyFan
 
Mickiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,187
That quote from Kaminski sounds like he's saying nothing. An interpretation of Slocombe's work? That ends up in a very different result, is more like it.
Mickiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2008, 09:48 PM   #56
AtomicAge
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by deckard24
I still haven't decided how I feel overall about KOTCS, but when I see it for the second time tomorrow I'll have a better idea of where I stand. One thing is for sure Janusz Kaminski's cinematography was as distracting and out of place as I knew it would be!! It seems Spielberg's continual use of him for his films, really gives weight to the argument that he's gotten complacent, comfortable, and somewhat lazy in his advancing years.

If you go back to Jaws in 1975, Spielberg used Bill Butler for his cinematography, then for Close Encounters of the Third Kind he used Vilmos Zsigmond, for 1941 William A. Fraker, for Raiders of the Lost Ark , Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Douglas Slocombe, for E.T. Allen Daviau, for The Twilight Zone:The Movie Allen Daviau, John Hora, and Steven Larner, for The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun Allen Daviau again, for Always Mikael Saolomon, for Hook and Jurassic Park Dean Cundey. Then from Schindler's List(1993) to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull( 2008), 11 films in total plus 4 more over the few years including the upcoming Lincoln, Spielberg has used and will use Kaminski! 15 films?!

I don't get it! Spielberg switched up cinematographers continually for some of his greatest films Jaws, Close Encounters, and E.T., the Indy series with exception, but now he's gotten into this trend of Kaminski and Kaminski only! I for one am sick of Kaminski's visual style! His blue/grey metallic palette, overly lit, hazy atmospheric look has gotten stale. I personally think KOTCS would have been light years better if someone other then Kaminski was behind the lens. Come on Spielberg, get out of your rut and mix things up again!!

What do you guys think?


I will say that I love what Kaminski did with Catch Me If You Can. It's warm and colorful. Beautifully photographed film.

Doug
AtomicAge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2008, 09:53 PM   #57
AtomicAge
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by torao
There's an old thread from pre-release times containing some potentially interesting (I'm unable to judge) stuff about Skull's cinematography:



There has also been this thread about all film stock questions, btw.

Interesting. I thought they might have been using older Panavision lenses. They flair more when there is a bright light on the screen. When I say flair I don't mean the blown out whites, but rather the red ovals you see around lights and the long thin blueish streak that come off of them horizontally.

Doug
AtomicAge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2008, 03:34 AM   #58
Blade
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicAge
I will say that I love what Kaminski did with Catch Me If You Can. It's warm and colorful. Beautifully photographed film.

Doug

Doug - When Catch me if you can was good it was amazing - I'm thinking of the scene at the pool / hotel when hanks nearly catches di caprio and the scene towards the end with come fly with me is being played. However, most of the film doesn't live up to these highs imo. Is that fair?
Blade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2008, 11:17 AM   #59
AtomicAge
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade
Doug - When Catch me if you can was good it was amazing - I'm thinking of the scene at the pool / hotel when hanks nearly catches di caprio and the scene towards the end with come fly with me is being played. However, most of the film doesn't live up to these highs imo. Is that fair?

Most of which film doesn't live up? Catch Me If You Can or Crystal Skull?

Doug
AtomicAge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2008, 01:08 PM   #60
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by segask
here it is: http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynam...kull/page1.php

a few quotes:
says Kaminski. “An Indiana Jones film has to have that glossy, warm look with strong, high-key lighting. It’s suspenseful but not too dark — you always see things clearly. We also had to recognize that we couldn’t use some of the same tricks that worked 20 years ago because the audience has become more sophisticated; today, you can’t use a torch in a cave scene and have light coming from other directions. We were always asking, ‘How can we do this as well as Douglas Slocombe but make it a bit more contemporary?’ ...

... Kaminski frequently softened the image with Schneider Classic Soft filters to create “an idyllic Americana look.” ...

...A 4K Xenon lamp was used to create the hard shadow on the car in full daylight. “We were in New Mexico, and it was 108°, and all of our electronic lights kept shutting off because of the heat, . . . We ended up giving a lot of star treatment to all the electronic lighting because it just hated being in that kind of temperature. Steven just smiled and said, ‘Well, that’s why we used arcs last time!’” ...

...Kaminski muses, “It was a tremendous honor to follow in Douglas Slocombe’s footsteps and continue the visual style he established. At the same time, I was happy to be able to create my own interpretation of the material, because this movie takes place 20 years later. Overall, it was great to be part of the legacy of Indiana Jones.”

All sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2008, 01:38 PM   #61
FILMKRUSC
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by gear01
Maybe Douglas Slocombe is the unsung hero of the first 3 Indy films.
I totally agree with deckard24, I hated the look of KOTCS. I hated the washed out, overexposed dull frosty look of KOTCS. Go back and watch the originals, lush colors, crisp details, and excellent lighting.

I couldn't agree more. That was one of the big problems with KOTCS for me.
Why Spielberg let the cinematography go down the road it did is beyond me..

I also got sick and tired of seeing all the lens flares in KOTCS. For me lens flares are not stylistic but sloppy uninspired lighting.

Slocombe was a genius with lighting. I would have rather have seen Dean Cundey shoot KOTCS.
He could have kept it closer to a Slocombe look.
FILMKRUSC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-17-2008, 02:20 PM   #62
StoneTriple
IndyFan
 
StoneTriple's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 611
Quote:
Originally Posted by FILMKRUSC
I also got sick and tired of seeing all the lens flares in KOTCS. For me lens flares are not stylistic but sloppy uninspired lighting.

It's in keeping with the other three films.

http://raven.theraider.net/showpost....0&postcount=19
StoneTriple is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 10:51 AM   #63
Sankara
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 904
I agree! It didn't look and feel like the old movies! But this is only the fault of Kaminski. I like his work very much but in "Skull" many-many scenes look not real. Wrong colours, to soft...
Sankara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 10:59 AM   #64
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneTriple
It's in keeping with the other three films.

http://raven.theraider.net/showpost....0&postcount=19

Shush... Keep it to yourself... Some people don't like to think those things apply to the other movies too. Their rose tinted goggles won't allow it.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 11:19 AM   #65
Sankara
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by gear01
I totally agree with deckard24, I hated the look of KOTCS. I hated the washed out, overexposed dull frosty look of KOTCS. Go back and watch the originals, lush colors, crisp details, and excellent lighting.
Also, the trilogy's placement of the camera, with interesting angles, and the camera set in realistic locations with attention to composition. Something glaringly different in KOTCS was the computer generated flyover or flyaround shots. In the original films every camera was mounted to a truck, the ground, or a helicopter or a plane, throughout the originals the camera was attached to a physical thing.
If there was a matte painting it was a 2 dimensional element that was creatively composited with live action footage or effects. That was the formula we remember and love. It should have been recreated, but sadly was not.

Yes, you are right! I don't hate the look of "Skull". Sure, it's nothing against the look of "Raiders", "Temple" and "Crusade". Yes, the washed out, overexposed dull frosty look of KOTCS is lousy BUT some angles are really really great! Especially in the Warehouse-Scene...

I like Kaminski.
Sankara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 01:21 PM   #66
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sankara

I like Kaminski.

We're finally making some progress.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 01:43 PM   #67
Ben Friend of Indy
IndyFan
 
Ben Friend of Indy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 198
The basic look of the film I don't really hate, it's just that when it gets bright, it gets REALLY bright with it looking like there's a glow on everything. But on the other hand, when they hit it, they really hit it. For me, the graveyard/Orellana's cradle sequence is a highlight of the film on just about every level--particularly cinematography. This was the best. It seemed like generally, the darker scenes were the ones that looked the best.

As I watch it on DVD, though, I'm finding more scenes where I like the look of them. It's certainly not as sharp a contrast as something like, say, TPM to AOTC.
Ben Friend of Indy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 05:17 PM   #68
Darth Vile
IndyFan
 
Darth Vile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Friend of Indy
The basic look of the film I don't really hate, it's just that when it gets bright, it gets REALLY bright with it looking like there's a glow on everything. But on the other hand, when they hit it, they really hit it. For me, the graveyard/Orellana's cradle sequence is a highlight of the film on just about every level--particularly cinematography. This was the best. It seemed like generally, the darker scenes were the ones that looked the best.

As I watch it on DVD, though, I'm finding more scenes where I like the look of them. It's certainly not as sharp a contrast as something like, say, TPM to AOTC.

I agree... The warehouse, Oxley's cell, the graveyard/Orellana's tomb and the interior of Akator are all wonderfully lit. I also don't have much issue with the romanticized lighting of some of the interior shots e.g. the diner, college classroom or Indy's house... it's more the external jungle/waterfall scenes where it’s apparent.
Darth Vile is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 08:17 PM   #69
IndyJess
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 93
The washed out, overexposed dull frosty look of KOTCS was the pits. But why the harsh lighting on Harrison's craggy face?
IndyJess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 08:18 PM   #70
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyJess
The washed out, overexposed dull frosty look of KOTCS was the pits. But why the harsh lighting on Harrison's craggy face?

It's called a mirror.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 08:19 PM   #71
Vance
IndyFan
 
Vance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Vile
I agree... The warehouse, Oxley's cell, the graveyard/Orellana's tomb and the interior of Akator are all wonderfully lit. I also don't have much issue with the romanticized lighting of some of the interior shots e.g. the diner, college classroom or Indy's house... it's more the external jungle/waterfall scenes where it’s apparent.

It's the overuse of CGI all over the place. You can easily tell that much of the 'outside' locations were actually CGI tweaked (nearly all of the jungle sequences were almost entirely CGI, ala "Clones" and "Sith"). That made the lighting and everything look much more... 'video-gamey'. You can see the palette dithering and other effects quite easily in the shots, which make them look poor compared to the oddly crisper 'real world' shots in other places.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2008, 08:23 PM   #72
IndyJess
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major West
It's called a mirror.

Didn't you prefer the shots where Ford's face was in shadow?
IndyJess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2008, 01:17 AM   #73
AtomicAge
IndyFan
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vance
It's the overuse of CGI all over the place. You can easily tell that much of the 'outside' locations were actually CGI tweaked (nearly all of the jungle sequences were almost entirely CGI, ala "Clones" and "Sith"). That made the lighting and everything look much more... 'video-gamey'. You can see the palette dithering and other effects quite easily in the shots, which make them look poor compared to the oddly crisper 'real world' shots in other places.


Actually its not. If you watch the extra features on the DVD you'll find that about 80 to 90% of the Jungle scenes are Hawaii untouched.

For every shot in that sequence to have been an effect, they would have used more effects shots than were used in the whole movie, which has been reported to have been around 450 shots in total.

Doug
AtomicAge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2008, 01:31 AM   #74
IndyJess
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicAge
Actually its not. If you watch the extra features on the DVD you'll find that about 80 to 90% of the Jungle scenes are Hawaii untouched.

Well the 10 to 20% of the Jungle scenes that are CGI were dreadful enough to dissapoint many people.
IndyJess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2008, 06:02 AM   #75
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 814
Special people, with issues.
Major West 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 02:12 PM.