Is KotCS too Fake?

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
I still think it makes perfect sense that someone would go into an Indiana Jones movie with different expectations than Iron Man and Harry Potter.

Don't we just go to be entertained by the escapism of movies? Obviously you go into an Indy movie expecting to see Harrison Ford in the role and hearing the iconic Williams theme blasting out, but other than that the purpose and expectation of these types of movie is pretty generic and basic.

Now of course, if the movie doesn't entertain... that's something completely different, and the movie has failed its core function.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Now of course, if the movie doesn't entertain... that's something completely different, and the movie has failed its core function.

Agreed. Now, don't you agree that if someone felt that Indy4 failed (for whatever reason) to capture the feel of a proper Indiana Jones movie, that it might therefore not be entertaining to them? Entertainment isn't objective, nor is the definition of an Indiana Jones movie. At the end of the day, nobody should have been entertained by something that they were not. They probably won't care if you can point out to them that Iron Man was also an action movie that also had explosions and actors and dialogue in it.
 

Darth Vile

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

Of course its a constraint if one doesn't afford Indiana Jones movies the same choices that other contemporary movies have. For example, why limit an Egypt scene to some generic desert in Tunisia? As I've mentioned before, Raiders set/location dressing is great, but it never really looked like Cairo did it??? If you limit your choices in realising an effect, that's a constraint.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Agreed. Now, don't you agree that if someone felt that Indy4 failed (for whatever reason) to capture the feel of a proper Indiana Jones movie, that it might therefore not be entertaining to them? Entertainment isn't objective, nor is the definition of an Indiana Jones movie.

Of course. I have zero issue with anybody who doesn't like/wasn't entertained by an Indiana Jones movie... and I can completely understand why some didn't like KOTCS.
 

emtiem

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

Yes, I understand what you're saying; I'm trying to continue the debate but you keep correcting me and tying it to the one point you've already made.

I think you're using a poor example- perhaps something like The Mummy series (although that is a much broader fantasy than Indy) would be better. I haven't seen the latest Mummy but I imagine that's pretty SFX-filled. Another example might be Bond (as Indy basically started out as the same genre), but that's taken a different track now and is much less of a fantasy adventure than it used to be.
The idea that 'an audience demanding movies to be less effects driven means that a series is past its sell by' is rather diminished by Bond, and also Batman: two series which had become stylised and quite effects heavy and which barely used any locations at all (in Die Another Day and Batman and Robin), and yet when they tried paring it all down, went back to real stunts and got some great location work, became huge hits again. Batman Begins hit that mid point of being stylised (Gotham with its monorail) but using real locations and stunts in the main which worked.

It depends on the tone of the piece, but generally yes: I think Indy works best with a little effects embellishment to make the thing larger-than-life (e.g the Raiders impossibly-high cliff; the Skull impossibly-high cliff), but it also needs real locations and raw stunts as that's what entertains a circus crowd: we want to see impressive stuff. I don't find the idea of the post-production added stuff to Skull to be utterly awful, but there was too much of it: not just for an Indy movie, but for this type of movie in the current climate- see Bond/Batman. Thankfully it was hardly a Star Wars prequel- there were real stunts and a few nice locations that the crew actually visited, but my preference would be for more.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Don't we just go to be entertained by the escapism of movies? Obviously you go into an Indy movie expecting to see Harrison Ford in the role and hearing the iconic Williams theme blasting out, but other than that the purpose and expectation of these types of movie is pretty generic and basic.

Now of course, if the movie doesn't entertain... that's something completely different, and the movie has failed its core function.


To many part of being entertained is being impressed; by a real stunt or a real location. I hated Die Another Day because the film crew failed to film the main cast in a single one of the locations the film was set in: that's not impressive and feels cheap- it removes me from the illusion of this being an epic if I can tell that Bond has landed his helicopter in Cornwall rather than Korea. Same thing here: how can I feel the excitement of an exotic locale if it looks like Indy is just visiting the 'Peruland' section of Disneyworld? Raiders' Cairo might not look like Cairo in the 30's, but at least it looks authentic and exotic.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Of course its a constraint if one doesn't afford Indiana Jones movies the same choices that other contemporary movies have.

Every movie has the same choices. What separates them is the choices that they make, and why. Spielberg had the choice to make Indiana Jones 4 a CGI animated movie like The Clone Wars. If that would have happened and you would have found yourself disappointed by that, would you appreciate someone giving you lip about how you're denying the film makers their right to make the choices they see fit? Would you have much patience if I reminded you that making an Indy movie that way is not intrinsically bad film making?

You're essentially saying that no one has the right to complain about anything - we should lap up everything we're given and be glad about it because you can find some tangential similarity between something in one film to another film. It doesn't change what a person's impression of a movie was.

Darth Vile said:
For example, why limit an Egypt scene to some generic desert in Tunisia? As I've mentioned before, Raiders set/location dressing is great, but it never really looked like Cairo did it??? If you limit your choices in realising an effect, that's a constraint.

I was always completely fooled, actually, as was 99% of the public. It's a real desert, and that is an effect impossible to fake. (At least, yet?) Substitutions like that are an accepted part of the medium anyway, going back to the beginning of time. It's not like when I grew up and found out it wasn't really Cairo I felt cheated. The setting was a desert, and they went to a real desert to film it - it is as simple as that. As Robert Watts said, since the script never calls for shots of the pyramids or the Sphinx, it just wasn't necessary to go to Egypt. (Besides which, the reason for much of the bluescreen work in Indy4 had nothing to do with money.) What, should I criticize the Tunisia scenes in Star Wars for not being shot on location on a real alien planet? The illusion is effectively captured, which is all that matters. You recognized Petra? You knew better than Raiders being filmed an Cairo? Good for you - it's still a real, historic piece of architecture and it's still a real, faraway place, and you can tell. On the other hand, nobody couldn't tell that this was Los Angeles.

It's the same reason I would never criticize the intro of Indy4 for being filmed in New Mexico instead of Nevada, or the Hawaii jungle doubling for South America in the Raiders prologue. They're still real locations that might as well be the real deal, and they capture an exotic look that can't be replicated. Honestly, I can't even begin to understand how doubling one country for another is the same as the characters being in front of bluescreens anytime the need to show Peru background scenery is called for.

Darth Vile said:
Of course. I have zero issue with anybody who doesn't like/wasn't entertained by an Indiana Jones movie... and I can completely understand why some didn't like KOTCS.

Except you're all too happy to state that people who have problems with Indy4 equate individual choices with "intrinsically bad film making," even though I"m pretty sure you're the only person who's ever used those words. Maybe if you were less eager to put words in people's mouths I'd have an easier time believing your "I have zero problem" remark.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
emtiem said:
Yes, I understand what you're saying; I'm trying to continue the debate but you keep correcting me and tying it to the one point you've already made.

I really wasn?t trying to correct you. I was merely reiterating that, for me, Indiana Jones is much more a comic book/superhero type figure? and as such I find the sensibilities between the Indy movies and super hero/comic book movies much more in the same vein than those between Indy and James Bond or Jason Bourne. That was pretty fundamental to what I was trying to argue. But if you don?t agree, then that is fine too. :)

emtiem said:
I think you're using a poor example- perhaps something like The Mummy series (although that is a much broader fantasy than Indy) would be better. I haven't seen the latest Mummy but I imagine that's pretty SFX-filled. Another example might be Bond (as Indy basically started out as the same genre), but that's taken a different track now and is much less of a fantasy adventure than it used to be.
As above, it really wasn?t about genre but about the sensibilities of the movie/character.

emtiem said:
The idea that 'an audience demanding movies to be less effects driven means that a series is past its sell by' is rather diminished by Bond, and also Batman: two series which had become stylized and quite effects heavy and which barely used any locations at all (in Die Another Day and Batman and Robin), and yet when they tried paring it all down, went back to real stunts and got some great location work, became huge hits again. Batman Begins hit that mid point of being stylized (Gotham with its monorail) but using real locations and stunts in the main which worked.

To be honest, I believe the majority of modern audiences now expect effects heavy, fast paced movies (I personally don?t think that?s a good thing). I was referring to a particular demographic that believe that ?gritty? and ?dark? automatically means better than ?frivolous? and ?light?. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle... Batman Begins being a pertinent example.

As far as new Bond and Batman is concerned? as much as I enjoyed those particular movies, I think it?s simply a gimmick to reinvigorate a franchise. These things are cyclical? and I think audiences generally return and respond towards movies that are somewhat fantastical and spectacular. We had Bond going ?back to basics? in the 1980?s with Timothy Dalton. That lasted two movies. Quantum of Solace saw a swift return to outlandish set pieces e.g. the jump from a plane (and I believe gadgets and Miss Moneypenny are back for the 3rd)? and who wants another Batman as dour as TDK? However, I?d be more than happy for Indy to go the ?dark? route for a movie?just for something a little different (but I don?t think that will ever be with Ford/Spielberg and Lucas).
 

Darth Vile

New member
Udvarnoky said:
Every movie has the same choices. What separates them is the choices that they make, and why. Spielberg had the choice to make Indiana Jones 4 a CGI animated movie like The Clone Wars. If that would have happened and you would have found yourself disappointed by that, would you appreciate someone giving you lip about how you're denying the filmmakers their right to make the choices they see fit? Would you have much patience if I reminded you that making an Indy movie that way is not intrinsically bad film making?

But KOTCS wasn't made in the style of The Clone Wars was it? Nor was it made in the style of early French cinema. It was made in broadly the same style as the other sequels. I believe it was aligned enough to the older movies to match expectations for general movie goers. It had some CGI effects which brought it into the 21st century. So what? KOTCS isn’t the movie you wanted - Fine. I liked it. Lets move on.

Udvarnoky said:
You're essentially saying that no one has the right to complain about anything - we should lap up everything we're given and be glad about it because you can find some tangential similarity between something in one film to another film. It doesn't change what a person's impression of a movie was.

Fine words from a man who doesn’t let a single positive comment for the movie pass without a belligerent response. Why does the break down in mutual respect always seem to start with one of your replies??? Why the constant need to look for a fight when not required?

Udvarnoky said:
I was always completely fooled, actually, as was 99% of the public. It's a real desert, and that is an effect impossible to fake. (At least, yet?) Substitutions like that are an accepted part of the medium anyway, going back to the beginning of time. It's not like when I grew up and found out it wasn't really Cairo I felt cheated. The setting was a desert, and they went to a real desert to film it - it is as simple as that. As Robert Watts said, since the script never calls for shots of the pyramids or the Sphinx, it just wasn't necessary to go to Egypt…

One assumes they could have gone to Egypt… simply for those “establishing shots” you are always banging on about. I assume it was a production choice based on economic grounds rather than some form of aesthetic/artistic decision on their part.

Udvarnoky said:
Honestly, I can't even begin to understand how doubling one country for another is the same as the characters being in front of bluescreens anytime the need to show Peru background scenery is called for.

I find the illusion of Peru just as convincing as the illusion of Egypt. What yer gonna do (and this is the part where you respect my opinion)?

Udvarnoky said:
Except you're all too happy to state that people who have problems with Indy4 equate individual choices with "intrinsically bad film making," even though I’m pretty sure you're the only person who's ever used those words. Maybe if you were less eager to put words in people's mouths I'd have an easier time believing your "I have zero problem" remark.

Here you go again… acting like a big girls blouse… simply because I don’t agree with you and you can't accept my views. Do I believe KOTCS has its flaws? Yes. Do I believe that you have some valid reasons for being disappointed with the movie? Yes. Do I believe you attempt to corroborate your position by using spurious and tenuous topics? Yes - I do. Do I believe you can be often disingenuous to get a view across? Yes - sometimes I do (as evidenced by the prime example above - "put words in peoples mouths" indeed).
 
Last edited:

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Here you go again… acting like a big girls blouse… simply because I don’t agree with you and you can't accept my views.

Aaaand, that's a thread, at least as far as my role in it is concerned.

"I can't accept your views." Unbelievable.
 

Darth Vile

New member
emtiem said:
To many part of being entertained is being impressed; by a real stunt or a real location. I hated Die Another Day because the film crew failed to film the main cast in a single one of the locations the film was set in: that's not impressive and feels cheap- it removes me from the illusion of this being an epic if I can tell that Bond has landed his helicopter in Cornwall rather than Korea. Same thing here: how can I feel the excitement of an exotic locale if it looks like Indy is just visiting the 'Peruland' section of Disneyworld? Raiders' Cairo might not look like Cairo in the 30's, but at least it looks authentic and exotic.

I agree in the main. However, Raiders did have a bigger section of the movie set in the streets of Egypt (Tunisia), so it gets more screen time. KOTCS whips through its locales at speed, which I think was borne from a desire to inject unnecessary pace into the movie, rather than a blatant lack of interest in locales per se. I'd like Indy V (if it happens) to spend more time in one specific foreign/exotic location (be that made up of backlot, location or both)... just so we can get a flavour of a different culture (Hollywoods interpretation at least).
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
As far as new Bond and Batman is concerned? as much as I enjoyed those particular movies, I think it?s simply a gimmick to reinvigorate a franchise. These things are cyclical? and I think audiences generally return and respond towards movies that are somewhat fantastical and spectacular. We had Bond going ?back to basics? in the 1980?s with Timothy Dalton. That lasted two movies. Quantum of Solace saw a swift return to outlandish set pieces e.g. the jump from a plane (and I believe gadgets and Miss Moneypenny are back for the 3rd)? and who wants another Batman as dour as TDK? However, I?d be more than happy for Indy to go the ?dark? route for a movie?just for something a little different (but I don?t think that will ever be with Ford/Spielberg and Lucas).

You're rather mixing up tone and execution there, though. I don't think they're the same thing; for me Die Another Day wouldn't have been as badly received if it had used real locations and real stunts: the CGI para-sailing bit is seen as a bit of a nadir of the whole series and that's because of the execution rather than the tone.
Of course the more fantastical tone means that wilder stunts can be planned: stuff that can't be done for real in general- but that doesn't mean that in the previous cycle Moonraker didn't have an incredible skydiving stunt, all done for real.
 

Darth Vile

New member
emtiem said:
You're rather mixing up tone and execution there, though. I don't think they're the same thing; for me Die Another Day wouldn't have been as badly received if it had used real locations and real stunts: the CGI para-sailing bit is seen as a bit of a nadir of the whole series and that's because of the execution rather than the tone.
Of course the more fantastical tone means that wilder stunts can be planned: stuff that can't be done for real in general- but that doesn't mean that in the previous cycle Moonraker didn't have an incredible skydiving stunt, all done for real.

Not sure where I was confusing tone with execution as they are different things.

I thought a large segment of Die Another Die was filmed on location in Cuba... and I remember that segment looking rather nice (unless I'm mistaking it for another Brosnan movie). I would agree though, Die Another Day is Brosnan's weakest Bond (and one of the weakest overall)... It's a movie that's certainly not helped by the CGI and cliche story. It's also a good example of a movie that doesn't work, despite the money spent. KOTCS is several leagues above Die Another Day I think.
 
Last edited:

emtiem

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Not sure where I was confusing tone with execution as they are different things.

You were talking about 'gritty' and 'dark': that's a tone; not a look. I thought we were talking about whether stuff looked fake or not; not whether it felt fantastical or gritty.

Darth Vile said:
I thought a large segment of Die Another Die was filmed on location in Cuba... and I remember that segment looking rather nice (unless I'm mistaking it for another Brosnan movie).

Spain doubling for Cuba. And not very convincingly for me. I suppose you'd say the same about Tunisia/Cairo ;)

Darth Vile said:
I would agree though, Die Another Day is Brosnan's weakest Bond (and one of the weakest overall)... It's a movie that's certainly not helped by the CGI and cliche story. It's also a good example of a movie that doesn't work, despite the money spent. KOTCS is several leagues above Die Another Day I think.

Yeah I'd agree, although DAD is still watchable; I don't think it's a complete failure. But it's an apposite example, I'd say because the false bits (CGI stunts, fake locations) really weren't liked by a lot of people, and I wasn't too keen either. The tone I didn't have too much of an issue with (invisible car: yeah, I'll go with that. Like the flying fridge, it's not a concept that upsets me: it's all good, silly fun) but there are some values I do want to see for real: real locations are important and more of an emphasis on real stunts, please. The waterfall bit would have been nice done for real, for example (and that's not impossible, if not on that scale perhaps- see Romancing the Stone). As we saw with Bond -and that is a movie/character with the same sensibilities as Indy; especially in DAD- there was a reaction against the fake stuff, including from the producers. They realised their mistake, and I think even if the tone hadn't changed towards a more gritty feel, as you pointed out, I think there's a case to say that the execution would have still have moved back closer to the real side of things: the audience didn't like it. As they didn't like it with KOTCS: my personal preference would have been for the production to have actually left the US because it is visible onscreen that they didn't.
 

Darth Vile

New member
emtiem said:
You were talking about 'gritty' and 'dark': that's a tone; not a look. I thought we were talking about whether stuff looked fake or not; not whether it felt fantastical or gritty.
That's true... But the lines sometimes become somewhat blurred, as movie makers can be quite literal.

emtiem said:
Spain doubling for Cuba. And not very convincingly for me. I suppose you'd say the same about Tunisia/Cairo ;)

Spain? I never knew that. "Horses for courses" as they say. Never been to Cuba, but would love to go. ;)

emtiem said:
Yeah I'd agree, although DAD is still watchable; I don't think it's a complete failure. But it's an apposite example, I'd say because the false bits (CGI stunts, fake locations) really weren't liked by a lot of people, and I wasn't too keen either. The tone I didn't have too much of an issue with (invisible car: yeah, I'll go with that. Like the flying fridge, it's not a concept that upsets me: it's all good, silly fun) but there are some values I do want to see for real: real locations are important and more of an emphasis on real stunts, please. The waterfall bit would have been nice done for real, for example (and that's not impossible, if not on that scale perhaps- see Romancing the Stone). As we saw with Bond -and that is a movie/character with the same sensibilities as Indy; especially in DAD- there was a reaction against the fake stuff, including from the producers. They realised their mistake, and I think even if the tone hadn't changed towards a more gritty feel, as you pointed out, I think there's a case to say that the execution would have still have moved back closer to the real side of things: the audience didn't like it. As they didn't like it with KOTCS: my personal preference would have been for the production to have actually left the US because it is visible onscreen that they didn't.

Yep its that cyclical thing again. Stretches too far one way, snaps back the other way. Perhaps Indy V will be a return to basics, although critical reaction was much more positive towards KOTCS than it ever was to DAD (so lets not hold our breath). As far as the stunt work of KOTCS is concerned, I think it gets a bit of a bad rap on these boards. There is some really good stunt work/physical action going on in the warehouse, bike chase, Peru and jungle scenes (all key action scenes). But I guess it all comes back to perception.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
That's true... But the lines sometimes become somewhat blurred, as movie makers can be quite literal.

I don't see what you're saying: 'dour' (as you mention in regard to Batman) isn't a look; it's a tone. I'm talking about the use of practical stunts and real locations; so were you I thought.


Darth Vile said:
Spain? I never knew that. "Horses for courses" as they say. Never been to Cuba, but would love to go. ;)

Yeah, US film companies have a bit of trouble with Cuba, understandably! I thought that the Spain doubling was pretty weak: it really looked like a load of dressed street sets to me. Auf Wiedersen Pet did a much better 'Cuba' a few years back by using the Dominican Republic: that was note perfect.


Darth Vile said:
Yep its that cyclical thing again. Stretches too far one way, snaps back the other way.

Not really: you're thinking of tone again. It's pretty much the first and only time that Bond has done 'fake' to that extent- as I say; even Moonraker (the very height of excess previously) still used real locations and real stunts. Except for the space stuff of course! :)
(And, er, a shot of a boatfull of people going over a waterfall in South America! Ah well, if a guy can't harpoon his own argument once in a while... )

Darth Vile said:
As far as the stunt work of KOTCS is concerned, I think it gets a bit of a bad rap on these boards. There is some really good stunt work/physical action going on in the warehouse, bike chase, Peru and jungle scenes (all key action scenes). But I guess it all comes back to perception.

Yes, you're right- and as we said earlier; some great stunt work in the jungle chase is marred by too many inserts of the actors on greenscreen. The perception you're left with is that of a fake stunt, when careful watching reveals it wasn't.
Certainly stuntwise, it's worth bearing in mind that Harrison Ford is more physical onscreen in this film than he is in Temple of Doom...

Although one thing I always wish when I watch the jungle chase: I wish they were all driving a bit faster :)
 

QBComics

Active member
KOTCS looks, at times, fake. The wedding sequence, and right as Spalko and Mutt start to battle are the most distracting for me. But to me, everything looked fine to me. I do hope when we get an Indy V, they try to make it look more real than as a dream sequence.

Now regarding the action sequences, yeah of course they're fake. But surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge or falling down three huge waterfalls is right up there with jumping out of a crashing plane with a raft, or having a flock of birds take down a German fighter plane. These movies are filled with goofy things, but to me that's part of the fun in the series.
 

sandiegojones

New member
The debates are getting a little silly after all this time. I comes down to one simple thing for most people, aliens. Is is possible that aliens exist and if so, then is it possible that they visited ancient civilizations?

Indy is about action and adventure and it uses history as motivation for different scenarios. If you believe aliens might exist then they are not historically out of bounds even for Indy.

As far as being "fake" is concerned, they used modern filmmaking tools and did their best to match the tone of the original films. At times these techniques heightened the silliness and in other times came across as too real compared to the other films. If it comes up short you can blame the nearly 20 year gap between films, but it's not that drastically different that it warrants being overly obsessive.
 

Darth Vile

New member
emtiem said:
I don't see what you're saying: 'dour' (as you mention in regard to Batman) isn't a look; it's a tone. I'm talking about the use of practical stunts and real locations; so were you I thought.

I think we?re talking at cross purposes. I initially asked a rhetorical question about why should KOTCS not be afforded the same modern techniques to realize sequences/shots? And if it does, why should some consider it to be more of a detriment to KOTCS than it is to other popular movies of the same ilk? I'm still half carrying on that discussion? although I think we've now done it to death ;)

I?d also say that the ?tone? of a movie can be achieved via several methods. The most basic of which, I guess, is the use of lighting to reflect a mood. So when I refer to TDK being ?dour? or ?dark?, I?m referring to both its underlying subject matter/context and its inherent ?look?... as its undeniably dour and dark in both. ?Gritty? I think is a term often used to describe something that feels a bit more ?realistic? and is less fantastical in its look? and I?d guess one can achieve a more ?gritty? feel if more location and real stunt work is used. But again, my initial line (playing the devils advocate) was "Does gritty/realistic automatically equate to good"? And... ?Why does an Indy movie need to be gritty/realistic to be good?? (given that I enjoyed KOTCS and I found TDK to be largely dull, pompous and lacking in action).

emtiem said:
Yeah, US film companies have a bit of trouble with Cuba, understandably! I thought that the Spain doubling was pretty weak: it really looked like a load of dressed street sets to me. Auf Wiedersen Pet did a much better 'Cuba' a few years back by using the Dominican Republic: that was note perfect.

Was that the relatively new series of Auf Wiedersen Pet? If so, I'll have to check it out.

emtiem said:
Yes, you're right- and as we said earlier; some great stunt work in the jungle chase is marred by too many inserts of the actors on greenscreen. The perception you're left with is that of a fake stunt, when careful watching reveals it wasn't.
Certainly stuntwise, it's worth bearing in mind that Harrison Ford is more physical onscreen in this film than he is in Temple of Doom...

Although one thing I always wish when I watch the jungle chase: I wish they were all driving a bit faster :)

I personally think they?ll approach greenscreen work with more vigour/diligence (if an Indy V gets made). That?s not to say I?m against greenscreen, because I?m clearly not? rather its just that I think it works better when it?s not used intermittently in a sequence such as the jungle chase. In the warehouse/Area 51, Peru and Akator, I think the CGI (and how it's used) is pretty spot on.
 
QBComics said:
yeah of course they're fake. But surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge or falling down three huge waterfalls is right up there with jumping out of a crashing plane with a raft, or having a flock of birds take down a German fighter plane.

No offense, but tell that to "Sully" who had to lad that plane in the Hudson River!
 
Top