Indy 4: Any Golden Idols?

Will Indy 4 compete in these Oscar categories?

  • Musical Score

    Votes: 4 9.8%
  • Cinematography

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • Editing

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • Production Design

    Votes: 10 24.4%
  • Visual Effects

    Votes: 8 19.5%
  • Original Screenplay

    Votes: 1 2.4%
  • Sound Editing

    Votes: 16 39.0%

  • Total voters
    41

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
I would say Production Design. I think Dyas did a fantastic job. Especially after looking at all the special features and the drawings of the Ughas.
 

The Man

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
I think that's more an indication of the proportion of evident effects shots. TDK aside (and Australia?), those other movies on the list have more overt visual effects (not tangibly better). Wouldn’t you agree?

Whatever the criteria, Skull is the only Indy movie not to get a shot at the Visual Effects Oscar. A sense of sadness pervades...

Given the movie's production history and the 'understanding' that CG would be kept to a minimum, doesn't every effect shot feel overt to the viewer as a result..?
 

QBComics

Active member
The Man said:
Whatever the criteria, Skull is the only Indy movie not to get a shot at the Visual Effects Oscar. A sense of sadness pervades...

That's even more upsetting... :(
 

Darth Vile

New member
The Man said:
.

Given the movie's production history and the 'understanding' that CG would be kept to a minimum, doesn't every effect shot feel overt to the viewer as a result..?

Not to me. I'd say that KOTCS was one of the least effects ridden "event" movies of the summer. I don't think one could ever charge KOTCS with pushing the boundaries of visual effects (something I'm sure everyone here is happy they didn't try and do).
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Sound editing. Ben Burtt = total genius!

Oscars are total ****, but an Oscar nod would still be a nice moment of recognition.
 

aJakeinthePlane

New member
the lighting in cinematography were the pleasant surprises for me. it was nice to see that they pulled it off w/o slocombe. although its still not the same.
 

The Golden Idol

New member
aJakeinthePlane said:
the lighting in cinematography were the pleasant surprises for me. it was nice to see that they pulled it off w/o slocombe. although its still not the same.

I was actually really disappointed with this. Everything looked pale green!
 

The Man

Well-known member
The Golden Idol said:
I was actually really disappointed with this. Everything looked pale green!

Agreed. That Kaminski sheen sucks the life and vibrancy out of the visuals. There's a notable difference between what's 'handsome' and what's truly beautiful to look at...
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Was I the only one who noticed the obsession with smoke, fog and mist in this movie? It was EVERYWHERE. Now granted, this was very true of Temple of Doom (especially in the village and the catacombs), but for some reason I didn't find it distracting in that movie, where there was at least molten lava factored into the surroundings. I don't even know where the hell some of the smoke is coming from in Indy4. Like, I get accentuating the exhaust smoke from the car at the beginning to make the hat grab look cooler, but like what about when the Ugha are chasing the heroes down the steps? Or when Dovchenko is preparing to hit Indy with the chain? Is there a sugarcane crop being burnt just offscreen or something at any given moment?
 

Dr. Round

New member
In terms of physical aspects of the finished film, the cinematography was the most bothersome to me. To be frank, I hated Kaminski's work. It seemed to be the polar opposite of Slocombe; where Slocombe captured dark, rich colors, with shades of film noir, Kaminski gave us overexposed bubblegum, complete with lens flares that were far too noticeable.

And, yes, there was too much smoke. It should've been used more than it was in the Peru sequences, however.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Well, I may be stating the obvious, but in some cases, of course, the smoke was a cover for CGI, the warehouse being the most obvious instance of this.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Dr. Round said:
Kaminski gave us overexposed bubblegum, complete with lens flares that were far too noticeable.

I would also like to point out that even though the original trilogy is known to have used lens flares, Indy4 probably uses them more than the first three combined, and a number of them are CGI-generated lens flares (the inside of the UFO, and when the heroes emerge from the temple to see the valley getting destroyed), which is I imagine where a lot of the disdain comes from.
 

Crack that whip

New member
The Man said:
Whatever the criteria, Skull is the only Indy movie not to get a shot at the Visual Effects Oscar. A sense of sadness pervades...

Actually, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade wasn't nominated for visual effects, either.

The Man said:
Given the movie's production history and the 'understanding' that CG would be kept to a minimum, doesn't every effect shot feel overt to the viewer as a result..?

How would you know? :p

That said, I do think this movie was probably hurt by the cinematography, as has been discussed here previously. Kaminski's work does seem to have given an artificial quality to a lot of the movie and made much of it look like effects work, even when it's not, and thus diminished the effectiveness of both some otherwise fine visual effects work and some decent real-world stunt action.

Ah, well. Before the nominations were announced, the category I personally thought it most likely to get nominated for, as well as the one I thought it most deserving, would be Original Score; that it didn't get one for Johnny's work is a bit of a mild surprise and disappointment. C'est la vie...
 
Top