TheRaider.net
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-22-2008, 04:46 AM   #1
blueoakleyz
IndyFan
 
blueoakleyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 182
Why is a non-earth entity less believable than a religious entity?

I get the feeling that a lot of people were like "Come on, an alien spaceship???"....
Which to me, is surprising (ok maybe not), because aliens are more believable, to me, than any religious entity.

I'll answer my own question though, it's probably because most people are raised believing religious things
blueoakleyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:03 AM   #2
Avilos
IndyFan
 
Avilos's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueoakleyz
I'll answer my own question though, it's probably because most people are raised believing religious things

Probably.

Though I was raised Christian I am an Atheist. So I tend to see these things as just interesting stories. Legends, myths, whatever. Regardless if you call them Angels or Aliens.

I was talking to both my parents about the movie and about Crystal Skulls. Though they are both devout Christians and tend to dismiss other belief systems, they seem to be open to the ancient Alien theories. Which surprised me a lot!
Avilos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:20 PM   #3
MolaRam2
IndyFan
 
MolaRam2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 272
The alien aspect of this movie would have been more convincing if it didn't just play off stereotypical images of what aliens look like and a really cheesey CGI UFO.
MolaRam2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:24 PM   #4
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolaRam2
The alien aspect of this movie would have been more convincing if it didn't just play off stereotypical images of what aliens look like.


If greys exist, that's what they look like (according to many people). It would be pointless to make them look any different. IJ is meant to reflect our history after all.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:32 PM   #5
Vance
IndyFan
 
Vance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 663
There's a bit of difference though, it's how they're used.

The Ark. We know the biblical stories, we know the history of Tanis. But there's always a moment of 'what the hell are we messing with' in it. The Ark is never explained in detail, it's never really 'used'.. it's a mysterious entity all its own that WANTS to stay hidden. And it is... buried for 22 years, out of the hands of the Nazis.

Sankara Stone. We actually don't even know what they DO, aside from glow and get hot. They're objects of some power and mystery, and, in the end, Indiana gives the 'item of luck' back to the people who rightfully owned it. We're not given, however, a 90 minute lecture on the history of Shiva, etc... though we do get just enough explanation to know what it is.

The Grail. While a bit more explained, it's in keeping with what's come before. We're told the Grail lore in backstory, and then it's off to the quest.

Akator. Suddenly, things change with the aliens. Every conspiracy theory from the Cold War (such as the man-I-never-want-to-hear-about-it-again Roswell) is back with a vengence. Do we hear about their influence, is there any mystery or sense of awe about it? About as much as seeing Greedo shoot first.

And, to drive the point home, we even get the UFO shot, the live alien, and a bizzare psychic thing going on...

There's plenty you can do with aliens, and, indeed, Spielberg HAS done a better job twice in the past to be sure. But, this isn't it.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:36 PM   #6
blueoakleyz
IndyFan
 
blueoakleyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolaRam2
The alien aspect of this movie would have been more convincing if it didn't just play off stereotypical images of what aliens look like and a really cheesey CGI UFO.


Yeah the CGI is awful

If they're going to do CGI in a big film like this why can't they spend the time to make it look real?
blueoakleyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:37 PM   #7
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 806
There was too much explanation of the Macguffin, but that's what happens when you use something that isn't just about magic and religion.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:39 PM   #8
Lennongrad
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 7
blueoakly i get the feeling that any cgi looks crappy to you. I happen to think it was done extremely well

I have to say im ecstatic with this film.

As a non religious person im so pleased spielberg and Lucas have brought my beliefs to the screen.

in case your interested i believe that Aliens made contact thousands of years ago and primitive humans worshipped them as gods. Thats were all ancient cultures get there gods and goddesses from. To much evidence in ancient art for it not to be true. every ancient culture in the world has stories about UFO's and Aliens.

Its a billion times more plausible than a man with with a white beard living in the clouds.

To Have Indy finally confronted with the truth about our civilisation is refreshing and exciting. Im so pleased they had the confidence to go with this script because it is truely amazing!
It also anoys me that people are bashing it because it doesnt fit with thier religous ideals and beliefs.

Why is it so impossible to believe something that is scientifically plausible???
Lennongrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:39 PM   #9
Dr.Sartorius
IndyFan
 
Dr.Sartorius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueoakleyz
Yeah the CGI is awful

If they're going to do CGI in a big film like this why can't they spend the time to make it look real?

Hmmmm....a real looking alien.....Interesting concept considering we've never actually seen real aliens.
Dr.Sartorius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:40 PM   #10
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 806
The CGI at the end was fine. CGI is how films are made these days. People need to get over the fact and stop boring the rest of us.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:42 PM   #11
blueoakleyz
IndyFan
 
blueoakleyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major West
The CGI at the end was fine. CGI is how films are made these days. People need to get over the fact and stop boring the rest of us.

It's not something to get over. They continue to bastardize films with CGI and it makes them look totally goofy and unrealistic. If they're going to do CGI they should at least take the time to make it look absolutely 100% realistic. Now if they were puppets, and the audience knew they were puppets, at LEAST they're right there in the scene. Nothing is a cartoon mixed with real life. All the angles of light reflection are perfect etc.
I mean lucas and spielberg have lost all creativity because of this crutch.
blueoakleyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:44 PM   #12
blueoakleyz
IndyFan
 
blueoakleyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sartorius
Hmmmm....a real looking alien.....Interesting concept considering we've never actually seen real aliens.

Well the point being that it didn't look like a real physical object (regardless of what it is). You can ALWAYS tell with CGI with things like this. They don't spend enough time making sure the textures and lighting and reflections etc are just as they would be in real life.
blueoakleyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:50 PM   #13
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueoakleyz
It's not something to get over. They continue to bastardize films with CGI and it makes them look totally goofy and unrealistic. If they're going to do CGI they should at least take the time to make it look absolutely 100% realistic. Now if they were puppets, and the audience knew they were puppets, at LEAST they're right there in the scene. Nothing is a cartoon mixed with real life. All the angles of light reflection are perfect etc.
I mean lucas and spielberg have lost all creativity because of this crutch.

Sorry but *yawn*.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 05:55 PM   #14
MolaRam2
IndyFan
 
MolaRam2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major West
The CGI at the end was fine. CGI is how films are made these days. People need to get over the fact and stop boring the rest of us.

CGI is one of Indy 4's biggest problems. It looked very, very goofy and out of place.
MolaRam2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 06:08 PM   #15
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolaRam2
CGI is one of Indy 4's biggest problems. It looked very, very goofy and out of place.

It was very sparingly used compared to many other blockbuster films, and like I said films are made this way these days. I think people will just have to deal with it.

You couldn't make Indy IV today like they did in the 80s. Nobody works with old fashioned effects any more.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 06:10 PM   #16
blueoakleyz
IndyFan
 
blueoakleyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 182
If they couldn't have made this movie the way they did with 80s technology then maybe it would have been better if they used old technology. It would have been creativity with limitation and that's better.

Scorpion- animation was way too robotic
Ants- bad lighting and texture and animation
alien- well just looked like a big ol shiny video game
blueoakleyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 06:14 PM   #17
Vance
IndyFan
 
Vance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 663
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major West
You couldn't make Indy IV today like they did in the 80s. Nobody works with old fashioned effects any more.

Maybe they should. The problem, and I see this in some shots in the Indy 4 trailer, is that FX teams get very lazy with CGI an awful lot. There's a desire to make something look "WOW KEWL!" but not a desire to make it look "REAL".

I mean, there are shots in Pixar's Cars that are minboggling in how great they look... yet Speed Racer looks like absolute crap. You see, as soon as someone says "We'll just CGI this shot", you know the shot is going to look like crap.
Vance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 06:19 PM   #18
blueoakleyz
IndyFan
 
blueoakleyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 182
Yeah really

You didn't see people adding cartoon FX shots in movies in the 80s (Except for roger rabbit which meant to) so why are they doing it now?
blueoakleyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 06:25 PM   #19
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueoakleyz
If they couldn't have made this movie the way they did with 80s technology then maybe it would have been better if they used old technology. It would have been creativity with limitation and that's better.

Scorpion- animation was way too robotic
Ants- bad lighting and texture and animation
alien- well just looked like a big ol shiny video game

Well you couln't get shots like that with a real scorpion. You can't train or direct a scorpion. Same goes for Ants. They couldn't even do that whole sequence at all without CGI.

The gopher? Maybe they could have used a furry puppet like in Caddyshack, no wait that looked pretty bad and worse than a CGI one.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 06:26 PM   #20
blueoakleyz
IndyFan
 
blueoakleyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 182
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major West
Well you couln't get shots like that with a real scorpion. You can't train or direct a scorpion. Same goes for Ants. They couldn't even do that whole sequence at all without CGI.

The gopher? Maybe they could have used a furry puppet like in Caddyshack, no wait that looked pretty bad and worse than a CGI one.

Then I'm sorry to say, don't do them!
even if the one in caddyshack looked faker, at least it was there, IN the shot
blueoakleyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 06:29 PM   #21
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueoakleyz
Then I'm sorry to say, don't do them!
even if the one in caddyshack looked faker, at least it was there, IN the shot

It's a special effect. Who cares how it's achieved.

ILM was created as a special effects company, that's what they do. They create special effects. They were cutting edge in the 80s and they are cutting edge today.

Last edited by Major West : 05-22-2008 at 06:39 PM.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 06:44 PM   #22
blueoakleyz
IndyFan
 
blueoakleyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 182
I just have a problem with things when they're not actually there.
I watched the new TMNT movie and I thought "what the heck is the point?" the karate doesn't impress me since it's not actually happening.
blueoakleyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 06:45 PM   #23
Chris Jones
IndyFan
 
Chris Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington State, USA
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolaRam2
CGI is one of Indy 4's biggest problems. It looked very, very goofy and out of place.

Well of course it did (for the most part). We're use to Indy movies being more realistic and since we've come to expect that, we expected the same in this movie. So of course we picked out all the CGI bits and criticized them. It's not like the Star Wars Prequels where almost everything was CGI so you didn't really go looking for the CGI shots, they were there in every scene.

CGI isn't always a bad thing, though in Indy's sake, i would rather have no CGI, but it would have been hard to do the things they did with the CGI in this film without it, like the nuke for example.

It was still a great movie, i enjoyed it immensely. Raiders and LC are still my favs of course, but Indy 4 was still a treat. It was fast paced in my opinion and left me wanting more by the end. I didn't want Indy to go, and the end of the film didn't seem like the end to me in the least bit. It was like a new beginning.

You can't expect sequels to be the same as the originals, so why bother criticizing them on that point? We already know it isn't as good as Raiders, but that doesn't mean it is bad.
Chris Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 07:23 PM   #24
Major West
IndyFan
 
Major West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Crystal Lake
Posts: 806
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueoakleyz
I just have a problem with things when they're not actually there.
I watched the new TMNT movie and I thought "what the heck is the point?" the karate doesn't impress me since it's not actually happening.

I see what you mean, but with the exception of some ants, a gopher and some other creepy crawlies. Most everything else was real, the stunts all the actors, and some of if not the best sets the IJ franchise have ever seen. There's so much that's cool in this film that was real it seems odd to focus on a bit of CGI.
Major West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2008, 08:07 PM   #25
IrishLuck1980
IndyFan
 
IrishLuck1980's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 380
God how I despise CGI. Other then using it for backgrounds, it sucks.
IrishLuck1980 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 02:26 AM.