Crystal Skull hatred knows no bounds

[StoneTriple]

By the time we get KOTCS the analogy would be the later and campier of the Roger Moore Bond offerings.

Interesting. That's exactly how I feel about Crusade. It just seems over-the-top silly at times (airplane in tunnel, Hitler signing diary, Marcus-as-buffoon). Kingdom went back to some of the more interesting, serious, and deeper dialogue. It still had some silliness (Tarzan swing, giant snake, library slide), but it was less of a comedic film to me.

 

[Darth Vile]

To bring it full circle, I doubt ANYONE will be showing KotCS in theaters or Parks in 30 years time, and if they do I'll be willing to wager it's become the Rocky Horror Picture Show of it's time where people come and throw stuffed monkeys and rice during the wedding scene, bark like a dog when Mutt makes and entrance and sing the Raiders March when it comes on.

I'm sure that will be the case... However I'm confident that big effects driven movies like The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Iron Man etc. will still be played. My point being that I think it has little to do with KOTCS use (or overuse) of CGI fuelled sequences, but rather that Raiders is, and probably always will be, the definitive Indy movie/moment (organic action and all). I.e. it's a bonafide 'great' Hollywood movie. KOTCS isn't (and was never going to be).

 

[Montana Smith]

... and when I say "at heart", I mean that whilst I don't believe Raiders aspired to be anything more than what it was i.e. a big old fashioned action/adventure romp that appealed across generation/demographic... it was a movie that always had mass appeal.

That's the crux of the matter. ROTLA didn't set out to be what it eventually did become. It was a rip-roaring adventure, harking back to 1930s cliffhangers, but accomplished using 1960s sensibilities to film-making. I suppose there's no way you can set out to create a classic, but that's what ROTLA has become. It's ingrained in the popular culture and was itself parodied many times over in magazines, cartoons, TV series and sit-coms, and other films.

It's easy for such a phenomenon to lose control of itself and become the parody of itself.

Now, I think, is the time to take stock, as there's no way that Indy can beat the cliffhangers of KOTCS without doing that into and out of orbit nude streak round the world that somebody mentioned recently!

 

[Montana Smith]

Interesting. That's exactly how I feel about Crusade. It just seems over-the-top silly at times (airplane in tunnel, Hitler signing diary, Marcus-as-buffoon). Kingdom went back to some of the more interesting, serious, and deeper dialogue. It still had some silliness (Tarzan swing, giant snake, library slide), but it was less of a comedic film to me.

Those were the acts along the route that prepared me for KOTCS. TLC appeared to have more earnest dialogue, though what there is of "the more interesting, serious, and deeper dialogue" in KOTCS kind of got lost in the headlong rush and the huge set pieces. I know they're there, and there were some touching lines, but KOTCS is probably a film that requires numerous views before the nuances are really appreciated.

In KOTCS the characters are overshadowed by events, and are quite literally dictated to by the artifact. In the others Indy was making it up as he went along, but in the fourth outing he eventually wasn't even allowed that option.

 

[Udvarnoky]

Today nothing is impossible and KotCS is the result. It's a shame really because if they had shunned CGI they might have reached a little deeper into themselves and cut the comicbook scenes and brought it all a little more down to earth, so to say.

I think it was less a reliance on CGI than it was a more general issue of taking the budget/resources for granted. And I think the problem was less that the action was less "down to earth" than it was that it was less inventive than in the previous films. After all, Indy4 had some of most practical special effects of the whole series - the pyramid, the obelisk pillars coming together, the disappearing staircase. But they were all squandered by being presented as mere images instead of exploited as the great sequences they could easily have been. When Spielberg was able to score the Nazi flying wing for Raiders, he treated that thing like a toy and milked it for all it was worth - he staged a big fistfight around it, locked people in the cockpit, knocked people out with triangular chocks, made use of the propeller, and finally blew the friggin' thing up. There just wasn't the same type of...gratitude...on display in Indy4 when the heroes were sent over waterfalls or were being chased by Ugha warriors or were part of a chase that included a huge vehicle with giant spinning blades on it. These were sensational sights that could easily have been explored and made into memorable set pieces but instead were merely executed as "moments" that just "happened," and that's it. It was plain wasteful, and the other films didn't have the luxury of that kind of waste.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I think it was less a reliance on CGI than it was a more general issue of taking the budget/resources for granted. And I think the problem was less that the action was less "down to earth" than it was that it was less inventive than in the previous films. After all, Indy4 had some of most practical special effects of the whole series - the pyramid, the obelisk pillars coming together, the disappearing staircase. But they were all squandered by being presented as mere images instead of exploited as the great sequences they could easily have been. When Spielberg was able to score the Nazi flying wing for Raiders, he treated that thing like a toy and milked it for all it was worth - he staged a big fistfight around it, locked people in the cockpit, knocked people out with triangular chocks, made use of the propeller, and finally blew the friggin' thing up. There just wasn't the same type of...gratitude...on display in Indy4 when the heroes were sent over waterfalls or were being chased by Ugha warriors or were part of a chase that included a huge vehicle with giant spinning blades on it. These were sensational sights that could easily have been explored and made into memorable set pieces but instead were merely executed as "moments" that just "happened," and that's it. It was plain wasteful, and the other films didn't have the luxury of that kind of waste.

Great points and very skillfully argued. Kudos.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

I think it was less a reliance on CGI than it was a more general issue of taking the budget/resources for granted.

I didn't use the word "reliance," I suggested that imposing limits, (shunning CGI) might have brought out greater creativity, (reached a little deeper into themselves)and illiminating the outlandish, (cutting the comicbook scenes) might have resulted in a storyline that was less fantasy(a little more down to earth), figuratively...or: in a manner of saying, (so to say).

Which in effect is what you've written literally, or more plainly:

...it was less inventive than in the previous films.

AND expanded on:

...they were all squandered by being presented as mere images instead of exploited as the great sequences they could easily have been. [There] were sensational sights that could easily have been explored and made into memorable set pieces but instead were merely executed as "moments" that just "happened," and that's it. It was plain wasteful, and the other films didn't have the luxury of that kind of waste.

All points I've been referencing/building on, including in this thread:

Temple is another step away from struggling artist to indulgent artist, and from stunt film to effects film.

 

[Raiders90]

ROTLA owed a lot in genre to the early Connery Bond movies. Think Dr. No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. Then along came Thunderball / Temple of Doom.

By the time we get KOTCS the analogy would be the later and campier of the Roger Moore Bond offerings.

Just as Bond had to throttle back (the Daniel Craig era), I hope it's time that Indy can also throttle back a bit.

The question, then, is: would Dr. No set the world on fire if released today?

It's hard to go back over broken ground, and as I wrote above, it would be a brave move.



Now I liked the scene for its absurdity. Yet, film can't show a character's feelings without words or the visual frame of the character's face. The scene conveys much more in text, in flight and post-landing. As it stands we have to amuse ourselves with the sight of a flying fridge. If Indy had done this at the end of ROTLA in order to escape the power of the Ark it would have been way out of place. Yet, TOD and TLC prepare us for the event. It's a logical step for a character who over the years increasingly defies logic.

Same goes for the waterfalls, the monkeys, the snake in the sandpit etc etc. Maybe just one of those scenes, but all of them add up to so much more than their total. For me the fridge is still a keeper. A few less other wild rides could have made room for more suspense, more exploration, more mystery, all accompanied by witty character-creating dialogue. That would have made me love the movie, rather than relegating to the merely "likeable" stack.

I'd say rather than jumping to the Moore years, a better comparison with KOTCS would be Diamonds are Forever, which like KOTCS was goofy and many of it's elements (for example the Hippie vllains in DaF; all the 50s stuff in KOTCS) depended largely on the period it was set in. DaF was supposed to be 'current' and thus you see a lot of early 70s stuff in there, while you see a lot of 50s stuff in KOTCS. Both are pretty campy compared to their 'prequels.'

 

[Mickiana]

Stonetriple, I stand corrected. Sadly, I think you are right.

 

[Joosse]

I'd say rather than jumping to the Moore years, a better comparison with KOTCS would be Diamonds are Forever, which like KOTCS was goofy and many of it's elements (for example the Hippie vllains in DaF; all the 50s stuff in KOTCS) depended largely on the period it was set in. DaF was supposed to be 'current' and thus you see a lot of early 70s stuff in there, while you see a lot of 50s stuff in KOTCS. Both are pretty campy compared to their 'prequels.'

I completely have to agree with that.

Same actor, but years older...

Seems to be in an era that is not his own....

You keep wanting to like it, because it's part of the series so you thuink to yourself that it can't be that bad. And then you watch it again and it dissapoints...

 

[Montana Smith]

I completely have to agree with that.

Same actor, but years older...

Seems to be in an era that is not his own....

You keep wanting to like it, because it's part of the series so you thuink to yourself that it can't be that bad. And then you watch it again and it dissapoints...

The film analogies will vary, depending how out of place you see KOTCS in relation to its predecessors. Diamonds are Forever was still in the ballpark of Thunderball. (Bond movies have always been contemporary).

For me KOTCS takes it further into Moonraker territory, though Moonraker with Connery still playing the role. That's how out of place Indy is in the 1950s, as brought to life by Lucas' veneration of that era.

Throughout KOTCS Indy is a victim: of the 1950s that are alien to him; of Spalko who has him ignominiously bundled into the trunk of a car; of the FBI who distrust him; of political attitudes that distrust almost everyone; of the skull that dictates his actions; of his own age; of cliffhangers that are much more extreme than he's faced before.

Yet, he survives intact. That's the remarkable and promising outcome of KOTCS. He's still a dinosaur (like 'Dirty' Harry Callahan), he's an irreverent throwback to a former age, and unlike Bond he doesn't always do it better, and that's why most of us probably love the character, if not the movie itself.

 

[Cole]

I think it was less a reliance on CGI than it was a more general issue of taking the budget/resources for granted. And I think the problem was less that the action was less "down to earth" than it was that it was less inventive than in the previous films. After all, Indy4 had some of most practical special effects of the whole series - the pyramid, the obelisk pillars coming together, the disappearing staircase. But they were all squandered by being presented as mere images instead of exploited as the great sequences they could easily have been. When Spielberg was able to score the Nazi flying wing for Raiders, he treated that thing like a toy and milked it for all it was worth - he staged a big fistfight around it, locked people in the cockpit, knocked people out with triangular chocks, made use of the propeller, and finally blew the friggin' thing up. There just wasn't the same type of...gratitude...on display in Indy4 when the heroes were sent over waterfalls or were being chased by Ugha warriors or were part of a chase that included a huge vehicle with giant spinning blades on it. These were sensational sights that could easily have been explored and made into memorable set pieces but instead were merely executed as "moments" that just "happened," and that's it. It was plain wasteful, and the other films didn't have the luxury of that kind of waste.

I don't really see how the comparison is warranted.

So an awesome fight scene is centered around the Nazi plane......I don't see how that has much place in this discussion.

It's not like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was done on some shoe-string budget here........we're talking about the guys who made 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' pairing up. 20 million in 1981 was pretty healthy then.

I don't think they frivilously used money on 'Crystal Skull' "just because they could" as you seem to be implying - while sacrificing the basics. If anything, I think you're argument should be about the the writing/conception stage.

If they could've thought of something better in the jungle chase involving the blade or something better with the retracting staircase - I'm sure they would have.

But the constant comparisons to 'Raiders' seems to convey a disappointment for what 'Crystal Skull' is not, rather than enjoying 'Crystal Skull' for what it is. That doesn't mean I'm "settling" for anything, but it makes for unfair comparisons.

 

[AndyLGR]

I don't really see how the comparison is warranted.

So an awesome fight scene is centered around the Nazi plane......I don't see how that has much place in this discussion.

It's not like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was done on some shoe-string budget here........we're talking about the guys who made 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' pairing up. 20 million in 1981 was pretty healthy then.

I don't think they frivilously used money on 'Crystal Skull' "just because they could" as you seem to be implying - while sacrificing the basics. If anything, I think you're argument should be about the the writing/conception stage.

If they could've thought of something better in the jungle chase involving the blade or something better with the retracting staircase - I'm sure they would have.

But the constant comparisons to 'Raiders' seems to convey a disappointment for what 'Crystal Skull' is not, rather than enjoying 'Crystal Skull' for what it is. That doesn't mean I'm "settling" for anything, but it makes for unfair comparisons.

I think the point that Udvarnoky is making is that by having real props and settings on Raiders then it made them more inventive, whereas with CGI they are only able to react to settings instead of interacting with them.

I know people keep mentioning Raiders, but its the standard that everything is judged by. Not only in the subsequent Indy movies but any other similar action adventure movie. When the bar has already been set so high with scenes like the desert chase for instance, then the temptation is probably there, as previously mentioned, to over indulge and take the scenes to the excess / verging on the ridiculous in an attempt to top previous scenes in previous movies.

As already mentioned a good comparison is the Bond movies, they did a similar thing, its a case of the film makers almost trying to top themselves with every setpiece and in the case of the Bond movies they ended up camping it up a bit more. In a similar way to KOTCS does. Yet Bond came full circle with Casino Royale and took it back to basics like the originals.

My view is that the life and soul of the action in Raiders seems more real and has a heart, and the story is not driven by huge set pieces. I thought that for KOTCS the action seemed soul less in comparison and it was like trying to fit a story in between a few set pieces. Its another example of a hollywood movie being focused on 3 or 4 big money / action set pieces and then fit what little story around them.

 

[Udvarnoky]

I don't really see how the comparison is warranted.

So an awesome fight scene is centered around the Nazi plane......I don't see how that has much place in this discussion.

Sure it does - it's an example of Spielberg exploiting an environment to its full advantage. Couldn't be more relevant to a discussion that asks why Crystal Skull's action might have felt less satisfying than that of the previous films. Rocket Surgeon suggested CGI as a culprit, and I shared an alternate viewpoint. It seemed as good a place as any to share it, too. *shrug*

It's not like 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' was done on some shoe-string budget here........we're talking about the guys who made 'Jaws' and 'Star Wars' pairing up. 20 million in 1981 was pretty healthy then.

I didn't say it was shoestring, but it was intentionally constrained, and the approach of the production was very consciously - according to Spielberg, at least - modeled after television and shot at an accelerated pace. There is a reason, given the scope of the picture, why every major studio told Lucas that they didn't believe it was possible to make the film he was pitching for $20 million before they turned him down.

I don't think they frivilously used money on 'Crystal Skull' "just because they could" as you seem to be implying - while sacrificing the basics. If anything, I think you're argument should be about the the writing/conception stage.

Oh, definitely, the [Spielberg-approved] writing is at least as much to blame, but Spielberg is known to be a director who invents on the set - some of the most memorable moments from all four films were designed this way. In fact, if the Nazi plane scene weren't so darned irrelevant to this discussion, I might point out that it was a scene that Spielberg largely improvised on the spot in lieu of rigorous storyboarding. He drew inspiration by physically exploring the setting to find his angles and come up with the ideas and beats of the sequence. See also: the conveyor belt piece in Temple of Doom.

If they could've thought of something better in the jungle chase involving the blade or something better with the retracting staircase - I'm sure they would have.

Then it's settled.

I think the point that Udvarnoky is making is that by having real props and settings on Raiders then it made them more inventive, whereas with CGI they are only able to react to settings instead of interacting with them.

Well, not really. As I said, I consider the Akator pyramids and the retracting stairs to be some of the most impressive physical effects of the whole series. The difference might be that while Spielberg likely counted himself pretty fortunate to be able to get that Nazi wing for Raiders in his budget and therefore wrung it dry of all the possible cool things he could do with it, in 2008 he can rest assured that he has all the money he needs and the best people in the business to create elaborate obelisks or disappearing stairs whenever called for. I think we pretty much agree on the bottom line though when it comes to our speculation: that necessity is the mother of invention and that Indy4 had fewer bouts of "necessity" than the previous films did from a production standpoint.

 

[Darth Vile]

My view is that the life and soul of the action in Raiders seems more real and has a heart, and the story is not driven by huge set pieces. I thought that for KOTCS the action seemed soul less in comparison and it was like trying to fit a story in between a few set pieces. Its another example of a hollywood movie being focused on 3 or 4 big money / action set pieces and then fit what little story around them.

I think Raiders, perhaps even more so than KOTCS, is a movie of big set pieces linked by small scenes of exposition. If there is a difference, it's simply that Raiders had set pieces that seemed more distinctive and worked better within the context of the movie (taking into account that Raiders was a movie ahead of the game).

KOTCS has plenty of 'heart', it's just that the action scenes/set pieces (whilst always well staged/imaginative IMHO), are in many ways simply re-treading old ground. I do prefer the reality of the 'truck chase' than the hyper reality of 'the mine cart chase' or 'the jungle chase'... but as I say, I don't think it has much to do with 'heart' or 'soul'... rather it's a case of where does one go with that style of action/movie making? Bigger and more elaborate usually. But I think that's a predictable consequence (was for me anyhow) of making a movie in the same style as the earlier movies. To use a music analogy... If you want to experience a popular music epiphany akin to what your parents experienced when hearing Revolver, Sgt Pepper for the first time, don't expect that to be replicated in 2010 by a circa 70 year old McCartney... as you'll need to look elsewhere for that experience.

 

[Rocket Surgeon]

I think the point that Udvarnoky is making is that by having real props and settings on Raiders then it made them more inventive, whereas with CGI they are only able to react to settings instead of interacting with them.

This is more in line with what I was saying...

Which is just like saying:

...it's an example of Spielberg exploiting an environment to its full advantage.

...Couldn't be more relevant to a discussion that asks why Crystal Skull's action might have felt less satisfying than that of the previous films. Rocket Surgeon suggested CGI as a culprit, and I shared an alternate viewpoint. It seemed as good a place as any to share it, too. *shrug*.

Absolutely, just one of many symptoms though...

 

[Cole]

Sure it does - it's an example of Spielberg exploiting an environment to its full advantage. Couldn't be more relevant to a discussion that asks why Crystal Skull's action might have felt less satisfying than that of the previous films. Rocket Surgeon suggested CGI as a culprit, and I shared an alternate viewpoint. It seemed as good a place as any to share it, too. *shrug*



I didn't say it was shoestring, but it was intentionally constrained, and the approach of the production was very consciously - according to Spielberg, at least - modeled after television and shot at an accelerated pace. There is a reason, given the scope of the picture, why every major studio told Lucas that they didn't believe it was possible to make the film he was pitching for $20 million before they turned him down.



Oh, definitely, the [Spielberg-approved] writing is at least as much to blame, but Spielberg is known to be a director who invents on the set - some of the most memorable moments from all four films were designed this way. In fact, if the Nazi plane scene weren't so darned irrelevant to this discussion, I might point out that it was a scene that Spielberg largely improvised on the spot in lieu of rigorous storyboarding. He drew inspiration by physically exploring the setting to find his angles and come up with the ideas and beats of the sequence. See also: the conveyor belt piece in Temple of Doom.



Then it's settled.



Well, not really. As I said, I consider the Akator pyramids and the retracting stairs to be some of the most impressive physical effects of the whole series. The difference might be that while Spielberg likely counted himself pretty fortunate to be able to get that Nazi wing for Raiders in his budget and therefore wrung it dry of all the possible cool things he could do with it, in 2008 he can rest assured that he has all the money he needs and the best people in the business to create elaborate obelisks or disappearing stairs whenever called for. I think we pretty much agree on the bottom line though when it comes to our speculation: that necessity is the mother of invention and that Indy4 had fewer bouts of "necessity" than the previous films did from a production standpoint.

Kind of like how Spielberg essentially decided on-set to perform the Spalko/Mutt sword duel on two moving vehicles instead of on the ground.

I'm trying to think......there's barely any CGI sets in the film. The only one I can think of that's purely CGI was when the alien temple starts spinning, and that's CGI for obvious reasons. Most of the other CGI was just enhancements. Or creatures that couldn't be done otherwise.

I don't think it really hampered the film.

 

[Joosse]

The film analogies will vary, depending how out of place you see KOTCS in relation to its predecessors. Diamonds are Forever was still in the ballpark of Thunderball. (Bond movies have always been contemporary).

For me KOTCS takes it further into Moonraker territory, though Moonraker with Connery still playing the role. That's how out of place Indy is in the 1950s, as brought to life by Lucas' veneration of that era.

Throughout KOTCS Indy is a victim: of the 1950s that are alien to him; of Spalko who has him ignominiously bundled into the trunk of a car; of the FBI who distrust him; of political attitudes that distrust almost everyone; of the skull that dictates his actions; of his own age; of cliffhangers that are much more extreme than he's faced before.

Yet, he survives intact. That's the remarkable and promising outcome of KOTCS. He's still a dinosaur (like 'Dirty' Harry Callahan), he's an irreverent throwback to a former age, and unlike Bond he doesn't always do it better, and that's why most of us probably love the character, if not the movie itself.

Hey Montana, how are ye?

What always surprised me about Moonraker is that they managed to take one of the best Bond books and make it into the worst Bond movie. They completely screwed up the plot.

In KOTCS there was no original plot to screw up.

 

[Montana Smith]

Hey Montana, how are ye?

Doing fine!

You've been absent for awhile. I expect you were catching up on marking your students' papers, after all that jumping out of 'planes and windows just to avoid the task! (Being a "part time" teacher, 'an all...)

What always surprised me about Moonraker is that they managed to take one of the best Bond books and make it into the worst Bond movie. They completely screwed up the plot.

In KOTCS there was no original plot to screw up.

They had only themselves to blame...

It's a case of losing sight of the goal, as well as of the origin. Of turning something great, into something a little less impressive. They threw everything into KOTCS, and as the spirit of Spalko will testify, everything can be too much.The bones of the beast are at least still visible...

 

[Joosse]

Doing fine!

Glad to hear it!

You've been absent for awhile. I expect you were catching up on marking your students' papers, after all that jumping out of 'planes and windows just to avoid the task! (Being a "part time" teacher, 'an all...)

They kept me so busy lately that I was a full time teacher for a while. But I needed the money anyway. All that shooting and travelling around the world costs money, you know...

I'll be heading off to Greece next.

They had only themselves to blame...

You know the way you say it, it sounds like a Carpenters song...

It's a case of losing sight of the goal, as well as of the origin. Of turning something great, into something a little less impressive. They threw everything into KOTCS, and as the spirit of Spalko will testify, everything can be too much.The bones of the beast are at least still visible...

Swinging monkeys is all I have to say for that....

By the way, isn't Spirit of Spalko a brand of Wodka?