Indiana Jones 4

Haven't seen it yet, but I'm wondering if soooo many years away from actually hands on making movies have left Lucas and Spielberg behind...

For example, Lucas makes the first three Star Wars stories 20 years later going so strongly into the latest technologies (greenscreen + CGI everywhere) that the actors couldn't get into character and the whole set of three movies just stunk. Lucas and Spielberg make the 4th Indy film and from all the posts and reviews it simply misses the mark. I think in both cases they probably should have found the best writers and filmmakers in Hollywood today, gave them a budget and turn them loose (with appropriate guidance of course).

On the flip side, Peter Jackson used every classic trick in the book to make TLOTR trilogy and only resorted to CGI as a last resort. The result was probably the best films ever made. Following it up with King Kong was a tactical mistake as that story has already gotten enough coverage.

What would Indy 4 look like if M. Knight wrote it and Peter Jackson directed it?

Bob
 
I was very impressed with the way this film was made. The blocking, the camerawork. the hardlight- the sound and feel of the whole thing felt orchestrated to the last detail. Which to me is great and that's what a movie should be.
 
I wouldn't throw Spielberg's name into that assessment. He's the master time and time again.

He is certainly the master, but Indy 4 shows no marks of a masters touch.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you think after you watch it.
 
Last edited:
the lord of the rings trilogy? Best films ever? Sorry to disagree. A film has to work by itself, and not as an incomplete piece. LOR 1 as a movie was an incomplete piece of cinema. The other 2 ditto. Its like watching a tv mini-series. As a whole, 7 hour film, is acceptable, but nowhere-in the same genre- as fulfilling as the First star wars film, for example.
 
I think in both cases they probably should have found the best writers and filmmakers in Hollywood today, gave them a budget and turn them loose (with appropriate guidance of course).

you miss the point entirely... They did have the best of the best.. every man and his dog's dog pitched IJ4 scripts for at least 15 years before Speilberg or Ford approved.

magic story telling only happens when inspired people carry out their unique vision. not the accountants and financiers throwing money asking the "experts" to repeat the formula.
 
Actually the script Darabont wrote Speilberg loved and Frank worked with him sharing his ideas as he sculpted it. It was Lucas who didn't like Darabonts script. Odds are the rejections through the years were because everyone said yay and then it got into George's hands and he said nay.
 
He is certainly the master, but Indy 4 shows no marks of a masters touch.

I'm looking forward to seeing what you think after you watch it.

I'm sure I'll not think too highly of the film.

the lord of the rings trilogy? Best films ever? Sorry to disagree. A film has to work by itself, and not as an incomplete piece. LOR 1 as a movie was an incomplete piece of cinema. The other 2 ditto. Its like watching a tv mini-series. As a whole, 7 hour film, is acceptable, but nowhere-in the same genre- as fulfilling as the First star wars film, for example.

I find the LotR's trilogy to be some of finest films ever made. The films never missed a beat from Part 1 to Part III, unlike other trilogy's like The Matrix, Star Wars, Indy, The Mummy, MI, Pirates, etc

It helps they shot back to back to back.

The first Star Wars was epic beyond epic, as was Empire; and then LUCAS FOCKED it all up. They've lost their magic with his tinkering.

-

I have a strong suspicion LUCAS has much of the creative control over INDY. I wish Spielberg would have made them with the same empathy he made Schindler's, Munic and the original Raiders.

It sucks they stopped taking the films seriously, but what do you expect when INDY is pimping COCA COLA and CANDY ?
 
I saw Crystal Skull last night and was pretty disappointed. Well not really...my expectations were already set super low. But boy...this is really not a good film. The cg gophers. Riding out the nuclear explosion in a refrigerator. The monkeys. The fire ants. Karen Allen. The flying saucer. Wayyyy too much exposition. Not good.

It's yet another film added to my list of movies that sometimes make me doubt if Spielberg is worthy of all the worship...

A.I.
The Terminal
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
Hook
1941
Munich
Temple of Doom
Twilight Zone

When he's "on," he can't be beat, but it's not like he hasn't had his share of flops....underwhelming at best, complete screw-ups at worst. Lucas isn't the only one who knows how to mess something up.

The following movies are the only ones I acknowledge when I'm thinking about how awesome Spielberg is :)....but for every masterpiece there's a failure or two as well.

E.T.
Jaws
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Saving Private Ryan
Schindler's List
 
A.I. is a fine film, IMO.

The Terminal is good too.

There was something missing in Munich, but it was OK overall.

Spielberg is a master in recreating past ages. Munich was really believable visually.
 
I also liked A.I. I thought that it did a very good job of capturing classic Asimov style science fiction.

I take the point that it may actually have been Lucas's influence that led to a disappointing film. On a project this big it probably really is a bit unfair to point the finger at one person in the tier structure and say its HIS or HER fault. If there is one person who is responsible it would be the producer...

Bob
 
I wonder what's the cause of Lucas's artistic decline...

I mean, he obviously is (was?) very talented and full of ideas, but there's some kind of problem there...
 
Last edited:
I wonder what's the cause Lucas's artistic decline...

I mean, he obviously is (was?) very talented and full of ideas, but there's some kind of problem there...

Too many yes men...Not enough people around, including his ex-wife, to tell him his dumb ideas stink. Also, his green screen method has exacerbated a weakness that was always there, an inability to work with actors. In his previous films, they were mostly shot on real locations and real sets with other real performers, so the actors could inspire their own performances. Now, stranded in green screen limbo, with nothing to inspire but a tennis ball on a stick, they need the guiding hand of a director, and George isn't up to the task.
 
Too many yes men...Not enough people around, including his ex-wife, to tell him his dumb ideas stink. Also, his green screen method has exacerbated a weakness that was always there, an inability to work with actors. In his previous films, they were mostly shot on real locations and real sets with other real performers, so the actors could inspire their own performances. Now, stranded in green screen limbo, with nothing to inspire but a tennis ball on a stick, they need the guiding hand of a director, and George isn't up to the task.

Is this based on something in particular (interviews, bts, comments by actors) or is it pure speculation? Just curious.
 
Is this based on something in particular (interviews, bts, comments by actors) or is it pure speculation? Just curious.

The yes men is somewhat speculation on books I have read. Many people have stated that Gary Kurtz was a key influence on the quality of American Grafitti, Star Wars and Empire, as well as Marcia Lucas, both of whom split from George before Return of the Jedi. George's work since then has been lackluster. The green screen comment is easy to ascertain, as George has ALWAYS been ribbed by actors about his lack of communication. The running joke on Star Wars was that he mostly said, "Faster, more intense," after every take.
 
Ha!

Harrison Ford: "I'm going to get the mustard."
Spielberg: "Suspense is really killing you, huh, Harrison?"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top