Indiana Jones 4

People arent attacking Spielberg, Lucas, Kaminski, etc for no reason...its because they saw the film, noticed problems, and were pissed off........as they have the right to be.

There is no excuse for them to make a film that isn't up to par with the rest of the series with the amount of talent, knowledge, money, and time they have. A homage to earlier entrys isnt good enough.

I have mentioned what I didn't like about the film.... most of it has to do with Spielberg. I may not have been born in the 60's or 70's and experienced the films as early as many have....but Spielberg is still a god to me...and thats what makes it so disappointing.
 
Last edited:
My old dad went and saw it and didn't like it, which is remarkable since this man likes just about everything.

I, on the other hand, have decided the best way to not ruin the series and my nostalgia for it is to pretend it never happened. I haven't seen it yet and I think I've talked to enough friends to realize that I would be dumb to subject myself to something that I will probably hate.

There...it never happened. :)
 
CaptainMench said:
OOoooo....

Thanks for showing us how much you really care about film.

I'm honored to share a thread with you.

You didn't change my mind, but you made me think.

Ok, I'm done thinking now.

Moving on.

CaptM
Click to expand...
Please do.

People were able to disagree without getting personal until you came along.

Calling Members "Hacks" and "Bad Parents" shows very little class IMHO.

Mike
 
You know, on the matter of pacing. I said when I saw the first trailer that the shots lingered and that the composition / lighting seemed off.

There are literally dozens of strange edits in this show - in Raiders there is only one or two. One, the most noticable, occurs in the Raven bar, as Indy is about to part ways with Marion after she rejects his offer to buy the headpiece. It is a jump cut - duplicate frames as he walks away.

In the new picture, every scene seems to have issues. Pacing is way off. The tilt-down (a duplicate shot of the one seen in Raiders) establish of the university lingers for much too long and the tilt never settles. It is a throw-away that 2nd Unit should've nailed - yet it is screwed up.

The very strange hat / shadow shot at the top of the picture is another example of edit pacing gone awry. It was WRONG in the trailer and is WRONG in the release print. Everyone was at pains to reveal that "it's only the trailer", yet Mike Kahn apparently never found these glaring issues to his distaste.

He is one of the top editors working in the industry. It is a beguiling situation, this odd, damaged film coming from Hollywood's best.

e
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Please do.

People were able to disagree without getting personal until you came along.

Calling Members "Hacks" and "Bad Parents" shows very little class IMHO.

Mike
Click to expand...

Mikie... should have left it alone.

I wasn't the one who made this personal. Reread it. I never called anyone a hack. I said there were hacks around. Oh, yeah -- there was the one about if the shoe fits... and yes the shoe fit. But honestly!! Bad Parenting was a joke on a joke, come on, you've got better things to do than to egg on a Skull lover.

I liked the hat scene too saw nothing wrong with it - picked up the hat, BOOM it was on, I said HEY! There's that shadow again! Same thing with the lights on his eyes later in the film.

Again, you are reading too much theory into this. Not like Spielberg/Lucas wrote a treatise on making the perfect film/franchise and then set out to follow all their rules. You've sat back AFTER the fact and wrote your theory books and now are upset when history is supposed to repeat itself and you all thought it should have followed the rules you wrote!

Like when the critics panned Beethoven for starting a symphony with a dominant chord. Unheard of!! Didn't follow ANY of the rules - the rules the critics set forth based on the history of the past = NOT of the artists themselves. It was a brilliant move at the time and it still is a shocking move 200 years later.

Here's a personal attack... I bet you are all LOST crazies... 24 crazies... everything has to be a franchise... heck, even Burger King and McDonalds and Baha Fresh. Wow, if the bathroom was on the other side of the counter I'd bet you would freak out!

I'm not saying you have to like this film. Just don't get so weepy eyed when it didn't measure up to something else.

Oh, and I just heard there is a Back to the Future 4 movie planned too. Now, THAT was the perfect trilogy!! Raiders had it's flaws from the second movie on. Children whipping children? Believe me, THAT was when I lost interest in the set AS a set and came back one at a time.

CaptM

CaptM
 
CaptainMench said:
Mikie... should have left it alone.

I wasn't the one who made this personal. Reread it. I never called anyone a hack. I said there were hacks around. Oh, yeah -- there was the one about if the shoe fits... and yes the shoe fit. But honestly!! Bad Parenting was a joke on a joke, come on, you've got better things to do than to egg on a Skull lover.
Click to expand...
You've been plenty personal with some of your remarks but I won't waste my time with someone who feels the need to insult people in order to get their point across. Parenting comment aside.

Cheers,

Mike
 
PS- I would rather stick to debating how terrible the movie was.

Surviving the ground zero nuke.
Tarzan and the monkeys.
Surviving not one but 3 huge waterfalls.

The fact that Indy seemed more than happy to help the enemy.
The enemy also seemed boring with no real life or interest.

The wedding scene...

And the lackluster blah blah blah dialogue.
When she asked Indy in the truck about the other women in his life since herself... we ALL knew what the answer was going to be before he even said it. We just prayed it wasn't going to be that cheesy.

It was. :D

I will just try to forget that they even made this debacle.
 
Posted 02-14-2008
Mark Harris said:
Ha ha, I only gripe so much about it because it is such a repeated trend with these knuckleheads. Lucas does the same thing over and over. Makes something good. Then decides he has to make it stupid for the sake of selling shi* at burgerking and getting morons to like it. It pisses me off because they do it on purpose and for the basest of reasons. The cock-suckers have enough money, why can't they just make decent poo pooing films? poo poo these jackasses.

Sorry, no coffee this morning...:)
Click to expand...
Don't apologize. You were dead on.
:thumbsup:
 
Wow -- let's talk about getting personal!!! And you, MAH cheer this?

At least I never called anyone the CS word. But you feel it is ok...

Nice.

CaptM
 
CaptainMench said:
Again, you are reading too much theory into this. Not like Spielberg/Lucas wrote a treatise on making the perfect film/franchise and then set out to follow all their rules. You've sat back AFTER the fact and wrote your theory books and now are upset when history is supposed to repeat itself and you all thought it should have followed the rules you wrote!/QUOTE]

Disagree. Even taken on its own terms the film isn't very good. I didn't go into the theater with my analytical hat on. I just wasn't entertained for the most part, and afterwards tried to ascertain why the film didn't work. Comparing it to the previous films in the franchise, as well as other adventure films, is completely fair. Why should it matter what someone's personal reasons for not liking something is anyways? Suppose I DID write a theory book and am upset, so what? Am I supposed to go, oh, you're right, the movie is actually good! No, I'd still think it's lousy, so what's the point of that argument?
Click to expand...
 
CaptainMench said:
Wow -- let's talk about getting personal!!! And you, MAH cheer this?

At least I never called anyone the CS word. But you feel it is ok...

Nice.

CaptM
Click to expand...

I think what bothered people here is that you started criticizing others opinions, not the merits of the film itself.
 
Batutta -- I'm not talking about you, or me here. We walked in and wanted to be entertained. You weren't. I was. THAT I agree with. I'm not saying everyone should have liked this film. Far from it. About as far from it as the other people saying you have to hate it.

I didn't start criticizing people until they made assumptions and GROSS generalizations about ME... ME! Personally me. That was when I made a point to show Mr. Olsen the error of his ways and that's when Filmguy jumped all over me and I showed him the errors of HIS ways.

But all the rhetoric being spewed here is sickening.

Surviving waterfalls = jumping out of a plane with a life boat?
Swinging with monkeys = mine car roller coaster?
Ground Zero Nuke = 9,345,332 bullets being shot at him thru 3 movies

PLEASE!!! Accept one you accept them all. I accept them all.

CaptM
 
CaptainMench said:
But all the rhetoric being spewed here is sickening.

Surviving waterfalls = jumping out of a plane with a life boat?
Swinging with monkeys = mine car roller coaster?
Ground Zero Nuke = 9,345,332 bullets being shot at him thru 3 movies

PLEASE!!! Accept one you accept them all. I accept them all.

CaptM
Click to expand...
I agree completely! I never accepted Temple of Doom, and I don't have to. Most of your examples are from that movie, wonder why.

If you read this thread you would know that I said...
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
If you LOVED The Temple of Doom this one is right up your alley. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

I hated Temple for that very reason, all the over the top BS.

This movie makes TOD look like a joke!

We don't have to like them all do we??

I didn't. Raiders is my favourite. Crusade wasn't bad...

The other two don't deserve a second viewing IMHO.

Cheers,

Mike
 
Last edited:
CaptainMench said:
Wow -- let's talk about getting personal!!! And you, MAH cheer this?

At least I never called anyone the CS word. But you feel it is ok...

Nice.

CaptM
Click to expand...
Please! Are you for real? He's not talking to anyone on this board directly as you have. That's what makes it personal.

Nice try at twisting things around though. :thumbsup:
 
Man, I'm with you 100%!!

Wish I had seen that quote earlier.

(Though I actually like this one more than TOD - that kid drove me nuts!)

Comparing Skull to Raiders and hating it is fine. Making fun of it as 'part of a perfect franchise' is just nonsense.

EDIT: Whoops... posted that for the other post...

The CS reference is DIRECTLY related to two individuals who have feelings and families. Just because they aren't on this board (or are they?) doesn't mean it wasn't a personal attack.

CaptM
 
CaptainMench said:
Man, I'm with you 100%!!

Wish I had seen that quote earlier.

(Though I actually like this one more than TOD - that kid drove me nuts!)

Comparing Skull to Raiders and hating it is fine. Making fun of it as 'part of a perfect franchise' is just nonsense.

EDIT: Whoops... posted that for the other post...

The CS reference is DIRECTLY related to two individuals who have feelings and families. Just because they aren't on this board (or are they?) doesn't mean it wasn't a personal attack.

CaptM
Click to expand...
That's fine but I don't find it personal because they will never read it.

We have a community here and there are rules against insulting the Members here. Just my 2 cents.

"Comparing Skull to Raiders and hating it is fine. Making fun of it as 'part of a perfect franchise' is just nonsense."

I agree. I don't think anyone is really doing that here though.

Cheers,

Mike
 
CaptainMench said:
The CS reference is DIRECTLY related to two individuals who have feelings and families. Just because they aren't on this board (or are they?) doesn't mean it wasn't a personal attack.

CaptM
Click to expand...

We have gotten the truth! Captain Mench of San Francisco is actually George Lucas! Howdy, George! When are you going back to making those experimental films you've been talking about for 30 years now and leaving your beloved franchises alone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top