Indiana Jones 4

Everyone... let's play nice.

Discuss the movie, discuss what you liked, discuss what you hated. You can discuss the weird monkey swinging scene and what they were thinking until you are blue in the face but NO MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS.

Voice your opinion about an opinion but not about the person.

If anyone has any questions about this policy contact myself or another site moderator.
 
Jim Klatt said:
This is the Film Discussion forum on a filmmaking site!!! If you don't want to talk about how movies are made or theory behind it then you are going to be pretty disappointed.

You seem to be the one who is being out of line calling people unrespectable, etc.

If you want to defend the film then you will have to come up with a way that is not insulting or attacking people or that does not say that criticism and theory are bad so we shouldn't talk about it further.
Click to expand...

I understand what's behind his comments. At a certain point theory just becomes a bunch of intellectual wanking, but that doesn't mean you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Looking at the individual facets of a film and understanding how they work and interrelate in an objective way is critical to becoming a good filmmaker. Instincts will only get you so far.
 
Batutta said:
At a certain point theory just becomes a bunch of intellectual wanking, but that doesn't mean you should throw out the baby with the bathwater. Looking at the individual facets of a film and understanding how they work and interrelate in an objective way is critical to becoming a good filmmaker. Instincts will only get you so far.
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Theory IS the best way to define art. Why things work, why they don't. Theory gives us insight to the craft behind the art... not the art itself. We need theory to break down the allusions, style and basic building blocks of James Joyce... we use theory to help understand and appreciate.

Trouble is, there is no accepted research on emotional theory. Sure, Derrick Cooke comes out with a theory book stating emotional responses to every conceivable group of musical notes... yet it still is laughable to think it is that simple.

Where I get off making fun of your approach to the criticism of this film is how you think you (global you) care if a shot of a shadow is 7 frames too long. How (again, global you) think something that is different now wouldn't have been canon if it had stayed... (weird feather).

Sure - When asked to remove some notes from his opera, Mozart asked which ones because they were all perfect and necessary to complete the structure of the work as a whole.

Mozart Operas and a potential toss-away film are two different things, sure!

I am ALL about discussing film process, DP choices of lens, Director choice of... (what do they do?) or even editor's choice of cuts... but let's step back a few paces on this film.

I liked it - and I'm not going to argue with you over I liked it BECAUSE the shadow lingered 7 frames too long or I liked it BECAUSE I didn't know any better.

This honestly reminds me of the South Park episode where the one guy's Poo was being lauded as a great piece of art. Of course... you are spending much effort telling me why I cannot laugh and enjoy that large pile of poo.

Who's happier?

CaptM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guys

please

Can we get back to the film and continue this dialogue via Private Message ? I'd hate to close this before everyone has even seen it.

: /
 
Last night I watched the Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and found it had far more convincing special effects. It was even shot to look more like an Indy movie...no Kaminski diffusion or glow.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
Guys

please

Can we get back to the film and continue this dialogue via Private Message ? I'd hate to close this before everyone has even seen it.

: /
Click to expand...

So when are you going to watch this? I'm dying to hear your thoughts. On a side note, anyone who's a fan of the films should pick up this book--

51D2nMxpiEL._SS500_.jpg


http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Maki...bs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212008889&sr=8-1

It spends most of the the time on the first film. It's by the same guys who did The Making of Star Wars last year and it is awesomely thorough. My favorite is the transcript from the story notes on Raiders.
 
I loved this new film.

Loved it.

made me feel the same way I did when I watched The Last Crusade with my dad in theatre way back.

some silly moments for sure.. but I thought this was indy through and through.
 
OK, I watched it.

It's not that bad.

It's OK, but nothing special.

There was too much Hollywood in it.

There was Hollywood and kiddy joy in Raiders too, but there was a sufficient level of seriousness.

Skull is just a blockbuster. Maybe I'll watch it again, when it's released on disk, but that's it.


SPOILERS:


The nuke thing was an absurd start but the crown goes to Mutt and the monkeys scene, that was just stupid, LOL. :)

The temple and the aliens's design were cool, but please - no more aliens for at least a 3-5 years.

The father-mother-son dialog was hilarious, I enjoyed it.

Too many direct copy-pastes from previous Indy movies - lines, music, situations.

Spielberg didn't put too much effort in this one.

And the cinematography seemed screwed up a few times, but...

It was fun, I enjoyed it.

And I expected worse.


My 2c.

P.S. Cate Blanchett is a hot commie, I love evil women.
 
IMO, while I was slightly disappointed and felt as though ID4 was not as epic as the first 3, this film was still fun to watch.

However, since I was only a child when the first 3 came out, I'm certain my opinion is influenced by the fact that I am an adult now and naturally I have a grown up tendency to think along the lines of "that would never happen in real life, C'MON!!!!" but in retrospect, if this film came out 1 year after The Last Crusade, at 10 years old I would of been like, "AWESOME, MOM CAN I SEE THAT AGAIN???" Anyway, just thought I'd chime in.

Peace...
 
Look, I enjoyed this movie on a very basic level because a) I'm not an Indy freak and b) I had very low expectations.

But it you want to know why this film doesn't hold up to scrutiny, it's simple. The family dynamic doesn't work. Indy is awesome because he's a loner, an outcast, a misfit, a rebel. He does things his way. As soon as you start having him meet up with old family (like in Indy 3 and 4), you take that element away from him - and I think it's the trait that most defines his character. It reminds me of the seventh season of every sit-com where someone has a baby and then it just turns into Family Matters.

I'm not saying that Indy had many choices this time around. It's not like he can be the 60 year old rebel. But you did have the option of not making the movie.
 
I don't have time to read through 512 post, should I see this movie?

Seriously there are a lot of post, did someone throw in religion and politics?

Thanks!
Chip
 
Why did Indy 4 look so weird?

Why did Indy 4 look so weird?

Clearly, one of the big missteps of the Indiana Jones movie (besides the script), was the look of the film. What a bizarre look they chose. Now I know that Hollywood - especially any film that Speilberg works on - has total control over the look. Even if they lit it weird, they still had the chance to fix it a little in post. So that tells me someone okayed and actually *wanted* this look.

Can someone tell me why the movie looks this way?
 
I agree, and my only guess is that it was (at least in part) due to Kaminski blending his techniques with Slocombe (DP of first 3 films). At the very least the use of nets was pure Kaminski as I'm fairly certain they were never used in previous films.

I read somewhere that the look was also designed the represent the serials of the later time period of the film better although someone else might have more insight into that (still have somewhat limited experience in that time period as I wasn't even born).
 
Sure, Kaminski was emulating the lighting styles of the early Indy films, as well as the techniques of that time period. I personally did not like the result this time around... In terms of his personal style, you can certainly see the difference between this and his other works with Spielberg.
 
I mean it was bad enough so that it actually took me out of the movie a few times.

What are "nets"? What effect do they have?
 
In the old days they actually used women's nylon stockings over the lens (usually for actresses) as a form of difussion (to make them look younger).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top