*MORE* - Spielberg. The Formula. Busted.

Pookie

Pookie

Veteran
Here is a shot-by-shot comparison of Raiders of the Lost Ark and 31 other films made between 1919 and 1973.
To say that there are a few similarities would be an understatement.

Spielberg.

Busted.

 
When a movie is explicitly an homage to movie serials and adventure films of a bygone era, this is not only unsurprising but expected. It's the whole point of the exercise to begin with.
 
Batutta said:
When a movie is explicitly an homage to movie serials and adventure films of a bygone era, this is not only unsurprising but expected. It's the whole point of the exercise to begin with.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but the shots are "identical", not "derived" from, "identical".
 
it really doesn't matter what you call it. homage, rip off, or pastiche, this is why people watch his movies. sorta like why folks ride harleys. personally, i don't see the appeal. but it's proved to be a sound business model.
 
#4. Scrooge McDuck Inspires The Entire Opening Sequence of Raiders

Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of those requisite movies that everybody has to either see or be set out on an ice floe and shunned from society forever. One of its most iconic sequences is the cold open, where Indy invades a temple, steals a treasure and outruns a giant boulder. Once again, you can thank Scrooge McDuck for that: Spielberg and Lucas were separately inspired by two different Scrooge McDuck comics to write two different parts of that scene. Spielberg has openly admitted that both the idol Indy is stealing and the boulder that chases him afterward came from the 1954 Uncle Scrooge comic The Seven Cities of Cibola, written and drawn by seminal Duck artist Carl Barks. In the comic, the ducks and the Beagle Boys find a priceless idol in an underground cavern, just like Jones.

http://www.cracked.com/article_19021_5-amazing-things-invented-by-donald-duck-seriously.html

scroll down to #4

http://www.dialbforblog.com/archives/429/
 
Where is the law that says you can't copy shots from old movies? Do theatre goers get upset that Shakespeare gets redone over and over? If dialogue can be repeated over and over with different emotional and stylistic flourishes then why can't images be repeated with subtle variations?

"Good artists borrow, great artists steal."
 
A lot of those shots in that clip were fiddled with though. Set on repeat for a few secs to match the length of the other clip. Also, the Raiders side has been cropped from Cinemascope to Pan/Scan to match the aspect ratio on the other side.

Besides, Raiders is a good movie. If you want to bash Hollywood, do it with the Mummy franchise or any of the other blatant Raiders knock offs.
 
Yeah if I was going to bash Hollywood it certainly would not involve the man that shot Dual and Jaws back when he was a kid... Respect.
 
Hollywood always 99% sucked. There was no glorious age of milk and honey, only the few standouts among the drek, just like today. (Only today's drek is a zillion times better than yesterday's drek.)

And that's just fine.
 
David Jimerson said:
Hollywood always 99% sucked. There was no glorious age of milk and honey, only the few standouts among the drek, just like today. (Only today's drek is a zillion times better than yesterday's drek.)

And that's just fine.
Click to expand...

In defense of yesterday's dreck...at least you could tell it was dreck from miles away. Hollywood knew it was dreck and marketed it like dreck. Today, they give you absurdly polished turds and try and convince you it's filet mignon. The fact that millions of dollars and expertise and man hours were put into something so terrible makes it all that more offensive.
 
David Jimerson said:
...There was no glorious age of milk and honey...
Click to expand...
Was too.
Sure this milk-n-honey age was speckled throughout many decades; but when was the last time we had a 1939 or a 1982?
A 1962, a 1959 or a 1942?
Hell, our last 1994 was damn near twenty years ago...





*typo
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
Today, they give you absurdly polished turds and try and convince you it's filet mignon. The fact that millions of dollars and expertise and man hours were put into something so terrible makes it all that more offensive.
Click to expand...


See...... :shocked:

Told ya. :happy:

Dead. :violin:
 
Batutta said:
In defense of yesterday's dreck...at least you could tell it was dreck from miles away. Hollywood knew it was dreck and marketed it like dreck. Today, they give you absurdly polished turds and try and convince you it's filet mignon. The fact that millions of dollars and expertise and man hours were put into something so terrible makes it all that more offensive.
Click to expand...
+1.99999
 
CallaghanFilms said:
Was too.
Sure this milk-n-honey age was speckled throughout many decades; but when was the last time we had a 1939 or a 1983?
A 1962, a 1959 or a 1942?
Hell, our last 1994 was damn near twenty years ago...
Click to expand...

There have been great years, of course (though I think you mean 1982 rather than 1983). But there was never an age.

1998-1999 wasn't a bad stretch, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top