Indiana Jones 5 Still Happening With Shia Says Shia...

[davejames]

For the last friggin' time: it has nothing to do with believability, it has to do with tone. Ghosts, magic and fantasy vs. aliens and science fiction.

HOW IS AN INTERDIMENSIONAL SPACE BEING LESS VIABLE THAN A BOX THAT IS LIKELY INTERDIMENSIONAL AS WELL?!

It's not about what's more viable or believable. It's about how the dark supernatural stuff of the original movie was a MUCH more natural fit with Indy's world-- seeing as much of what archaeologists tend to dig up has a basis in ancient religion.

Archaeologists aren't digging up a whole lot about ancient aliens and UFOs. The only research out there comes from the ridiculous fringe field of "UFOlgy," which no legitimate scientist takes seriously. The Mayan/alien is just a bunch of new-age nonsense that originated in the 20th century and belongs more to the world of supermarket tabloids.

You might as well have Indy face Bigfoot or "Batboy" next, if that's the standard we're going to use now. lol

 

[Gaith]

From Wikipedia:

Spielberg and Janusz Kamiński, who has shot all of the director's films since 1993's Schindler's List, rewatched the previous films to study Douglas Slocombe's style. "I didn’t want Janusz to modernize and bring us into the 21st century," Spielberg explained. "I still wanted the film to have a lighting style not dissimilar to the work Doug Slocombe had achieved, which meant that both Janusz and I had to swallow our pride. Janusz had to approximate another cinematographer's look, and I had to approximate this younger director's look that I thought I had moved away from after almost two decades."

... Lucas felt "it looks like it was shot three years after Last Crusade. The people, the look of it, everything. You’d never know there was 20 years between shooting."[44] Kamiński commented upon watching the three films back-to-back, he was amazed how each of them advanced technologically, but were all nevertheless consistent, neither too brightly or darkly lit.[2]

Raiders...

Skull:

... Lucas felt "it looks like it was shot three years after Last Crusade. The people, the look of it, everything. You’d never know there was 20 years between shooting."[44] Kamiński commented upon watching the three films back-to-back, he was amazed how each of them advanced technologically, but were all nevertheless consistent, neither too brightly or darkly lit.[2]

What a load of crap.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm looking at those pictures, and I have no idea what the complaint is. The more recent film looks like it might have been shot at sunset where the sun produces a more orange hue, but that's really all I notice.

 

[Skywalker]

Skull looks better than Raiders because Raiders took place in the drab and dreary Depression of the 1930s, while Skull took place in the post-World War II boom of the 1950s. Obviously.

 

[Gepard]

I'm looking at those pictures, and I have no idea what the complaint is. The more recent film looks like it might have been shot at sunset where the sun produces a more orange hue, but that's really all I notice.

The biggest problem with KotCS's look is the (overused) "Orange and Teal" modern blockbuster color-timing. It definitely pegs it as a modern picture.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Then that's ridiculous, per my point about Edward Hopper and the dark side.

Actually your point was about Dennis Hopper.

... and even if it weren't, you can't reduce Edward Hopper to "the dark side of America, the psychological menace that lurked in shadows". He was not a one trick pony.

You're really going to compare this

With this?

The tone couldn't possibly be more different. The time/place period is the only commonality.

And you can talk about "tone" all you want, that's not what we've been discussing at all. We've been talking about cinematography, about light, about color. So no, you won't find archaeologists in Edward Hopper's paintings, and yes, sometimes the characters in Indiana Jones look more vivid than the ones painted by Hopper, but even looking at the examples you provided us, you can see similarities in the palette used.

And there are of course many other examples:

Now I have no doubt that you will dismiss this with snark and hyperbole, but it's a shame, because it's a relevant comparison and an interesting point about how that movie was shot.

 

[Nardpuncher]

LOL, then I guess a gold plated wooden box filled with dust that can shoot thunderbolts, fireballs and evil angels up 'yer ass is more grounded in reality then? Of course it was presented in a better way and there was more of a dramatic build up to the supernatural powers of the Ark, that I can agree with, with the tall alien that grimaces at Spalko lacking the same dramatic impact as the angels' beautiful faces melting away into roaring skulls.

For the last friggin' time: it has nothing to do with believability, it has to do with tone. Ghosts, magic and fantasy vs. aliens and science fiction.

I agree.

It's not whether I believe it could be real or not, as I don't believe in the Ark or any stuff like that, but it's what people expect a guy like Indiana Jones to be looking for.
Also, don't make the strange leap to thinking I don't like Close Encounters of the Third Kind or E.T just because I didn't like aliens in the Indy movie. That does not follow.

 

[Gaith]

@The Mirrorball Man: I honestly think that you're completely misreading Edward Hopper, who did indeed largely stick to his personal and unique tone.

And you can talk about "tone" all you want, that's not what we've been discussing at all. We've been talking about cinematography, about light, about color.

Let's move beyond and delve deeper than mere color. When it comes to film visuals, cinematography (i.e., the camera's angle), light and color are the essential components of the "tone", or emotional tenor, of the overall image.

Now, I could provide in-depth explanations of how each of your above match-ups of Skull frames and Hopper images have totally opposite tones/emotional moods in spite of some very mild and superficial color commonalities. But since you didn't answer my original question, I'll pose it again: can you really not see that Nighthawks and Skull's diner scene (both pictured above) are complete tonal/emotional inverses?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

But since you didn't answer my original question, I'll pose it again: can you really not see that Nighthawks and Skull's diner scene (both pictured above) are complete tonal/emotional inverses?

Oh yes. Terribly sorry about that. Yes, I do agree that your two cherry-picked examples are complete tonal inverses. Your brownie points are well-earned.

 

[RJDiogenes]

But in any case you seem to think that "homage" means to duplicate.

No, just taking your arguments to their logical extremes.

But mischaracterizing a bit in the process. Both eras of Indy are equally consistent with their respective source material.

Just because Raiders was in color and used what was then state of the art special effects tech, doesn't mean it wasn't an homage to 30s serials; we all know that it was. And the same is true of Crystal Skull. Since each is an homage to a different style, it's hardly a leap to expect them to be tonally different.

The difference being that the Raiders style fits with the rough-and-tumble character of its protagonist, while Skull's style is badly at odds with that same character. The look of the movie just doesn't fit the hero, and that's a qualifiable artistic flaw... imho.

I don't see it myself. But Indy is a lot older in the latest story.

I'm looking at those pictures, and I have no idea what the complaint is. The more recent film looks like it might have been shot at sunset where the sun produces a more orange hue, but that's really all I notice.

I don't see it, either. I'm just assuming that people who are more attuned to cinematography are seeing things that I don't; just as I see things about story and theme that others don't.

 

[RoJoHen]

I'm looking at those pictures, and I have no idea what the complaint is. The more recent film looks like it might have been shot at sunset where the sun produces a more orange hue, but that's really all I notice.

The biggest problem with KotCS's look is the (overused) "Orange and Teal" modern blockbuster color-timing. It definitely pegs it as a modern picture.

I guess I just don't understand why that's a bad thing. It is a modern picture.

 

[TedShatner10]

It's not about what's more viable or believable. It's about how the dark supernatural stuff of the original movie was a MUCH more natural fit with Indy's world-- seeing as much of what archaeologists tend to dig up has a basis in ancient religion.

GIVE! ME! A! BREAK!

Archaeologists aren't digging up a whole lot about ancient aliens and UFOs. The only research out there comes from the ridiculous fringe field of "UFOlgy," which no legitimate scientist takes seriously.

Oh yes aliens are really out there, so the archaeologists are digging up wooden cups that grant people immortality and gold cups that turn people into dust instead.

The Mayan/alien is just a bunch of new-age nonsense that originated in the 20th century and belongs more to the world of supermarket tabloids.

So the psychopathic, genocidal Old Testament God that floods the world and kills Egyptian babies is something that's less phony.

 

[JarodRussell]

TedShatner10, I really don't get why you don't get it.

Fantasy is fantasy and Science Fiction is Science Fiction.
Call it tone issue, call it genre issue. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW BELIEVABLE IT IS.

I wouldn't want to see Aliens in Lord of the Rings either. I wouldn't want to see Magicians or Aliens in a Die Hard movie.

Ghosts and magic cups and aliens don't fit together.

It has nothing to do with how phony it is.

The biggest problem with KotCS's look is the (overused) "Orange and Teal" modern blockbuster color-timing. It definitely pegs it as a modern picture.

Wow, great observation. I always thought I'm the only one who found that the movies in the last decade have been looking strange.

 

[Nardpuncher]

TedShatner10, I really don't get why you don't get it.

Fantasy is fantasy and Science Fiction is Science Fiction.
Call it tone issue, call it genre issue. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW BELIEVABLE IT IS.

I wouldn't want to see Aliens in Lord of the Rings either. I wouldn't want to see Magicians or Aliens in a Die Hard movie.

Ghosts and magic cups and aliens don't fit together.

It has nothing to do with how phony it is.

I'm with you on this one.

The thing is, let's say I did accept aliens in Indy 4...I'd like to think I wouldn't be that adamant about them fitting in to the franchise and that I'd be quite understanding of those that didn't like it. I wouldn't be using bold and italics and exclamat!on marks and .

I mean there are lots of movies that I happened to enjoy but could tell that the majority wouldn't like it (not meaning I think the majority is an unwashed mob incapable of enjoying the movies I liked..I'm talking about Ang Lee's Hulk movie and the Alec Baldwin The Shadow movie as well as Signs where the aliens' reaction to water just didn't seem to bother me but can fully understand why others would balk at it) and being astonished that others can't see why I think they should like them is just too self-centered.

 

[davejames]

So the psychopathic, genocidal Old Testament God that floods the world and kills Egyptian babies is something that's less phony.

Oh it's phony, all right. But at least it's an idea that's been around for thousands and thousands of years, and is rooted in deep and primal beliefs that have been with us since the caveman days.

Unlike the UFO craze... which basically started in the 1940s.

 

[Shazam!]

Skull:

I decided to faff around in Photoshop to see if I could make the images a bit more consistent:

I was willing to concede that Skull's unique look was a conscious decision, but if Spielberg and Lucas are saying that the films look the same, they are deluding themselves.

 

[Kelthaz]

No. I think Gaith summed up a lot of what I didn't like about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. What I liked most about Raiders of the Lost Ark was that rough-around-the-edges, gritty type of sensibility that has gradually dissolved throughout the series.

And here I thought Indiana Jones was a fun, light-hearted adventure series. Alternate Character Interpretation to be sure.

 

[Gepard]

I guess I just don't understand why that's a bad thing. It is a modern picture.

Well, I think a lot of modern blockbusters are (and look) awful -- I certainly feel we're going through a dark age in "big budget" cinema. So from that angle, having an Indy film look or feel anything like a style I think is bad is...bad. But personal biases aside, the key word there was "overused;" every film today looks like that, and if you read the link, he talks about why that use of complimentary colors is an easy color-timing fallback who's prevalence comes across as lazy -- it's used whether it's appropriate for the style of film or not.

 

[TedShatner10]

So the psychopathic, genocidal Old Testament God that floods the world and kills Egyptian babies is something that's less phony.

Oh it's phony, all right. But at least it's an idea that's been around for thousands and thousands of years, and is rooted in deep and primal beliefs that have been with us since the caveman days.

Unlike the UFO craze... which basically started in the 1940s.

UFOs in Earth's History

Sure that essay is mostly nonsense however the genuine ancient artwork looks interesting, strongly reminding me of the aliens from Crystal Skull, and the idea of aliens and UFOs have been around longer than we realise (and quite interchangable with supposed angel/demon/fairy encounters).

Well, I think a lot of modern blockbusters are (and look) awful -- I certainly feel we're going through a dark age in "big budget" cinema. So from that angle, having an Indy film look or feel anything like a style I think is bad is...bad.

A so-called "Dark Age" of cinema is blowing things out of proportion and even you admit it's subjective, but The Kingdom of the Crustal Skull not only has to compete with the early Indy movies, but it much more immediately has to compete with Iron Man, The Curse of the Black Pearl, Dead Man's Chest, King Kong (2005), Nolan's Batman movies, the Transformers movies, LotR trilogy, Minority Report, and War of the World, hence why its visuals were subtly altered to match with its contemporaries.

However gimmicky or slightly "off" Indy IV looked, it didn't look quite as stylized/cartoonish as Sin City and Sky Captain and the World of Tommorrow (which is also similar to the Indiana Jones movies), while digital grading was used to genuinely good effect in Kick-Ass.

 

[Gaith]

And here I thought Indiana Jones was a fun, light-hearted adventure series. Alternate Character Interpretation to be sure.

More like an "alternate franchise interpretation", imo. Ubik really hit the nail on the head with regards to Spielberg's squeamishness about using realistic-looking violence for humor earlier on in the thread.

I decided to faff around in Photoshop to see if I could make the images a bit more consistent:

I was willing to concede that Skull's unique look was a conscious decision, but if Spielberg and Lucas are saying that the films look the same, they are deluding themselves.

I wish that the color palette/tint was the only real difference between Raiders' and Skull's looks, because then they could perhaps be fixed through fan editing. The problem is, contrary to what Lucas says, the whole thing is wildly overlit, from too many sources, which not only makes for far too pretty compositions, but often produces halos of light around the characters' heads and jackets, as seen in the above shot, the diner and the wedding. Heck, the darn halos even pop up at night! It's all just too painterly and glowing.

Well, I think a lot of modern blockbusters are (and look) awful -- I certainly feel we're going through a dark age in "big budget" cinema.

I can't agree there; I think that color-tweaking in modern movies is a valuable and often enriching artistic tool. The thing is, the look of the piece must fit the piece itself.


As for Skull, I have to hand it to Lucas and Spielberg: the movie's look may not fit the character or the tone of the first three flicks, but it does fit this movie. They made a bloodless, cheery, screwball Norman Rockwell cartoon, from the dialogue to the story beats to the visual scheme.