And throwing the word 'homage' around doesn't automatically disqualify the movie from criticism.
Indiana Jones 5 Still Happening With Shia Says Shia...
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
No, it's not, but that seems indeed to be the director's intent.
Throwing the word "homage" around makes it possible to tell genuine flaws from intentional stylistic decisions that some people may not be comfortable with.
And stylistic decisions are somehow immune from criticism?
Oh wow, I already thought the church scene was totally out of place in Skulls. But now that I see the comparison, it's totally out of place in the whole franchise.
And wait, if the next Indy takes place in the 70s, should half of the action take place in a disco, just because it would be a homage to the era?
Should Indy in the 60s travel to the Moon?
And wait, if the next Indy takes place in the 70s, should half of the action take place in a disco, just because it would be a homage to the era?
Should Indy in the 60s travel to the Moon?
American Graffiti was more of a realistic docudrama set in the early 1960s and made only a decade after, The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is pulp fantasy and only a facsimile. And Gaith has a bit of a cheek to bring up The Mummy Returns when it used a lot more rushed/mediocre/overblown CGI than The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did (though the first two Mummy movies have a more grisly sense of fun).
How's this for Indy V? If I was a script writer the next story would be penned as Indiana Jones and the Search for Fiddler's Green - Dr. Jones finds the lost island of Fiddler's Green, a volcanic island closely based on HP Lovecraft's island R'Lyeh. Like in KotCS there is overtly alien technology of tremendous power, only it is more scary and bizarre, while the aliens themselves (modelled on the Elder Things) are mostly insinuated.
It has more of Cold War feel with the CIA being the villains alongside the Soviet agents - there is female CIA officer who's a femme fetale that Dr. Jones cheats on, Mutt also sleeps with, and who finally gets beaten up by Marion in the final climax in the ruins of Fiddler's Green.
How's this for Indy V? If I was a script writer the next story would be penned as Indiana Jones and the Search for Fiddler's Green - Dr. Jones finds the lost island of Fiddler's Green, a volcanic island closely based on HP Lovecraft's island R'Lyeh. Like in KotCS there is overtly alien technology of tremendous power, only it is more scary and bizarre, while the aliens themselves (modelled on the Elder Things) are mostly insinuated.
It has more of Cold War feel with the CIA being the villains alongside the Soviet agents - there is female CIA officer who's a femme fetale that Dr. Jones cheats on, Mutt also sleeps with, and who finally gets beaten up by Marion in the final climax in the ruins of Fiddler's Green.
Eh, don't divert from the point, because the use of CGI has never been the issue here.
When a specific element of a movie is shown on screen exactly as the director intended, you can disagree with it, you can argue that it was a flawed decision, but you can't dismiss it out of hand as it if were a technical glitch or some other kind of aberration.
Which is what's happening in this thread:
JacksonArcher said:
Everyone acknowledges it was a conscious decision by Spielberg.
Last edited:
And those 1930s serials featured heroes who'd committed statutory rape all the time.
Actually, Indy apparently did have sex with Marion before she was of age in Raiders if you pay attention to the dialogue (especially when you see Lucas and Spielberg's transcripts of their conversations when planning the movie).
Somebody did comment, actually, in the very next Post. I thought it was a decent idea. I could have lived without the interdimensional stuff, too. An ancient Flying Saucer and alien corpses would have been enough.
Strange. Totally non-intuitive, as it would be completely top heavy.
Every time I see it, it just looks like it wants to flip over; it's like waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Thank you. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have sound.Well, the laws of physics are different in the Indyverse.
How'd they manage to prove that?
Walla:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NODvOx0V57E
It does. Got yours turned off maybe?
^^ No, my MP3s and other YouTube videos work fine; but that one just makes barely audible squeaky sounds. 
1950s Drive-In movies were in black and white, too. And the pacing of Raiders was indeed meant to evoke the feeling of a serialized adventure. But in any case you seem to think that "homage" means to duplicate. It can mean that, but doesn't have to. 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.Makes sense. After all, Raiders was made in 1.33:1, was black-and-white, came out in twelve-minute installments, was often nauseatingly racist, had terrible sets, and didn't feature any blood at all. And those 1930s serials featured heroes who'd committed statutory rape all the time.
By that logic, you could say that because most 1950s drive-in movies sucked, so it was a brave and laudatory move of Lucas and Spielberg to make a crap film. I mean, it's only appropriate. Anything else would have been a craven sop to ADD-plagued ignorant kids.
Then that's ridiculous, per my point about Edward Hopper and the dark side. You're really going to compare thisI meant Edward Hopper.You meant Norman Rockwell, right? Dennis Hopper specialized in the dark side of America, in the psychological menace that lurked in shadows. Please tell me you meant Rockwell. Please.
With this?
The tone couldn't possibly be more different. The time/place period is the only commonality.
I was merely pointing out that The Mummy Returns' visual palette was much more naturalistic than Skull's, and thus closer to Raiders'. In that sense, the movie's CGI is besides the point.
That's what I meant. No 1930s serial would have gone there, imo.
No, just taking your arguments to their logical extremes.
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.
See, I like that Indy was in the 50s era, with Mutt being a greaser, with them sitting around in a typical 50s diner, with people protesting against Communism, with the Soviets being the enemy now instead of the Nazis, with Rock'n Roll, etc... that was perfectly fine.
I also have nothing against the color palette they chose in this movie. It's close enough.
But Aliens? Just because he's a "pulp hero" and he's "supposed to" meet Aliens?
I also have nothing against the color palette they chose in this movie. It's close enough.
But Aliens? Just because he's a "pulp hero"
and he's "supposed to" meet Aliens?
Yes, I see were you're coming from with the more bleached out desert shots and grimy interior shots from the first two Mummy films is more similar to the visuals in Raiders and Crusade than the more honey glazed visuals for KotCS, but the overuse of badly aged CGI (just look at the Rock, Jesus' shite!) is still a viable complaint.
JarodRussell said:But Aliens? Just because he's a "pulp hero"
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.
HOW IS AN INTERDIMENSIONAL SPACE BEING LESS VIABLE THAN A BOX THAT IS LIKELY INTERDIMENSIONAL AS WELL?!
Then there is that crank history book, Chariots of the Gods?, as well.
EDIT (AND ANOTHER THING!): What about the Stargate movie and the more critically successful TV spin-off, Stargate SG-1? Those were pretty similar in tone to Indiana Jones (crossed with Star Trek) with aliens and more obvious technology meeting real-life ancient cultures and archaeology without making nerds raise up their arms in anger!
And what about Steven Spielberg directing three alien related movies as well?!
Last edited:
EDIT: ^ Blatant aliens are a big change from Judeo-Christian / Hindu occult influences. In the Indy-verse, God(s) are real and spiritual belief has power. And now, like it or not, so are aliens ... from other dimensions.
And no, they are not the same thing.
_______
I'd just like to say that Indy didn't shoot a single Commie in the entire film. I don't think he even fired his Webley.
And he directly killed only one bad guy: using the guy's own blowdart on him during the dig site fight in the jungle.
And his mano a mano bout with a big thug ended with a cheesy indirect CGI kill.
This un-Indy-like bodycount seriously undermined my enjoyment of the film.
And no, they are not the same thing.
_______
I'd just like to say that Indy didn't shoot a single Commie in the entire film. I don't think he even fired his Webley.
And he directly killed only one bad guy: using the guy's own blowdart on him during the dig site fight in the jungle.
And his mano a mano bout with a big thug ended with a cheesy indirect CGI kill.
This un-Indy-like bodycount seriously undermined my enjoyment of the film.
Space aliens are more likely to exist than fictional entities thought up by Bronze/Iron Age primitives.
These aliens were worshiped in a similar fashion to the other "god" entities in the first film.
Hmmmm, Indy was never really an assassin and a cold blooded murderer, he was a spontaneous brawler that winged it through every fight and it's not the first time an oversized opponent he's fighting doesn't get directly killed by him and dies in a cheesy/OTT way (that big Luftwaffe mechanic who got splattered by a propeller).
Huh? So... you thought the wedding scene was the film's only instance of color palette massive fail? I'll grant that that was the worst offender, but I can hardly agree with it being the only such scene.
Oh, there are indeed hundreds of viable complaints to be made about The Mummy Returns, the badly-rendered Scorpion King being one of them. But imho, pretty much all the CG from The Mummy stands up just fine, and its color palette is also quite Raiders-like...
"Honey glazed visuals" - as a descriptor of Skull's look, that's pretty unimprovable, I think.
"Honey glazed visuals" - as a descriptor of Skull's look, that's pretty unimprovable, I think.
Yes, indeed it is.
Similar threads
