Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by crookeddy, Jul 31, 2013.
Aw, you took my comment..
I'll go away now.....
I thought it looked very Earth vs. the Flying Saucers.
I loved Crystal Skull. Am happy to own it with the rest. Is it a step down? Is it obviously made by older, mellower men? Is the CG often weaker than the practical effects, not just in terms of realism but aesthetic appeal? Sure. But I've always thought it was a welcome addition.
I'm pleased to see that passions have cooled and I think Skull is on its way to being reevaluated--I've long harbored a theory that the visceral hatred Skull got was due in large part to the fatigue from the (genuinely) bad Star Wars prequels.
I do think, however, I'm the only person on Earth other than Mrs. LeBouf who would go see a Mutt Williams movie. Poor, poor Shia. He was the Ryan Reynolds of his time.
Didn't Spielberg say that Skull would have mostly practical effects? What the hell happened?
It mostly did, in the sense of "real stunts with CG wire removal and other enhancements." The pillars coming out of the pyramid were real, for instance, though the extremely touched-up, ultra-syrupy visuals made them look fake, as Mr. Plinkett noted.
In retrospect, when Spielberg said "mostly practical effects", fans errorneously heard "mostly believable, Raiders-style action". So you see, Spielberg was telling the truth... from a stupid point of view.
Raiders is a fabulous evocation of the pulp adventures.
Crystal Skull is, in my somewhat minority opinion, the best of the sequels...
I personally hope that with Ford in more full swing mode again, 42, Paranoia & Enders Game along with SW:ep VII, that a fifth Indy film comes soon as well.
I'm game for Shia's Mutt but he can be off at school or given a small role helping remotely if they feel the need to include him.
Practical effects or no, it still looked like the whole thing was basically shot on a sound stage. Especially the whole last half of the movie taking place in the "jungle".
The temple sets in TOD might have been obviously stage-bound too, but it at least took the time first to establish an Indian environment that was so hot and sweaty it was almost palpable. When he stepped outside, you had no trouble believing Indy was really in India, which did a lot to help sell everything else that happened.
Time marches on in Indy's past...would Mutt exchange his pompadour for a mop top?
For me there wasn't a wide variance in quality between the 4 movies. I liked them all, Raiders a little more than other ones.
I just saw that there is a deleted scene in Raiders that explains what Indy does to survive on the submarine - basically he just hangs onto the periscope for a few days until they get close to the base. Apparently the periscope is never lowered.
I think they were told to stay the hell out of the camera shot on Ford, so "turn around when you reach the cart" and stay away from Ford when he reaches the cart.
I've had a similair discussion with a close buddy of mine, we talk about movies a lot.
We both agreed, that if Raiders was released now, it would flunk. There's not market for swashswashbucklebuckle right now. Turn it around, and Crystal Skull would have probably done a lot better during the 80's. Sure, it had some issues with the weird gloss and all, Karen Allen seemed to like the drunken scene from Raiders so much she acted the entire character in Skull the same way. But all in all, it's very close at its core to what Raiders was.
Will I like Raiders more then the others Indy movies? Certainly. But do I hate Skull as much as, say, Attack Of The Clones? No. I really liked it, it captured the spirit of Indiana Jones and is just a really fun nod to those adventure flicks but with a little twist. Some won't like that twist, but that won't stop me.
In a hypothetical world where Raiders was just being released today, exactly as it was, I think it would cause a stir for being a big-budget action blockbuster with no CGI whatsoever!
I'm beginning to see people's point - having Raiders come out now isn't a legitimate discussion because Raiders basically set the tone for the genre. It's impossible to know what action movies of the 80s would have been like without Raiders.
It's kind of like what happened with John Carter. If John Carter came out in the 70s it might have been succesfull (although it'd look completely different without the CGI of course)
Skull might have been a huge hit if it were released in the 80s, but I doubt it would be on anybody's Top 10 list, or regarded as one of the all-time greatest action movies like Raiders is today.
Instead, it would probably be regarded more as a cheesy, outdated guilty pleasure, like Goonies or Flash Gordon or something.
Putting aside that it would have been made very differently without CGI, too much of Skull is nostalgic/referential of Raiders. It would have been pretty awkward for the first film to be about a past-his-prime main character with a long lost son by an old girlfriend about whom we wouldn't have known anything.
Not that I share his opinion about the film, but people don't always have to defend their tastes, positive or negative.
Raiders is the best, followed by the hugely underrated Doom, with Crusade taking a respectable third place.
Skull was bland shit.
Separate names with a comma.