|
I like Skull though I do think it is definitely the weakest by a large margin. That South Park episode probably has a lot to answer for but the idea that nobody loves it is right on the money - it's hard to muster that much enthusiasm. I find it most enjoyable as a silly adventure film unhooked from all the hype of being the great return of Indiana Jones. When it came out there had been a nineteen gap, and the reason for the hold up was that the script was always in flux. With that came the expectation that when they finally got the script right that it would be something really special. But it wasn't. It's an odd film in many ways. Far more of an ensemble film than any other entry, even Crusade, and Jones kind of becomes just one of the gang towards the end. They don't really take advantage of Jones' age outside of a few gags and Mutt is a bit of a dud. I do enjoy a lot of the action but there are some odd stylistic choices. I don't mind the fridge bit so much, in fact I love the build up to it in the 50's town. It's an odd thing for people to focus on as it's not like the series is known for it's tactical realism, the fridge isn't that much worse than the plane escape in Temple of Doom. I will say that Skull came out at a time when people were really getting into the more harder edge realistic take on pulpy characters. Casino Royale was out a couple years before, and The Dark Knight a few months later, both of which were incredible films. And with that came the idea that all films should strive toward that kind of tone, and Skull, being such a goofy film felt anachronistic in that regard. I think Speed Racer got caught up in that as well. I reckon if you released Speed Racer (which is excellent imo) a few years earlier or a few years later it may have been better received - but it landed straight in the middle of the serious/realistic = higher quality paradigm and I think people turned up their noses to it a bit as a result.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 09:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Skull lacked what several posters have pointed out about the other films: they weren't afraid to get brutal as Indy took out even random mooks, never mind mini-bosses and main villains, whereas this was very 'clean'. The only deaths I can remember were the ant guy and Blanchett's character, and they were so obviously CG-heavy they felt fake in a way that the equally effects-dependent fancy kills in the older movies got away with. ('Clean' could also describe the movie in general. Like Chris Nolan's scrubbed and sterile Gotham, it lacked the mud and dust and dirt of the first three. Indy falls in a swamp, but later on his trousers still look pressed.) Skull also criminally wasted John Hurt and Ray Winstone. I can't even remember how Winstone's character died!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 10:58
|
|
|
I wonder to what degree Skull's relative weakness might also be a consequence of the period it's set in. Maybe it's just from the perspective of my millenial rear end, but the first three Indy movies being set in the interwar period does put it into a somewhat different era that helps support the tone. The world of that time feels a bit larger, with more proverbial white spots on the map for Indy to dive into and find various mythological people and artifacts. It's something that also works very much in favour of The Mummy, for example. Meanwhile Skull is set a fair bit closer to familiar modernity, and so is its central mystery (if anything, "Aliens did it" feels closer to 2010 than to the 50s). To me at least, that made it feel quite a bit harder to get immersed in the larger-than-life adventurous tone that the movie was going for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 11:32
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:The series is a happy medium between the SAGA of the Star Wars movies and the loose episodic continuity of the James Bond movies. I'm real curious what a modern-day film buff's first impression of them would be. I actually liked Indy4 better than Indy2. It followed the general concept of the other two movies of Indy and a bad guy group chase some legendary artifact, after a lot of back and forth, the bad guys get and use the artifact, at which it kills them horribly. I always thought it would make more sense for Indy to just follow the bad guys at a distance, wait until the magic thingie wasted the lot of them, and then get it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 12:12
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd say the way it manages to sell the "Indiana Jones in the 50s" conceit is probably Crystal Skull's big triumph (aside from maybe getting Harrison Ford to still look cool in the outfit), and it's part of the reason they manage to get away with the whole alien thing. If there's one big, bad thing you can point to that ruins Crystal Skull it's the cinematography, full-stop. It makes everything look fake in the worst way. Location shoots look like soundstages, live action effects look like CGI, the CGI looks like cartoons. It was obviously intentional but I struggle to figure out what the intention was: it looks sort of like the "flashing" that was fashionable in movies of the late-70s to early-80s, and I guess it evokes a kind of old school technicolor look, except neither of those are things evocative of the series, and it comes at great expense of the things we do love about the series. I didn't mind it so much on release but it annoys the hell out of me now. Edited to add: it's not even that it looks "fake" necessarily that bothers me, it looks cheap. SidneyIsTheKiller fucked around with this message at 12:22 on Jan 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 12:19
|
|
|
Payndz posted:
He said “I’m gonna be alright” and got sucked into a ufo
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 13:29
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:I wonder to what degree Skull's relative weakness might also be a consequence of the period it's set in. Maybe it's just from the perspective of my millenial rear end, but the first three Indy movies being set in the interwar period does put it into a somewhat different era that helps support the tone. The world of that time feels a bit larger, with more proverbial white spots on the map for Indy to dive into and find various mythological people and artifacts. It's something that also works very much in favour of The Mummy, for example. Indy never gets bloody either. He gets his rear end kicked less and less in each movie, but by Skull, he's pristine. A big part of what makes Indy, Indy, is how fallable he is and that he just gets by on the seat of his pants. He's in too much control by Skull where he feels like he has a handle on everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 14:34
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:If there's one big, bad thing you can point to that ruins Crystal Skull it's the cinematography, full-stop. It makes everything look fake in the worst way. Location shoots look like soundstages, live action effects look like CGI, the CGI looks like cartoons. It was obviously intentional but I struggle to figure out what the intention was: it looks sort of like the "flashing" that was fashionable in movies of the late-70s to early-80s, and I guess it evokes a kind of old school technicolor look, except neither of those are things evocative of the series, and it comes at great expense of the things we do love about the series. I didn't mind it so much on release but it annoys the hell out of me now. I rewatched the nuke scene and jungle chase earlier, and they definitely have a 'flashed' look to them - not full-on lens flare, but the sky and light sources often look blown out. I wouldn't even say it's period-appropriate, because films of the 1950s, even the cheapo B-features about bug-eyed monsters that Skull is evoking, very firmly avoided that kind of photographic artifice. Cassavetes and the New Wave were still a few years away.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
If we’re talking about gruesome or gross stuff/deaths from the Indy films, I thought the ants in Crystal Skull was a good carrying on of that through line, even if the tone is more “family friendly fun” like Crusade was. I’m excited that we get one more new ones of these with Ford in it. That’s exciting to me. Also while I personally feel Temple of Doom is probably the weakest of the first three, it's still drat good. The loving rope bridge climactic scene is an all timer for me. The action scenes in these movies were all so well crafted and drat exciting to watch. I feel this way about Crystall Skull's jungle chase, too. If you take out the Shia Lebouf swinging with monkeys stuff, it's very well shot, choregraphed, there's lots happening, and it's all exciting to watch. man nurse fucked around with this message at 17:12 on Jan 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
It just looks really ugly with all the cgi crap put around it. Which is annoying because they did a lot do that scene for real. Also I think I just flat out don’t like the way Janusz Kamiński shoots things. It’s all hazy and weird looking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Interestingly enough, the recent 4K release of Crystal Skull seems like it dialed down the post-processed look of the movie a fair bit. I do remember the original blu ray looking extremely saturated and bloom lit. Obviously some of that is just in how the movie was intentionally shot, but I think the 4K transfer mitigates that element somewhat. It's more detailed and less blown out and soft looking. Unless I'm totally imagining it. But I'm sure there's comparison shots somewhere out there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
Anything is possible! But yeah I just don’t like how bloomy and fake the movie looks. Just too much CGI all over the place in places where you could’ve done it for real. It just doesn’t vibe with Indy since it’s not based in some hyper stylized (visually) sci fi world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Darko posted:Indy never gets bloody either. He gets his rear end kicked less and less in each movie, but by Skull, he's pristine. A big part of what makes Indy, Indy, is how fallable he is and that he just gets by on the seat of his pants. He's in too much control by Skull where he feels like he has a handle on everything. I'm wondering if at least some of that was due to Ford's age. He was closing on 66 when the film was released so he was probably 63-65 when it was actually made. According to the movie's IMDB page, Ford insisted on being the one to wield Indy's whip instead of letting that be CGI for safety reasons. So maybe some of that was executive notes on the idea of "less scenes potentially requiring stuntwork from Ford because we don't want the old bastard to get killed on our film."
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 21:44
|
|
|
man nurse posted:If we’re talking about gruesome or gross stuff/deaths from the Indy films, I thought the ants in Crystal Skull was a good carrying on of that through line, even if the tone is more “family friendly fun” like Crusade was. I agree the "completely devoured by ants inside and out" scene was a great bit of implied gruesomeness that didn't have to actually show any gore, and almost made up for the extremely tepid "grand finale" that was Cate Blanchett's disintegration. I actually think they might've been able to get away with the latter if it came abruptly and surprised us, but they do this BIG build-up of the alien materializing while Blanchett's pleading that she "vants to know everthing" and you're watching this thinking "oh yeah here we go" munching your popcorn like Michael Jackson as you anticipate her head violently bursting open or something from all the excess knowledge of the universe flooding her brains, but then it's over and you're like "that's IT?!" man nurse posted:Interestingly enough, the recent 4K release of Crystal Skull seems like it dialed down the post-processed look of the movie a fair bit. I do remember the original blu ray looking extremely saturated and bloom lit. Obviously some of that is just in how the movie was intentionally shot, but I think the 4K transfer mitigates that element somewhat. It's more detailed and less blown out and soft looking. I've noticed that a lot of movies that have obnoxious lighting or color timing on video tend to look better with higher resolution or in the theater, it's possible the added sharpness and detail makes it more tolerable. Or hell, they very well might have done something to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2023 23:23
|
|
|
Darko posted:Indy never gets bloody either. He gets his rear end kicked less and less in each movie, but by Skull, he's pristine. A big part of what makes Indy, Indy, is how fallable he is and that he just gets by on the seat of his pants. He's in too much control by Skull where he feels like he has a handle on everything. This was my biggest problem. It was creeping towards "infallible hero" in Crusade, but he still got lucky over and over and surprised himself when he survived things. They kind of went down the Die Hard route where the hero got a bit more invincible with each installment until he may as well be Duke Nukem. Raiders is still the perfect blend of danger, horror and action. Everyone talks about the heads exploding, but I always found that funny as a kid as it was a cartoon death for cartoon bad guys. The bits in the early films that bothered me more were the callous or casual deaths, like the nazi bareknuckle boxer getting minced by the propeller, Alfred Molina being impaled off screen but suddenly appearing as a shocked corpse, the poisoned monkey, guy getting hung by a ceiling fan or crushed in a machine or falling hundreds of feet into a river and then being eaten by crocodiles. There was a real sense of danger that this was a world where you could die horribly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:He said “I’m gonna be alright” and got sucked into a ufo He died as he lived : not making any loving sense as a character.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 00:41
|
|
|
Dog_Meat posted:This was my biggest problem. It was creeping towards "infallible hero" in Crusade, but he still got lucky over and over and surprised himself when he survived things. They kind of went down the Die Hard route where the hero got a bit more invincible with each installment until he may as well be Duke Nukem. Yup, Die Hard is the exact comparison where 1-3 had the main character just completely beaten up by the end and surviving by the skin of his teeth, then he becomes invincible in 4. At least in Die Hard 4, he laughed about being ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
Die Hard 3 really gets a lot of passes because of how drat FUN the film is at times and how well Zeus Carver plays off of John McClane. There are days where I place it above the first Die Hard and that's not a joke. Indiana Jones is the same way where the third film is so much fun you'll watch it over the original if you are having a bad day.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 04:20
|
|
|
Oh my god I can't believe I never noticed Indiana Jones movies and the Die Hard movies follow the same pattern. That really doesn't bode well for the fifth one...
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 04:55
|
|
|
Not quite bc temple of doom owns and is weird as hell and takes chances. ' Die Hard 2 is safe boring crap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 06:41
|
|
|
I recent re-watched Minority Report and War of the Worlds, and now Skull's bloodlessness seems even more strange to me, coming as it does in close proximity to two Spielberg PG-13 blockbusters that aren't afraid to go gross and gruesome and dabble in horror elements
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 12:48
|
|
|
High Warlord Zog posted:I recent re-watched Minority Report and War of the Worlds, and now Skull's bloodlessness seems even more strange to me, coming as it does in close proximity to two Spielberg PG-13 blockbusters that aren't afraid to go gross and gruesome and dabble in horror elements How much was Lucas involved in Crystal Skull? It was still a Lucasfilm property iirc. Could have something to do with it, I should think. All the newer Star Wars stuff had been pretty sterile in much the same way, even before the Disney buyout.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
Meaty Ore posted:How much was Lucas involved in Crystal Skull? It was still a Lucasfilm property iirc. Could have something to do with it, I should think. All the newer Star Wars stuff had been pretty sterile in much the same way, even before the Disney buyout. He needed to sign off for Crystal Skull because Indiana Jones was still his baby until he sold it off to Disney. Spielberg and Ford had a say but it was still his company making his movie. CelticPredator posted:Die Hard 2 is safe boring crap. It really didn't help it was kind of a retread of the first film. Die Hard 3 being so goddamn different absolutely worked in it's favor and was the only reason Bruce Willis agreed to make it (he didn't really like Die Hard 2 either).
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
man nurse posted:The action scenes in these movies were all so well crafted and drat exciting to watch. I feel this way about Crystall Skull's jungle chase, too. If you take out the Shia Lebouf swinging with monkeys stuff, it's very well shot, choregraphed, there's lots happening, and it's all exciting to watch. Oh yeah this goes along with what I was saying with most people actually being OK with Crystal Skull. I recall it was released at a time where there was a lot of angst about "did Hollywood just forget how to direct a good action scene," I think we were at peak shaky-cam trend, and there were definitely some corners that appreciated that Spielberg was still out there holding it down for competently shot, edited, and choreographed action sequences. In particular when that third Mummy movie came out that same summer it reminded some folks not to take Spielberg's command of the camera for granted. Meaty Ore posted:How much was Lucas involved in Crystal Skull? It was still a Lucasfilm property iirc. Could have something to do with it, I should think. All the newer Star Wars stuff had been pretty sterile in much the same way, even before the Disney buyout. I know Lucas had a huge say in pre-production (he was the major holdup in the nearly twenty-year long wait; he kept rejecting scripts), but I'm really not sure how hands-on he was once filming started, it's a good question. High Warlord Zog posted:I recent re-watched Minority Report and War of the Worlds, and now Skull's bloodlessness seems even more strange to me, coming as it does in close proximity to two Spielberg PG-13 blockbusters that aren't afraid to go gross and gruesome and dabble in horror elements I remember him saying that with Crystal Skull he was looking forward to doing something fun and light because this was just after Munich which is one of his darkest films. I don't know if he consciously thought "let's not get too nasty" but it sounds like he was in more of a breezy mood. SidneyIsTheKiller fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jan 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 04:09
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:I remember him saying that with Crystal Skull he was looking forward to doing something fun and light because this was just after Munich which is one of his darkest films. I don't know if he consciously thought "let's not get too nasty" but it sounds like he was in more of a breezy mood. That tracks. And if any other filmmaker but Spielberg had directed Munich we'd be talking about them like they were the next Peckinpah or Tarantino. The violence in that one hits like very little else
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 09:27
|
|
|
The lady going to hug her cat after she is shot 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 10:07
|
|
|
The Mutt & Indy Motorcycle Chase is considered to be a highlight of Crystal Skull, and that's because they did it for real. It's real motorcycle stunts. You can't do digital danger action setpieces. The recent Uncharted did it and it was a dud there and it's a dud here. We haven't got to the point where it looks even close to real. So it's boring. The jungle scene in Crystal Skull is just excruciating from the standpoint of believable action. It's cartoonish. The waterfall sequence is obviously fake. I remember very distinctly sitting in the theater waiting for it to end, because there were no stakes. Raiders has a good script, but it also has incredible action and it's all real (as much as could be done). They built that bar set and then rigged it to "burn down" for hours. They spent a couple of days removing all the antennas of every building within a half mile radius of Sallah's rooftop retreat so that they could do that shot without any modern stuff in it. They bought every snake from every pet store in a 30 mile radius of Glendale, CA. They dragged a guy under a truck. That's what you had to do. That's what they did. You could do all that stuff today but they just don't. The rooftop scene would be some Volume stuff or a digital background and it would look subtly fake and take you out of the movie. The snakes would be digital and there would be a couple shots that clued you in on that, which ruins every subsequent shot. The truck drag would be a digital double and instead of seeing the guide trench and realizing that the truck wasn't going super fast, you would realize that it was entirely artificial - thus removing any element of danger entirely. The flying wing would be a digital set. Raiders would absolutely be a lesser movie if it were made today. Same with Temple of Doom and Last Crusade (although Temple of Doom, in particular, would suffer a lot less just because so much of it is interior sets and model/miniature work). I'm not a "no digital" guy. If you want to make somebody do something superhuman it's useful. If you want to show large scale destruction it's useful. It absolutely sucks for realistic action sequences, though. I wish they would stop doing that. Figure out a way to hang those crates out of the plane and have a stuntman on the end of it. Give Tom Cruise a call - he'll have some ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The Mutt & Indy Motorcycle Chase is considered to be a highlight of Crystal Skull, and that's because they did it for real. It's real motorcycle stunts. I think the relative ease of CGI also tends to make these scenes much, much shaggier and longer and since the Marvel model has pre-vis CGI fight scenes before there's even a script there's often no stakes to an overly long fight scene of random computer-modeled fake people hitting each other. That's basically the cargo cult idea of an action scene but stripped of anything that would make it good. It's the cinematic equivalent of soylent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:I think the relative ease of CGI also tends to make these scenes much, much shaggier and longer and since the Marvel model has pre-vis CGI fight scenes before there's even a script there's often no stakes to an overly long fight scene of random computer-modeled fake people hitting each other. I think you're onto something there, but they did pre-vis all of the big Raiders scenes too (that was very unusual for the time). They were completely storyboarded by Spielberg and an artist (whose name I can't recall) right down to the individual shot level, and largely filmed by the second unit. Ironically enough, this was to save money - Spielberg had gone over budget and time on his last two films and was determined to prove he could come in on time and under budget. But the idea that because it's CG they can just linger and "show off" stuff - and as a result you get to soak in the digital fakeness - hadn't occurred to me. When it's really dragging the guy or using minis, they have to keep it tight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I think you're onto something there, but they did pre-vis all of the big Raiders scenes too (that was very unusual for the time). They were completely storyboarded by Spielberg and an artist (whose name I can't recall) right down to the individual shot level, and largely filmed by the second unit. Ironically enough, this was to save money - Spielberg had gone over budget and time on his last two films and was determined to prove he could come in on time and under budget. It's my understanding that Raiders was storyboarded and figured out well in advance because that's just how you effectively (and safely!) plan how to shoot an action scene. Meanwhile the Marvel model, because of all the required CGI, has those scenes already decided before there's even a script which is why I brought up the lack of stakes. The distinction is that Raiders was written to have an amazing chase scene because it's a cool pulpy adventure and they had one fall out naturally from the script which they then shot the absolute poo poo out of ; Thor 6 : Once Upon a Time in Þrúðvangr would already have 50 people rendering him fighting 30 dire weasels in a nursing home (or whatever) before a writer got hired and that person would need to justify it. The reason why the best lightsaber fight in Star Wars is in Empire Strikes Back is because it has dramatic weight and because of that a dumb kid and a cripple doing kendo is a thousand times more exciting than all the flipping and mind-numbing action of the prequels no matter the visuals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
The weird thing about the jungle chase in Skull is that even though a lot of it was shot on location in Hawaii, it still feels fake because of the post-processed, bloom-heavy look of the cinematography. There are behind the scenes clips showing the 'raw' shots of real jeeps and trucks driving through jungle, and they look fine, but when you see the exact same shots in the final movie it seems like they're being pushed about on air movers in a greenscreen void. It's genuinely bizarre. (I suspect there was a ton of added CG to put in more trees and cover the smooth dirt tracks with roots and leaves, never mind those goddamn monkeys.) (I had a similar Uncanny Valley reaction to the motorbike chase in M:I Fallout, and was surprised to learn it was shot for real with Cruise zooming around Paris. Realised that what was triggering my "something ain't right..." sense was the CG headlight flare and sky replacement/colour grading; the shoot was overcast, but the movie needed a clear, sunny day for continuity, so a serious amount of contrast and lighting fuckery was needed.) Raiders, though, did its big chase all (well, 99% - one model and one matte shot) for real, camera shadows and all, which is one of the major reasons it'll be regarded as one of the best action sequences in cinema history for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 20:32
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm not a "no digital" guy. If you want to make somebody do something superhuman it's useful. If you want to show large scale destruction it's useful. It absolutely sucks for realistic action sequences, though. I wish they would stop doing that. Figure out a way to hang those crates out of the plane and have a stuntman on the end of it. Give Tom Cruise a call - he'll have some ideas. I don't about Cruise. I saw The Mummy. But maybe call Christopher Nolan. Which makes more sense considering that the only CGI in The Dark Knight was the stuff for Two-Face's disfigured face. That's it. The Hong Kong stuff? That truck flip? All done with practical, real effects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
Payndz posted:The weird thing about the jungle chase in Skull is that even though a lot of it was shot on location in Hawaii, it still feels fake because of the post-processed, bloom-heavy look of the cinematography. There are behind the scenes clips showing the 'raw' shots of real jeeps and trucks driving through jungle, and they look fine, but when you see the exact same shots in the final movie it seems like they're being pushed about on air movers in a greenscreen void. It's genuinely bizarre. (I suspect there was a ton of added CG to put in more trees and cover the smooth dirt tracks with roots and leaves, never mind those goddamn monkeys.) You gotta see the new 4k release of Crystal Skull. I'm not sure if it was an issue with the original blu-ray or if they decided to totally change the way the movie looks. It lacks the yellow push with the color, over-saturation, and a lot of the bloom. So basically it looks way more like the other three movies.   The rest of the movie has more drastic stuff than this, I was shocked at how different the movie looked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 10:18
|
|
|
WHOA. That is a significant change. And it is indeed a change, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull absolutely always had a glowing gold tinge to it going back to its theatrical release, I just found it more tolerable on the big screen. There's a part of me that feels opposed to the revisionism on principle (I didn't like it when they fixed Heaven's Gate, either, especially when they tried to pass it off as "how it was always meant to look." Uh-huh, sure lol) but that is an immediate improvement. Harrison Ford almost looks CGI in the top image!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 11:05
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:You can't do digital danger action setpieces. The recent Uncharted did it and it was a dud there and it's a dud here. We haven't got to the point where it looks even close to real. So it's boring. Edit: also watched what I assume is the climax with the flying galleons, and daaaaamn. Notwithstanding that the most powerful helicopter ever built can lift about 56 tons and a galleon would weigh ten times that, the whole thing is greenscreen city with impossible CGI camera moves, all cloaked in that horrid washed-out "a clear blue sky is a sort of pale grimy cyan colour, right?" palette that passes for reality in modern movies. Spielberg, you're forgiven for Crystal Skull. Small Strange Bird fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jan 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Spielberg, you're forgiven for Crystal Skull. Nah, you can tell it's going to be an indulgent CGI shitfest from the fact that unconvincing CGI gophers pop up twice in the first ten minutes for absolutely no reason at all. poo poo feels like Mary Poppins. Imagine if, upon escaping the temple in the Raiders intro, Indy sees an obviously stop-motion monkey that mugs at the camera and then scurries off. Rabelais D fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Jan 21, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
Yea to me the overuse of greenscreen is really the killer. Especially with anything Disney there's this weird almost arrogance about the way they talk about that warehouse sized system they shoot everything in these days. They act like it's such an improvement but the problem is that nobody thinks they have to actually go to locations or build sets anymore. Entire movies are just actors floating around on various greenscreens and it's being done in genres where it's not even necessary. Like if you're gonna do a spy thriller, go to Paris or wherever. And if you can't do that build a real set. I fully expect the next Fast & Furious movie to be a greenscreened mess and that thing cost hundreds of millions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:Honestly, I'd say the way it manages to sell the "Indiana Jones in the 50s" conceit is probably Crystal Skull's big triumph (aside from maybe getting Harrison Ford to still look cool in the outfit), and it's part of the reason they manage to get away with the whole alien thing. I feel like the ultimate comparison point here is Speed Racer, which is so incredibly, lovingly fake at every moment that it basically turns into hand-drawn animation that happens to include real people in it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea to me the overuse of greenscreen is really the killer. Especially with anything Disney there's this weird almost arrogance about the way they talk about that warehouse sized system they shoot everything in these days. They act like it's such an improvement but the problem is that nobody thinks they have to actually go to locations or build sets anymore. Entire movies are just actors floating around on various greenscreens and it's being done in genres where it's not even necessary. Like if you're gonna do a spy thriller, go to Paris or wherever. And if you can't do that build a real set. I fully expect the next Fast & Furious movie to be a greenscreened mess and that thing cost hundreds of millions. The production woes of the latest Francis Ford Coppola film make it sound like it's being made that way, with Francis, as Francis does when making movies entirely on closed sets, micromanaging the project into scheduling and budget woes. Anyway best case scenario is that we get the One from the Heart of movies made in front of LED screens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
I really like Crystal Skull. It's obviously the worst of the first four, but it has a certain goofy charm to it and I feel like there's a mildly better movie hidden in there. I like it enough that during lockdown I made a fanedit of it. I'm pretty happy with how it came out. Some changes: - Omitted Mutt swinging on the vines. Probably something that worked on the page but the execution in the movie was godawful. Bad CGI that looked laughable. Sure, now Mutt gets caught up in some vines and sees a monkey, and the next time we see him is when he bursts out of the jungle on a vine. But your imagination can fill in that gap much better than the terrible CGI could. - Omitted a lot of Mac. He's too integral to the plot to omit entirely, but I got VERY tired of him screaming "JONESY" all throughout the movie. He's in it less now. - Omitted most of the groundhogs. - Changed the timing of Indy's dramatic pause on "Sorry kid, looks like you brought a knife to a gunfight" (this always bugged me for some reason) - Changed Indy's response of "part time" to the version from the trailer. There's a few more nips and tucks but it's been a while and I don't really remember all of them. Overall it only shortened the movie by about 4 minutes or so. It was fun to do during lockdown, but now that I know there's a superior color graded version out there, I wish I had used that version as the source.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2023 05:07
|
|
