Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Spielberg on Indiana Jones 5, revisiting films, and special effects
Spielberg on Indiana Jones 5, revisiting films, and special effects
2011-09-20, 7:14 PM #1
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=7323

Quote:
"What I'd like to ask is this. We'll do a little poll here. I know we're coming out with the Blu-ray of E.T. If I came out with just one E.T. on Blu-ray, the 1982 one, would anybody object to that ? (Audience shouts 'No!') Ok, so be it."

Furthermore, Spielberg and Harrison Ford both expressed a willingness to make a fifth Indiana Jones film if they were presented with a script. At the question, Ford joked, "As long as they don't send me to Mars!".


Quote:
Feelings on the Current Use of Special Effects in Movies

Ford: Well what I think I was struggling to say was that the potential that filmmakers have with computer-aided graphics... it's wonderful and can be wonderfully creative, but it can also lead to a failure to attend to human scale. To go so far beyond our experience and our imaginations as an audience that it reminds us we're watching a digital effect rather than some subtle extension of our experience which makes us feel like it's humanly possible. This leads to a vast field of computer created enemies as far as the eye can see. This kind of potential often robs movies of a degree of soul.

Spielberg: I think its a tool. The digital tools available to all of us are simply that. It's just a tool. We can either make a movie that celebrates the digital era where we throw away story and just do a bunch of crazy wonderful special effects to keep us entertained but don't give us anything to remember beyond that fact that we spent two hours watching all these expensive special effects or we can continue to write good stories, original stories. Real strong narratives where the digital components are simply going to, if not enhance the experience, allow us to have the experience. I couldn't have made Jurassic Park that anybody would have believed, even back in 1993. You wouldn't have believed that movie if the dinosaurs had been stop-motion animated. That was the first movie to use digital technology to create an entire character, in fact a whole bunch of characters in the animals. So there's a time and place for it... It's when everything is just a special effect that we start to lose our way.


Man, he's like the exact opposite of his best friend. I am glad though that he's listening to fans regarding what version of E.t. to release on Blu-Ray.
2011-09-20, 7:35 PM #2
He's said in the past that he thinks the walkie talkie thing in ET was idiotic and he wishes he had never done it. Spielberg is probably the greatest commercial film director ever, and it's because he knows what works and what doesn't. He's had a few miscues here and there, but you can find good stuff in pretty much all of his films.
>>untie shoes
2011-09-20, 7:47 PM #3
I just can't get excited for Indy 5 though. Just can't, sorry.

But I would like to see the Tin Tin movie.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2011-09-20, 8:56 PM #4
This might interest you, ECHOMAN, http://collider.com/adventures-of-tintin-movie-images/115714/
>>untie shoes
2011-09-20, 11:37 PM #5
I was thoroughly disappointed with Indy 4 & because of this I have little hope for Indy 5.
? :)
2011-09-21, 12:03 AM #6
I've still not seen Indy 4.
2011-09-21, 12:16 AM #7
I've seen Indy 4 with your mom.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2011-09-21, 4:44 AM #8
:gbk:
2011-09-21, 4:58 AM #9
you know how idiotic the ET thing was, the change meant it needed to get a new rating in Australia (changes more dramatic than rescanning and cleaning the masters require resubmission to the OFLC) , and due to changes in the way films are rated since its release, it ended up going from G to PG, entirely defeating the point of the change in the first place.
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)------@%
2011-09-21, 10:37 AM #10
Indy 4 was over the top in a way that reminded me of the old movies.

Not that I wouldn't punch Shea LeDouche all upside his smarmy, no-shouting face.
error; function{getsig} returns 'null'
2011-09-21, 11:44 AM #11
I refuse to watch any Shia LeBeaouf movie where he doesn't repeatedly scream "OPTIMUS!"
>>untie shoes
2011-09-21, 12:40 PM #12
Originally posted by Antony:
I refuse to watch any Shia LeBeaouf movie where he doesn't repeatedly scream "OPTIMUS!"


Or "No no no no nooo"
twitter | flickr | last.fm | facebook |
2011-09-21, 1:32 PM #13
Or him randomly whining about something to do with his inhumanly hot girlfriend who for some reason loves him.
>>untie shoes
2011-09-21, 4:18 PM #14
I honestly don't get what people don't like about Indy 4, it's still better than the ****heap that is Temple of Doom by a country ****ing mile.

That said I don't understand the Shia whatshispuss thing either because I've never seen him in anything besides the first Transformers. How the **** do you pronounce that guy's name anyway?
nope.
2011-09-21, 4:23 PM #15
like its french for "[URL="http://translate.google.com/#auto|en|Le Boeuf"]the beef[/URL]"

click the little speaker icon on the french side there.
My girlfriend paid a lot of money for that tv; I want to watch ALL OF IT. - JM
2011-09-22, 11:48 AM #16
That's the easy part, but I meant his first name. :P
nope.
2011-09-22, 12:00 PM #17
Originally posted by Baconfish:
I honestly don't get what people don't like about Indy 4, it's still better than the ****heap that is Temple of Doom by a country ****ing mile.
Most definitely. The order of the movies for me is 3 > 1 > 4 > 2. The only thing I would be confused about for another Indy movie is how they'd tackle the story. I personally thought 3 wrapped things up fine, but at least 4 went with a rather logical communists and ending on a wedding. What more can they really do, at least with Harrison Ford as Indy?
The Plothole: a home for amateur, inclusive, collaborative stories
http://forums.theplothole.net
2011-09-22, 12:51 PM #18
Originally posted by Baconfish:
I honestly don't get what people don't like about Indy 4, it's still better than the ****heap that is Temple of Doom by a country ****ing mile.

That said I don't understand the Shia whatshispuss thing either because I've never seen him in anything besides the first Transformers. How the **** do you pronounce that guy's name anyway?


This. Hating on Indy 4 is just a trendy thing to do. When I worked at blockbuster half the people who hated it couldn't even tell me why.
2011-09-22, 2:47 PM #19
People told me it was bad because it was unrealistic because it had aliens


wtf ^? The other ones had God in it...**** christian america
2011-09-22, 3:46 PM #20
Originally posted by Couchman:
People told me it was bad because it was unrealistic because it had aliens


wtf ^? The other ones had God in it...**** christian america


I think it was more the actors in the flick, as well as stuff like Indy surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator, swinging by the monkey vines, etc. I couldn't stand the Boof, as well as cate blanchett as a lame lame villain. Marion was a lot worse in this one than in Raiders. But Indy was still Indy, which is why I'll always go see an Indiana Jones flick :).

Even LaBoof said: "You get to monkey-swinging and things like that and you can blame it on the writer and you can blame it on Steven [Spielberg, who directed]. But the actor’s job is to make it come alive and make it work, and I couldn’t do it. So that’s my fault. Simple."
"His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

"None knows what the new day shall bring him"
2011-09-22, 5:41 PM #21
Originally posted by Couchman:
People told me it was bad because it was unrealistic because it had aliens


wtf ^? The other ones had God in it...**** christian america


But the Indy Jones established and worked with that "God" mythology well in the trilogy, it's what made Indy the character that exotic archaeologist with a whip. Pushing in aliens, the staple of sci-fi mytho, throws a wrench in what the series was going for.
SnailIracing:n(500tpostshpereline)pants
-----------------------------@%
2011-09-22, 6:00 PM #22
Originally posted by Couchman:
wtf ^? The other ones had God in it...**** christian america
God is way, way more believable than either surviving a thermonuclear explosion in that refrigerator or surviving its trip across the desert.
2011-09-22, 6:26 PM #23
But melting nazis?
nope.
2011-09-22, 7:54 PM #24
Originally posted by Jon`C:
God is way, way more believable than either surviving a thermonuclear explosion in that refrigerator or surviving its trip across the desert.


Princess Leia: Some day you're gonna be wrong, I just hope I'm there to see it.
2011-09-23, 7:07 AM #25
I think the problem was that Indiana Jones took a shift from mythology and religion to science fiction, and that's a big jump from what people were used to from the past three movies.
twitter | flickr | last.fm | facebook |
2011-09-23, 7:18 AM #26
For me it was the groundhogs. And the gaudy wide shot where you feel like the director is saying "Look how epic this movie is, guys!"
My blawgh.
2011-09-23, 9:34 AM #27
Interestingly, Indy 4 is the only one I've seen all the way through.

I did like the scene in ToD where Short stuff and Indy are playing cards and accusing each other of cheating while the girl is meeting the local wildlife and constantly screaming. LOL
2011-09-23, 9:54 AM #28
Haha, "Short stuff". Love it.
twitter | flickr | last.fm | facebook |
2011-09-23, 10:33 AM #29
Originally posted by TimeWolfOfThePast:
Haha, "Short stuff". Love it.


Cuz I don't remember what his actual name was, lol.
2011-09-23, 11:57 AM #30
Short Round, but I hear he prefers 'Jonathan' these days.
2011-09-23, 4:20 PM #31
Originally posted by Couchman:
People told me it was bad because it was unrealistic because it had aliens


wtf ^? The other ones had God in it...**** christian america


People often can recognizing that something doesn't work with out having the ability to describe or understand why. Aliens clashed thematically with the overall Indiana Jones "aesthetic", if that is the right word. Indiana Jones is about ancient legends that turn out to have some mystical truth to them. Aliens are si-fi and that is diametrically opposed to the spirit of the original trilogy, because it offers a presumably "rational" explanation where the other movies deal with mysticism. There are a number of very compelling resons for them choosing the aliens route, mostly the fact that it fits extremely strongly with 50's nostalgia in the same way that the other three resonated with 30's/40's nostalgia.

The main Indiana Jones "aesthetic" is closest to a ghost story, and it is not compatible with a Si-Fi crossover, even though the two are pretty close, and very compatible in some other cases.

This to me is the main fault, though it failed to produce a sufficiently interesting story or atmospheric setting due to a number of other failures.


Well all that, and Shea LeBouf. Ok, mostly Shea LeBouf.
2011-09-23, 5:20 PM #32
There's also the fact that Indy 4 had really awkward editing, bad cinematography, and really, really bad CGI - especially the green screen sets. The writing failed to establish a credible plot or even a memorable antagonist. In terms of overall quality and aesthetic, it was much closer to a sequel of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
2011-09-23, 6:15 PM #33
Oh man I tried to watch Sky Captain on three different occasions and fell asleep every time.
"Honey, you got real ugly."

↑ Up to the top!