[Toru-chan]

CGI is to George Lucas what booze is to Amy Winehouse.

As the release of the new Indiana Jones film draws closer, fans are becoming increasingly tense. We want it to be good ... and yet we know it was produced by George Lucas, whose track record is spotty at best.

That's why we were glad to learn last week that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull will NOT be rife with CGI special effects. Plenty of fine movies have made abundant use of CGI, but Lucas tends to lean on it like a crutch. He'll shove an actor in front of a green screen, give him some ludicrous dialogue to mumble, offer no direction whatsoever, and then have his artists draw a bunch of space lizards in the background in post-production. Slap together enough scenes like that and you've got yourself a prequel!

The new Indy film will reportedly not be like that.

http://www.film.com/...597472/20191514

What's with this? Has Lucas finally woken up, or did the strong personal presence of Spielberg cry "NO FREAKING WAY GEORGE!" when he was pitched a new CGI actor? Or could it be because Harrison Ford is a real actor, he doesn't need CGI? How can we break Lucas' terrible addiction to CGI? It hasn't just ruined his life, but it's ruined ours too (his children), and the fanboys (his mangy flea-bitten neutered dogs).

[civilian_number_two]

I think Lucas, unlike many idiots, knew he'd fucked up when the negative fan reviews started pouring in from THE PHANTOM MENACE. He liked the CGI, and thought it was enough t make a film series, but found that folks didn't. Funny enough, they liked SIN CITY and 300 just fine. Problem is, in for a penny, in for a pound, so he had to finish the series the way it started. He tried to make the last one as edgy as he knew how, and most of the fasn that didn't like the first two prequels said that they thought the third was "ok," "the best of the three," or in some cases "good."

Well, now we have a completely different series, and he can get away from CGI altogether, because he han't established it. Also, the old jungle adventure serials were never about model effects the way the sci-fi ones were, so there aren't any models to replace with the computer stuff. The old jungle adventure serials were about big styrofoam sets and lots of stunts. So while he might have argued for CGI sets, and CGI stunts, the argument doesn't carry the same necessity as "let's make the spaceships and the space aliens look as good as we can, and the only way to do that is with CGI!"

Anyway, I don't feel really good about saying this, but I suspect Lucas isn't as stupid as we often give him credit for. I doubt he needed a Spielberg or a Ford to tell him off.

[darthwader]

As far as the new Indiana Jones movie, I think this is much more an attempt to woo the fans of the earlier ones, rather than looking toward captivating 10-year-olds. In everything I've come across, there's a strong thread of capturing/mimicking the look of the older movies. George is probably just happy to be able revisit some familiar ground era-wise (a la "American Grafitti"), and let Spielberg hold the reins.

[civilian_number_two]

Yeah, that'll be its weakness, most likely. Rather than trying to replicate the earlier films, they should go to the source, those old serials, and look for more inspiration there. Just repeating gags from the original films will get old by the first viewing.

[azerty]

First of all, Spielberg's films are on par with Lucas' in terms of crappiness. Where, exactly, do the two differ? They both produce absolute mindless rubbish. Most of it isn't even fun. Take ET as an example of Spielberg at his worst. Mindless, boring, illogical, crap. The entire film makes no sense! Then, later on, Spielberg re-edited it to make it even lamer. I didn't think that it was possible to make that film even more stupid than it originally was, but he managed it all right.

As for Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls, it is sure to be puke making. If you think otherwise you are
dreaming. For Christ sake! Pull your head out!

1.) Spielberg is involved. This is on par with either Robin Williams, Tom Hanks or Chris Columbus being involved. It is begging to be lame.

2.) Lucas is involved. The dissapointments of episodes 1,2,3,5,6,7 weren't enough to convince you? What will? Howard the Duck? Radioland Murders? Young Indianna Jones?

3.) Temple of Doom and Last Crusade also were both gaggingly bad. How the creators of Raiders of the Lost Ark could have somehow pulled these two sequels out of their asses I will never understand. Temple of Doom's Death knell was sounded when Spielberg's horrible girlfriend Kate Kapshaw showed her face in minute 1, and Last Crusade never recovered from that red faced fat kid on that horse in the opening scene.

4.) Why would Spielberg and Lucas team up now to make a sequel to films 25 years old? Answer: Because they are both old and lame have beens who have completely run out of ideas. That is why they are also bringing Karen Allen back. But the corporate bosses say that a new young "hip" and "groovy" fellow should be part of the film too, to give someone the kids can identify with. So we are getting that as well. Oh joy.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is a kickass piece of film, I'll say that. But even a blind pig finds a walnut once in his life.

The Spielberg-Lucas Corporation know that you will go and see this film, no matter what. Therefore they will win. You will lose. Again. You were disapointed by ewoks, but went for the phantom menace. You were dispointed by Jar Jar but went to see attack of the clones. Then, you even went to see whatever that last episode was called, and you don't even know why. They have you absolutely pegged. You are as predictable as robots. You deserve every kick in the ass you're gonna receive until you read that note pinned to your back.

[civilian_number_two]

BAND OF BROTHERS is great. SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (inspired by BAND OF BROTHERS, but produced earlier) has some good bits. SCHINDLER'S LIST has some weaknesses, but is generally good. EMPIRE OF THE SUN, JURASSIC PARK and surprisingly WAR OF THE WORLDS are pretty good. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and JAWS are genius. I say Spielberg has some talent. He planned the opening combat scenes on SPR without storyboards, which honestly is nuts.

Agreed that RAIDERS had no decent sequels, but I wouldn't say that's because Spielberg is a hack director. Bad or not, you can see his heart was in both of them. The writing just wasn't there. With a decent script (I doubt they have a decent script), Spielberg will make a memorable film (I doubt SKULLS will be a memorable film).

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 26 May 2008 - 04:33 AM

[Toru-chan]

Haven't seen it yet, but glad that at the very least their PR is giving lip service to this:

From a technological standpoint, that meant some challenges in seamlessly matching the computer-generated images (CGIs) to the older film style--lens scratches and all. In that vein, the computer animation couldn't be "in your face," and if ILM did its job, viewers will hardly notice the 45 minutes of CGI in the film, Landis said. Interestingly, about 300 people worked in-house on CGI for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the same number of people who worked on the film's set, Landis said.

http://news.cnet.com...ml?tag=nefd.top

I hope it's the end of the CGI Orgy and a return to good film making.

The lead aside, I'm limp on the idea of using such well known actors and actresses. One of the things I liked about the OT was it was mostly unknowns (and where they were knowns, they weren't mainstream knowns). These days they'd probably cast Brad Pitt as Wedge and Shia LaBeouf as Short Round.

...

Oh wait!

This post has been edited by Toru-chan: 25 May 2008 - 11:23 PM

[Storm Shadow]

3.) Temple of Doom and Last Crusade also were both gaggingly bad.

"Gaggingly" bad?

[Hoth]

First of all, Spielberg's films are on par with Lucas' in terms of crappiness. Where, exactly, do the two differ? They both produce absolute mindless rubbish. Most of it isn't even fun. Take ET as an example of Spielberg at his worst. Mindless, boring, illogical, crap. The entire film makes no sense! Then, later on, Spielberg re-edited it to make it even lamer. I didn't think that it was possible to make that film even more stupid than it originally was, but he managed it all right.

1.) Spielberg is involved. This is on par with either Robin Williams, Tom Hanks or Chris Columbus being involved. It is begging to be lame.

3.) Temple of Doom and Last Crusade also were both gaggingly bad. How the creators of Raiders of the Lost Ark could have somehow pulled these two sequels out of their asses I will never understand. Temple of Doom's Death knell was sounded when Spielberg's horrible girlfriend Kate Kapshaw showed her face in minute 1, and Last Crusade never recovered from that red faced fat kid on that horse in the opening scene.

This honestly has to be one of the worst posts on this entire site, and that's saying something...

Spieldberg's films are on par with Lucas's films? Are you kidding? Where have you been for the last 30+ years? Spieldberg has definately had some setbacks (A.I., War of the Worlds) and he hasn't done too well lately but even most of his setbacks are well thought-out, original and far better than most director's best movies. I don't think I have ever watched a Spielberg movie and even if I didn't like it sit back and say that the movie was a complete waste...this guy has been cranking out classics since Jaws (Indiana Jones, Saving Private Ryan, Schlindler's list, Jurassic Park...and the list goes on and on and on...) and to say that he is on-par with Lucas if a flat-out JOKE. The only hope this movie had of being awesome was that Steven Spielberg is on board to hopefully compensate for G.L.'s insanity...unfortunately it didn't work out that way.

The only thing more ridiculous than saying Spielberg is a terrible director is saying that the Temple of doom and the Last Crusade were "gaggingly bad". Raiders may have been the best of the bunch and I personally was a little disappointed in Crusade but to say these two fantastic movies were "bad" in any sense is just mind-boggling. You must be one of those people who see one thing they don't like and that ruins the whole movie for them, regardless of how good the rest of it was/is. Either way I could not disagree with your assessment of Spielberg/I.J. more than I do...and I think I'm pretty sure I'm not in the minority.

This post has been edited by Hoth: 22 January 2009 - 11:46 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Well, I agree that TEMPLE OF DOOM was awful. It's just one stupidly-motivated action sequence after another. So he's not alone there. CRUSADE on the other hand had some fun moments. While not at the level of RAIDERS, it's not gaggingly bad, I agree.

ET is pretty stupid; I agree there as well. But I defer to my earlier post on the subject of Spielberg at his best.

[Hoth]

Well, I agree that TEMPLE OF DOOM was awful. It's just one stupidly-motivated action sequence after another. So he's not alone there. CRUSADE on the other hand had some fun moments. While not at the level of RAIDERS, it's not gaggingly bad, I agree.

Why is it people seem to be one way or the other? If there is a well-made drama that is very thought-provoking and intelligent, there is always the crowd who automatically writes it off because there's not enough "action/excitement". Likewise if a movie actually has action/excitement there is always the crowd who automatically writes it off because "it's just one stupidly-motivated action sequence after another." Temple of Doom was actually my favorite in the series, because I thought it combined the cleverness and wit of Crusade and Raiders with more of the "stupidly-motivated action sequences" so many people disdain. And what? Do Raiders and Crusade not have a lot of action? From what I remember they do...either way I can appreciate the strong points of each movie, and Raiders was probably the best of the three for most because it was the first, and I can understand that, it is an AMAZING movie...but for my money I would also like some of that stupid "action & excitement" that was in Temple...

This post has been edited by Hoth: 23 January 2009 - 05:15 AM

[azerty]

This honestly has to be one of the worst posts on this entire site, and that's saying something...

That's a pretty bold statement. I've written heaps of worse stuff.

However, Spielbergs movies are utter crap. I'll qoute myself from another post...

"What I can't stomach is Spielberg himself, and his absolutely dreadful and overbearing cinematic style. He and his actors are far too aware of the camera. All movements are stilted and over choreographed. He has zero sense of subtlety. He reuses the same same scenes from film to film. He treats his audiences like idiots and expects us to love him for it. He loves "scenes" at the expense of story, plot, pacing, and logic. He loves cuteness over substance. It is not so much that this film is worse than any of his others, it's just that the cuteness has finally worn off for most people. This film is shit. But, on the other hand, so was Last Crusade, for exactly the same reasons, and E.T., and The Goonies, and Hook, and Saving Private Ryan, and Jurassic Park, and Empire of the Sun, and most of the rest of them. They were always shit."



I suppose at this stage you would like some sort of example? Let's take everybody's favorite film, "ET".

I notice you dislike films

made for 8-year olds with no brain or common sense

Is ET supposed to make any kind of sense, or is it merely a collection of random scenes assembled by Steven Spielberg to manipulate the simple minded? I certainly lacks logic from start to finish, on both the grand scale and the small.

If those ETs are trying to be inconspicuous while stealing earth's trees, why have they got all their lights blazing during their clandestine mission to deforest our planet? Sure, I suppose it symbolizes that ET's ship is powered by rainbows, dolphins, the power of love, and all that shit, but maybe step one in not being noticed by the locals might be to turn all your lights OFF while skulking around in the boondocks, you space wankers!

Of course, they might have thought to land a bit farther from town too, considering they could touch down anywhere on the damn planet. Here's a hint; avoid the bright lights when looking for trees; here on earth, they don't spark up like lightbulbs.

Little ET seems to be quite surprised by the glow of the city lights, which is interesting, since he just flew over it 5 minutes ago in his super advanced spaceship. Spielberg's influence - the audience can't think while watching a movie; they can't even remember what happened a few scenes ago, and the characters in the movie can only see what the audience sees, even if they are looking at something off camera.

Ah, yes, the Spielberg influence. Like, when the scary men show up and chase the ETs, they all, each and every one of them, step in a big puddle of water while running through the forest. Now maybe the first guy might accidently step in a puddle, but any sensible person following would simply step over the damn puddle rather than in it. But for Spielberg, nothing matters except that he thinks the big splashes look really cool.

ET hides out in a shed in Elliot's back garden, trying to hide from the scary men. Yes, he is hiding out, because he is scared and hiding out on a hostile planet. Yet when Ellitot flings the ball into the shed to see if anything is there, ET decides to toss the ball back out. Oh, so suddenly ET isn't scared anymore? Why would ET throw the ball back out of the shed? I know, I know, he just wants to play, cause he's a friendly alien from the planet of love. Does he not realize the position he is in? He is surrounded by enemies, and he can't even rely on his so-called buddies, who all just ratted hs sorry ass out for basically no reason that I can discern. Is their planet motto "Leave no ET behind?" Nope, it's more likely to be "It's always bowb your buddy week". 2 points for knowing where that quote comes from. Naw, make it 1000 points, cause you won't get them anyway.

(A nicely plausible reason for the ball throwing is that ET obviously thought it was some kind of a hand grenade, and was trying to blow up his pursuers with their own instrument of death.)

Later, Elliot and the family search the shed. After the boys finish their examination, and turn up nothing, it turns out that ET was hiding in there the whole damn time. Impossible! Then Elliot and the family, (even after assuming that the "Coyote has come back"), leave a box of un-eaten pizza just lying on the grass. Even if they aren't worried about ravenous coyotes, what about picking up your rubbish, you filthy bastards?

Elliot next hunts for ET while flashing a torch around which should be visible from at least a mile away. He comes across ET hiding ineffectually in the bushes, and ET screams as if he has just been surprised by some kind of a stealth ninja - like he couldn't see the spotlight coming closer and closer? Then he runs off, and manages to push Elliot's swings as he disappears. (I thought he just wanted to play?) And he doesn't push just one swing but both swings, a pull up bar (that he is far too short to reach), and the see saw too. All that stuff moving improbably around - it just looks really cool says Spielberg, who the fuck cartes if it's plausible? I'm making this movie for middle America!

So is ET supposed to be smart or stupid? He makes no effort to follow the conversation with the globe and the maps. No sense of tidiness (he just throws the potato slalad on the kitchen floor, no doubt his cabin on the old ET space bus is quite a shocker, eh?). You might think he was a retarded 4 year old. But on the other hand he works out the tv remote, grasps the idea of sending a help message which he gleans from the comics, and dismantles a speak n spell.

I could continue, scene by scene ripping the hell out of this pointless muck, and maybe one day I will, but I am occupied at the moment.

Suffice it to say that besides Raiders and the last 1/2 of Jaws, Spielberg is unwatchable. Only Andrew Adamson is worse.

If you wish to argue, I'll be free next week, but you'll end up crying in the corner. I've read all your other posts you see.

[Hoth]

The fact that you say that "Saving Private Ryan" & Jurassic Park are "crap" pretty much speaks for itself to anyone else who may read this, so I don't even to respond...it's kind of obvious you're one of those people who are consumed with themselves and it would never get either of us anywhere so let's save ourselves the frustration.

I have never liked E.T., always thought it was overrated so say what you want and I won't argue.

I notice you dislike films

Huh???

If you wish to argue, I'll be free next week, but you'll end up crying in the corner. I've read all your other posts you see.

wow...enjoy yourself...

[civilian_number_two]

Why is it people seem to be one way or the other? If there is a well-made drama that is very thought-provoking and intelligent, there is always the crowd who automatically writes it off because there's not enough "action/excitement". Likewise if a movie actually has action/excitement there is always the crowd who automatically writes it off because "it's just one stupidly-motivated action sequence after another." Temple of Doom was actually my favorite in the series, because I thought it combined the cleverness and wit of Crusade and Raiders with more of the "stupidly-motivated action sequences" so many people disdain. And what? Do Raiders and Crusade not have a lot of action? From what I remember they do...either way I can appreciate the strong points of each movie, and Raiders was probably the best of the three for most because it was the first, and I can understand that, it is an AMAZING movie...but for my money I would also like some of that stupid "action & excitement" that was in Temple...

RAIDERS has a lot of action, yes. It's an homage to the adventure serial. But it does not have "stupidly motivated action scenes." There is no roler-coaster mine cart, or characters outrunning water. The only good idea in TEMPLE OD DOOM, where Indy cuts the rope bridge after tying himself in, was stolen from an adventure serial (actually so was the water bit). And ultimately it plays out terribly, since Indy is really doomed when he fails to knock everyone off the bridge. Really his goal should have been to kill everyone on the bridge while likely breaking his ribcage or dislocating his shoulders , and then he should have dropped down onto the riverbank. But that's another thing; none of the films were heavy on realistic physics, so we'll let that be. TOD also had the nonsensical bit with the guy getting his heart ripped out while he was still alive and then he is lowered into an active volcano (conscious and screaming all the way). They repeat this same ceremony on Kate Capshaw, including the suspense-ridden lowering of her body into the fiery pit, but somehow they forgot to rip her heart out, so Indy was safe to rescue her. THAT is plain idiotic.

There's too much wrong with TOD, beginning with the Bond stylings of Indy as he trades an artifact for a pretty diamond (WTF?), but anyone lookig to nitpick that film should have heeded the warning of the opening song, "Anything Goes."

[Hoth]

none of the films were heavy on realistic physics, so we'll let that be.

That's kind of my point. If you hold one film accountable for these elements, you have to hold all of them accountable. I think the beginning scene in Raiders is quite silly myself, outrunning a big boulder, then outrunning 100+ natives all simultaneously firing arrows and he magically never gets hit??? Please...but hey no one insults the original...must be some unwritten rule.