Chefelf.com Night Life: Indiana Jones-The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Indiana Jones-The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

#16 User is offline   BigStupidDogFacedArse Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 11-January 08
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 27 May 2008 - 01:38 PM

The people I saw the film with made a big deal about the monkey scene. I agree, it was over the top and should've been left on the floor in the editing room. So while the swing was bad in it's own right, I found the CGI monkeys to be much more unforgivable. I won't except CGI animals when the real ones can be used and especially with something as harmless as a spider monkey. Sure, you gotta fork up the bucks for 12 trained spider monkeys, the trainer, and have an extra dude on set supervising the monkeys well-being. But in the end the finished product is better off and perhaps more discretion would be used on the directors behalf. "is it worth having the monkey swing scene? We gotta contact the zoo and clean up shit off stage and oh fuck it, axe the scene".

This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 27 May 2008 - 01:39 PM

0

#17 User is offline   Storm Shadow Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11-April 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 27 May 2008 - 02:30 PM

ha! Instead of axeing the scene though, Lucas just decided to "improvise" and CGI it the fuck out. CGI is the solution for everything in the fat bearded bitches life, it seems. Kids giving you a headache? CGI. Skywalker Ranch needs Yoda-molded toilet repairs? CGI. Critics giving you shit for consistently being a lame-idea machine? CGI. Heart attack resulting from gorging on too much fried chicken and steak? CGI.
0

#18 User is offline   azerty Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 22-September 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Valencia VLC
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 27 May 2008 - 03:03 PM

Spielberg is the director. It is his film and his choice to use CGI.

Why spend money for monkeys etc. when even people who know the film is going to suck will pay to see it anyway? Some of them will even buy the DVD just to complete their collection of movies that they never liked in the first place. Spielberg is laughing his ass off right now.
0

#19 User is offline   Storm Shadow Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11-April 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 27 May 2008 - 03:56 PM

QUOTE (azerty @ May 27 2008, 04:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Spielberg is the director. It is his film and his choice to use CGI.


but Indy is partially George's idea as well. So it's not like Steven can completely dismiss George's input, he has to be willing to accept a few of his boneheaded suggestions. But I always envision Steven laughing in George's face and patronizing him at will for the most part.
0

#20 User is offline   azerty Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 22-September 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Valencia VLC
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 27 May 2008 - 05:15 PM

Actually Indy is all Lucas's idea, with the idea of the hunt for the lost ark instigated by Philip Kaufman. And when the opening credits state "A film by Steven Spielberg", that means what it says. The film is the director's vision, his "creative interpretation" of the material, including the acting, the tone, and the use of cheesy special effects and stupid gags.

You can't go through life thinking that Spielberg is a god and Lucas an idiot. Lucas is worth about a billion dollars more than Spielberg, not that that has anything to do with being a better film maker, but if there is any patronizing attitude going on I bet it is the other way around.
0

#21 User is offline   Storm Shadow Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 11-April 05
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 27 May 2008 - 05:52 PM

Meh. Never insinuated Steven was a god. His track record is slightly more hit than miss to me. But I'm of the belief that Steve humored George on this Indy movie and gave him his stupid CGI buttfuck fest just to satiate his appetite for artificalness. I highly doubt Lucas can patronize a man who clearly has a superior track record, no matter how strong their friendship is.
0

#22 User is offline   BigStupidDogFacedArse Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 11-January 08
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 27 May 2008 - 05:57 PM

God, I just noticed a few embarrassing grammar errors in my last post.... I'm not going to begin pegging blame to either Lucas or Spielberg. For now, I'm just ranting and will reserve the blame game for later on. I'm hoping by page 6 of this thread we'll come to a conclusion on who takes responsibility for this film.

This post has been edited by BigStupidDogFacedArse: 27 May 2008 - 05:59 PM

0

#23 User is offline   Deucaon Icon

  • Soothsayer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 594
  • Joined: 27-December 06
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Australia

Posted 27 May 2008 - 06:07 PM

QUOTE (Jaded Wolf @ May 27 2008, 06:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Actually, if you'd bother to see the movie instead of making assumptions then you would see how the KGB got into the warehouse.


I don't want to waste my money on seeing a movie with a plot that a child could come up with so tell me how they got there and I might waste my money on that film.

QUOTE (J m HofMarN @ May 27 2008, 07:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How is it possible that our fearless leader has not commented on this mess? George Lucas is involved in the rape of yet another beloved childhood icon and Chefelf is silent. Is his silence to do with being actually silenced by the KGB or aliens or ants, or is he keeping quiet while he works on "reasons to hate episode 4"


Since George Lucas is the father of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchise, by raping it has he committed incest?
"I felt insulted until I realized that the people trying to mock me were the same intellectual titans who claimed that people would be thrown out of skyscrapers and feudalism would be re-institutionalized if service cartels don't keep getting political favors and regulations are cut down to only a few thousand pages worth, that being able to take a walk in the park is worth driving your nation's economy into the ground, that sexual orientation is a choice that can be changed at a whim, that problems caused by having institutions can be solved by introducing more institutions or strengthening the existing ones that are causing the problems, and many more profound pearls of wisdom. I no longer feel insulted because I now feel grateful for being alive and witnessing such deep conclusions from my fellows."
-Jimmy McTavern, 1938.
0

#24 User is offline   azerty Icon

  • Mini Boss
  • PipPip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 22-September 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Valencia VLC
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 27 May 2008 - 06:57 PM

By better track record I assume you don't mean the number of hit movies divided by the number of shitters? Because Lucas clearly has the better track record, that's why he has more money.

So you think Lucas said to Spielberg "This film isn't artrificial enough, let's put in some stupid CGI buttfuck fest", and Spielberg said OK?

The fault belongs to the fans, since they obviously spent heaps of cash to make this the biggest opening weekend ever. Spielberg said he was making it for the fans, and now they have it and everyone is happy.

* * *

The KGB got into the warehouse because the warehouse is a big hanger in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the Nevada desert. Kind of makes sense, actually, like that place in Arizona or somewhere that has all those classic aeroplanes lined up for miles in every direction just wasting away in the heat.
0

#25 User is offline   Lord Aquaman Icon

  • Legend
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,976
  • Joined: 19-November 04
  • Location:Atlantis
  • Interests:Movies, comic books, some mythology... basically anything that's larger than life.
  • Country:United States

Posted 27 May 2008 - 08:50 PM

Haven't seen it, not sure I even want to see it. I loved Indy as a kid, and I was perfectly content to have only 3 films about him (never got into the young Indy TV series). But I'm always wary of long delayed sequels to things that have been gone for nearly 20 years. "Blues Brothers 2000" anyone?

I remember reading once that one idea they toyed with was Indy finding the Lost City of Atlantis, with the title allegedly having been Indiana Jones & The Lost Continent.

This post has been edited by Lord Aquaman: 27 May 2008 - 08:51 PM

I am the Fisher King.

I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
0

#26 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 27 May 2008 - 10:20 PM

I just saw it. I didn't think it was that bad, considering the other films in the series. RAIDERS is the only genuinely good one, after all; why hold the sequel to a high standard when the last two were, depending on your point of view, either blah or full-on bad?

OK, spoilers on, silly as it seems after the above posts:

One thing I had hoped was that they would not spend much time paying homage to earlier works, that they would instead make something that evoked the ideas that inspired the originals. So, this film homaged THE WILD ONE, the 50's hotrod fixation, stories of space aliens (modernised to incorporate the Roswell conspiracies), the Tarzan movies (a 30s-40s phenomenon), THE NAKED JUNGLE with its man-eating ants, and of course the over-the-top Russian villains and villainesses of cold war B-Movies. So far so good. To the complaint that we see the warehouse that housed the Ark of the Covenant, well ok. But in this film it is identified as AREA 51, so of course they go there. This is an example of a clever reference. The stolen-from-2001-and-repeated-ad-nauseum-in-the-STAR Wars-series line "I've got a bad feeling about this?" Well, ok, that was dumb.

I was happy to hear Karen Allen would be in this one, but sad that she was so poorly utilised. She was one tough lady in the first movie, while in this one she was hardly even a side character. Inevitable I'm sure, but sad all the same. Shia the beef, set to replace Jones Jr? Also dumb. This isn't a series with any more longevity, methinks. Best not beat that dead horse too much.

The Indiana Jones movies, IMO, are a lot like James Bond: even the ones that are mostly ok are nothing when compared with whichever early one got you to like the series in the first place, be it FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE or GOLDFINGER (I came in late, and got into Bond with FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, which I still think is Roger Moore's best). I think there just won't be another RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, sadly. There was only so much "good" nostalgia to carry it.

One obvious complaint is the questionable action (how many bad shots does it take to make up a Russian platoon?), especially the questionable physics, much of which has already been mentioned here (the magnetism, the car-mounted swordfight, the multiple drops from heights), etc. The obvious complaint is that the original films used stuntmen and models, so the physics had to work. CGI allows anything you want, so directors and editors too frequently don't see how impossible everything is. And yeah, I agree with everyone on the CGI groundhogs. That shit ain't funny.


All in all, a typical action film, neither offensive nor memorable. I won't go on record as saying it was offensive to me in the same way that LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD was.

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#27 User is offline   BigStupidDogFacedArse Icon

  • Henchman
  • Pip
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 11-January 08
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 28 May 2008 - 12:07 PM

I too enjoyed the WILD ONES hommage. I also like the Greaser/Prepy fight and the endless line up of Harleys out side the soda shop where Mutt and Indy first met. I hated everything else. Cate Blanchet's character was more comedic than menacing and the whole Red commy thing just didn't play out as well as Spielberg had hoped. I understand this film was suppose to be pastiche but it doesn't come together in the end.

I guess my line up goes like this:

Raiders
Crusade
Temple of Doom
Crystal Skull

If I wanted to be fair, Temple and Crystal are tied. I agree about the Bond comparison. You can enjoy the odd film and discard the ones you disliked. But it's obvious to me that Bond will definately endure and Indy will not. The series is exhausted so you'll have to hit up Tomb Raider if you're in the mood for a an archelogical action flick.
0

#28 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 28 May 2008 - 11:38 PM

Agreed on that last line; this series wouldn't survive a change in Director and Star. For that, like you say I'll watch Relic Hunter, The Mummy, National Treasure, and NOT that horrible Matthew McConaughey thing.

One thing that struck me while watching this is that Cate Blanchett is 38. For a gal who's allegedly a year younger than me, that Aussie has great skin. Damn. I'd go Down Under!
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#29 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 03 June 2008 - 01:46 AM

That brings up a pretty good point, which I've already actually made my decision on. I am tremendously thankful that the Jones franchise does not require all films to be owned. I bought all six starwars films because, no joke, it was cheeper to buy 1-6 than 4-6. In the same vein I also bought all three jones movies and ended up giving away Temple of Doom just because I didnt want someone seeing that in my collection. I can stomach owning the prequels because they're arguably useful to understanding the original trilogy, but with Indy I can bury my head in the sand and pretend Temple never happened. Thanks, Steven Spielberg!

I think I'll do the same with Skulls.

So, what are the rest of your DVD collections going to look like?

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

#30 User is offline   barend Icon

  • Anchor Head Anchor Man
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Crappy News Team
  • Posts: 11,839
  • Joined: 12-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nieuw Holland
  • Interests:The Beers of Western Europe, Cognac, and constantly claiming the world would have been a better place if Napoleon had won.
  • Country:Australia

Posted 04 June 2008 - 09:55 PM

the firdge scene reeked of lucas
0

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size