Armond White Says ‘Crystal Skull’ Is Better Than ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark,’ Paul W.S.

[Gianakin_]

Imo he's perfectly consistent with his argument when he says he prefers RE5 over The Master. Not sure I agree with his argument about their respective cinematographies, though.

 

[Octoberist]

My take of 'Crystal Skull': It can be entertaining, but in no way is it anyone's favorite Indiana Jones film (Doom and Crusade are safe!). "Crystal" just lacks any real energy or cohesiveness.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I was talking about climaxes. Not comparing 1st and 2nd acts, whose riddles/obstacles Kingdom handled fine, imo.

Then what is your point exactly? Kingdom's third act has the battles and Indy using his cunning and brawn to win the day. It also has the villain's thirst for knowledge being their down fall just like Raiders.

Not in the other films. Within Kingdom Indy's character had progressed in a way that never made me go "huh?" when he giddied up.

How so? Indy was cool as a fool in a swimming po... poo. pool. He continues to show up Mutt, beats up a giant Russian and reacts to the nuke in a very similar manner to earlier films.

 

[Octoberist]

Imo he's perfectly consistent with his argument when he says he prefers RE5 over The Master. Not sure I agree with his argument about their respective cinematographies, though.

RE5 (and RE4) had the typical cinematography of a digital movie: Flat, blue/silverish and overly videoy. While The Master is beautiful to look at with its 65 mm glory.

Not to bash digital, since I think (so far) Skyfall, Drive, and The Social Network are all beautiful. But it'll take time when everyone can take advantage of it.

 

[Gianakin_]

Then what is your point exactly? Kingdom's third act has the battles and Indy using his cunning and brawn to win the day. It also has the villain's thirst for knowledge being their down fall just like Raiders.

For me the 3rd act is after the waterfall drops. And if you notice, that's when Indy stops doing anything.

How so? Indy was cool as a fool in a swimming po... poo. pool. He continues to show up Mutt, beats up a giant Russian and reacts to the nuke in a very similar manner to earlier films.

Show up Mutt? Could you clarify what you mean by this?

And of course he'll show similar traits as in the other films. When you get 50-something you won't be an entirely different person than your mid-30s self, will you? The guy grew old, whis priorities were different, so was his idiosyncrasy. The trilogy Indy would never flash such a benign smile to Mutt, or tell him to calm down and not get overly excited. He progressed as a character. Maybe not in a way you like, sure, but he did.

 

[Gianakin_]

RE5 (and RE4) had the typical cinematography of a digital movie: Flat, blue/silverish and overly videoy. While The Master is beautiful to look at with its 65 mm glory.

Not to bash digital, since I think (so far) Skyfall, Drive, and The Social Network are all beautiful. But it'll take time when everyone can take advantage of it.

Well, White doesn't even use the quality or beauty argument. His argument is basically "go with the times". Which I don't necessarily agree with, based on results.

 

[Octoberist]

For me the 3rd act is after the waterfall drops. And if you notice, that's when Indy stops doing anything.



Show up Mutt? Could you clarify what you mean by this?

And of course he'll show similar traits as in the other films. When you get 50-something you won't be an entirely different person than your mid-30s self, will you? The guy grew old, whis priorities were different, so was his idiosyncrasy. The trilogy Indy would never flash such a benign smile to Mutt, or tell him to calm down and not get overly excited. He progressed as a character. Maybe not in a way you like, sure, but he did.

Progression or not, I agree with Red Letter Media in saying that Indiana Jones works as a visceral character. You want to live his life and his adventures, just like James Bond. And like Bond, you don't want to see him getting old and getting married.* He's not that type of character.

*Bond got married for like 2 seconds in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service. And as you can see with 'Never Say Never Again' and 'A View to a Kill', there's aways a limit on the age thing.

 

[Octoberist]

Well, White doesn't even use the quality or beauty argument. His argument is basically "go with the times". Which I don't necessarily agree with, based on results.

Hmmm...what does 'go with the times' really mean?

 

[Gianakin_]

Hmmm...what does 'go with the times' really mean?

"Digital's taking over, stop trying with film".

 

[Gianakin_]

Progression or not, I agree with Red Letter Media in saying that Indiana Jones works as a visceral character. You want to live his life and his adventures, just like James Bond. And like Bond, you don't want to see him getting old and getting married.* He's not that type of character.

*Bond got married for like 2 seconds in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service. And as you can see with 'Never Say Never Again' and 'A View to a Kill', there's aways a limit on the age thing.

The least of the complaints about Kingdom was Indy's age.

And I disagree 300% with Red Letter Media. Bond was always more of an archetype than Indy. I could see indy progress, I saw his house, his job. Getting old was something I welcomed. Bond never spewed a line that welcomed the audience into his vulnerability like "it's not the years, it's the milage".

Apples to oranges, imo and, also imo, totally wrong perception of the character.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

For me the 3rd act is after the waterfall drops. And if you notice, that's when Indy stops doing anything.

Where does the third act of the first three films start for you?

In Kingdom I think it is clearly when they are in the back of the truck. Indy's escape is when it begins.

Show up Mutt? Could you clarify what you mean by this?

And of course he'll show similar traits as in the other films. When you get 50-something you won't be an entirely different person than your mid-30s self, will you? The guy grew old, whis priorities were different, so was his idiosyncrasy. The trilogy Indy would never flash such a benign smile to Mutt, or tell him to calm down and not get overly excited. He progressed as a character. Maybe not in a way you like, sure, but he did.

He constantly outshines him and shows what his years of experience have brought him in terms of combat and investigation. There are the spiders, the blow dart, the scene in the dinner, etc.

And as far as progressing. There is progressing and then there is badly written out of character, out of film. It was out of character for Indy and it didn't match the flow or style of the film at all. Such an argument that it is simply "progression" could be used to excuse all inconsistent writing.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I think far too much is put on ideas and effort then what actually shows up on screen. Look at Prometheus, it is perfect example.

Just because the subject matter is considered of a higher level, it doesn't mean the execution gets a pass.

Precisely.
Ridley is notorious for overanalysing stuff.
While he can succeed , it also works against him.
Sometimes the simplest approach is probably the best one.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Progression or not, I agree with Red Letter Media in saying that Indiana Jones works as a visceral character. You want to live his life and his adventures, just like James Bond. And like Bond, you don't want to see him getting old and getting married.* He's not that type of character.

*Bond got married for like 2 seconds in 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service. And as you can see with 'Never Say Never Again' and 'A View to a Kill', there's aways a limit on the age thing.

I loved the marriage. I loved living that experience with Indy. I just didn't like the inital reunion. Much prefer the scene in the back of the truck.

 

[Octoberist]

"Digital's taking over, stop trying with film".

Of course, but there's always room for improvement. Quite an adjustment, since digital is improving but isn't 'there' yet.. But soon that's the reality: Digital will be THE format.

*Personally, I don't think film will be 100% dead in the future. It's a meh example, but look at the re-emergence of vinyl records. That led to new record companies forming, and new factories too (Third Man Records' factory) There will be ways for directors to use film years from now, but it won't be as easy.

 

[Gianakin_]

"Digital's taking over, stop trying with film".

To explain, here's his quote:

"All that ballyhoo about The Master being shot in 70mm means nothing in the digital cinema age (too many oppressive home-video close-ups waste technology specifically designed to give tactility to what might be lost in distant scope). Praising this shows ignorance about cinematography. Instead, the smart-about-movies crowd should be looking at Paul W.S. Anderson’s aesthetics."

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Precisely.
Ridley is notorious for overanalysing stuff.
While he can succeed , it also works against him.
Sometimes the simplest approach is probably the best one.

Having just watched Dredd, I really have to agree with this. The movie is a perfect example of proper execution and understanding of the subject matter.

It irks me when a film is clearly winging it. As if the filmmakers didn't have a full grasp of the concept, yet they go with it anyways because it is cool and smart.

 

[Octoberist]

I agree that Ridley and his writers were a bit clueless in how to approach the ambiguous narrative in Prometheus.

 

[Octoberist]

To explain, here's his quote:

"All that ballyhoo about The Master being shot in 70mm means nothing in the digital cinema age (too many oppressive home-video close-ups waste technology specifically designed to give tactility to what might be lost in distant scope). Praising this shows ignorance about cinematography. Instead, the smart-about-movies crowd should be looking at Paul W.S. Anderson’s aesthetics."

In which RE5 an ugly, flat film. Although these films opened last year, the smart-about movies crowd should be looking at Drive, The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo and Hugo when it comes to digital.

 

[Gianakin_]

Where does the third act of the first three films start for you?

In Kingdom I think it is clearly when they are in the back of the truck. Indy's escape is when it beings.

Raider's the end fo the sub.
Temple is when Indy gets back to his senses.
Crusade is Indy's raid to the tank to relase his dad.

He constantly outshines him and shows what his years of experience have brought him in terms of combat and investigation. There are the spiders, the blow dart, the scene in the dinner, etc.

Ok, thought so, just wanted to make sure. Agreed, too.

And as far as progressing. There is progressing and then there is badly written out of character, out of film. It was out of character for Indy and it didn't match the flow or style of the film at all. Such an argument that it is simply "progression" could be used to excuse all inconsistent writing.

Sorry, but the same can be said about the "out of character" argument to exuse the viewer's not liking a character's action. To me it was perfectly in character with what was established in scenes like the initial dialogue between Indy and Spalko, Indy and the Dean in the former's house, every Indy and Mutt non-action scene before they set out to South America. Perfectly set up and explained.

 

[Gianakin_]

In which RE5 an ugly, flat film. Although these films opened last year, the smart-about movies crowd should be looking at Drive, The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo and Hugo.

I agree completely. That's why I think his argument is very faulty.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I agree that Ridley and his writers were a bit clueless in how to approach the ambiguous narrative in Prometheus.

And because of this they threw the piecemeal kitchen sink at it, cherry picking his best films and their ideas in an attempt to do... something.

 

[Octoberist]

Seriously, RE5's cinematography doesn't look good. And just because it was filmed in digital doesn't give it credibility. Hell, I would put Avengers as an example, since that too was filmed in digital and looked decent. Or Prometheus.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Paul W.S. Anderson is basically this era's Roger Corman. Basically making B-movies .
The thing though is that these directors can inspire an entire generation of directors who will make some pretty awesome movies.
James Cameron has also worked under Corman and look at his status in the film industry.

P.T. Anderson is being called the next Kubrick. Hell he even met Kubrick who also talked with him about movies. I need to check up on this but Kubrich even gave him a one of a kind camera.

Both Andersons make different movies however i'd argue based on the Master's reception so far , both succeed with their respective movies.

 

[Gianakin_]

Hell, I would put Avengers as an example, since that too was filmed in digital and looked decent.

Seriously, though, it's astonishing how the RE5 trailer starts with the section of the film that parodizes family and feelgood flicks and then when the reality segments kick in... cinematography's just the same. Terrible.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Raider's the end fo the sub.
Temple is when Indy gets back to his senses.
Crusade is Indy's raid to the tank to relase his dad.

Does that not match up with my starting point for Kingdom?

Sorry, but the same can be said about the "out of character" argument to exuse the viewer's not liking a character's action. To me it was perfectly in character with what was established in scenes like the initial dialogue between Indy and Spalko, Indy and the Dean in the former's house, every Indy and Mutt non-action scene before they set out to South America. Perfectly set up and explained.

How so? Indy is reflecting yes, but he reflects in a very Indy manner. He is solemn and clumsy. Not giddy.