I was talking about climaxes. Not comparing 1st and 2nd acts, whose riddles/obstacles Kingdom handled fine, imo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Digital's taking over, stop trying with film".
"Digital's taking over, stop trying with film".
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.
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."
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.
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.
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 that Ridley and his writers were a bit clueless in how to approach the ambiguous narrative in Prometheus.
Hell, I would put Avengers as an example, since that too was filmed in digital and looked decent.
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.
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.