Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[Spider-Fan]

But we're not talking about Star Wars, we're talking about Indiana Jones. There's a difference when one series takes place in a made-up world and another that takes place here.

The other difference is that we've seen all 6 movies Star Wars movie and can fairly compare the special effects in both trilogies. You're making this proclamation that the CGI looks fake in Indy IV based on a 90-second trailer.

Yes, I am going off a 90 second trailer. However, in the previous 3 Indy movies, I can't recall any fake looking scenes, while in the 90 second trailer, things look fake. That is already a step down.

 

[Matt Murdock]

You can't say it's a step down if the film isn't complete yet. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[The_Vision]

in the previous 3 Indy movies, I can't recall any fake looking scenes

 

[Matt Murdock]

And what about the guy who drinks from the wrong grail?

 

[The_Vision]

Oh yeah lol not too bad i suppose Always used to scare me this scene when i was little.

 

[Matt Murdock]

That looks SO realistic.

 

[Spider-Fan]

You can't say it's a step down if the film isn't complete yet. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

People said the effects in SM3 (though I thought they looked fine) looked incomplete in the trailer, and they looked the same in the release of the movie.

Also, I won't comment on the pics cause movie are MOVING pictures. Getting a still is like comparing apples to oranges. Though I will say I do recall a few shots that looked like clamation (particularly toward the end of Raiders).

But, for the most part, the shots looked fine. That 90 sec trailer though doesn't look great, thus why I feel the movie will overall look faker.

 

[Matt Murdock]

It must be awesome never being wrong.

 

[Spider-Fan]

It must be awesome never being wrong.

It has its advantages t:

 

[Cagefighterkip]

Oh yeah lol not too bad i suppose Always used to scare me this scene when i was little.

this wasnt what scared me in the Indy flicks when i was little (i loved the effect of him shredding to dust)... it was when they try to pull Indy's heart out at the end of TOD and the whole Evil Indy scene in TOD as well...

 

[DoctorJones]

Oh yeah lol not too bad i suppose Always used to scare me this scene when i was little.

That scene is one of many examples Crusade matches Raiders. I wasn't so shocked by the heart ripping in Doom, considering I can't really see what it is and the overly mean tone of that film.

 

[Cagefighterkip]

That scene is one of many examples Crusade matches Raiders. I wasn't so shocked by the heart ripping in Doom, considering I can't really see what it is and the overly mean tone of that film.

i thought it was dark, but i never thought TOD was a mean spirited flick... it was fun and everything had a great wrap up with the kids rescued, indy and willy gettign together, saving the tribe and killing an entire heart-rippin' cult into a river filled with man eating crocs

 

[DoctorJones]

Doom's has great cinematography by Douglas Slocombe, so the violence and the bloodshed is so much more in your face: poison, diamond among ice, gunfire in the club, Shanghai chase, Indiana killing the Thuggees via strangulation and rolling pin, being forced to drink blood and getting burnt by his sidekick, collapsing bridge, crocodiles, fiery cult, hot Sankara stones etc. You're right, the baby elephant was welcome relief.

 

[danoyse]

Yes, I am going off a 90 second trailer. However, in the previous 3 Indy movies, I can't recall any fake looking scenes, while in the 90 second trailer, things look fake. That is already a step down.

Then I think you should probably watch the original trilogy again.

And no, you still can't compare 3 complete movies with a 90 second trailer.

 

[Cagefighterkip]

And no, you still can't compare 3 complete movies with a 90 second trailer.

and yeah;
it bugs the f*** outta me when people compate several 2hr flicks to a stinking couple min trailer or a tv spot grr...

 

[Spider-Fan]

Then I think you should probably watch the original trilogy again.

And no, you still can't compare 3 complete movies with a 90 second trailer.

I plan on rewatching these in May, so I'll get around to it.

and yeah;
it bugs the f*** outta me when people compate several 2hr flicks to a stinking couple min trailer or a tv spot grr...

Yes I can compare the two, since the 90 sec trailer is all I have on the new one. When I have the 2hr or whatever length movie the new one will be to go on, then I will have my final say. But, that 90 sec trailer is telling me what to expect, and from my point-of-view, that expectation is a video game.

 

[danoyse]

But, that 90 sec trailer is telling me what to expect, and from my point-of-view, that expectation is a video game.

But you also had many negative views about the movie before you even saw the trailer, so your expectations were already low. You're just finding things to nitpick about.

 

[thejon93]

Oh yeah lol not too bad i suppose Always used to scare me this scene when i was little.

The "heart" scene from 'Indiana Jone II' used to scare the holy hell out of me.

 

[Cagefighterkip]

But you also had many negative views about the movie before you even saw the trailer, so your expectations were already low. You're just finding things to nitpick about.

theres no pleasing some people;
sometimes they just need to be negative -- me: glass is always half full

 

[danoyse]

theres no pleasing some people;
sometimes they just need to be negative -- me: glass is always half full

Some people just need reasons not to like it. To me, the argument is pointless:

- CGI wasn't in the original movies only because the technology didn't exist back then. If they had it, they would have used it. It doesn't always look perfect, but neither did the best special effects back in the 80s either. Many of the SFX in the original trilogy look dated, but they don't affect my enjoyment of the film.

- Harrison Ford is 65, he's hardly geriatric yet, he looks great, and he simply is Indiana Jones. He's plays a character beloved by an entire generation of movie fans who are geniunely thrilled at the chance to get to see him as Indy on the big screen at least one more time.

- Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford have been discussing a new Indy movie since the last one ended. It's not something they just came up with when Stallone started dusting off his old franchises. No studio was pushing them to put together a new movie, no one's career is hinging on it...they all wanted to do this film, which is the best reason to make a new movie.

- Indy hunting Aliens is no less risky than going after Arks holding the Ten Commandments, magic stones, or having converations with centuries-old knights about enternal life.

It's that simple.

 

[Gamma Ray]

- Indy hunting Aliens is no less risky than going after Arks holding the Ten Commandments, magic stones, or having converations with centuries-old knights about enternal life.

It's that simple.

Indy is an archaeologist. He finds historical things, not sci-fi movie rejects.

 

[Hoedowned]

Indy is an archaeologist. He finds historical things, not sci-fi movie rejects.

Well, the sci-fi things are mistaken for historical artifacts. There has to be something interesting about the item everyone is seeking, "archeological importance" isn't just gonna cut it. Having said that, the whole aliens for gods thing sounds a bit too Stargate-ish for it's own good.

 

[cerealkiller182]

Indy is an archaeologist. He finds historical things, not sci-fi movie rejects.

Extraterrestrials jump starting civilization is not a new conept

 

[TNC9852002]

It's almost near fact, BTW

-TNC

 

[jimmylace]

exactly- everyone moaning about the CGI needs to rewatch the originals that used the photographic techology of the time. Theres tons of "fake" compositing that's no where near as good as CGI is. Spielberg said that only 1/3rd of the fx would be CGI; and most of them would hardly be noticeable (removing wires etc)