The INDIANA JONES Appreciation Thread

[MrMaooz]

Aliens didn't ruin the movie for me at all. I liked the movie but there was some weird CGI and the final act was kinda weird.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I just never felt that aliens in general belonged in an Indiana Jones movie, when you watch the original first three you never would believe that an alien lifeform would just randomly show up in that world.

 

[MrMaooz]

I didn't mind the aliens, or heck, even the Nuke the Fridge scene.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I disliked the gratuitous cgi more than anything. Real locations or actual set dressing, plz.

 

[MrMaooz]

Yeah, I was like WTF? when that CGI tractor thingy appeared.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Also while I don't hate Shia Labeouf like a lot of people, his presence makes the movie feel really dated, like a flavor of the month thing that it won't ever be able to shake.

 

[MrMaooz]

I didn't mind Shia.

I laughed hard when he said "What are you? Like 80?"

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I disliked the gratuitous cgi more than anything. Real locations or actual set dressing, plz.

Most of the movie was shot with locations and sets. They just used CGI to enhance them.

I've always found this criticism exaggerated. This film very much looks like an Indy film. Just a modern one. The lightening and cinematography is very much is line with the other three

I also don't see how religious spirits and powers and mystic cults can be accepted but aliens can't.

 

[MrMaooz]

I'm with you Gremlin. The movie was stunning. It's just that sometimes there was weird CGI.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

That jungle chase looks nothing like any Indy film that came before. It looks like George Lucas was running rampant on set while Spielberg was out with a cold.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

That's why we all know how cgi in the long run can be a double edged sword for the most part it looks good at the moment but sometimes as time goes by how dated it looks really affects the viewing of a film.

 

[MrMaooz]

I actually enjoyed the jungle scene, but the CGI was funky dunky in that scene at times, lol.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

I've always found the opposition to CGI in general rather unfair. I'm not saying it can't be over used or can't look bad, but people just hate on CGI for being CGI.

CGI is a natural progression of film technology. Do you not want films to evolve? Mindlessly hating on CGI for being CGI is like hating on the 60s-80s for using prosthetics and models and mattes. They are a way to achieve things that couldn't be otherwise. There is some CGI in Skull that looks a little wonky, but nothing that takes me out of the film (except the monkeys. Thats the only scene that fanboys ***** about endlessly that I agree with) or ruin it.

Do you honestly expect Spielberg to use 20-30 year technology for a 2008 film? People act like it's some affront to their morals that he dared use some CGI. Like if he really kept every single thing practical or old school he wouldn't have been criticized for being old hat or wildly misguided? Like critics AND audiences wouldn't laugh the film out of the theater for looking 25 years old? We can accept older effects films because for their time they looked great. And of course, for their time they still do, but you can't deny that they are dated. Not bad looking, but dated. You honestly can't say the ghosts in Raiders look more real than the aliens in Skull. Or that the face melt looks realistic. It's about context.

 

[MrMaooz]

edit

 

[antonydelfini]

I've always found the opposition to CGI in general rather unfair. I'm not saying it can't be over used or can't look bad, but people just hate on CGI for being CGI.

CGI is a natural progression of film technology. Do you not want films to evolve? Mindlessly hating on CGI for being CGI is like hating on the 60s-80s for using prosthetics and models and mattes. They are a way to achieve things that couldn't be otherwise. There is some CGI in Skull that looks a little wonky, but nothing that takes me out of the film (except the monkeys. Thats the only scene that fanboys ***** about endlessly that I agree with) or ruin it.

Do you honestly expect Spielberg to use 20-30 year technology for a 2008 film? People act like it's some affront to their morals that he dared use some CGI. Like if he really kept every single thing practical or old school he wouldn't have been criticized for being old hat or wildly misguided? Like critics AND audiences wouldn't laugh the film out of the theater for looking 25 years old? We can accept older effects films because for their time they looked great. And of course, for their time they still do, but you can't deny that they are dated. Not bad looking, but dated. You honestly can't say the ghosts in Raiders look more real than the aliens in Skull. Or that the face melt looks realistic. It's about context.

Man, just compare the RAIDERS car chase scene, LAST CRUSADE'S tank scene, and KINGDOM's jungle chase. Tell me which two felt real and dangerous, and which one did not. And I'm telling you, the one with the CGI didn't feel real, gritty, dirty, and dangerous. Hence, less thrills, excitement, and suspense.

CGI can be great in some movies, like Gravity and Avatar. But in movies like Bond or Indy, minimal CGI is the key. More real sets, locations, real stunts. In Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, there were too many unnecessary CGI.

 

[MrMaooz]

The funny thing is though, Spielberg's CGI in Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds isn't dated and it's really good.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Man, just compare the RAIDERS car chase scene, LAST CRUSADE'S tank scene, and KINGDOM's jungle chase. Tell me which two felt real and dangerous, and which one did not. And I'm telling you, the one with the CGI didn't feel real, gritty, dirty, and dangerous. Hence, less thrills, excitement, and suspense.

CGI can be great in some movies, like Gravity and Avatar. But in movies like Bond or Indy, minimal CGI is the key. More real sets, locations, real stunts. In Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, there were too many unnecessary CGI.

The tank chase is just as cartoony as anything in Skull (sans monkeys). It's downright slapstick at times with Marcus and Henry. The jungle scene felt just as dangerous to me as anything in the other films. There was still death defying stunts, punches with ridiculous sound effects and the all around sense of rousing adventure. And what constitutes as "gritty"? Tone or environment? The jungle itself wasn't gritty, but the altercations where. The fight Indy and the Russian thug have right after is pure Indy especially.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

The funny thing is though, Spielberg's CGI in Jurassic Park and War of the Worlds isn't dated and it's really good.

True. I wonder if the somewhat hokey feel to some of CGI was intentional.

 

[MrMaooz]

The thing that helps War of the Worlds especially is that the movie isn't cartoony or bright at all. Jurassic Park was helped by the fact that a lot of the effects were practical.

Indy 4 was obviously going to have CGI but if it was less obvious and less obscure it would've been fine.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Man, just compare the RAIDERS car chase scene, LAST CRUSADE'S tank scene, and KINGDOM's jungle chase. Tell me which two felt real and dangerous, and which one did not. And I'm telling you, the one with the CGI didn't feel real, gritty, dirty, and dangerous. Hence, less thrills, excitement, and suspense.

CGI can be great in some movies, like Gravity and Avatar. But in movies like Bond or Indy, minimal CGI is the key. More real sets, locations, real stunts. In Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, there were too many unnecessary CGI.

Exactly. CG is a paint brush, not a hammer.

 

[dark_b]

very strange that fanboys have a problem with IJ4 cgi but not with MOS cgi or other comicbook movies.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I don't have a problem with it when it's done well and doesn't intrude.

 

[MrMaooz]

I thought MOS' cgi was fine but a bit obscure in the last fight.

 

[Roose Bolton]

The fan base: "You betrayed practical effects! Thum shiva ke vishwasth karthe ho! You betrayed practical effects!"

Followed by the visual of crocodiles devouring Lucas and Spielberg. Ain't life graaand.

 

[antonydelfini]

The tank chase is just as cartoony as anything in Skull (sans monkeys). It's downright slapstick at times with Marcus and Henry. The jungle scene felt just as dangerous to me as anything in the other films. There was still death defying stunts, punches with ridiculous sound effects and the all around sense of rousing adventure. And what constitutes as "gritty"? Tone or environment? The jungle itself wasn't gritty, but the altercations where. The fight Indy and the Russian thug have right after is pure Indy especially.

I was not talking about the characters or their interactions. I wasnt even talking about tone.

I was talking about CGI.

The Indy 4 jungle chase scene was full of CGI. The entire environment looked like CGI except the actors and the cars. The one in Raiders and Last Crusade wasnt CGI environment. Hence, it felt more dangerous, real, death defying, and exciting.