Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Indiana Jones; Let's predict the first weekend gross

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Indiana Jones; Let's predict the first weekend gross (Page 6)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Author

Topic: Indiana Jones; Let's predict the first weekend gross

Carl Martin
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1424
From: Oakland, CA, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 05-27-2008 03:06 PM

galen, your die nibelungen: siegfrieds tod comparison works for me. hopefully you saw it on film, not on a plastic disc as joe implies (how would he know?). anyways, it shows you have a certain amount of perspective on film history, more than most posters here seem to have.

| IP: Logged

Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 05-27-2008 03:10 PM

quote:
Wow, 18 y/o? No wonder you know everything!

Am I less entitled to an opinion about the movies that I project than anyone else because I am 19? He may be attacking my attitude, which, by the way, is simply one of disgust for crappy sequels to beloved movies, but he certainly does take an unnecessary crack at my age. If I had any control over my age, believe me, I would not be 19. But that does not change the fact that I am a discerning movie viewer, and that I come to my opinion that this movie sucks fully formed. Believe me, I don't want it to suck, but I have no control over that. Hell, I can't even make it look critically in focus, because some jackass DP decided to rub some secretion all over the front of his lens.

Carl, unfortunately, I saw it on DVD in a film class, although I did see Metropolis at the Detroit Institute of Art's incomparable arthouse theater, accompanied by the Alloy Orchestra playing their own original score. This was when I was quite young, however. I don't make it to see such films as much as I used to, as my pursuit of projection excellence demands that I be at my own theater when most arthouses are open.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 05-27-2008 03:14 PM

WAAAAA!!!!!!! Mommy he was mean to me!!!!!!

Just kidding.

First I made no disparaging comments concerning your work. Taking you at your word I applaud you (as I do all of us here) for providing the very best presentation possible.

It's comments like this that ruffle my feathers:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Hell, I can't even make it look critically in focus, because some jackass DP decided to rub some secretion all over the front of his lens.

"...some jackass DP..." Janusz Kaminski - look him up on IMDB... film student!

I was sitting in the third row. Looked fine to me. Have you considered that perhaps the goal was to make it look like the previous films in the series? Perhaps sound like them too (the sound did seem slightly clipped as mentioned by Brad)? When you are DP on a $120 million production I'll accept your choices.

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
The fact that I think that these decades later sequels are pieces of shit, inspired by their makers loss of any artistic vision and immense greed, both for money and additional repute, does not detract from the original films, but it does detract from their dumbass directors/producers.

You're right about one thing there - you think that. The rest is wrong...prententious film school 101 bullshit.

You miss the entire point of this film. I could explain it to you but you're 19 years old and know everything...just like my daughter did when she was your age. I don't hold it against you. In fact, it's kind of comforting how constant some things are. But I digress...

The point of most films - especially films like Spiderman 17 or whatever number they're up to - is to make money. I am certain Mr. Lucas and Mr. Spielberg are happy their film is a hit but we can hardly believe either of them needed the money. These are men of vision - visions that I sometimes appreciate and other times don't - and they deserve a lot more respect than you are giving them. They don't need to prove anything and, yes, this film isn't as inspired as some of their previous work. I think they know that. This film is a gift to the people who love these characters and the spirit they embody...and you are throwing that gift right back in their faces and telling them it's not good enough. Shame on you.

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 05-27-2008 03:44 PM

I don't think saying "this isn't good enough" is the problem. I'm sure there are plenty of people who disliked the movie that wouldn't go to the extent of saying that "the filmmakers all have no creative vision and are solely in it for the money."

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 05-27-2008 03:47 PM

Thanks Chris. You are right. He didn't say it wasn't good enough. He said they (assuming he means the Star Wars films too) were pieces of shit.

Galen - you don't like people making cracks about your age? Who wrote this on 5/19:

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Well, considering the relatively poor ad campaign (no full length trailer until a month ago, crappy commercials) and the fact that most people who saw the previous ones in theaters need to use walkers to get into the theaters, including Harrison Ford (The Last Crusade is as old as me!), I'm going to say $93mil.

Didn't see any walkers, blew away $93mil. Wrong on both counts...junior!

| IP: Logged

Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007

posted 05-27-2008 04:05 PM

I would accuse you of taking what I said out of context, but you aren't. I will, however, clarify: this Indiana Jones film may not be "shit", but it is not up to the standards its own filmmakers set with their previous works in the series. I'm sure that Lucas and Spielberg have a vision, but I feel it is not the vision of the previous Indy films, and it doesn't do justice to Indy. That is my opinion.

The so-called "Star Wars" movies are shit. That is scientific fact, and can be measured with a Geiger counter in the vicinity of a DVD or Blu-Ray boxed set, or alternately by throwing it in a fire. [Smile]

I did see a few walkers, so I was half right.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 05-27-2008 04:24 PM

Galen - as much as I love the debate I have to concede we are finding some common ground. While I don't entirely agree with you on the Star Wars films they definitely fell off after ESB. I think Brad has a Turd-O-Meter or something that you might want to employ.

You seem like a good guy and I respect your dedication to making the moviegoing experience as good as it can be. God knows there are enough obstacles you have to work around. Just try not to forget that movies can just be fun. Not every film has to be a work of art. There's a place for "Dumb and Dumber" too and sometimes I prefer that to "Citizen Kane".

Good luck in film school. Maybe you'll win an Oscar one day I'll be pointing at the TV saying "I called that kid an asshole when he was just a film student!"

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-27-2008 04:25 PM

I love a spirited debate. [Wink]

Both Galen and Joe have valid points. Younger moviegoers perceive the moviegoing experience from their life experience in which movies that last 4 weeks in a theater are considered very successful and most of a film's money is made on opening weekend via saturation booking and dozens of showtimes in each plex. There's really no waiting in line or getting there 3 hours early. What, the 7:00 show is sold out? No problem, there's a show at 7:20. And anyway it'll be out on DVD in no time at all.

I do think that many of us who were around for films like Star Wars and Raiders regard them as very special. Moviegoing was a different experience then, and I don't mean presentation or showmanship or how many channels the sound had. It was special because you couldn't get it on demand. You had to go to a theater and perhaps stand in line. There were no cell phones, no stadium seating, no preshow advertising, few trailers (often no trailers at all for 70mm engagements). There were maybe 4 shows a day, not 24.

Well that was then, this is now. I think Spielberg and Lucas have done good with Indiana Jones 4. It may not be great but it's at least good and I'm willing to cut them some slack for giving it an honest sincere effort and trying to satisfy everyone, which is of course impossible, and coming up with a decent entertainment that nobody has to be ashamed of.

BTW I too did not like the "look" of IJ4 but obviously Spielberg trusts Janus Kaminsky and there you have it. I'd rather have IJ4 photographed through a smeared lens than not at all. At least they shot it anamorphic. The glass is therefore half full. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Justin Hamaker
Film God

Posts: 2253
From: Lakeport, CA USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 05-27-2008 04:40 PM

The one thing that really bothers me about IJ4 is Lucas coming out and saying "it's just a movie". I haven't seen it yet so I can't give my opinion. But is seems to me like he's giving himself a pass for what may be some lazy writing and/or execution. This probably wouldn't be noteworthy except that it seems like story is the last aspect of a movie that Lucas pays attention to. But I would expect much more from Spielberg.

Here's the story in USA Today, although I originally saw it somewhere else. http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-03-24-lucas_N.htm

| IP: Logged

Rene Ferron
Film Handler

Posts: 52
From: New Brunswick, Canada
Registered: Feb 2008

posted 05-27-2008 04:50 PM

quote: Rene Ferron
I would say 122 Mil.

I was close enuff [Big Grin]

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 05-27-2008 04:51 PM

I had read comments about the "smeared lens" here before I saw the film. I was sitting in the third row which I typically like if the theater's sound is acceptable there. Knowing that there are many good pairs of eyes and ears on these forums (I've been lurking here since 1998) I looked specifically and aside from some shots that seemed like they might be hazy settings (like a steamy jungle scene) I didn't see it. I did, however, think the whole look of the film was reminicent of films of the early 80s. It's very likely we will learn in the inevitable DVD special features that this was intentional and possibly even shot with lenses from that era. As a result not only would the film look more like the other three but also closer to the era in which the action is placed. We can debate all day whether we like the look or not and no one's opinion is wrong - but I think we all agree it didn't end up looking this way by accident. Kaminski and Spielberg chose to make it look as it does and I for one think it may have added to the nostalgic quality that the material itself evokes.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 05-27-2008 05:00 PM

Honestly, the "smeared lens" effect was really only objectionable to me in a couple of scenes. But most of the movie had a greenish-golden tinge that bugged me. I totally agree this was probably a deliberate artistic choice, not an accident. I just didn't much like it. I also wouldn't be surprised if you're right and they shot it with older lenses etc.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 547
From: Coatesville, PA, USA
Registered: Jan 2008

posted 05-27-2008 05:04 PM

Greenish - gold tinge? Maybe they pulled out an old Kodak SP stock print of Raiders and tried to make it look like that! Or maybe they just printed it on FUJI stock. The print I saw was definitely on the higher contrast stock Kodak is producing now.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 05-27-2008 06:55 PM

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
This is a forum for professionals, and I would very much appreciate if you would treat me like the professional I try to be.

He does have a point though. People under age 30 or so have no idea what an "event" a movie used to be. It was something you went out of your way to experience -- it wasn't available anytime, anywhere, and if you missed it, it was gone, maybe forever. Time was, a movie could be a phenomenon for YEARS. Today we're lucky to get two weeks out of it before the "I'll wait for the video" mentality takes over.

There's no way you or anyone else your age will ever know what it was like, Galen, and it's too bad for you, because the movies were a lot more magical then. That's the point he was trying to make.

I still get "the old feeling" when the lights go down and a movie I've been waiting to see begins.

| IP: Logged

Mark J. Marshall
Film God

Posts: 3188
From: New Castle, DE, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 05-27-2008 07:48 PM

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
The so-called "Star Wars" movies are shit. That is scientific fact, and can be measured with a Geiger counter in the vicinity of a DVD or Blu-Ray boxed set, or alternately by throwing it in a fire.

Before torching it, you should try selling that Blu-Ray boxed set of Star Wars on ebay. I bet it's worth quite a bit... since you have the only one in existence. [Razz]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.