Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Indiana 5? Why bother?

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

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Indiana 5? Why bother? (Page 2)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

Author

Topic: Indiana 5? Why bother?

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-13-2008 10:46 AM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
and please, get a better cinematographer...

Monte - as I suggested to Galen - look up Janusz Kaminski on IMDB. He's a pretty well respected DP. Who would you prefer?

quote:
Man, that actually gives me a little hope we may see...Ishtar: We're Back in Action!

Anyone notice that ISHTAR is strikingly close to RATSHIT spelled sideways?

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 10-13-2008 01:34 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
What the hell, I like the $$$ just like any good capitalist.

quote: Bill Enos
In case you idiots haven't noticed, the place you work sells tickets and food for the money that pays you, you don't have to like the product to appreciate the revenue it generates.

Normally, I would completely agree with you guys. Normally, I would care less about a movie if it brings people in, but in this case, I think it is different.

When two huge names like Spielberg and Lucas lay a turd like this, I think the long-term affects could hurt us. Having faith that a big name or names will deliver as promised is what star power is all about. Tom Cruise had star power. He went crazy. Now people won't come to a movie like they used to just because he is in it. Spielberg and Lucas have possibly done the same by ruining a franchise. We need our customers to be confident in names and when names this big get ruined it hurts. The short return may be nice, but the long haul will be hurt.

| IP: Logged

Julie Lucero
Film Handler

Posts: 37
From: Valencia, California, USA
Registered: Sep 2008

posted 10-13-2008 01:45 PM

INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL grossed over $300 million domestically, placing third for the year. And it did nearly $800 million worldwide, so I fail to see how anyone, whether you enjoyed the movie or not, can call it a turd.

I'd say that Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Lucas, as usual, delivered the goods.

| IP: Logged

Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-13-2008 01:57 PM

quote: Chad Souder
Spielberg and Lucas have possibly done the same by ruining a franchise.

Two now for Lucas, plus one of his masterpieces a la the rerelease of THX 1138. George, if you are reading this, please spare American Graffiti! It does not need explosions or gophers, or extra moons and all that good stuff.

quote: Joe Tommassello
[L]ook up Janusz Kaminski on IMDB.

He has some impressive ones for sure. Some of those movies only good features are the cinematography. That doesn't make him unable to make a "turd", as Chad says. I don't know if that "halo" effect (Vaseline on the lens or digital post?) in Indy 4 was even his doing, but the final result is unappealing. I had numerous complaints about focus when I ran it, and I can assure you my focus was dead on. Stuff like that doesn't make it "artistic", it just irritates people and distracts from the story, and pisses off projectionists because we have to field erroneous complaints.

| IP: Logged

Julie Lucero
Film Handler

Posts: 37
From: Valencia, California, USA
Registered: Sep 2008

posted 10-13-2008 03:22 PM

quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
George, if you are reading this, please spare American Graffiti! It does not need explosions or gophers, or extra moons and all that good stuff.

George has tinkered with AMERICAN GRAFFITI. In 1978 it was remixed for stereo, and in 199? a colorful sunset was added to the opening shot.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-13-2008 03:30 PM

quote:
I had numerous complaints about focus when I ran it,

Taking you at your word I would say I wish MORE audiences were that discriminating. When I went to see IRON MAN there were at least eight emulsion scratches across the screen. (We all know how that happened!) This was the Saturday of opening weekend. As soon as it became apparent that they weren't going to stop (about one minute into the film considering the entire pre-feature package had the same scratches) I went to get my money back. About 200 saps, however, stayed and watched it.

With IJ4 coming out on video this week I will watch it again for this "halo effect". I am curious if it can be attributed to a particular setting in the film...perhaps where something out of the realm of nature takes place?

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

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

posted 10-13-2008 04:16 PM

I think the general public liked IJ4 more than you guys are giving them credit for and would likely turn out in droves for another installment.

I also think that at least 75% of the people who saw the movie (1) do not know who directed and produced it; and (2) do not care.

If Tom Cruise would make a really good movie his audience would be back in droves, as well. He needs to appeal to the ladies again. His last few movies have been pretty poor choices (War of the Worlds).

| IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000

posted 10-13-2008 04:20 PM

quote: Julie Lucero
INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL grossed over $300 million domestically, placing third for the year. And it did nearly $800 million worldwide, so I fail to see how anyone, whether you enjoyed the movie or not, can call it a turd.

Perhaps turd was a poor word choice. I didn't mean it from the money making sense. I meant it from the oh-my-God-this-movie-is-awful-why-are-there-aliens-this-ruins-one-of-the-all-time-great-fictional-characters sense. The fact that Dark Knight did $200 mil more domestically and Iron Man did about the same with a much narrow target audience makes me think people were not interested in seeing it again and again. I meant the short-term payoff was nice, but the long-term will be hurt.

Who else saw the season opener of South Park? I think they pretty much nailed it.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-13-2008 05:42 PM

quote: Chad Souder
Dark Knight did $200 mil more domestically and Iron Man did about the same with a much narrow target audience

I have to disagree. First, I don't believe Iron Man had a narrower target audience. If anything IJ4 had a narrower audience since many of those who saw the first three are "graduated" out of the average movie-going demographic. We could hardly get to the theater what with our walkers and hip replacements.

As for Dark Knight...it was a really good film and Heath Ledger was very good in it...BUT...the tone of his performance was made all the more creepy by the fact that he died while reportedly depressed soon after shooting rapped. Some bright studio publicist hinted it was because of the "dark" role rather than his gorgeous babe kicking his ass out. Had he been walking the red carpet smiling and looking pretty at the premiere it would not have had the same effect and resulting box office draw. Death is a great career move!

| IP: Logged

Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 10-13-2008 05:45 PM

quote:
quote: Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George, if you are reading this, please spare American Graffiti! It does not need explosions or gophers, or extra moons and all that good stuff.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George has tinkered with AMERICAN GRAFFITI. In 1978 it was remixed for stereo, and in 199? a colorful sunset was added to the opening shot.

And some would say he already ruined that franchise with "More American Graffiti" in 1979.

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-13-2008 05:50 PM

quote: Hillary Charles
And some would say he already ruined that franchise with "More American Graffiti" in 1979.

Do I smell "Even More American Graffiti Than The Last One" in 2009? How about "Son of American Graffiti" where the children of the knuckleheads from the first film are growing up in the 70s? Yeah!

| IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 10-13-2008 11:53 PM

More American Grafitti was spectacular in its own right. I thought the use of different shooting styles to convey the different years was very clever. Also the concept of seeing New Years Eve day simlutaneously with several years was a nifty concept.

Did it have the charm of the original? Absolutely not. It didn't take away from the original at all and it did give some follow up to the main characters. I would classify MAG as an experimental film.

The guys at South Park certainly didn't approve of Steven's and George's handling of Indy on this episode!

Steve

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 10-17-2008 03:31 AM

As I was breaking down "IJ4:Skull" tonite at our discount theatre, I was thinking of the comments made pertaining to the blurb that's been floating around now of Ford doing "IJ5" and how some are dreading the thought..and I can fully understand why with my comment below:

Granted: "IJ4" wasn't the best "Jones" movie that came out and it seems that a ton of movies lately that comes out have this one serious flaw that the storytellers and screenwriters fail to get across within their stories and eventually on the screen...and that is: "Failing to make the characters believeable", or making them into a real person(s).

Now, we loved the 1981 "Raiders of the Lost ARK" for (IMO) the simple reason that everyone who was in the film were 'believeable' characters - all the actors portraying characters in this film could have really existed.

...even the NAZI's charactization was definitely believeable. One could tell that all the characters in NAZI uniforms or SS members of the NAZI Party were definitely acting their parts as if they actually were converted to the NAZI Party to be as such. - not just someone filling in the needed blank spaces.

With "IJ4", all we saw were actors in Russian outfits, or being KGB 'baddies', yet, it seems that they're were just 'doing their job what the script wanted by reading their cue cards off-camera I.E. .. they became unbelieveable, to almost silly characters...

(Khrushchev prob would have rolled in his grave if he saw this film and saw how his Russian Army and KGB were depicted in this film...whereas Hitler would have been honored how Spielberg depicted the NAZI Army. lol)

Even Ford had a bit of a rough time getting back into his "INDY" character - like he was horribly restrained from letting "Jones" come out in full bloom as he did in the past.

Now, a simple question: Was Heath Ledger's "JOKER", a believeable character in "the Dark Knight"?

I can rattle on other movies that produced sequels with this same thought of 'believeability', yet, I'll stop here for I hope that others can see where I'm coming from.

thx-Monte

| IP: Logged

Joe Tommassello
Jedi Master Film Handler

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

posted 10-17-2008 09:06 AM

quote: Monte L Fullmer
Was Heath Ledger's "JOKER", a believeable character in "the Dark Knight"?

Good observations about characters being believable. As to your question...

First, "Dark Knight" was a comic book movie. You might as well ask if Batman is a believable character. Second...listen to Charlie Manson some time.

| IP: Logged

Monte L Fullmer
Film God

Posts: 8367
From: Nampa, Idaho, USA
Registered: Nov 2004

posted 10-17-2008 12:45 PM

quote: Joe Tommassello
listen to Charlie Manson some time.

Nah..that's okey.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3

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.