Word on the street about the new Indiana Jones movie is that it is

  • Thread starter Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Movie
Click For Summary
The discussion reveals widespread disappointment regarding "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," with many labeling it as "utter garbage" and a "fan's worst nightmare." Critics have drawn unfavorable comparisons to "The Phantom Menace," suggesting that George Lucas has a history of damaging beloved franchises. Despite the film's screening at the Cannes Film Festival, where it received mixed to negative reviews, some participants express skepticism about the credibility of early reviews, arguing that critics often misjudge popular films. The conversation also touches on the use of CGI, with some participants arguing that excessive reliance on it detracts from the film's realism and storytelling quality. While some viewers remain optimistic, citing enjoyment of the original series, the overall sentiment leans heavily towards disappointment and concern over the film's quality and direction.
  • #31
Even the trailer that has been running makes it clear that this is a CGI movie with (at least) live actors. The next step will be to do away with the live actors for a total CGI movie. Is that good or bad? Not real clear to me.

YAWN, When do you suppose someone will come up with a movie that is not a sequel or a remake.


Oh, yeah, give The Orphanage a read, unless you speak Spanish then you can listen.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Moonbear said:
artsy fartsy

Well i never, i thought that was a little known term used only by Brits.
 
  • #33
Moonbear said:
They like crap like Amelie, which made me nauseous...literally, in a seasick kind of way...from the way the cameras kept moving.
Sure you don't mean Cloverfield? :rolleyes:

Funny how tastes differ. Amelie is on my top 100 list. Call me a romantic fool.
 
  • #34
DaveC426913 said:
Sure you don't mean Cloverfield? :rolleyes:

Funny how tastes differ. Amelie is on my top 100 list. Call me a romantic fool.

I too liked Amelie, and it's about time to see it again. I don't remember the camera movement, but ever since Woody Allen's "Husbands and wives," camera motion in any other film is stagnant.
 
  • #35
Cyrus said:
Not me! Ill watch it online from some vietnamese website.

Though I can't wait for the new batman! I loved batman begins.

Here here! Batman begins rocks! I can't wait for "The Dark Knight."

gravenewworld said:
LOL I saw the ads for that garbage too.

Well looks like our worst fears have been confirmed. The movie has been screened at Cannes and has received mostly mixed and negative reviews. Rotten Tomatoes confirms it:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cannes_film_festival_2008/news/1728901/ UHhhhhhhh why oh why did they have to make this a CGI piece of trash? It seems Indy is going to be running away from cartoons the entire movie.
I heard they used less CGI than most action/adventure movies out today. I don't trust artsy people to judge my movies. They probably gave it bad reviews because there wasn't enough plot devices focused on miserable and meaningless death.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
I saw it Sunday (my bf works for LucasArts) and it was awesome. Really up there with the rest, in fact it might place 1st or 2nd in the whole series for some. The only real problem I had was something that you can't really fix - Ford is old and it shows, esp when he talks. But, he was still Indy and it was a great show! I'll be seeing it again this Thursday with friends.

And LaBeouf really isn't bad in this movie. Carrying off that character is a stretch, but it didn't hurt take much away from the movie IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
proton said:
am i the only one who hasnt seen ANY of the indian jones movies :eek:

I even know a blind guy who's seen them. Sheesh.
 
  • #38
Don't be hard on the guy. I haven't seen Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, big whoop.
 
  • #39
Integral said:
Even the trailer that has been running makes it clear that this is a CGI movie with (at least) live actors. The next step will be to do away with the live actors for a total CGI movie. Is that good or bad? Not real clear to me.

Yeah, I'm not sure why people automatically dis a movie just because it has CGI. Did anyone expect such a movie NOT to include special effects? Why not take advantage of the latest tools available for those?
 
  • #40
Using CGI in moderation can make a movie better, but people are afraid that directors go overboard with the CGI.
 
  • #41
proton said:
am i the only one who hasnt seen ANY of the indian jones movies :eek:

I'm in the same group as you. I don't care for these kind of movies. Boring.
 
  • #42
I just saw, over the weekend, a short bit of the third Indiana Jones movie.

Are people saying the new one is worse? How is that possible?
 
  • #43
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Darkiekurdo said:
Using CGI in moderation can make a movie better, but people are afraid that directors go overboard with the CGI.

That's my opinion. Any aspect that's overplayed can ruin a movie. I personally like directors that prefer to use real mock-ups and special effects rather than CGI ones. Just because a tool is available, doesn't mean you should use is at much as possible. Moderation.

A good example is like comparing Aliens with Aliens v. Predator. Too much CGI hurt AvP believability to the eye. If something looks fake or too artificially generated to my eye, it sticks out like a sore thumb. In contrast, Alien and Aliens was perfect. Real suits were used, models were made... people had to improvise. Real hands-on artistic abilities are needed rather than just needing any CGI team who can 'do it'. The artistic and believable aspects are lost when you dump everything for CGI. With the Temple Of Doom, small models were used for the railcar scene and it looks more 'real' to me than ANY CGI generated shot ever could.

Jurassic Park is another excellent example... CGI in moderation. Parts of real Raptors were produced and used for most of the shots, and it shows. I have trouble watching complete CGI movies like Shrek, Cars and Toy Story. I just can't seem to get into them. Funny things happen but they don't seem funny to me, jukes don't come across as funny... just in general the whole move looks... fake... because it is.

When trying to trick the eye and brain into believe something, nothing beats using the real thing.
 
  • #45
B. Elliott said:
That's my opinion. Any aspect that's overplayed can ruin a movie. I personally like directors that prefer to use real mock-ups and special effects rather than CGI ones. Just because a tool is available, doesn't mean you should use is at much as possible. Moderation.

A good example is like comparing Aliens with Aliens v. Predator. Too much CGI hurt AvP believability to the eye. If something looks fake or too artificially generated to my eye, it sticks out like a sore thumb. In contrast, Alien and Aliens was perfect. Real suits were used, models were made... people had to improvise. Real hands-on artistic abilities are needed rather than just needing any CGI team who can 'do it'. The artistic and believable aspects are lost when you dump everything for CGI. With the Temple Of Doom, small models were used for the railcar scene and it looks more 'real' to me than ANY CGI generated shot ever could.

Jurassic Park is another excellent example... CGI in moderation. Parts of real Raptors were produced and used for most of the shots, and it shows. I have trouble watching complete CGI movies like Shrek, Cars and Toy Story. I just can't seem to get into them. Funny things happen but they don't seem funny to me, jukes don't come across as funny... just in general the whole move looks... fake... because it is.

When trying to trick the eye and brain into believe something, nothing beats using the real thing.



I have to agree with this post 100%. Movies like aliens and Starwars 4-6 look WAY MORE real than their later counterparts because they hardly rely on computer animated graphics. Almost all of the aliens in those movies were made from real costumes, not some computer cartoon.


CGI especially hurts actions movies, like Indiana Jones. Explosions, car chases, and gun battles are much more intense when they are done in real life. Take for example the gun battle in the movie Heat vs. something like battle scenes from star wars I or Transformers. Star Wars and Transformers battle scenes don't even come anywhere near the intensity of that shootout scene from Heat, because the scene from Heat looks almost near 100% realistic.
 
  • #46
B. Elliott said:
Any aspect that's overplayed can ruin a movie.

IMO, it's not the excessive use of CGI that ruins a movie, it's that movie-makers (and, apparently, much of the movie-going public) think that CGI is a substitute for good writing.

Jurassic Park could not have been made w/o CGI and yet it's one of my top 10 - because it was a great story.

Movies like aliens and Starwars 4-6 look WAY MORE real than their later counterparts because they hardly rely on computer animated graphics.
It has more to do with the quality of the stories. (I was going to say quality of the writing but if one watches SW IV, one must concede that the dialogue was quaintly awful. "What's that flashing?")

Moonbear said:
Yeah, I'm not sure why people automatically dis a movie just because it has CGI.
Simple: gun shy.
 
  • #47
DaveC426913 said:
IMO, it's not the excessive use of CGI that ruins a movie, it's that movie-makers (and, apparently, much of the movie-going public) think that CGI is a substitute for good writing.

Jurassic Park could not have been made w/o CGI and yet it's one of my top 10 - because it was a great story.

Very true. Like you said there were certain points where they had no choice but to use CGI to get the effect, but at the same time, they didn't use CGI at every point possible. If it didn't require CGI due to modeling constraints, they would use models.

With the way computing power has grown exponentially over the years, it seems like CGI has slowly become the default when needing to create eye-candy intense scenes... as if CGI has opened up a whole new world for movie making... which it has, really. You could also say it's opened up a while new world of art for CGI pictures... and that's where I again become divided. I don't consider CGI images artwork. A painting or a picture, yes. An advanced form of CAD, artwork? no.

I will say that I do have faith in ILM. They've done an overall good job so far, hopefully they'll continue to.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
What I've seen has me disappointed already. I'll probably wait until it's out on dvd. Maybe find some way of watching it for free.
 
  • #49
Chi Meson said:
I just saw, over the weekend, a short bit of the third Indiana Jones movie.

Are people saying the new one is worse? How is that possible?

LOL HAY GUYZ I READ 3 PAGES OF THE ODDYSEE AN DIT SUX0RED. LOL ULECCRSYA? WHAT KIND OF NAME IS THAT?

That's right, I compared Indiana Jones to The Odyssey.
 
  • #50
The first two were epic, but don't let that take away from the last two. They're still very decent quality movies compared to the real utter garbage that's out on the shelves nowadays. I will watch #4 at least once no matter what critics say.

Even Phantom Menace was fun to watch once. At least Anakin was a better actor in that one. I must admit, though, that I was only willing to watch Revenge of the Sith a second time. Either way, there's movies that I can't make it ten minutes into, and this won't be one of them.
 
  • #51
DaveC426913 said:
Jurassic Park could not have been made w/o CGI and yet it's one of my top 10 - because it was a great story.

It has more to do with the quality of the stories. (I was going to say quality of the writing

Did you read the book?

It's a lot better, and the book includes some scenes that the movie did not. (I refer to the original and BEST Jurassic Park story)
 
  • #52
Was there a musical dance number with the dinosaurs in the book?
 
  • #53
Poop-Loops said:
Was there a musical dance number with the dinosaurs in the book?

Yes, and it was animatronic. No CGI.
 
  • #54
The T-Rex must have had a hard time playing the grand piano. It has small arms.
 
  • #55
~christina~ said:
Did you read the book?

It's a lot better, and the book includes some scenes that the movie did not. (I refer to the original and BEST Jurassic Park story)

Books are always like that. But even so, I am always amazed how they decide to leave certain important things out in favor of putting in scenes that are NOT in the book.

And Poop, you won't believe what they cut from Homer's Odyssey.
 
  • #56
~christina~ said:
Did you read the book?

It's a lot better, and the book includes some scenes that the movie did not. (I refer to the original and BEST Jurassic Park story)

I enjoyed the book, though I did not find it significantly better than the film.
 
  • #57
Cross eyed she-camel...wow, I'm going to have to use that on one of my friends...ha ha ha
 
  • #58
Chi Meson said:
And Poop, you won't believe what they cut from Homer's Odyssey.

Don't care, I only read the book.
 
  • #59
What about Beowulf with Angelina Jolie? Now there is a movie worthy of the epic poem. :eek: :rolleyes:
 
  • #60
She hasn't actually starred in any good movies, has she? I don't get why she's so famous.
 

Similar threads

What Pop Culture Trivia Was Discussed in PF Quiz #1?
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
8K