Page 15 of 18

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 1:50 pm
by Nordling
Believe me, greater people have tried, I'm sure.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:14 pm
by caruso_stalker217
AtomicHyperbole wrote:OK, fine, you fucko's asked for it. ;)

I've already banged on frankly about why I feel The Last Crusade isn't much of a movie, but let me elucidate a bit before going into my concise defense of The Temple of Doom. Trust me, I would love to openly love it as much as some of you here, but as RogueScribner says it's a film that only just about gets by on the central relationship between Indy and his father, which is wonderfully played by Sean Connery. The problem is what surrounds it. Outside of the lead pair, the rest merely feels like a flimsy, less powerful reference to the first film, only not as well made - astounding considering the gap between their productions and difference in adjusted cost - nor written.

Where Temple of Doom succeeded for me was because it actually tried to take the character somewhere else. I'd imaging creating it was a bit of a learning process for Spielberg, who at that time was trying to reject his more cynical nature in favour of straight family entertainment. Take Close Encounters, a movie most would agree as being an uplifting, almost spiritual experience as a man discovers a higher destiny. Well, as Spielberg later saw it, here was a man who destroyed his family on a selfish quest that didn't end in any particular redemption.

Temple of Doom continues with Spielbergs previous fascination with slightly flawed hero characters. Whereas in Raiders, Indy was a man who'd learned by his mistakes, in Temple of Doom, here was the man who was living them. Only through the course of the film, he learns by them and gains a chance to redress his character- unlike Close Encounters' Roy Neary. For me, that adds an extra dimension - a figure who can tell what's right and wrong, but lives in the grey areas whilst simultaneously trying to redress the balance, even if he has to get his hands dirty to do so. He's not simply a "grave robber", merely someone whose intentions are skewed on a journey that would lead him to become the rounded hero we find in Raiders. He's also someone who cares, as shown by his angry reaction to his fallen colleague, taking in of Short Round and seeing hiddne depth through his trust in the intentionally annoying Willie Scott.

As for his quest, it's not simply about "saving the world", but also saving himself. The whole world stuff merely comes by proxy, even if Mola Ram - who has ambition to retrieve the other Sankara stones - does present a deadly threat beyond those within the boundaries of Pankot. Initially, as he embarks from the village, it's about "fortune and glory", yet when he peeks over the top of the cliff (in a scene cleverly referenced The Last Crusade) he's become a man of integrity. In some ways, I find the Indy of Temple of Doom far more interesting than Raiders, even if the original is the better movie.

Outside of Indy, the character of Willie Scott is someone whose attacked quite regularly in Doom. But I find those who attack her for being annoying simply don't understand that she's meant to be - even Indy remarks on it;

"...the biggest problem with Willie is the noise."

Not only is she a reference to past screwball comedies, as Indy she's another character who begins the film quite selfish. Although doesn't totally redeem herself by the end, her powerful, abrasive personality acts as a foil to Indy and Short Round's seen-it-all-before attitude. She's a realistically sassy woman, confident and yet completely out of her element, and it's hard to argue against the fact that she's a fully fleshed, three-dimensional character. In fact, despite her slightly cartoonish (and I'll get onto that later) nature, she's a reasonably realistic portrayal of a theatrical prima donna. And she provides us with one of the finest character intro's in cinematic history. Without her the movie would no doubt had been quieter, but also lacking a backbone for which the others could play off.

Short Round too, is more than just a "whacky" sidekick. His love for his surrogate father shows through in his respect for him in the village, and later on in the darkest part of the Indy trilogy where our hero practically loses his mind. If it wasn't for Short Round, Indy would've probably been lost for good. He's even provided with his own enemy to overcome, the bewitched maharaja (a symbol of the power Mola could put over any political leader) which helps complete one of Temple's fine action scenes. Naturally, it helps that Ke Quan is a very capable comedic actor, even at this early age.

Temple of Doom also contains the series' most recognisable bad guy outside of the bald Nazi from Raiders, Toht. He was created by Lucas and Spielberg to represent true evil, and I think that Amish Puri's repulsive turn makes him possibly one of the finest cinematic villains ever created. Gleeful and fully aware of the power he wields, he manages not only to corner the kingdom and enslave the children from the surrounding villages, but he's also got the respected Maharajah in his hands (don't forget the English at this time didn't wield as much power, proven in the dinner scene). Plus outside of Blonde Nazi in the first film, he actually represents a real threat to Indy's life -and sanity. He's not meant to be the most complex character in the world, he really doesn't need to be. He's meant to represent nothing but the purest evil. He has no good traits nor detailed backstory, but that's purposeful in setting him out beyond the Nazi's in the first film. Here is a man willing to play with the Gods and do anything to gain power.

Overcoming him, and also overcoming his scepticism in the process, represents a big leap for Indy from his character in the beginning of the film. Redemption isn't an easy thing. In fact, you could say that the entire film is about redemption from beginning to end - those who don't redeem themselves are doomed to fall. Maybe this was intentional when creating the trilogy - if, as Lady Sheridan eloquently points out, the last of the first three films is about illumination, then Temple was about redemption. I'll leave it to you guys to figure out what the first was.

Naturally, I could now harp on and on about the action beyond the story, which is - and I have to be truthful - merely a caper. Then again, the films pacing and narrative is meant to be a ride of sorts, which is why I think it works. Although generally it keeps itself at quite an intense pitch, there's enough moments where the characters relax - be the stop in the village (which I think reveals Indy as being far more complex than his "fortune and glory" speech makes out), Pankot and later in the cave, where things are taken to a real low. That low actually make the highs seem more of a struggle to attain, which is why towards the end I feel like cheering, no matter how ridiculous the scenes become.

From the wonderful musical introduction, to the chase through the streets of Hong Kong and crash landing, all the way through to the insect caves, mine cart and run from the flood, pound for pound I don't think Temple of Doom has quite been beaten in terms of imaginative set pieces by any movie since. It helps that all the model work, for the time, are possibly the best in-camera effects ever made outside of Return of the Jedi and that the direction throughout is completely impeccable. Coupled with a score that's probably more powerful than the on in Raiders (for my money), everything rollocks along at such a pace it's hard to take a breath once the films kicks it up a notch.

Moving on, I've already defended its blatant orientalism to some degree - to my mind it's accepted as a fantasy, and the vast amount of indian actors would've probably had something to say about it during production. I also think it manages to encompass a lot of what I've seen of Bollywood cinema, where villains are blatant moustache twirling foes (literally) and characters are painted in broad colours, as is the canvas.

I'm pretty certain both Lucas and Spielberg were very aware of what lines they could and couldn't cross when creating it, and feel it manages to get away with what it does by tempering any classical stereotypes with either a counterpart, or by limiting them somehow. At the dinner scene, the British captain makes a point that he doesn't have any power as British rule was fading at that time, for example, and the Maharaja shows himself as a capable ally beyond being a cypher for Mola Ram. Besides, all the films take liberties with various culture, so any accusation of racism could probably be turned on each one.

Lastly, in its difference to Raiders - I think that makes it stand out on its own two feet. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be HALF the film if you were to replace the main character with anyone other than Indy, as much as I think The Last Crusade wouldn't be worth watching without the central relationship of Indy and his father. It not only manages to show how Indy was before he took on the Nazi's and the Ark, but progress his character from where he is at the start. The production design is incredibly high quality and the change of theme distances itself from the first, making it fresh - giving you an adventure with an old friend. For me, that's the mark of a good sequel - not the lazy "more is better" productions of late, but showing that there's enough depth and breadth in a loved central character to take them into new environment whilst simultaneously keeping the movie within the confines of what's expected. As an example of this, TOD has not since been bettered.

I hope The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull manages to live up to its promise.


I guess I should stop posting in here now. You've said it better than I ever could.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:32 pm
by The Vicar
Why is this reminding me of the Winslow Leech "I Spit on Your Grave" debate?

Cause it does.
And it's a better film than ToD.......

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:43 pm
by Peven
yeah, those TLC'rs only have interest it praising TLC and not trying to tear down ToD :-P

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:55 pm
by The Vicar
Peven wrote:yeah, those TLC'rs only have interest it praising TLC and not trying to tear down ToD :-P


Wanker.
W
a
n
k
e
r.

Don't think I didn't notice that the kids in Prince Caspian are named Pevensie.
Coincidence?
I think not.
Threadjack?
Yeah, for like three seconds.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:57 pm
by Peven
back to the books, old man, wrong literary reference :wink:

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:58 pm
by The Vicar
I wasn't striving for accuracy...but nice job of side stepping, Mr. Pevensie..... ;)

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 4:59 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Nordling wrote: Once you let a piece of art out, you really have no business touching it again.

fuck that.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:02 pm
by Peven
The Vicar wrote:I wasn't striving for accuracy...but nice job of side stepping, Mr. Pevensie..... ;)



uuuhhh, sidestepping.......what?

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:17 pm
by Nordling
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote: Once you let a piece of art out, you really have no business touching it again.

fuck that.


A stunning argument.

I'm sure Da Vinci could have improved the Mona Lisa if only he put out a thought balloon explaining that enigmatic smile. Or Pollock's works could have used another spattering of red paint drops. Or an epilogue to TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD explaining how Boo Radley was really a pedophile. Or to change the ending of ANNIE HALL so that they really do get back together.

Once it's out, it's out. It belongs to the people to examine and interpret.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:19 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Nordling wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote: Once you let a piece of art out, you really have no business touching it again.

fuck that.


A stunning argument.

I'm sure Da Vinci could have improved the Mona Lisa if only he put out a thought balloon explaining that enigmatic smile. Or Pollock's works could have used another spattering of red paint drops. Or an epilogue to TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD explaining how Boo Radley was really a pedophile. Or to change the ending of ANNIE HALL so that they really do get back together.

Once it's out, it's out. It belongs to the people to examine and interpret.

As an artist I can and will do whatever I want to art I have created at any time regardless of you or any other viewer/audience's opinion. As long as copyright exists it does not "belong to the people".
So once again.
Fuck That.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:21 pm
by Nordling
So you're a tinkerer then.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:21 pm
by papalazeru
Nordling wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote: Once you let a piece of art out, you really have no business touching it again.

fuck that.


A stunning argument.

I'm sure Da Vinci could have improved the Mona Lisa if only he put out a thought balloon explaining that enigmatic smile. Or Pollock's works could have used another spattering of red paint drops. Or an epilogue to TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD explaining how Boo Radley was really a pedophile. Or to change the ending of ANNIE HALL so that they really do get back together.

Once it's out, it's out. It belongs to the people to examine and interpret.


Actually Da Vince is a prime example, they did find other paintings underneath a few of his famous works.

Not some Da Vinci bollocks but some other painting. unfortunately I don't think anyone is going to be willing to destory a priceless painting to get underneath and find it says, 'Leo Aged 5, for Miss Pomodoro for being a good teechr'

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:22 pm
by Peven
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote: Once you let a piece of art out, you really have no business touching it again.

fuck that.


A stunning argument.

I'm sure Da Vinci could have improved the Mona Lisa if only he put out a thought balloon explaining that enigmatic smile. Or Pollock's works could have used another spattering of red paint drops. Or an epilogue to TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD explaining how Boo Radley was really a pedophile. Or to change the ending of ANNIE HALL so that they really do get back together.

Once it's out, it's out. It belongs to the people to examine and interpret.

As an artist I can and will do whatever I want to art I have created at any time regardless of you or any other viewer/audience's opinion. So once again.
Fuck That.


and yet there is nothing you can do about how the public thinks or feels about your art, no matter how much you try to convince them how you think they should feel or think about it. it will mean to them whatever they want it to mean, regardless of where it came from within you

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:24 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Peven wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote: Once you let a piece of art out, you really have no business touching it again.

fuck that.


A stunning argument.

I'm sure Da Vinci could have improved the Mona Lisa if only he put out a thought balloon explaining that enigmatic smile. Or Pollock's works could have used another spattering of red paint drops. Or an epilogue to TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD explaining how Boo Radley was really a pedophile. Or to change the ending of ANNIE HALL so that they really do get back together.

Once it's out, it's out. It belongs to the people to examine and interpret.

As an artist I can and will do whatever I want to art I have created at any time regardless of you or any other viewer/audience's opinion. So once again.
Fuck That.


and yet there is nothing you can do about how the public thinks or feels about your art, no matter how much you try to convince them how you think they should feel or think about it. it will mean to them whatever they want it to mean, regardless of where it came from within you


Nordling's statement was the artist had no business touching their work again. I say that's bullshit. Nowhere do I state it's about forcing the audience/viewer to think or believe anything.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:28 pm
by Peven
well, i wasn't exactly trying to back up Nordling, but there was an implication earlier in this thread that since Spielberg supposedly didn't care for ToD as much as TLC that means that fans who liked ToD more than TLC were wrong in their preference. i say "fuck that" to that.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:29 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Peven wrote:well, i wasn't exactly trying to back up Nordling, but there was an implication earlier in this thread that since Spielberg supposedly didn't care for ToD as much as TLC that means that fans who liked ToD more than TLC were wrong in their preference. i say "fuck that" to that.

Yeah that is a poor argument to like one over the other.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:31 pm
by Nordling
As I stated before, if it's a director's cut, that's fine as long as the original work is still available. But it's wrong to change your art to try to clarify your point to the audience if it's misinterpreted or to change it after a few years because society has changed. Once it's out there, it doesn't really belong to you anymore. Otherwise, what's the point of releasing your work? Art is meant to be shared, and if it's great, it will survive whatever interpretations the public places on it. You want other interpretations of your work. Art isn't meant to be some sort of dictatorial outlook on the world.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:36 pm
by TonyWilson
Well if you're a painter and you sell a painting it would seem a little odd to go round someone's house and ask them to hand it back so you can add some extra stuff in.
Obviously with media like films or music the possibility is there to re-edit but the audience wouldn't keep funding different versions of film releases indefinitely, though there is obviously a market for one or two different versions of films, but generally it's films considered to be classics or cults, I don't think anyone would bother if McG re-relaeased Charlies Angels with 2 minutes of extra effects or whatever.
So yeh I agree there's no law or "right" stopping an artist re-doing their work though there are plenty of practical issues which would hinder an artist doing that.

On the part of how a piece of work is interpreted, well if the audience doesn't understand what the artist is doing it is fair to judge the art sbit of a failure BUT that doesn't mean a piece of art can have limitless interpetations that are all equally valid.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:37 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Nordling wrote: Once it's out there, it doesn't really belong to you anymore.

I don't agree. As long as you legally own it you can and should do whatever you want with it. Since the audience can and will draw their own conclusion about anything you make it shouldn't be about pleasing the audience but creating something for yourself. If you're dissatisfied with what you make you should change it instead of simply throwing your hands up and saying "Oh well I made that and hate it".

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:39 pm
by Nordling
So you're a fan of what Lucas has done (and continues to do) to his films?

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:43 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Nordling wrote:So you're a fan of what Lucas has done (and continues to do) to his films?

It isn't about if the audience likes what the artist makes or if they change their work. That isn't some litmus test to determine if an artist is "worthy" of changing their work or if the changes they made are "better" or "worse". In essence I will always prefer to see something an artist wanted to make and that they are satisfied with even if it sucks rather than something they hate or are ashamed of afterward that is great.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:53 pm
by Nordling
Chairman Kaga wrote:In essence I will always prefer to see something an artist wanted to make and that they are satisfied with even if it sucks rather than something they hate or are ashamed of afterward that is great.


This is the essence of mediocrity. Sometimes art is in the jagged edges instead of the smoother parts. The failure to articulate can itself be an articulation.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:56 pm
by papalazeru
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Nordling wrote:So you're a fan of what Lucas has done (and continues to do) to his films?

It isn't about if the audience likes what the artist makes or if they change their work. That isn't some litmus test to determine if an artist is "worthy" of changing their work or if the changes they made are "better" or "worse". In essence I will always prefer to see something an artist wanted to make and that they are satisfied with even if it sucks rather than something they hate or are ashamed of afterward that is great.


Ok. This is a mine field I'm staying well out of.

But I will say, This and This

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 5:59 pm
by TonyWilson
On the question of whether the artist is happy with the work or not - well I'd be happy for them but if I like a piece of art the fact that the artist doesn't like it won't affect my enjoyment of the piece. Take Kubrick for example, he wasn't happy with A Clockwork Orange after the violence it supposedly illicited and withdrew it from the public in the UK but it's still an utterly brilliant film.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:03 pm
by papalazeru
I'l work on a closing statement this weekend.....

Be prepared.....

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:30 pm
by Maui
captainbrose wrote:Its disappointing to see this thread has been to love one movie and bash the other movie. I Indiana Jones. I love both movies, they both have completely different stories, different charms, different music, etc. They are two stories in the serial adventures of Indiana.


Smartest post in this entire thread.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:05 pm
by Brit Pop
TLC is let down by certain moments of preposterousness... I've always believed that any film, no matter how far-fetched or science fictiony or fantasyy, is believable until something happens that ones subconcious recognizes as an impossibility.

Once that happens the film is lost!! Your brain stops getting involved!!

Raiders and Doom both had a fair amount of preposterousnesses within, but they generally didn't stray into the realm of the flat out impossible (feel free to cite examples of my folly).

But.

TLC...

One cannot walk around or swim in petroleum, the damage to the skin and eyes after even brief exposure would require a lengthy hospitalisation. Also, walking around with a fucking flaming torch would only have one outcome... certain death by incineration.

I personally believe that all TLC needed to be a better movie by far, would have been to remove the entire Venice chapter - that whole bit of the movie just sucks.

Oh, and that 'invisible bridge' thing at the end was completely implausible!

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:10 pm
by papalazeru
Brit Pop wrote:TLC is let down by certain moments of preposterousness... I've always believed that any film, no matter how far-fetched or science fictiony or fantasyy, is believable until something happens that ones subconcious recognizes as an impossibility.

Once that happens the film is lost!! Your brain stops getting involved!!

Raiders and Doom both had a fair amount of preposterousnesses within, but they generally didn't stray into the realm of the flat out impossible (feel free to cite examples of my folly).

But.

TLC...

One cannot walk around or swim in petroleum, the damage to the skin and eyes after even brief exposure would require a lengthy hospitalisation. Also, walking around with a fucking flaming torch would only have one outcome... certain death by incineration.

I personally believe that all TLC needed to be a better movie by far, would have been to remove the entire Venice chapter - that whole bit of the movie just sucks.

Oh, and that 'invisible bridge' thing at the end was completely implausible!


Dammit, you spotted the fatal flaws.

Yes, the bridge was only possible from that camera angle and yes, it should have been Shish ka Jones in the tomb of the knight.

I would say that implausible is not always bad, it just depends on how it's handled. Again, as FG pointed out, the fall from a plane on a plastic Dinghy would at best cripple someone, let alone the rest of the ToD opening sequence.

And when it comes to plausability, I think Hudson Hawk wins hands down.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:15 pm
by Brit Pop
papalazeru wrote:
And when it comes to plausability, I think Hudson Hawk wins hands down.


I won't stray off topic... suffice to say. If you had to prove my point about preposterousness to a room full of students - Hudson Hawk would be the film you would show them.

And yes, the rubber dinghy thing was really daft. But its OK - a wizard did it!

It was that shaman from the village who slowed its decent.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:27 pm
by papalazeru
Brit Pop wrote:
papalazeru wrote:
And when it comes to plausability, I think Hudson Hawk wins hands down.


I won't stray off topic... suffice to say. If you had to prove my point about preposterousness to a room full of students - Hudson Hawk would be the film you would show them.

And yes, the rubber dinghy thing was really daft. But its OK - a wizard did it!

It was that shaman from the village who slowed its decent.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Ok. I cede to your comedy.

Even though he had no power to keep his village safe and bring vegatation back. And the 'leap of faith bridge' was built using Predator technology when they landed first back in the Mayan days.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:53 pm
by Fried Gold
Brit Pop wrote:One cannot walk around or swim in petroleum, the damage to the skin and eyes after even brief exposure would require a lengthy hospitalisation. Also, walking around with a fucking flaming torch would only have one outcome... certain death by incineration.

I personally believe that all TLC needed to be a better movie by far, would have been to remove the entire Venice chapter - that whole bit of the movie just sucks.

Oh, and that 'invisible bridge' thing at the end was completely implausible!

The petroleum river was a little bit of a stretch I agree. As soon as Indy said "petroleum" we all said "just the vapours would've ignited when he lit the torch".

However!!!! The petrol probably would've been floating on the surface of the water down there (assuming there was some water down there too) so maybe...maybe....it wouldn't have been that bad under the liquid...

...maybe not.

I thought the "invisible bridge" thing is explained when the camera angle changes to only be an optical illusion. Perhaps I've misinterpreted it.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 7:58 pm
by Lord Voldemoo
Fried Gold wrote:I thought the "invisible bridge" thing is explained when the camera angle changes to only be an optical illusion. Perhaps I've misinterpreted it.


funny, i've had this conversation a couple of times in the past few days. I can't remember now if i already posted about it??

I interpreted it the same way. It's a cool optical illusion, not "magic". I've always wondered if you could create an optical illusion like that in practice, would one have to be standing directly in front of it for it to work? The bridge does have depth, so that seems like it would be hard to hide....but yeah, I actually always thought it was kinda cool.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:12 pm
by papalazeru
Lord Voldemoo wrote:
Fried Gold wrote:I thought the "invisible bridge" thing is explained when the camera angle changes to only be an optical illusion. Perhaps I've misinterpreted it.


funny, i've had this conversation a couple of times in the past few days. I can't remember now if i already posted about it??

I interpreted it the same way. It's a cool optical illusion, not "magic". I've always wondered if you could create an optical illusion like that in practice, would one have to be standing directly in front of it for it to work? The bridge does have depth, so that seems like it would be hard to hide....but yeah, I actually always thought it was kinda cool.


Like I said, stolen Predator Technology cloaked that Mutha!

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:45 pm
by Brit Pop
For the bridge to appear invisible to the person who was about to cross it... it would have to look just like the fuck off great bottomless chasm it sits atop.

ie - the rock its made from would have to fade to black in synchronicity with the perspective of the standee.

However, it does not look like that from the angle we, the viewer, see it.

Now why not just use a bit of glass...

... like the glass they used to separate Harrison Ford from the King Cobra.

Now that was invisible... nearly.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 8:46 pm
by Retardo_Montalban
Nordling wrote:Once the art is out in the public, the opinion of the artist is not very important. Besides, it's a slippery slope from "I didn't like that film I made" to "Let's take the guns out" to "I'll never release that version of that film again." Once you let a piece of art out, you really have no business touching it again. I have no problems with director's cuts as long as the original piece of art remains available.


That depends. Most artists contest that they don't ever fully complete any of their works. If you look at a well known artists body of work, you get a lot of of pieces virtually the same with minor differences that slowly evolve into a final product. Sometimes the priceless piece is the final incarnation, but sometimes it's the first. Depends on public perception. You wouldn't believe how many drawings Picasso made of Mercury fucking a bull. Must be 2 dozen pieces in different mediums and positions.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:38 pm
by tapehead
Peven wrote:well, i wasn't exactly trying to back up Nordling, but there was an implication earlier in this thread that since Spielberg supposedly didn't care for ToD as much as TLC that means that fans who liked ToD more than TLC were wrong in their preference. i say "fuck that" to that.


There was no such implication - When I quoted Spielberg, it was to introduce his stated opinion on the subject - specifically in response to AH's contention that Spielberg had never spoken ill of Temple of Doom, and more generally AH's complete inability to discuss the subject of these films, to debate the thread subject, rather than to spout that bland repetitive smugness that he has smeared all over this topic. It was a direct refutation of his contention, not a postulate in a separate discussion about Art and the Artist, which is where the conversation has turned after the fact.

I'm glad my input has prompted new discussion, as frankly it was getting a little stale in here, particularly for anyone who wants to talk about movies, but if its gone of on a different tangent, my Spielberg quotes were a catalyst, not an argument or contention.

So you say 'Fuck That' to the straw man, yet again Peven.

Leaving the act when it's done is more a question of good taste than ethics, IMO.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:45 pm
by Chairman Kaga
Things have seeme to have to steered back to Indy at the moment.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:51 pm
by Fried Gold
Something I didn't know - the people who wrote Temple of Doom also wrote both Howard The Duck and Radioland Murders.

...it actually seems like the writers of the Indy movies don't end up making much else that's good. Maybe someone should've warned David Koepp.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 9:55 pm
by Peven
i am touched by your obsession with me, Tape. first, you assume i must be talking about you, even though i didn't use your name, then you choose my post out of a lot of very good, well-thought-out posts to respond to, while ignoring all the others. you really know how to make a guy feel special. should i be expecting flowers and candy next?

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:02 pm
by tapehead
You were referring to my post and I responded - I tolerate you Peven, because sometimes you're funny, and at times I'm willing to entertain your point of view. So appreciate that.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:20 pm
by Retardo_Montalban
You know what? I'm going to talk a little about why I like Temple of Doom, because I do like it, just not as much as The Last Crusade. I was thoroughly impressed when that crazy witch doctor dude pulled out that other dude's heart. I don't recall any hyper gore like that in The Last Crusade. I'm hoping this new movie has some face melting or eye gouging or something.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:25 pm
by tapehead
They've all got a moment like that, and arguably the rapidly ageing conspirator millionaire in The Lost Crusade is the least effective, although it's still pretty cool. I sort of hope the new one sticks to practical effects where it's possible, or at least that the effects of 'grand guignol' scene make me gasp like the face-melting and heart-ripping did when I first saw them.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:34 pm
by Peven
Tape, you are not the only one who made reference to Spielberg not liking ToD, Matrowl made the reference first. and believe it or not, i make posts all the time without considering you at all. BUT, you did state in a post that..

"Hey, if you won't listen to the Director's own negative appraisal of the film, which directly thwarts you earlier contention, then you just won't listen... to anything, or anyone, on this subject."

so, why should he listen to the director's own negative appraisal of the film? you seem to imply that he should. if not because you think it should effect his appraisal of the film then why should he?

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:35 pm
by Retardo_Montalban
Yeah that aging scene was pretty cool, but it didn't disturb me as much as the heart ripping and face melting. It might have something to do with my strange obsession with octogenarians. The best gore is always practical effects. There's something about the awkwardness and unpredictable chaos that CGI just can't reproduce.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:44 pm
by Chairman Kaga
That wasn't CG...

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:48 pm
by Retardo_Montalban
What wasn't? As far as I know there hasn't been any CGI in the Indy films. I was referring to the upcoming one. I hope they do the gore practical in it.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:50 pm
by Chairman Kaga
I thought people were stating the aging sequence was CG

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:14 pm
by tapehead
Peven wrote:Tape, you are not the only one who made reference to Spielberg not liking ToD, Matrowl made the reference first. and believe it or not, i make posts all the time without considering you at all. BUT, you did state in a post that..

"Hey, if you won't listen to the Director's own negative appraisal of the film, which directly thwarts you earlier contention, then you just won't listen... to anything, or anyone, on this subject."

so, why should he listen to the director's own negative appraisal of the film? you seem to imply that he should. if not because you think it should effect his appraisal of the film then why should he?


Replied in PM.


As for the CGI, I don't think anyone has contended the previous films have had any, but it's something I admit concerns me for the fourth of the series.

PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:18 pm
by Retardo_Montalban
All this special effects talk got me curious about that aging sequence, so I looked it up at this site.

Here's a quick excerpt about the invisible bridge that was mentioned earlier

The riddle tells Indy that he must make a 'leap of faith' so he slowly, and with great trepidation, steps out into the void. To his astonishment his foot lands on something solid, yet he appears to be standing in midair. As Indy proceeds to walk across the abyss to a ledge on the other side, the camera swings to the right and reveals the trick, Indy is walking on a bridge painted to match the rock on the opposite cliff face, thereby making it invisible from his original vantage point. The camouflaged bridge was a Spielberg inspiration. "I thought it would be interesting if somebody hundreds of years ago painted a false perspective on a bridge that matched the terrain two hundred feet below in color and texture. Of course, thinking the idea up and having it sketched was the easy part. We never knew for certain if it would work until ILM got involved and made it happen."


and here's a bit about the aging gag. Turns out it was initially meant for Raiders, but was too complex to do at the time.
For the death scene of the film's villain, Donovan, Lucas and Spielberg played with an idea that was originally explored for the opening of the ark in Raiders. The idea was that all the Germans at present would be disintegrated, with their skin being rotten and falling off their faces and then with their bones being turned into dust. Unfortunately, the technology at the time could not support such a venture and the idea was dropped. Inspired by this, Boam wrote a scene where Donovan was supposed to age in a matter of seconds and wither away until he is only skeletal dust. The effect, tagged at ILM as 'Donovan's Destruction', was considered common enough for the special effects of the late 80s but was given a different wrinkle by Spielberg. "I would not agree to Donovan's destruction unless it could all be done on camera in one continuous shot," he stated. "I just did not want to do a series of cutaways so that the person could be advanced in makeup.