When Spielberg had integrity

[Skykid]

The fridge and the nuke scene was ace, I agree. Over the top, hilarious, and effective.

I hate that scene because it crosses a boundary regarding OTT. I can deal with ridiculous daredevil Indy stunts but not pure farce. He would have been a liquid stew of blood and bones when that fridge door opened, it was stupid - like everything else in the film.

Ugh, just thinking about Crystal Skull makes me feel ill.

[Lordstar]

The fridge and the nuke scene was ace, I agree. Over the top, hilarious, and effective.

Ugh, just thinking about Crystal Skull makes me feel ill.

Buckets at the ready . . . they want to do another one!

[moozooh]

He would have been a liquid stew of blood and bones when that fridge door opened, it was stupid - like everything else in the film.

I guess now you know why SW's frivolous reading of open space vacuum, superluminal speeds, and other basic physics laws left a bad taste in my mouth, huh.

[Skykid]

He would have been a liquid stew of blood and bones when that fridge door opened, it was stupid - like everything else in the film.

I guess now you know why SW's frivolous reading of open space vacuum, superluminal speeds, and other basic physics laws left a bad taste in my mouth, huh.

No, I don't because Star Wars establishes its fantasy sciences from the first film onward. Indy has three movies that keep it to high adventure of the mine cart, boulder dodging, cliff hanging, rope bridge cutting variety. They do leap out of a plane in an inflatable dinghy, but even that was passable as OTT action.

Men being flung a mile in a fridge and getting out unscathed is only good for audience laughs, which felt an inappropriate change of tone from its predecessors.

It's mainly down to the massively overrated David Koepp (who thankfully appears to have fucked off of the writing circuit for a while) for producing such a trash screenplay in-line with many of his others.

In summary, Crustal Skull is:

Shia Lebeef = Rubbish
Fridge Survivals = Rubbish
Cate Blanchett = Rubbish
Monkey Vine Swinging = Appalling
Alien Spaceship Plotlines = Unmentionable

[Mischief Maker]

I think we're missing the forest for the trees here.

Spielberg's integrity was shot ever since he released ET: the Special Edition.

[moozooh]

Men being flung a mile in a fridge and getting out unscathed is only good for audience laughs, which felt an inappropriate change of tone from its predecessors.

It is unrealistic, but history has known way more unrealistic things of the same sort that actually happened.

[Skykid]

I think we're missing the forest for the trees here.

Spielberg's integrity was shot ever since he released Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Fixed.

Men being flung a mile in a fridge and getting out unscathed is only good for audience laughs, which felt an inappropriate change of tone from its predecessors.

It is unrealistic, but history has known way more unrealistic things of the same sort that actually happened.

Miraculous survivals aided by pine trees, snowy ravines and water. Quite amazing. I still wouldn't fancy their chances inside a fridge, however.

[moozooh]

My point is, you're willingly choosing not to believe the whatever probability of surviving being flung around in a fridge, yet at the same time believe in all the decidedly unrealistic shit happening in the other three movies—and there is plenty of it, especially in your (and mine) favorite ToD. I'm not even touching the wanton fantasy parade that is SW here.

All of that suddenly becomes more stupid and unbelievable just because you don't like the movie in the first place.

You could be, like, coherent, man.™

[Strider77]

I think watching an Indy flick requires suspension of disbelieve in all counts.


I'll totally confess to the power of nostalgia when it comes to raiders and temple of doom. When we got our first VCR my brother and I got to pick out a movie each. My brother got teenwolf and since I wasn't there my mom picked out raiders for me. She chose wisely. I played the he'll out of that tape... I had never seen it till then.

Temple of Doom my grandmother recorded that of HBO for me. I literally wore that tape out. I showed it to all my friends and watched it all summer long. I still love the part when they first role up in the secret tunnel and witness the sacrifice. Love the matt paintings for the caverns with purple hues and a red glow. I've become kinda odd in my old age... I've aquired a thing for stellar matt paintings in HD.

[Skykid]

You could be, like, coherent, man.™

I am being coherent. I agree with you regarding the ridiculousness of events in all of the movies, but I specified clearly that there's a tonal shift in Crystal Skull that I find uncomfortable. I thought I was pretty clear, but to re-iterate: nuked fridge survival, tarzan vine swinging and aliens are too demanding a step up from wild mine cart rides and boulder dodging IMO.

[moozooh]

I thought I was pretty clear, but to re-iterate: nuked fridge survival, tarzan vine swinging and aliens are too demanding a step up from wild mine cart rides and boulder dodging IMO.

What about spirits coming out of a chest and melting Nazis' faces off with Indy knowing exactly how to avoid that (that has bugged me even when I was a kid), or some immortal dude guarding a cup able to heal a shot wound, or that chick being lowered to about two or three meters above something resembling molten lava without even having her hair burnt... yeah, well, at least vine swinging is something you can physically do and get away with it. I'm willing to say Crystal Skull is easily the most realistic movie of the four!

They could have made the alien civilization theme much more tasteful (there is nothing wrong with it per se), btw, if it wasn't played in such a flippant, in-your-face manner.

[Moniker]

I thought I was pretty clear, but to re-iterate: nuked fridge survival, tarzan vine swinging and aliens are too demanding a step up from wild mine cart rides and boulder dodging IMO.

What about spirits coming out of a chest and melting Nazis' faces off with Indy knowing exactly how to avoid that (that has bugged me even when I was a kid), or some immortal dude guarding a cup able to heal a shot wound, or that chick being lowered to about two or three meters above something resembling molten lava without even having her hair burnt...
They could have made the alien civilization theme much more tasteful (there is nothing wrong with it per se), btw, if it wasn't played in such a flippant, in-your-face manner.

Well, the face melting, surviving a heart-ectomy, and being healed by the holy grail are all sort of in-theme, i.e., religious mythology. Getting nuked in a fridge, and jumping out of a plane on an inflatable raft without it flipping over mid-fall are more action movie impossibilities. I didn't have a problem with the nuke, in fact I thought it was pretty awesome. I didn't really have a problem with the martian thing fundamentally either - in other words, I didn't feel like Lucas & Spielberg were raping Indy like in the South Park episode. If the movie in general had been a winner, people wouldn't give as much of a shit. Like the Vietnam War.

Oh and as far as Indy knowing how to avoid getting face-melted. It's part of Judeo-Christian lore that looking upon the face of divinity (and not being Moses) is a cause of death among mortals. Also, did anyone else come away from The Last Crusade under the impression that Indy & Dad were immortal?

[Skykid]

in other words, I didn't feel like Lucas & Spielberg were raping Indy like in the South Park episode.

Trey and Matt nailed it with that episode. Love those guys.

[scrilla4rella]

Adventures of Tintin looks cool, although I thought motion captured CG was dead and buried after the Mars Needs Moms flop.

[moozooh]

Oh and as far as Indy knowing how to avoid getting face-melted. It's part of Judeo-Christian lore that looking upon the face of divinity (and not being Moses) is a cause of death among mortals. Also, did anyone else come away from The Last Crusade under the impression that Indy & Dad were immortal?

Hmm, good point! One mystery less. :D

And yeah, I'm not sure what's the canonical take on the Joneses drinking from the Holy Grail.

[Mischief Maker]

I thought I was pretty clear, but to re-iterate: nuked fridge survival, tarzan vine swinging and aliens are too demanding a step up from wild mine cart rides and boulder dodging IMO.

What about spirits coming out of a chest and melting Nazis' faces off with Indy knowing exactly how to avoid that (that has bugged me even when I was a kid), or some immortal dude guarding a cup able to heal a shot wound, or that chick being lowered to about two or three meters above something resembling molten lava without even having her hair burnt...
They could have made the alien civilization theme much more tasteful (there is nothing wrong with it per se), btw, if it wasn't played in such a flippant, in-your-face manner.

Well, the face melting, surviving a heart-ectomy, and being healed by the holy grail are all sort of in-theme, i.e., religious mythology. Getting nuked in a fridge, and jumping out of a plane on an inflatable raft without it flipping over mid-fall are more action movie impossibilities. I didn't have a problem with the nuke, in fact I thought it was pretty awesome. I didn't really have a problem with the martian thing fundamentally either - in other words, I didn't feel like Lucas & Spielberg were raping Indy like in the South Park episode. If the movie in general had been a winner, people wouldn't give as much of a shit. Like the Vietnam War.

Oh and as far as Indy knowing how to avoid getting face-melted. It's part of Judeo-Christian lore that looking upon the face of divinity (and not being Moses) is a cause of death among mortals. Also, did anyone else come away from The Last Crusade under the impression that Indy & Dad were immortal?

The difference is that in Raiders, they spent a goodly chunk of time establishing what the Ark of the Covenant was and what it could do and that Indiana Jones was quite knowledgeable about the Ark, "Didn't you guys ever go to Sunday school?" The rest of the movie kept things within the plausibility of an action movie. When the Ark was opened, the audience was prepared for it to be a game-changer. Crusader did the same such establishment with the Grail and what it does.

There was no such establishment telling the audience that wackiness was afoot in the nuke scene. It stretched plausibility beyond the breaking point and that little "lead lined" shot was too little too late. The fact that the flying fridge was rendered with fakey CGI made it even harder for the audience to swallow.

This, by the way, is my reason for why TOD, flawed as it was, was a superior film to Crystal Skull. TOD used practical effects. The stunt scenes are impressive simply because the making of them was an achievement. That's a real set those minecarts are racing through. Who cares when some computer nerd renders the most fantastic setpieces imaginable around Harrison Ford when it's blatantly obvious he's walking around a green screen set looking at pieces of Gaffer's tape labeled "This is something incredible, gape at it!"

PS. Indy and his dad weren't immortal because the Grail's longevity is temporary, as shown by the crusading knight who brought the markers from Petra to Venice, then died of "extreme old age" and repeated by the still-living knight saying that being stuck in Petra with the Grail was the price of immortality.

[neorichieb1971]

Its not the action that bothers me so much, its Indies blatant disregard for old times. In Crystal he talks of skulls in London museums being nice to look at but having no mystical power. In the same breath he says the myth is nonsense, yet in the first 3 movies he is in the centre of all things mystical and powerful. He could shake hands with Jesus and say God wasn't real FFS!

[Aguraki]

crystal skull brought indy in science-fiction domain where he didn't belong imo.
For me Indy is all about archetypal figure of the archeologist vs myths and legends.
Not aliens and especially not roswell like aliens.
The fridge scene was the best scene of the movie tho.

[dan76]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... films.html

He regrets altering E.T for the dvd release. Maybe he should talk to his mate Lucas.

EDIT: a bit more info:

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/20 ... ts_et.html

[Skykid]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film ... films.html

He regrets altering E.T for the dvd release. Maybe he should talk to his mate Lucas.

EDIT: a bit more info:

http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/20 ... ts_et.html

That's very encouraging. Although I found this to be the most significant part of the article:

Earlier this week, Spielberg criticised modern film making, claiming there have been very few great movies made over the past two decades.
The 64-year-old, responsible for movies including Schinder’s List and Jaws, said there were not “not a lot of films” worth watching.

It's nice to know someone like Spielberg feels exactly the way I (and many others) do. The last two decades of film has been devolving into trashiness on a scale I didn't even think was possible - unfortunately Spielberg hasn't done much to improve things either.

[Moniker]

Bravo, Mr. Spielberg. My faith in you is a cup that overflows.

[Mischief Maker]

Earlier this week, Spielberg criticised modern film making, claiming there have been very few great movies made over the past two decades.
The 64-year-old, responsible for movies including Schinder’s List and Jaws, said there were not “not a lot of films” worth watching.

Hooray that the director of Jurassic Park 2 is here to put his foot down against lazy crap derivative film-making devoted less to artistic integrity and more to milking a guaranteed profitable franchise!

There have been a crapload of great movies made over the past two decades. It's just that the forms and variety of entertainment media have exploded since the early 1980s (when there was just a hand-full of TV channels and the local theater) so the great movies of the last two decades haven't made the same cultural impact.

Long live the new flesh!

[dan76]

I don't know about that. I think any way you look at it the last 20 years of films have been pretty poor. There has been interesting stuff, but I think films have had their day generally.

It's a weird thing to hear from Spielberg considering the dross he's been involved with, and if anyone was in a position to do something about it it's him. He can do anything he likes, make any film he wants. But I think filmmakers like Spielberg, Scorsese and Ridley Scott want to stay current, and in doing so have lost what made them great in the first place because they've... moved with the times. There are exceptions - Robert Altman was one of the few who carried on doing his thing, The Company is as good as some of his earlier films.

[moozooh]

I think any way you look at it the last 20 years of films have been pretty poor.

Yeah... no. You either don't know where to look, or have very selective memory.

The fact that there are more commercial movies made now does in no way cross another fact: there are more good movies made as well. Directors such as David Lynch, Coen Bros, David Fincher, Frank Darabont, Jim Jarmush, Quentin Tarantino, Alexander Sokurov, Danny Boyle, Terry Gilliam, Lars von Trier, Richard Kelly, Richard Linklater, Sam Mendes, Takeshi Kitano, Wes Anderson, Vincenzo Natali, Chan-wook Park, Gus Van Sant, Wong Kar-wai—and I'm sure I've forgotten a lot more of them—have all made some (or all) of their most prominent movies during the last 20 years. And, even though not all of their movies were great (some were sellouts), you'd easily be able to find at least 50 great titles among their work. What are the chances you don't even know some of these names?

[Obiwanshinobi]

It's a weird thing to hear from Spielberg considering the dross he's been involved with, and if anyone was in a position to do something about it it's him. He can do anything he likes, make any film he wants.

Can he make a film about Chaim Rumkowski?

[NTSC-J]

I think any way you look at it the last 20 years of films have been pretty poor.

I generally agree. There are always going to be good movies made, but I think that the shitty movies are shittier and making way more money than they used to. Transformers 3 made $1.1 billion.

Transformers 3.

A movie that people that like dumb movies didn't even like managed to make a billion dollars.

People are miserable and don't want to see life-affirming, challenging movies. They want to zone out and watch a shitty CG gorilla doing the dougie.

For me, some of my favorite genres, sci-fi and horror, are all pretty unappealing now. In the 80s, they were just fine. Animation also looks like dogshit now. Shiny, sterile, HD dogshit.

[dan76]

What are the chances you don't even know some of these names?

Yeah, thanks for enlightnening me - forget Fellini, we've got Boyle.

There are some good films, but great ones? When was the last masterpiece? Obviously this is getting subjective, but what do people consider the most recent masterpiece - be interesting to hear.

[moozooh]

I would gladly trade one Fellini for ten promising contemporary directors. There's only so much you can do with the past.

As for the masterpiece, it depends on what you'd define as one. Out of movies I'd watched, which are admittedly not that many, I would name The Lives of Others (2006) and The Social Network (2010). The latter goes lengths to reestablish my faith in dialogue writing, which has generally plummeted compared to pre-80s movies.

[Skykid]

I would gladly trade one Fellini for ten promising contemporary directors. There's only so much you can do with the past.

As for the masterpiece, it depends on what you'd define as one. Out of movies I'd watched, which are admittedly not that many, I would name The Lives of Others (2006) and The Social Network (2010). The latter goes lengths to reestablish my faith in dialogue writing, which has generally plummeted compared to pre-80s movies.

The Lives of Others yes, The Social Network is a good Hollywood film but not pedestal material (even for dialogue writing.)

I think any way you look at it the last 20 years of films have been pretty poor.

Yeah... no. You either don't know where to look, or have very selective memory.

The fact that there are more commercial movies made now does in no way cross another fact: there are more good movies made as well. Directors such as David Lynch, Coen Bros, David Fincher, Frank Darabont, Jim Jarmush, Quentin Tarantino, Alexander Sokurov, Danny Boyle, Terry Gilliam, Lars von Trier, Richard Kelly, Richard Linklater, Sam Mendes, Takeshi Kitano, Wes Anderson, Vincenzo Natali, Chan-wook Park, Gus Van Sant, Wong Kar-wai—and I'm sure I've forgotten a lot more of them—have all made some (or all) of their most prominent movies during the last 20 years. And, even though not all of their movies were great (some were sellouts), you'd easily be able to find at least 50 great titles among their work. What are the chances you don't even know some of these names?

A lot of the directors on this list are exactly as you said: with subjective pedigrees. The likes of Jim Jarmusch and Lynch have art film appeal. They're great at what they do, but it doesn't make their output 'great'. Lynch peaked for me with Blue Velvet and the Elephant Man (1980 and 86 respectively) and I found the likes of Dead Man and Ghost Dog overrated.
Sam Mendes doesn't deserve to be on the list. Anyone who's seen Jarhead will testify to that unfortunate truth. Nor Takeshi Kitano - hardly a master filmmaker. He made a decent go of Zatoichi but I'll never forgive him for Brother. What a piece of shit.

Coen Bros, Chan-wook Park, Quentin Tarantino, Wong Kar-Wai all given - although many still cite Blood Simple as the Coen's best (84). Not sure Boyle should even qualify in the category either: He's good at what he does (visual/aural sensory) but still hasn't topped Shallow Grave (94).
And Richard Linklater? Because of Dazed and Confused cheesing it in 1993? 2 years and its not viable any more and neither is he.

Strike Wes Anderson off the list straight away. The Royal Tenenbaums is appalling, and Darjeeling, Aquatic and Rushmore are niche appeal art movies for art fags to fag off about. Paul Thomas Anderson has a more rightful position on any list of decent contributions (Boogie Nights, There Will be Blood.)

Richard Kelly has skill, Southland Tales was a big surprise. Gilliam is great, but are you sure he's done his best work in the last 20 years? Fear & Loathing and 12 Monkeys are both good films, but my favourite of his work is still pre-90's (Brazil, Time Bandits, Munchausen, Jabberwocky, Monty Python.)

[CMoon]

I think we're missing the forest for the trees here.

Spielberg's integrity was shot ever since he released Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Fixed.

Wow dude, that's sort of harsh, but on the other hand, I would agree that Close Encounters isn't nearly as good a film as people make it out to be for some reason. In fact, is there anything particularly outstanding about it?

I was about to fix Mischief Maker's quote myself by crossing out 'special edition'. ET and Goonies (to a lesser extent) are what I toss into the 'emperor has no clothes' sorts of films. Tons of respect and love for these films, but are they actually particularly good or is it all nostalgia. If I'm around in another 40 years, I'll still watch Jaws now and then, Maybe even Raiders, but I don't watch his other films now.