THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 08:10:02 PM

Title: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 08:10:02 PM
Raiders: $20 million (estimated)
Temple of Doom:    $28 million
Last Crusade: $48 million
Crystal Shits: $185 million

And oddly enough, from a production standpoint, Crystal Skull is probably the least impressive one.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 08:11:24 PM
 :lol :lol :lol :lol I bet $100 million was CGI for Ford's close ups.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Rman on May 26, 2008, 08:13:03 PM
Are these adjusted for inflation?
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 08:14:07 PM
Are these adjusted for inflation?

Even if you take inflation into account, it says a lot about how much the US dollar has gone down the shitter.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 08:14:43 PM
Are these adjusted for inflation?

Even if you take inflation into account, it says a lot about how much the US dollar has gone down the shitter.
:usacry

Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Rman on May 26, 2008, 08:19:01 PM
Raiders was pretty impressive.  I'm surprised its budget was under 30 million.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 08:25:17 PM
Raiders was pretty impressive.  I'm surprised its budget was under 30 million.

20 million in 1980/81 was a big budget.  Not amongst the biggest, but it was definitely a lot more than most movies.  Successful movies made like 30 million back then, aside from the humungadungas. 

IIRC, Empire and Return of the Jedi both cost 30ish million, and they were two of the most expensive movies at the time.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 08:25:21 PM
I bet you could shoot all three of the original films for less than the budget of Crystal Skull combined if you really tried (if Spielberg was a mench with budgets like he used to be, or he was Guillermo Del Toro).
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Solo on May 26, 2008, 08:25:40 PM
Where the shit did it go on Crystal Skull? It sure as fuck wasn't on locations, and it sure as fuck x infinity wasnt on CG. Jesus, least impressive ILM outing in years. Speed Racer and Iron Man, both also playing currently, and both also ILM jobs, both shit on Indy's CG.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: fistfulofmetal on May 26, 2008, 08:27:57 PM
Most of it went to Shia, Kate, and Harrison probably.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 08:33:46 PM
Here are the budgets, adjusted for inflation:

Raiders of the Lost Ark: $49.7 million
Temple of Doom: $57.5 million
The Last Crusade: $83.1 million

... Still makes The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull look silly! :lol
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Solo on May 26, 2008, 08:36:14 PM
Sadly, this is the first movie where Ive come out thinking that Spielberg may finally be losing his touch. From a directorial perspective, it was just so uninspired and by the numbers. Usually with his films there are several scenes that just scream Spielberg-ian, but I got nothing from Indy IV like that.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: fistfulofmetal on May 26, 2008, 08:37:27 PM
Sadly, this is the first movie where Ive come out thinking that Spielberg may finally be losing his touch.

You really think this got all of Spielberg's love and attention? This is just a quick cash in to appease Lucas.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 08:43:04 PM
Sadly, this is the first movie where Ive come out thinking that Spielberg may finally be losing his touch.

You never saw The Terminal? <shudder>
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Solo on May 26, 2008, 08:43:56 PM
Sadly, this is the first movie where Ive come out thinking that Spielberg may finally be losing his touch.

You never saw The Terminal? <shudder>

Nope, missed that one. I fucking loathe Tom Hanks, so I pretty much skip all his shit.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 08:46:14 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't view this film as a knock on Spielberg's credibility as a director.  When he's bored with the material or he does it out of some kind of weird fan guilt/commitment - it comes out pretty mediocre (see: The Lost World).  He's a gifted director and even his recent stuff that I was not a big fan of, like War of the Worlds, show that he still has the technical chops to be an elite director.

I feel Spielberg's recent failings can be rectified by the following:

1. Distancing himself from George Lucas.  Lucas is like a cancer at this point and he's trying to destroy any resemblance of creativity he once had.  He has infected the Indy franchise.  Back away, Steven!

2. Stop using drafts from David Koepp and being lazy with scripts.  Koepp is a hack - his best screenplays have been passed around Hollywood and worked on more than Joan Rivers.  Spielberg also used to write rough drafts and realized he wasn't a good enough writer to shoot what he wrote.  But he was invested in the writing process.  That hasn't happened in a long, long time.

3. Fire Kaminski.  Yeah, we all thought that look was cool the first time we saw it... a decade ago.  Now all your films look the same, totally blown out and washed out.  He completely failed in capturing the look of Raiders/Last Crusade (we'll exclude Temple of Doom) and makes something as lush and colorful as jungle locations look boring.

Spielberg needs to cast off some dead creative weight around him (Lucas, Kaminski, Koepp, etc.) and get back to his roots.  His technical knowledge is still incredible and his skills are unmatched.  He just needs an infusion of good talent around him.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 08:48:13 PM
You dont like Temple of Doom Willco?
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Van Cruncheon on May 26, 2008, 08:49:19 PM
Sadly, this is the first movie where Ive come out thinking that Spielberg may finally be losing his touch.

You never saw The Terminal? <shudder>

Nope, missed that one. I fucking loathe Tom Hanks, so I pretty much skip all his shit.

yer back on my good list, solo. :thumbsup
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 08:51:21 PM
You dont like Temple of Doom Willco?

No, I'm excluding Temple of Doom from the conversation in terms of his DP because that installment looks so different from Raiders/Last Crusade.  Even still, I prefer the hyper-colorful look of Temple of Doom to Kaminski's blown/washed out look that he uses in everything.  He shoots films like the sun is ten feet from YOUR FUCKING FACE.  CAN YOU FEEL THE SUNBURN!?!
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 08:54:11 PM
Spielberg's not the only person that dialed this in.  Harrison Ford's performance was so fucking flat.  I mean, it's not like he had that many decent lines to work with, but his delivery just sucked.  It's like he wasn't even trying.  Cate Blanchett was pretty great, Shia wasn't bad, Karen Allen was okay (although I think seeing her may have just tickled my nostalgia fancy).  John Hurt was pretty much wasted, though.

Also, FoC, I just rewatched Temple.  I think the movie loses it right after Indy, Willie, and Short Round see the ceremony in the temple, when Indy goes off alone to get the stones.  Within 10 minutes, Willie is being sacrificed, Indy is EVIL, and Short Round is a slave.  It's like the movie kicks it into high gear, but instead of presenting a narrative, it just gives you a string of scenes that aren't very well connected to each other.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 08:58:07 PM
Even prior to the release, Spielberg and Ford were saying things in interviews that sounded more like two grown men worn down by their friend (fuck you, Lucas!) to do something that weren't too keen on just to appease their buddy.  Kind of like when your friend throws a tantrum because he wants to go to a new restaurant instead of your favorite watering hole, and you reluctantly go out of friendship.  But then the new restaurant sucks and you're not having fun, because you'd rather be back at your old watering hole.

George Lucas got a free pass from Spielberg for so long.  Maybe this will be what wakes him up and makes him say, "George, your ideas fucking blow!  And I never liked the prequels either!"
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:00:31 PM

Also, FoC, I just rewatched Temple.  I think the movie loses it right after Indy, Willie, and Short Round see the ceremony in the temple, when Indy goes off alone to get the stones.  Within 10 minutes, Willie is being sacrificed, Indy is EVIL, and Short Round is a slave.  It's like the movie kicks it into high gear, but instead of presenting a narrative, it just gives you a string of scenes that aren't very well connected to each other.

Shit, I forgot about that.

At least the opening was awesome, the mine cart scene was great and I thought the heart stuff was kind of cool too.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Solo on May 26, 2008, 09:01:34 PM
Yeah, I wouldn't view this film as a knock on Spielberg's credibility as a director.  When he's bored with the material or he does it out of some kind of weird fan guilt/commitment - it comes out pretty mediocre (see: The Lost World).  He's a gifted director and even his recent stuff that I was not a big fan of, like War of the Worlds, show that he still has the technical chops to be an elite director.

I feel Spielberg's recent failings can be rectified by the following:

1. Distancing himself from George Lucas.  Lucas is like a cancer at this point and he's trying to destroy any resemblance of creativity he once had.  He has infected the Indy franchise.  Back away, Steven!

2. Stop using drafts from David Koepp and being lazy with scripts.  Koepp is a hack - his best screenplays have been passed around Hollywood and worked on more than Joan Rivers.  Spielberg also used to write rough drafts and realized he wasn't a good enough writer to shoot what he wrote.  But he was invested in the writing process.  That hasn't happened in a long, long time.

3. Fire Kaminski.  Yeah, we all thought that look was cool the first time we saw it... a decade ago.  Now all your films look the same, totally blown out and washed out.  He completely failed in capturing the look of Raiders/Last Crusade (we'll exclude Temple of Doom) and makes something as lush and colorful as jungle locations look boring.

Spielberg needs to cast off some dead creative weight around him (Lucas, Kaminski, Koepp, etc.) and get back to his roots.  His technical knowledge is still incredible and his skills are unmatched.  He just needs an infusion of good talent around him.

Good points all around. I wasnt saying that Spiels has LOST his touch (there are fucking classic sequences in each of Minority Report, War of the Worlds, and Munich, all with his masterful technical skills on display), just that the slide may have begun. We'll see after his next picture. I can't think right now, nor do I care enough to delve into it, but has Spiels ever released two consecutive stinkers?

Sadly, this is the first movie where Ive come out thinking that Spielberg may finally be losing his touch.

You never saw The Terminal? <shudder>

Nope, missed that one. I fucking loathe Tom Hanks, so I pretty much skip all his shit.

yer back on my good list, solo. :thumbsup

 :hump

Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 09:02:00 PM
I think there was potential with doing a Chariots of the Gods style movie.  The big mistake was that they basically confirm LOL ALIENS within five minutes of the movie starting.  If you want me to swallow this shit happily, you have to at least throw some doubt in, make it ambiguous.  Otherwise there's really no mystery.

Also
spoiler (click to show/hide)
Indy being at Roswell is so fucking distinguished mentally-challenged.  Why would the fucking government want an archaeologist there?
[close]

Quote
At least the opening was awesome, the mine cart scene was great and I thought the heart stuff was kind of cool too.

Yeah, I like the beginning and endings.  That middle part is just kinda sour.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 09:07:14 PM
Lucas is the master of subtlety and science fiction, Keith.

Considering that plot device was such a huge hold up for Spielberg and Ford - I'd like to see what Lucas originally tried to sell them on before inevitably breaking them down.  Was there a musical number involving aliens from Close Encounters?  Did Martians originally try to hijack the Ark to make an intergalactic weapon of destruction?  What?

There must of been something so absurd that was pitched for Spielberg and Ford to feel that the end product represented the best possible representation of Lucas idea for LOL ALIENS.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:08:27 PM
Things wrong with INDY IV

1. Russian army in america. LoLWUT?
2. They throw the 50s in your face. Look a soda bar. Look Shia is the fonze.
3. CGI everywhere.
4. Indy survives a 10 mile trip in an airborne refrigerator.
5. No one gives a shit about the bad gal.
6. Who is Mack?
7. Who is Oxley?
8. Why is the dialogue between mutt and Indy so terrible.
9. A story that made no fucking since. Why would Oxley return the crystal skull upon failing the first time, only for him to succeed the second time and not doing anything differently.
10. The crystal skulls were fucking stupid to begin with.
11. A tin can boat survives falling from 3 Niagara water falls.
12. The FBI is onto Indy yet we never see the FBI again.
13. Indy's dad died even though he drank from the Holy grail.
14. Indy survived in the army between this movie and the trilogy even though he was way to old.

15. WHAT THe FUCK HAPPENED TO THE CRYSTAL SKULL THEY TOOK AT AREA 51?? It's like they forgot the beginning even happened?

Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:09:32 PM
Considering that plot device was such a huge hold up for Spielberg and Ford - I'd like to see what Lucas originally tried to sell them on before inevitably breaking them down.  Was there a musical number involving aliens from Close Encounters?  Did Martians originally try to hijack the Ark to make an intergalactic weapon of destruction?  What?

Rumor is that the original title of this movie was Indiana Jones and the little green saucer men from mars.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: fistfulofmetal on May 26, 2008, 09:10:33 PM
I still have to see this movie... I will eventually.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 09:12:53 PM
Quote
9. A story that made no fucking since. Why would Oxley return the crystal skull upon failing the first time, only for him to succeed the second time and not doing anything differently.

I was wondering this myself.  I'm assuming I missed something.  But even if I did, Cate Blanchett's character says that they have had multiple alien corpses in the Soviet Union.  Where are those skulls?  And if that is the case, how did she not know about their magnetic properties?
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Solo on May 26, 2008, 09:16:18 PM
John Hurt's pointless role continues to baffle me. Here is a great actor who you waste in the role of a stammering distinguished mentally-challenged fellow who supplies the most unfunny comedic relief I can remember in a good while.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: AdmiralViscen on May 26, 2008, 09:18:42 PM
Quote
9. A story that made no fucking since. Why would Oxley return the crystal skull upon failing the first time, only for him to succeed the second time and not doing anything differently.

I was wondering this myself.  I'm assuming I missed something.  But even if I did, Cate Blanchett's character says that they have had multiple alien corpses in the Soviet Union.  Where are those skulls?  And if that is the case, how did she not know about their magnetic properties?


She said that not all the corpses had crystal skeletons, some were regular or something.

FoC's post pretty much sinks the movie for me.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 09:18:47 PM
Lucas: Okay, get this - so like, little green men break into AREA FIFTY-ONE and steal the Ark.  Then, aliens like the ones from Close Encounters - this is an homage to you, Steven! - try to stop them and an all out brawl begins.  That's when we learn that green men are Nazi aliens or rather Nazis were aliens all along!  If they get the Ark back to their mothership in Berlin, they will detonate a device that can blow up the entire world! ... unless Indiana Jones and his son stop them first!

Spielberg: That sounds kind of silly, George.

Ford: Yeah, totally lame idea.

[sometime after FIREWALL]

Lucas: Okay, we'll just make it about communists and ALIEN CRYSTAL SKULLS and his son!

Spielberg: Can we make it about his brother?

Lucas: No.

Ford: I need money.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 09:18:50 PM
John Hurt's pointless role continues to baffle me. Here is a great actor who you waste in the role of a stammering distinguished mentally-challenged fellow who supplies the most unfunny comedic relief I can remember in a good while.

I think I heard someone say this on GAF, but it kinda makes sense:  maybe the John Hurt role was originally going to be the Sean Connery role, and when they couldn't get Connery, they didn't give a fuck about making a real new character, so they just made him the magic man that talks in magical riddles.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Solo on May 26, 2008, 09:20:52 PM
Connery has a history of passing over plum roles, but boy, he was on the mark here. Musta been able to smell the stink of this one from Scotland.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:21:26 PM
Why did Indy try to save Mack at the end right after Mack double crossed Indy. It was the most undramatic thing in movie history. Worse than the gay sailer scene in PJ's King Kong
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: AdmiralViscen on May 26, 2008, 09:22:50 PM
Why did Indy try to save Mack at the end right after Mack double crossed Indy. It was the most undramatic thing in movie history. Worse than the gay sailer scene in PJ's King Kong

Yea, that was distinguished mentally-challenged too. Also, why did Mack just say fuck it and die lol

Also, why did Indy so quickly trust him? And why did Mack lay out the "berlin reference" early on when he had no reason at that time to appear to be on Indy's side? Also why the FUCK did they make him a TRIPLE AGENT but NOT REALLY :lol :lol

Fuck
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Solo on May 26, 2008, 09:23:12 PM
It wasnt much of an attempt either. He tossed his whip like once and then returned to flashing homoerotic lust gazes at Shia.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 09:24:48 PM
I would've paid good money to see Indiana Jones & His Brother Stop Communists From Stealing Vague Alien Artifact, but instead we got the Kingdom of The Crystal Skull.

Things that would've made this installment better:

1. Sean Connery
2. Tom Selleck as Indy's brother
3. Opening on Indy's funeral
4. Ending on Indy's funeral
5. Having them find Atlantis rather than Crystal Skulls
6. Firing Lucas
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Solo on May 26, 2008, 09:25:45 PM
Tom Selleck as Indy drunkard brother is something I could get behind. Indy and the originally conceived Indy together at last? Hells yes!
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:26:19 PM
1. Sean Connery
2. Tom Selleck as Indy's brother
3. Opening on Indy's funeral
4. Ending on Indy's funeral
5. Having them find Atlantis rather than Crystal Skulls
6. Firing Lucas
:lol :lol Was this gonna happen?

Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 09:26:25 PM
See, that would've tickled nerd fancy and been awesome.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 09:27:12 PM
Darabont's draft reportedly gave Indy an alcoholic brother, who would've been played by Tom Selleck or Kevin Costner.  Selleck would've been so awesome.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: TVC15 on May 26, 2008, 09:28:03 PM
What if a grown up Short Round came back as a thai ladyboy?  I'd be buying a second ticket right now.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Solo on May 26, 2008, 09:28:31 PM
Its all in the casting though. Selleck = sold. Costner = Solo never watches Indy IV.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:28:44 PM
Darabont's draft reportedly gave Indy an alcoholic brother, who would've been played by Tom Selleck or Kevin Costner.  Selleck would've been so awesome.

OMG that would have been awesome!
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 09:29:05 PM
Yeah, Spielberg and Ford liked Darabont's script.  Lucas vetoed it. :-\

Solo is right too.  Selleck as drunken Indy brother would've been so much fun.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:29:21 PM
What if a grown up Short Round came back as a thai ladyboy?  I'd be buying a second ticket right now.

I wanted to see Short Round again.  :(
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: AdmiralViscen on May 26, 2008, 09:33:24 PM
Yeah, Spielberg and Ford liked Darabont's script.  Lucas vetoed it. :-\

Solo is right too.  Selleck as drunken Indy brother would've been so much fun.

 :'(

 :'(
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 26, 2008, 09:39:21 PM
I think Darabont has gone on record that he won't write anything that he's not planning to direct as a result of being mistreated by George Lucas.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:40:21 PM
At some point Spielberg and Ford needed to tell Lucas that the prequels sucked.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:45:10 PM
I really want to know what happened to the crystal skull that the russians took from Area 51 in the beginning.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: AdmiralViscen on May 26, 2008, 09:47:48 PM
http://www.orble.com/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull-review/

Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 09:50:22 PM
http://www.orble.com/indiana-jones-and-the-kingdom-of-the-crystal-skull-review/
Quote
Indy and Shia outwit the Russians thanks to some clever motorcycle hijinx. The chase leads to the campus, where the massive bronze head of Marcus Brody's statue lands on the Russian's crotch. Does the Russian die from this? We don't get to see his face, but it still made the kid in the row ahead of me laugh and cheer and raise his arms.
:lol :lol :lol

God I hate fanboys

Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 10:01:59 PM
I just thought of something. The whole last temple scene felt like a dramatized version of the Nickelodeon show, Legend of the Hidden Temple.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: pilonv1 on May 26, 2008, 10:10:21 PM
5. Having them find Atlantis rather than Crystal Skulls

That game ruled
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Howard Alan Treesong on May 26, 2008, 10:12:05 PM
5. Having them find Atlantis rather than Crystal Skulls

That game ruled

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 10:21:49 PM
Quote
Indy, Shia, Karen Allen and John Hurt all miraculously get to the top of the valley a few miles away in time to see the pyramid explode into chunks of CGI that spin around in a vast CGI cyclone, and then a big CGI saucer comes out and rises into the CG-sky. They watch it go. Indy says something about knowledge being the euphemism for gold/treasure, even though none of them know anything about what just happened.

so true
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Skiptastic on May 26, 2008, 11:03:40 PM
Why did Indy try to save Mack at the end right after Mack double crossed Indy. It was the most undramatic thing in movie history. Worse than the gay sailer scene in PJ's King Kong

Indy also tried to help the huge Indian dude on the stone grinder in Temple of Doom.

It's because Indy is a pretty cool guy. He fights Nazis and doesn't afraid of anythign!
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 26, 2008, 11:48:48 PM
Why did Indy try to save Mack at the end right after Mack double crossed Indy. It was the most undramatic thing in movie history. Worse than the gay sailer scene in PJ's King Kong

Indy also tried to help the huge Indian dude on the stone grinder in Temple of Doom.

It's because Indy is a pretty cool guy. He fights Nazis and doesn't afraid of anythign!

True, but the only thing worse than an enemy is a double crosser.  :maf
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 27, 2008, 12:01:21 AM
With 185 Million I could make the greatest movie of all time. It would be a zombie epic.

how original.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: AdmiralViscen on May 27, 2008, 12:33:23 AM
:lol
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Bacon on May 27, 2008, 11:02:54 AM
Didn't Spielberg weep at Revenge of The Sith's ending? What a fucking bitch, mang. 
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: onsedatives on May 27, 2008, 11:04:23 PM
Most of it probably ended up in Spielberg, Ford, Shia's pockets because it sure as hell wasn't used on the film.  :lol
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on May 27, 2008, 11:06:24 PM
Didn't Spielberg weep at Revenge of The Sith's ending? What a fucking bitch, mang. 

I wept at the end of al the prequels, but probably for different reasons.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: xnikki118x on May 27, 2008, 11:34:32 PM
I just thought of something. The whole last temple scene felt like a dramatized version of the Nickelodeon show, Legend of the Hidden Temple.

OH MY GOD I THOUGHT THE SAME THING.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: AdmiralViscen on May 28, 2008, 10:14:53 PM
I just watched Raiders for the first time in a while and hoooolly fuck does it take a shit on 4. 4 is unforgivable.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Enl on May 28, 2008, 10:26:53 PM
I just watched Raiders for the first time in a while and hoooolly fuck does it take a shit on 4. 4 is unforgivable.

I did the same thing a couple of days ago. I hadn't seen the film in almost a decade and I had forgotten how well made it was. I love the haunting forshadowing of the Ark early on in the film, the rawness of the action scenes, the unexpected "mirror" moment, the snake pit, the well thought out shots, the running Ark theme music that sticks with you, etc., etc. It really makes Crystal Skull looks even more cheap and stupid in comparison. It's sad that they rarely make adventure films like that any more.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: AdmiralViscen on May 28, 2008, 11:32:16 PM
There's half as much exposition and twice as much logic

Indy kills people, and cruelly

Indy beats the shit out of people

They go to more places yet it feels shorter

Nothing outrageously stupid happens

People bleed

His sidekicks actually do stuff

Never mind the soundtrack, directing, acting.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Phoenix Dark on May 29, 2008, 12:16:21 AM
There's half as much exposition and twice as much logic

Indy kills people, and cruelly

Indy beats the shit out of people

They go to more places yet it feels shorter

Nothing outrageously stupid happens

People bleed

His sidekicks actually do stuff

Never mind the soundtrack, directing, acting.

I guess you skipped the ending, which would have occurred whether or not Indy was even in the movie by the way

Sorry, I just roll my eyes when people criticize the 4th film for being "unrealistic" while praising the other two Indy flicks
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Enl on May 29, 2008, 12:32:15 AM
Ah but unlike the 4th film Indy had to be there to make sure the Ark is put into the hands of "top men". So he had a tiny bit of influence on how the Ark story turned out. Also unlike the 4th film Raiders never turned their characters into indestructible cartoon goofballs. Even the most outrageous stuntwork in the chase scene near the end is still kept in the realm of probability.
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: The Fake Shemp on May 29, 2008, 12:46:45 AM
Anyone that doesn't think Indy's hijinks in the previous three installments is as over-the-top and ridiculous as the scenes shot for Crystal Skull has the blinders on!
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: CajoleJuice on May 29, 2008, 12:55:04 AM
Darabont's draft reportedly gave Indy an alcoholic brother, who would've been played by Tom Selleck or Kevin Costner.  Selleck would've been so awesome.

Woah, that might have gotten my dad to a theater. :lol
Title: Re: Let's look at the Indiana Jones budgets
Post by: Enl on May 29, 2008, 01:14:53 AM
Have you seen Crystal Skull yet? I was more referring to Raider's action set pieces which are pretty over the top yet slightly plausible but nothing compared to the insanity of following sequels. Doom had the most outrageous of action sequences with the mine carts but Crystal Skull far surpasses that line in the first 10 minutes and especially in the big chase scene at the end. From the vine swinging that is faster than the speed of a fast moving vehicle to the launching of a car/boat into a tree to have it conveniently land it into the water. It's far, far more cartoony than anything that came before it and the overuse of CGI adds to that effect.