Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

[B.C. Long]

What about in the beginning of Temple of Doom where Indy falls out of a plane and uses an inflatable raft to catch the force of the wind and fall safely into a river?

Video Game logic? Yup.

Too CGIish? If they had it back then it would have.

"he's being yanked around by that whip hard enough to dislocate both shoulders."

"Indy falls out of a plane and uses an inflatable raft to catch the force of the wind and fall safely into a river"

It seems the Indy series is sticking pretty closely to it's continuity in regards to physics.

[polkablues]

Believe me, had I been paying attention back then, I would have been saying the same things about Temple of Doom.

[Gold Trumpet]

See, that's the point, the series never was perfect. Speilberg used standard techniques to make each film. Temple of Doom is dominated by bad green screen shots during the huge chase sequence at the end of the film. People don't want the new Indiana Jones to just be well made, but to look exactly like the films did from the 1980s, problems and all. This film will strike some people wrong simply because modern cameras are used. They want exact recreations of the originals.

The complaints about Ford's age are valid. Yea, I wondered if him slamming into a jeep was too much for someone of his age. I hope the film takes his character's age a little more realistically, but I can't say that the little bit of evidence in the trailer means the series will take a huge plunge into the abyss of Live Free and Die Hard territory.

[polkablues]

You're more optimistic than I am.  I would love to be optimistic about this movie; maybe the next trailer will be better for me.

[Gold Trumpet]

You're more optimistic than I am.  I would love to be optimistic about this movie; maybe the next trailer will be better for me.

I think it's because I just enjoy the series. I don't romanticize any thoughts of it being great.

[B.C. Long]

But it is great! All those reasons that people seem to have with the trailer is why I love it. It wouldn't be Indy without them. I mean, I don't want Tarantino's Indiana Jones. I want Steven Spielberg's and if that means it's going to have a shitty ending then so be it!

[Gold Trumpet]

But it is great! All those reasons that people seem to have with the trailer is why I love it. It wouldn't be Indy without them. I mean, I don't want Tarantino's Indiana Jones. I want Steven Spielberg's and if that means it's going to have a shitty ending then so be it!

None of the movies are great. They are just beloved.

[picolas]

None of the movies are great. They are just beloved.

how is the first one not "great"? what does that mean, gt? i counter you. the first one is beloved because it's great. hence, the beloving. (and no. not saying beloving = great)

[Gold Trumpet]

None of the movies are great. They are just beloved.

how is the first one not "great"? what does that mean, gt? i counter you. the first one is beloved because it's great. hence, the beloving. (and no. not saying beloving = great)

Hah, my post was to point out that B.C. Long offered nothing more than a disagreement so I could say what I said and it would still be valid. I would have liked to argue him but there was nothing to say.

But yes, you are associating beloved with greatness. You don't say one creates the other, but you do offer a different premise in that because you believe the films are great (I disagree) they are also beloved. I don't think they are great so I can not agree with your argument of what beloved is (at least in this case).

I put the question to you and everyone else though. What are the most over used words to describe to a film? I talked to a girl about this a few days ago and gave her the argument it was to always to call a film "great" or a "masterpiece" or something similar. Saying masterpiece all the times is ridiculous because it forces the person to say one film by that artist is their best even though they've likely also said it about another film of theirs. Great is the generic description of an excellence, but its too become null and void because it has been used so often by different people for different reasons.

I'd love to hear someone give an aesthetic argument of why Indiana Jones is great. I've never heard a good one. Film critics like Roger Ebert have put Raiders of the Lost Ark in their top films of the 1980s, but Ebert committed a considerable sin when he admitted in a documentary he was totally subjective about the films he reviewed. Why not a combination of subjective and objective like an appropriate critic? Indiana Jones can be great to individual people but I think the reasons are mainly subjective. People like to recount fond memories when talking about the films so it goes hand in hand with subjective.

[Redlum]

Masterpiece as in 'the best work of an artist' is another debate.  Great as in being important/significant...

GT, you seem inclined to always take the broadest view of film possible which is an important part of your enjoyment and appreciation of the medium. This allows for films and film-watching to be conceptualised more easily. I am inclined to work from the inside out by qualifying my assessments of a film within sub-categories of artistry and craft. I think as someone interested more in film-making; the teamwork and the numerous cogs in the machine that come together to make the whole. You like the idea of film? I like the illusion of film.

I require some boundries when accessing the appropriate label of  greatness to a film like I do when appreciating the elements that combine to make it.  Objectively, I think Raiders is the pinnacle of the action-adventure genre and therefore a great film (as in significant and important to that genre). Including a genre qualification makes certain allowances which perhaps shouldn't be made when making a pure judgement of film but I don't think I could make an objective assessment of the film without it in this case. Honestly, I'd be wasting my time trying to justify Raiders in a meaningful way because it's a pursuit I have no interest or skill in doing and I lack the perspective that you have.

I don't mean to make presumptions on how or why you enjoy film but I'd thought I'd try and make some distinction in my (and possibly other members) angle on film, because I think its important to the question you're asking.

[Gold Trumpet]

GT, you seem inclined to always take the broadest view of film possible which is an important part of your enjoyment and appreciation of the medium. This allows for films and film-watching to be conceptualised more easily. I am inclined to work from the inside out by qualifying my assessments of a film within sub-categories of artistry and craft. I think as someone interested more in film-making; the teamwork and the numerous cogs in the machine that come together to make the whole. You like the idea of film? I like the illusion of film.

An excellent summation. The difficulty with arguing film is that everyone has their own idea of cinema. Nobody is right or wrong. Everybody is just different. I think what argument brings is the ability for people to better express their ideas and concerns about a given film. People are rarely convinced to change sides in arguments, but many times they can understand their own thoughts and feelings better. It's why I just consider calling a film great to be a cop out.

I require some boundries when accessing the appropriate label of  greatness to a film like I do when appreciating the elements that combine to make it.  Objectively, I think Raiders is the pinnacle of the action-adventure genre and therefore a great film (as in significant and important to that genre). Including a genre qualification makes certain allowances which perhaps shouldn't be made when making a pure judgement of film but I don't think I could make an objective assessment of the film without it in this case. Honestly, I'd be wasting my time trying to justify Raiders in a meaningful way because it's a pursuit I have no interest or skill in doing and I lack the perspective that you have.

Usually, for me, genre tastes better when re-imagined to fit new molds. Films like Princess Mononoke take great exception to standard rules of the action-adventure genre. Raiders of the Lost Ark seems to be a recreation of the old those standards. You may not be able make a distinction in aesthetics to why Raiders of the Lost Ark is great, but also for your purposes, it may not be important anyways. Some films are truly subjective. I endear myself to those films too, but I diassociate them with what I consider to be a great film. A great film for me challenges both my mind and emotions.

I don't mean to make presumptions on how or why you enjoy film but I'd thought I'd try and make some distinction in my (and possibly other members) angle on film, because I think its important to the question you're asking.

Always had the greatest respect for your opinion so I should thank you. My theory up above is proved correct as a well thought out argument here is able to allow me to better align my viewpoint on the issue.

[picolas]

I don't think they are great so I can not agree with your argument of what beloved is (at least in this case).

you can't agree with the idea that some things that are great are beloved for that reason?

yesterday i used 'classic' way too much at work when recommending stuff.

[Gold Trumpet]

I don't think they are great so I can not agree with your argument of what beloved is (at least in this case).

you can't agree with the idea that some things that are great are beloved for that reason?

yesterday i used 'classic' way too much at work when recommending stuff.

No, all I was saying is that I don't believe the film is beloved because it is great.

[Pozer]

just stop.

[cinemanarchist]

This is far headier than I thought a thread about a movie with the words Crystal & Skull could possibly be. Kudos.