Not doing #4? (Indiana Jones)

Pozer · July 08, 2003, 05:44:29 PM

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetIf thats true, good for Speilberg. It seemed odd anyways he would ressurect that project of his that back anyways since he is starting to break from that mold in ways. A guy like Darabont could do it fine, Speilberg isn't needed. All they need is a good script.

~rougerum

I haveta disagree with you there. Speilberg is a big piece of the puzzle I think along with Harry and George. And I don't think they would do it without him, at least Ford. You need all three for an Indy flick, I say.
and of course, a pinch of that Scottish bastard wouldn't hurt.

chainsmoking insomniac · July 08, 2003, 05:49:56 PM

Aye, lad.

dufresne · July 09, 2003, 09:41:42 PM

whew...

TheVoiceOfNick · July 10, 2003, 10:47:40 AM

Spielberg should give IJ4 to Joe Johnston, who did Jurassic Park 3 for him... that way he can spare himself the embaressment when it becomes another "Star Wars Prequel"-quality film.

Some things are better left alone... as film fans in today's Hollywod shit-fest, we may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us!* (*(C) 1999 PT Anderson).

Nick

bonanzataz · July 10, 2003, 05:03:51 PM

Quote from: TheVoiceOfNickwe may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us!* (*(C) 1999 PT Anderson).

Nick

actually, PT Anderson didn't say that, the book said that.

nerd.

Gold Trumpet · July 12, 2003, 10:02:18 AM

I still don't see any necessary reason for Speilberg joining except for money reasons. Speilberg didn't employ any specific style or filmmaking technique that was different and was crucial in the success of the films. He just filmed the script. The script is the major thing here. If good, the movie can be excellent. If bad, it can mirror two hundred other shit films.

~rougerum

Ghostboy · July 12, 2003, 10:45:21 AM

Nah, it'd be a bad script but with a Spielberg touch. He's covered a lot of territory, but he does have a distinct signature. Or signatures. As reference, I'll point out my favorite recent dispaly of his personal touch -- the jet-pack-broiled burgers in Minority Report. Pure Spielberg. Guy's got style. He needs to do Indy 4 or it'll feel different from the others. Plus it's true that Ford and Lucas wouldn't do it without him.

mutinyco · July 13, 2003, 12:03:52 PM

Yo, you must be kidding. Spielberg without style? Have you ever watched any of his movies? He's the most commercially successful filmmaker in history, probably the most socially relevant director of the last decade. What exactly do you think he does?

His timing on the Indy movies is astonishing. I still think that from the airplane through the desert chase in Raiders is probably the best choreographed extended action sequence I've ever seen.

He's the best shot-by-shot working filmmaker there is. Period.

chainsmoking insomniac · July 13, 2003, 12:51:46 PM

Agreed. And Spielberg takes alot of flak on this board for reasons I'm not entirely sure of. The Indiana Jones trilogy is one of the best Action/Adventure flicks ever. His mastery of style, character, pacing, etc. are still astonishing to me.

Ghostboy · July 13, 2003, 01:02:45 PM

I remember when I was about seven walking through a department store with my mom, and Temple Of Doom was playing on a TV. I had never heard of Indiana Jones before, and we stopped and watched the entire last act on the rope ladder. My mom told me that it was from George Lucas, and I of course recognized Harrison Ford, and so I was instantly excited beyond belief. I didn't have a video camera at the time, but I was always writing movies (usually about one page long) and drawing storyboards and building props, and I went straight home and wrote an adventure movie that took place entirely on a rope bridge, and then built a bunch of miniature sets out of cardboard. If I'd had a camera to shoot the thing, it would have been awesome.

Anyway, seriously, the Indiana Jones trilogy is amazing. And I don't understand why some people diss The Last Crusade (and Temple Of Doom too, for that matter).

mutinyco · July 13, 2003, 01:22:55 PM

I don't like Doom or Crusade simply because they're not as fresh as the original. The second one was trying to outdo the first and the third was trying to recapture the magic of the first.

The point is, though, nobody shoots action better than Spielberg. Most directors simply cover action with multiple cameras, then cut it all together really quickly. But Spielberg has the best timing. The camera is only where it needs to be. It's like he has a metronome in his head. Michael Kahn too. His sequences just have BOUNCE to them.

There's a reason why he's #1. There's a reason nobody's been able to duplicate his success.

Gold Trumpet · July 13, 2003, 02:24:20 PM

Quote from: mutinycoYo, you must be kidding. Spielberg without style? Have you ever watched any of his movies? He's the most commercially successful filmmaker in history, probably the most socially relevant director of the last decade. What exactly do you think he does?

His timing on the Indy movies is astonishing. I still think that from the airplane through the desert chase in Raiders is probably the best choreographed extended action sequence I've ever seen.

He's the best shot-by-shot working filmmaker there is. Period.

Give me some examples that can't be reverted back to the quality of the screenplay. Speilberg is excellent, but for the Indie movies, he shot the screenplay. In the name of growth, Speilberg doesn't need to return. In the name of making a good Indie movie, they just need a talented director who can specifically shoot the screenplay.

When you speak of someone with with an overt style of their own, I think more of a Brian De Palma or someone else who starts from a base of ideas and theories in how to make films and starts his look and approach from there. Speilberg's style comes from the screenplay.

~rougerum

mutinyco · July 13, 2003, 03:31:14 PM

That's patently ludicrous. Everything about Spielberg is in his visual approach. His use of foreground vs. background. He employs TILTS better than any other filmmaker. His use of mise en scene is better than anybody else. The fact that he varies his style from film to film isn't a mark of somebody without a visual style, but proof of his visual genius. He's telling his stories in a manner that corresponds with his stories. To me, a filmmaker who establishes a style and simply repeats it has limited talent.

He DIDN'T just shoot the script. Watch his camera placements in every scene. Watch the opening of Raiders -- the way Indy is revealed. He's always from behind or seen in inserts of his hands, etc. It's only after the attempt on his life that he steps into the light and we really see him for the first time. THAT'S VISUAL FILMMAKING. Not writing.

And Brian DePalma is one of the worst filmmakers I've ever seen. He has the narrative sensibilities of a glob of Silly Putty.

Gold Trumpet · July 13, 2003, 08:55:57 PM

NYC
On Speilberg: Hah, very good. I'll back off

De Palma: I'm up for a tussle. Give me your overview.

~rougerum

Alethia · July 13, 2003, 10:26:31 PM

Quote from: mutinycoAnd Brian DePalma is one of the worst filmmakers I've ever seen. He has the narrative sensibilities of a glob of Silly Putty.

oh come on now....i agree with you about spielberg, guys incredible.....but depalma bad? i mean i know he has made some over indulgent pieces of shit in his time but you're crazy if you don't think he's one hell of a filmmaker.