Jump to content

Who thinks Indy IV AND Ep III will suck?


Will they both suck?  

21 members have voted

  1. 1.

    • Yes
      2
    • Just III, not IV.
      7
    • Just IV, not III.
      4
    • Nope. I know nothing about good movies and they'll both rock.
      8


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm cautiously optimistic about Episode III more than anything else. I'm hoping it is very dark and dramatic, but with Lucas's poor track record with dialogue and directing good actors, I fear the worst!

Mediocre Spielberg is better than anything Lucas has done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hector, see American Graffiti and THX 1138. They compete with Spielberg at his best. Sure, they don't really make for fun films like his do, but they definitely show signs of intelligent life behind the camera, even if their budgets were negligible. THX is probably the forerunner of Michael Radford's Nineteen Eighty-Four. The themes are very similar. As a matter of fact, there are huge pictures of one of the Byzantine icons of Christ everywhere in the THX world, kind of like the pictures of Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four. Regardless, THX is a very deep movie and it's to be studied, not watched.

American Graffiti is a lot more light-hearted and optimistic, but still a full, well-developed movie, even if it's more like a documentary. THX is like a documentary, too. Neither one really involve the audience a lot. They just seem to go on regardless if the audience wants to see it or not, because it's all a part of the vision and the natural events in the lives of the characters. Can anyone who's seen THX articulate this better? You constantly feel distanced from the characters for the entire movie. I'm not sure why that is. I want to say it's got something to do with the cinematography and the framings of the shots. It seems like Lucas may have broken tradition by taking the shot from odd angles. But a lot of them are the exact same as what you'd see in a Spielberg movie--where every shot is beautiful and perfect. I dunno...there's something about THX that makes it feel different than most other movies and I can't put my finger on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Both Spielberg and Lucas have shown they can't control it. Indy II came over as a nervous circus and Indy III was uninteresting flat. Spielberg might pull a comeback but I doubt it very much. Besides that, Ford has lost his appeal as an older actor. He's not Connery, you know (If I watch Raiders I see another man)! Then there is, of course, Lucas. Since when are people putting their trust in Lucas? Haven't they learned anything? In the prequels, what exactly is it that led you to believe Lucas still can pull it of? Sure, he once made THX 1138 (based on George Orwell's 1984 published in 1949), American Graffiti and Star Wars and co-made Raiders of the lost Ark, but that's a long, long time ago. Like Spielberg, he's another man now. He's got lots of money he'll never need to spend. He's a father of...I dunno how many kids and the head of a company. Look how he the told his CGI crew how Yoda should fight against Dooku. Is this a man bursting with good ideas?

Lucas and Spielberg used to breath movies every second of the day. They stood up and went to sleep thinking only about movies, and they could affort it. They were young and their minds weren't occupied with other things, unlike now. It was film, film and film all the way through. They had the "eye of the tiger". With their "spark" they could genuinely charm millions and millions of people.

Movies changed, directors changed, and maybe the audience changed too. At least, I hope Spielberg was smart enough to tell Lucas that the new Indy movie shouldn't be one big promotion clip for the latest CGI.

----------------

Alex Cremers

Link to post
Share on other sites
Both Spielberg and Lucas have shown they can't control it. Indy II came over as a nervous circus and Indy III was uninteresting flat. Spielberg might pull a comeback but I doubt it very much.  

That is all very debatable. I think Last Crusade and Temple of Doom are fantastic movies, with TLC being only a bit behind Raiders.

And I think Spielberg bounces back. He may not be the Coen Brothers, who are IMO so far 10 for 10, all at least good movies, but he always comes out on top.

1941- Raiders

Always, Hook- Jurrasic Park, Schindler's List

Last Crusade, Amistad- Saving Private Ryan

A.I.- Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can'

And I think The Terminal will be good, so he's up right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't judge writers by their past works. Sure, I'd rather Michael Tolkein or Steven Zailien over Huyk if I saw their name in the credits, but I think he did a fine job on Temple of Doom. Sure, it's not as strong dialogue wise as Last Crusade or Raiders, but it works very well in the movie.

And I've never seen nor heard much about Howard The Duck. My brother had to explain to me that part in George Lucas in Love.

Scott Alexander & Larry Karaszewski started with the awful Problem Child movies, but went on to the great Ed Wood and later to The People Vs. Larry Flint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
THX is probably the forerunner of Michael Radford's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

:wave:ROTFLMAOROTFLMAOROTFLMAOROTFLMAOROTFLMAO LOL LOL LOL LOL

You do realize that Radford's movie is based on George Orwell's book 1984 released over 20 years before George Lucas' movie THX-1138, right?

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget that WILLARD HUYCK of Howard the Duck fame wrote the screenplay of The Temple of Doom.

I know you're gonna say: "I love Howard the Duck!" Am I right?

Don't forget, Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz also did an uncredited dialogue polish on Star Wars. They also did the screenplay for American Grafitti.

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize that Radford's movie is based on George Orwell's book 1984 released over 20 years before George Lucas' movie THX-1138, right?

Sure I do. I'm just saying Radford probably took some ideas from the way Lucas presented/directed his Orwellian story. I mean, nobody said 1984 had to be told in an artsy way, but THX was, and Radford's '84 was told in a very similar way. Before THX, I don't seem to recall ever hearing about movies that were done that way. Especially not ones dealing with a lot of Orwellian themes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas and Spielberg used to breath movies every second of the day. They stood up and went to sleep thinking only about movies, and they could affort it. They were young and their minds weren't occupied with other things, unlike now. It was film, film and film all the way through.

I'm pretty sure Spielberg still does that. He strikes me as the kind of guy who's always up to his ears in film lore. I'm not sure what else Spielberg would be occupied with these days if it's not movies. He's still making them, he's still being the exec of them, he's doing mini-series, and he's doesn't appear to be content with his deskjob at Dreamworks.

Dan--who wishes he could, someday, be the embodiment of all great directors before him, like Patton wanted to be the embodiment of all great generals before him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucas and Spielberg used to breath movies every second of the day. They stood up and went to sleep thinking only about movies, and they could affort it. They were young and their minds weren't occupied with other things, unlike now. It was film, film and film all the way through.

I'm pretty sure Spielberg still does that. He strikes me as the kind of guy who's always up to his ears in film lore. I'm not sure what else Spielberg would be occupied with these days if it's not movies. He's still making them, he's still being the exec of them, he's doing mini-series, and he's doesn't appear to be content with his deskjob at Dreamworks.

Well, he himself said that it wasn't the most important thing in the world anymore. There's a difference when you are young and you want to conquer the world. It's about motivation and drive in an almost naive way. You want to proof yourself more. If you get older it's normal that feeling wears off. Spielberg achieved most of his goals. He doesn't necessarily need to shout to the world that he's got talent. He's able to put things in perspective a little bit more. I'm not saying he doesn't like what he's doing. He probably still loves it to death. I'm only saying there's a difference, but a significant one.

----------------

Alex Cremers

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Illustrated Man in 1969. That's not Orwellian, but it's artsy sci fi film noir.

Spielberg achieved most of his goals. He doesn't necessarily need to shout to the world that he's got talent.

I think he feels the need to shout to the world though he's not some commercial director, he's a serious original director. That drives much of his latest films I think, adding to his range and variety as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well Steven Spielberg made A.I., which doesn't Howard the Duck look like a masterpiece, but neither does it  make it look horrible by comparison.  He also directed 1941, which some hate.  All directors have their dogs.

The worst Spielberg is still Always IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who cares,all I want are 2 new John Williams c.d.'s in my posession.

K.M.

That's true for me too. But suppose when the movies are really superb that Williams is more inspired by them and therefore we end up with better CDs?

----------------

Alex Cremers

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Indy 4 is going to be a fiasco. It'll be a mediocre film that will underperform at the box office, at least compared to the original trilogy. From what I've read about Episode III, I think it will be fantastic.

Jeff - who gets tired of all the constant Star Wars and Lucas bashing

Link to post
Share on other sites

By now all the original material is in a certain state of deterioration. The magnetic particals are losing their information. The tapes are becoming so bad that it needs tinkering. That will lead in yet another awkward sound.

If someone transferred all the music from analogue sources into digital ones in the Eighties, then there shouldn't be a problem.

----------------

Alex Cremers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of digital recordings, what's the story with E.T.? Digital or analogue? The LP clearly states digital but the regular CD says it's AAD. I think the LP is right. Is this a major typo on the CD?

----------------

Alex Cremers

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.