Page 1 of Indiano Jones DVD - Poor direction/production?

Bought myself the latest Indiano Jones last night.
Massively disappointed with the direction/production, to the extent I switched it off halfway and I don`t really know if I care about watching the rest.
It maybe looked ok in the cinema, I don`t know, but something has happened in the transfer to DVD. :/
Maybe this is a downside to uber-detailed DVD ( I have an upscaling DVD, not a blu-ray).

1/ It was very obvious car chases were filmed at slow speeds.
2/ Some of the lighting was awful, particularly at the scene where me meet Kate Blanchett`s character outside the aircraft hangar.
3/ Shadows of film crew could be seen in the quicksand scene (as for the rubber snake in the scene, for god`s sake....)
4/ Sets looked fake.
5/ Some terrible acting (poor direction?), like in the scene where their truck is almost detroyed by a piece of flying tank. Zero reaction from the actors. :/
6/ Some of the special effects were poor, like the never ending sliding motorbike in the library. Sorry, but that was bloody pathetic and, again, all too obviously fake.

Massive disappointment.
The best way to put it is that it looked low budget. :(
It made me think Spielberg is totally unaware as to how much better special effects have to look now.
He`s quite happy to do them the way he`s always done them.
Well, it doesn`t half show up now. :/

This item was edited on Monday, 17th November 2008, 10:37

It`s funny that your comments don`t actually reflect on any of mine, because I also had problems with the film, only not the same ones as you!

You`d actually be suprised to know that some of the sets weren`t actually sets, and that the lighting etc. was specifically chosen to give the film it`s pastel hued 50`s look. Production wise, the scale of it is actually amazing - the `makings of`s` will demonstrate that. :)

The only really scenes that felt like a sets to me, was when they fight those martial art guards of the tomb, and 35 mins in, and the Russian woodland base, when we first meet Marion. In the case of the latter, the glossy look of the film didn`t do it any favours, but the actual quality of the sets and art direction was still top drawer.

Oh, and it wasn`t a rubber snake. I think they only used one for about 5% of that scene, when Indy was actually pulling on to lift himself from the sand. Otherwise it was 100% real. ;)

Quote:
I think they only used one for about 5% of that scene, when Indy was actually pulling on to lift himself from the sand.

That 5% was enough to give it a ridiculous feel though, IMO.

Erm...have you seen any of the others? :D Many of your issues could easily be levelled at the other films in the series, with perhaps only Raiders escaping the criticism.

____________________________________________________________________________

Download your favourite Videogame OST`s here - Galbadia Hotel

Hmmmm not really sure I can agree with this. Ok some bits are always going to look a bit `off` but then that`s suspension of disbelief. I like the film, I think it fits in nicely with the other sequels but by no means is it up to scratch with Raiders.

Production wise, some of the stuff looked off, mainly the outside hangar scenes at the beginning which looks like a studio, then in the making of you can clearly see it`s an external set so must be to do with filmstock/lights/lenses used. The swinging monkeys/LaBeouf is the other bit that just looks wrong for more than just the concept, and it`s also applied in a way that looks geographically and physically impossible with the speed he manages to swing. But earlier in the film I laughed at Indy surviving a nuclear blast in a fridge so hey-ho I suppose its fair game.

I don`t think the production was lacking at all and can think of many other films this year that have worse problem with effects.

Quote:
can think of many other films this year that have worse problem with effects

Would you please name them Chewie? Did they have as big a budget or as prestigious a team making them? I think that`s one of the main points when criticising this film.

For me there hasn`t been any of the summer blockbusters that had as distracting or noticeable effects work. It`s all down to opinion at the end of the day though, just interested in which ones you thought were poor.

UQ Web Design ¦ Offensive 101

Quote:
Indiano Jones
I bet that`s what David Pleat calls him.

Anyway, wasn`t the idea to give the film an 80`s production film feel with the use of miniatures etc to make it seem more in keeping with the original movies or am I missing something?

---

I miss the honky tonks, the Dairy Queens and Seven Elevens...

Quote:
Many of your issues could easily be levelled at the other films in the series

True, which comes back to part of my original point.
It struck me that Spielberg used techniques he applied to the old films.
But newer formats (DVD/Blu-ray) are showing up these techniques.
Whilst one will happily accept a painted backdrop jungle in one of the older films, it becomes painfully obvious in the new one, because the higher definition is making it more obvious.
To me, it looked like a 20 year old film, using 20 year old SFX.
Not a film made last year using state of the art techniques.
If that`s what Spielberg sought, he`s done it well.
I wish he`d told me though, I wouldn`t have bothered buying it. :/

Quote:
For me there hasn`t been any of the summer blockbusters that had as distracting or noticeable effects work

Hear hear.

This item was edited on Monday, 17th November 2008, 15:04

DVD and Blu-ray have a lower resolution then 35mm film. Couple that with the fact that you normally watch 35mm film projected on huge screens and the argument that home formats are showing up defects that we couldn`t previously see is a bit suspect. The whole point was that they were trying to use retro filmmaking techniques so that the new film didn`t stand out like a sore thumb compared to the older films. Ironically most people have been complaining that the film looks too `new`, and not enough like the old films. Damned if they do, damned if they don`t...

A lot of the film was shot practically, then touched up with CGI. Everyone cites the jungle chase are a poor use of CGI, but most of it is live action.

This item was edited on Monday, 17th November 2008, 15:15

Quote:
DVD and Blu-ray have a lower resolution then 35mm film. Couple that with the fact that you normally watch 35mm film projected on huge screens and the argument that home formats are showing up defects that we couldn`t previously see is a bit suspect.

I know that`s the theory, but it doesn`t work that way in practice, IMO.
Unless we`ve got desperately myopic projectionists in Aberdeen (cineworld and Vue), cinema pictures simply aren`t as clear as even upscaled DVD, never mind Blu-ray.
Detail is still spoiled by `grain`, for want of a better/more technical word.

This item was edited on Monday, 17th November 2008, 15:18