(Spoilers) Initial Reactions and Discussion for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I've heard the going-for-the-gun thing described as working pretty well even if you watch Temple first. You're expecting the hero to pull a gun on these guys, but he doesn't have it. Surprise! Then, the next time he has an opportunity to do so, he has his gun and makes damn good use of it. Surprise again! Either way, it works well I think.

As to the cinematography and lens flares mentioned by solojones, I do want to point out that Raiders has lens flares also: several of them in fact. I agree the cinematography is a little different, esp. in terms of color saturation, but I'm okay with this since there is a 20+ year difference between the films and the lighting is still very Spielbergian.

 

I saw KOTCS a couple of weeks ago and LOVED IT!

Sure there were some drawbacks, The sword fighting on the back of the jeeps through the jungle , ....I was waiting for 'Jack Sparrow' to come swinging in at that point.

All in all, Indiana Jones BACK on the big screen.... You can't beat it. They did a fantastic job bringing Indiana Jones into the 1950's as an older man, the whole "Red Scare" angle that was true to the times... and let us not forget the nuke!

Let's review that one, You are in the middle of the desert in Nevada in 1957, you find a small suburb and it is filled with dummies just outside of "Hangar" 51..... (an area CLOSED off for weapons testing!) What could possibly go wrong?

Not the BEST Indiana flick but it will be one I watch with all the others. The snake bit was good too!

 

It sort of works that way, but to me what was really funny about the bit in Raiders, is you don't expect him to pull his gun. Usually in movies like these, when you have a flamboyant swordsman enter the scene, the hero will fight back with a sword or something else that takes a while. The abrupt gunshot was not what you would expect.

Then when you get to ToD, you are in on the gag, so when a swordsman shows up, we all know he's going to reach for his gun, and when it's not there, everyone's like, now what?

 

If you all Indy fans remember, That shooting the sword guy was a fly off the cuff thing during filming Raiders.

Ford had food poisoning and could not do the shoot. It was either Lucas or Spielberg who suggested pulling out the gun and shooting the guy. It turned out to be the best moment in the film!

 

I thought it was purely a Ford improvisation because he had to go have some explosive hershey squirts?

 

I'm also pretty sure the gun was all Harrison's idea.

 

Yes, but either way, it's funny, which is the important thing here!

 

love that bit though

 

Yes, Raiders does have lens flares at certain points. Obviously in the map room. That's the only one I can think of specifically... it just seemed to me that it was a bit overdone in Skull. I felt like it was every single scene. I do think it was supposed to be part of a theme of the light of knowledge, but yeah, it was distracting on this viewing. Just a bit.

Spielberg really loves flashy lighting, actually. The last time I watched ET I was like, "Has there *always* been this much smoke in this movie?! " But the color saturation was the think in Skull that really felt off from the others. Also, the grain of the film... it looked perhaps like this film used a different film stock. Or perhaps it was something to do with the digital scanning now required to do non-linear editing. It just looked a little too clean and bright.

I should ask my brother. He's getting his MFA in cinematography right now.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I found the brighter palette suitable for the 50s setting of the film.

As for the lens flare, the only time it really bothers me is when it's added in post. Like the director told the FX guys, "Hey wouldn't a lens flare look totally sweet right here?"

 

I'm pretty sure it doesn't really happen "in every single scene". In fact, I can't remember it off the top of my head, after watching the movie 4 times. And I honestly don't think the average viewer pays much attention to things like that, in any event.

If they had used different film stock, I'm sure it would only be because either the original stock isn't produced any more, or because Spielberg or Kaminski chose to use it for technical reasons. Also, are you sure that the film was digitally edited? I believe remember reading somewhere that Khan edited the old-fashioned way.

In any event, faulting a movie for strictly technical details that the average moviegoer isn't even going to notice does seem a bit like nit-picking. Any difference there might be wouldn't even be nearly as important (or noticeable) as between the SW OT and PT. Lucas really didn't want to be stuck with the old technology. With KotCS, he had to defer to Spielberg, who insists he'll never shoot on anything other than film.

I think there's a case to be made that there's no reason why things shouldn't look a little different, given that 20 years have passed. Whether it was done for artistic reasons, or because these decisions reflect 19 additional years of directing experience for Spielberg, I can't imagine how very slight differences in the look of the movie detract from the overall enjoyment of the film.

 

Me too, i always watch them in release order.

 

That's how I've always watched them, never tried it in chronological order.

 

It was a *lot* of scenes. I definitely noticed it on my third viewing. I'm seeing it again tomorrow and I'm gonna ask my brother (who's coming with me again) his opinion on the cinematography, too. It just seemed a bit overdone to me. Especially near the end of the film. I felt like I was having a light shone in my eyes a lot of the time (which was probably the idea, but it was sort of distracting just because of the quantity). It's a good effect if used sparingly.

That would be incredibly surprising if true. I'll look into that. Essentially no one edits on flatbed anymore, since about the mid-90s. It's just a hell of a lot more work for everyone involved. But even if it wasn't edited digitally, it had to go through the digital scanning process for sound editing as Ben Burtt edits digitally. That may not have been the version they used for colorizing... but I'm not sure color techs even do non-digital transfer work, or if they do it's really, really rare.

In other words, it's possible the film was never edited or colored using digital technology, but it is extremely unlikely. I think it could have contributed to a different look to the film grain.

Well, thankfully, I have a bigger imagination than you, apparently. I can imagine that it doesn't make a whit of difference to a lot of people, even though it does to me. Because, see, I realize that not everyone is seeing the movie through my perspective.

No one's asking your critique of the cinematography. If you don't care about it, that's completely fine and jolly. But I can't understand why on earth you would want to spend time discussing something you think isn't important. If you don't care about the cinematography, don't pay attention to discussions on it. It's that simple.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I'm surprised that this is a big surprise to anyone that follows Spielberg's films. Every single film that this guy touches, Janusz Kaminski, in Spielberg's films at least, he seems to wash out all natural colors, in favor of big, bright artificial lighting. Sorry, not a big fan, it detracts from the film to me.

 

I never said I don't care about it. I love cinematography. I love the work of Gregg Toland, John Alton, Arthur Edeson, etc. And I most definitely have never said or thought that it wasn't important. So don't jump to conclusions, you assume too much

Really, I'm disappointed that just because someone disagrees with you on something, you automatically jump to the conclusion that the other person doesn't care at all about that.

 

Munich ?

War of the Worlds ?


I think he's the best DP working today .

I'm pretty sure they designed carefully what look to go for , The original 3 were set in the 30's and they evoke a certain 30's pulp look , similarly - KOTC is set in the 50's and evokes a 50's style pulp look . it's hard to describe but that's what it looked like to me.

 

I agree!

 

...

That's why I said it seems you don't care about it. You say you like cinematography but then say you can't imagine how cinematography affects the viewing experience...?

And Janusz Kaminski the best DP working today? Are you kidding me? Yes, he's done some really nice stuff (I'm particularly fond of AI) but I mean... have you heard of Roger Deakins?

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

You are either unable to understand simple sentences, or are deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said. I never said that cinematography doesn't affect the viewing experience. Are you unable to understand the difference between "cinematography" and "slight differences in cinematography"?

I'll let Juan-King answer that, since he's the one who made that comment in regards to Kaminski.

Oh, Deakins is alright.

 

Now the McGuffin is cinematography.

*whip crack*

*Jumps onto truck carrying crates of verisimilitude and starts handing them out to others in the audience*

 

I don't think you can narrow down a "top" DP to just one person but for sure Kaminski is in whatever handful of professionals you can consider "top." Just like Spielberg is one of the top directors working today, but I'm not sure you could consider any one person "the top".

 

I agree completely, there's a few top-notch DPs. Who exactly you like best may be simply a matter of personal and/or artistic preference. For my personal taste, I'm always fascinated by the work of Vittorio Storaro and Emmanuel Lubezki, aka "El Chivo".

 

Oh the irony. Oh man Let me catch my breath for a second.

And I was explaining how it wasn't a small difference, which is why I listed several things about it I thought made it look markedly different. No matter how small you think it is, if I noticed it, clearly it affected me enough to make a difference.

Anyway, I was discussing this with my brother, who's in the midst of getting his Masters in Cinematography, and he agreed that the color, film stock, and grain looked different. We discussed that, though Kahn did edit on flatbed (as per Spielberg's request... which is really kind of pointless, but that's neither here nor there), because of all the digital effects it was thoroughly digitally scanned. Which probably accounts for the less grainy look. Makes sense. We're off to see it now, seeing what else he thinks.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

It isn't really a major difference, taking into account that the movie is set 2 decades later.