Indiana Jones

1131132134136137199

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    Univex wrote: »
    Porridge that has been left over for a week is never fun aesthetically, so I tend to agree with @Benjamin_Weekly69. And it's also my biggest problem with SP. But I guess we're decided on punching every criticism on the face, because clearly anyone who comments on a shot from this film and its aesthetics is wishing for the film's ruin. Not all critics are trolls. I, for one, really want this film to succeed, in every way, and I find that shot very van Hoytema, and not in a good way. Hey, people react differently to art, don't they? I only like Picasso's blue period, and dislike his other work. Why be offended by my opinion? Films are art, yes, and some of it is disliked by some. That's the way the word spins.

    I wouldn’t say I’m “offended” by criticism. I can agree, disagree, or be to totally baffled by criticisms, even praises. I think David Arnold’s scores are for the most part useless, but I understand why they’re easily appealing to fans, just like I understand why Eric Serra’s score is unfairly derided just because fans have a narrow view of what constitutes scoring. In my opinion, of course ;)

    And yes, I’ll even defend “Ladies First”.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,019
    I think David Arnold’s scores are for the most part useless, but I understand why they’re easily appealing to fans, just like I understand why Eric Serra’s score is unfairly derided just because fans have a narrow view of what constitutes scoring. In my opinion, of course ;)

    And yes, I’ll even defend “Ladies First”.

    I don't think that Arnold's scores are useless. They're unremarkable if you listen to them isolated from the movie, but they are fine as what they are designed for. I agree with your view on Eric Serra's GE score, which I find remarkable...however minus "Ladies First" which I'd put in the bin with the worst of Bill Conti's disco score for FYEO. The only ones I find lacking are the scores by Thomas Newman (not that much, but he's written more memorabvle stuff) and especially Hans Zimmer's take on NTTD, which sounds like any other Hans Zimmer take on a movie score. Must have something to do with algorithms.

  • slide_99slide_99 USA
    edited January 2023 Posts: 691
    j_w_pepper wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Spectre's colouring has never upset me either. The supposed 'colour corrected' versions fans put out look less interesting and atmospheric to me.

    It's like looking at the early Indy films and questioning where all the light sources in the caves and temples are, and why there's always a source of light apparently directly under everyone's chin. It's because it's not real, and Harrison Ford has a wide-brimmed hat on :)

    I've always wondered where the light came from both inside the coffin at the crematorium and inside the underground pipeline in DAF.


    Those scenes were brightened by Connery's inner radiance.

    Die-Another-Day-0935.jpg
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,340
    It always maddens me slightly that they didn't shoot that bit of DAD in the daylight. I mean it's literally supposed to be daylight isn't it? :D
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    mtm wrote: »
    It always maddens me slightly that they didn't shoot that bit of DAD in the daylight. I mean it's literally supposed to be daylight isn't it? :D

    What’s worse is that it doesn’t look like there was any additional lighting on the set. It just looks like someone simply cranked up the exposure on post and called it a day. Or at least, that’s how the scene comes off in the final product.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 16,340
    Yeah, I remember it irritating me in the cinema watching it for the first time- come back when the sun's up, take the same positions, shoot the sunny bit! Certainly don't just burn the exposure setting. The light isn't even coming from above him!
  • TheSkyfallen06TheSkyfallen06 Buenos Aires, Argentina.
    edited January 2023 Posts: 1,093
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    I hope it’s all true, because fans deserve to be disappointed.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    Looks like it’s been taken down.
  • MajorDSmytheMajorDSmythe "I tolerate this century, but I don't enjoy it."Moderator
    edited January 2023 Posts: 13,978
    I know that it might be cool to goad and troll fans, but 'testaudience5' has a reddit history for all of 4 days. Sounds as legit as a £3 note if you ask me.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    The frustrating thing is that Indiana Jones might be an incredible film and if it is it'll get the praise I'm sure, but now all this bull**** is gonna stick and follow the film and trolls will just go round saying that everything they said was removed from the film and the cycle continues.

    These trolls or just frustrated fans who fall for this crap are killing these movies before they even come out and just because they have their own political and social agenda against certain things. They would rather ruin a film that could possibly be great in favour of following this ridiculous "woke" narrative constantly, and now I'm not saying Hollywood doesn't pander to minority audiences on occasion...

    ...but if you expect "danger" round every corner, you'll never actually feel safe. If that analogy makes sense lol.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    edited January 2023 Posts: 5,400
    ]

    Die-Another-Day-0935.jpg

    Kind of cool how his face looks two toned. Light and dark. Perhaps trying to play on the theme of Graves being heralded as a hero for the age and yet the dark side lurking beneath.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    Fix your post, @thedove.
  • thedovethedove hiding in the Greek underworld
    Posts: 5,400
  • Posts: 727
    mtm wrote: »
    Spectre's colouring has never upset me either. The supposed 'colour corrected' versions fans put out look less interesting and atmospheric to me.

    It's like looking at the early Indy films and questioning where all the light sources in the caves and temples are, and why there's always a source of light apparently directly under everyone's chin. It's because it's not real, and Harrison Ford has a wide-brimmed hat on :)

    I don’t have a problem with artificial light sources. That’s just cinematography. And a good DP knows how to make artificial lights feel “right”. Not factual, but right.

    I also don’t have a problem with dominant colour schemes in movies like blue or yellow. Provided they are done through lighting and not cranking the sepia setting all the way to the right.

    Check out the burning manor sequence from Skyfall: it’s all yellow. But it makes sense. There is a burning mansion! indeed the whole scene should be bathed in yellow. And Deakins achieves this effect with lights, not colour correction. Check out the behind the scenes footage of Skyfall or Blade Runner 2049, all the mono-colour dominated scenes look almost the exact same in production as it does in the final film! That’s lighting chums.

    There is another way to do these things. MTV was rather famous for it in the 90’s. Which is the crank the colour so high in one direction that the sky looks like bad porridge and the eyes look like people have jaundice. That may be art to some, but not all art is good. 😎
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 16,340
    I don’t see how lighting is automatically better than colour correction. They’re both just tools, and everything has colour timing work.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,157
    It all narrows down to aesthetic preferences, in my opinion. There's no "right" look to a film, only the look one likes. Take Snyder's DC films, for example. Some people call his colour schemes ugly; I like them. Some people say SP is an ugly-looking film; I disagree completely. I think De Palma's Mission : Impossible is one of the ugliest-looking films I've ever seen though. But in all three examples, I doubt that a hard naturalism -- just photographing the world "as is" without any adjustments -- would work.

    For once, I agree with @mtm. Lighting and colouring are just two of the tools in the filmmakers' shed. Like salt on our fries, a little goes a long way, but too much makes you sick; I'd never advocate overusing anything. But it's the filmmakers' choice ultimately, and we can decide afterwards how much we like it, if at all.

    I'm also reminded of the look of KOTCS, where people were given an artificial 'halo' to more closely resemble the aesthetics of older films. I remember listening to a podcast that had its hosts railing against the use of that, while another podcast, at the same time, praised the look of the film. Clearly, it's all subjective anyway. ;-)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 16,340
    I also think the lighting in KOTCS wasn't great, and everything shot outside has so many reflectors and additional light sources that our eyes read it as artificial- look at that first shot where Indy is dragged out of the car: there appear to be about three suns on whichever planet he's on. Even the famous shadow on the car of him putting the hat on appears to be cast by something fake, and I think that feeling of fakery added into the general complaints that the film was 'too CG-heavy'. There's actually a lot more real stuff in there than folks think, but it's lit in an artificial way. So I don't think lighting is an automatically better tool.
    We're also looking at that new screengrab on an all-white forum page; when we see it in the cinema our eyes won't be able to detect the colour difference as starkly.

    What did you dislike about Mission Impossible? I can't really think of anything unique about that film's look apart from some dutch angles and De Palma's usual split diopter stuff.
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    For once, I agree with @mtm.

    Oh, er, okay.

  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,157
    mtm wrote: »
    What did you dislike about Mission Impossible? I can't really think of anything unique about that film's look apart from some dutch angles and De Palma's usual split diopter stuff.

    The film looked too "bleak" for me, for a M:I film that is. And you're right, it's not so different from other De Palma films (which I usually enjoy.) Hence my very controversial opinion that De Palma was not the proper choice for this film. In fact, his M:I is at the bottom of my M:I ranking, along with its sequel. Again: controversial, I know.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,604
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    It all narrows down to aesthetic preferences, in my opinion. There's no "right" look to a film, only the look one likes. Take Snyder's DC films, for example. Some people call his colour schemes ugly; I like them. Some people say SP is an ugly-looking film; I disagree completely. I think De Palma's Mission : Impossible is one of the ugliest-looking films I've ever seen though. But in all three examples, I doubt that a hard naturalism -- just photographing the world "as is" without any adjustments -- would work.

    For once, I agree with @mtm. Lighting and colouring are just two of the tools in the filmmakers' shed. Like salt on our fries, a little goes a long way, but too much makes you sick; I'd never advocate overusing anything. But it's the filmmakers' choice ultimately, and we can decide afterwards how much we like it, if at all.

    I'm also reminded of the look of KOTCS, where people were given an artificial 'halo' to more closely resemble the aesthetics of older films. I remember listening to a podcast that had its hosts railing against the use of that, while another podcast, at the same time, praised the look of the film. Clearly, it's all subjective anyway. ;-)

    I’ve heard people call Avengers (2012) a TV movie. They’re right it does look like one, in more ways than one. Normally, MCU movies don’t look like TV movies.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,340
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What did you dislike about Mission Impossible? I can't really think of anything unique about that film's look apart from some dutch angles and De Palma's usual split diopter stuff.

    The film looked too "bleak" for me, for a M:I film that is.

    Interesting, not really thought of it that way. Fair enough.
  • MaxCasinoMaxCasino United States
    Posts: 4,604
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What did you dislike about Mission Impossible? I can't really think of anything unique about that film's look apart from some dutch angles and De Palma's usual split diopter stuff.

    The film looked too "bleak" for me, for a M:I film that is.

    Interesting, not really thought of it that way. Fair enough.

    Agreed. It was the first movie in their defense though.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,205
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What did you dislike about Mission Impossible? I can't really think of anything unique about that film's look apart from some dutch angles and De Palma's usual split diopter stuff.

    The film looked too "bleak" for me, for a M:I film that is.

    Interesting, not really thought of it that way. Fair enough.

    I lot of that comes down to the vibe they were going for. It has a lovely Cold War-esque to a lot of it, for my money. Especially the scenes in Prague.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,157
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What did you dislike about Mission Impossible? I can't really think of anything unique about that film's look apart from some dutch angles and De Palma's usual split diopter stuff.

    The film looked too "bleak" for me, for a M:I film that is.

    Interesting, not really thought of it that way. Fair enough.

    Agreed. It was the first movie in their defense though.

    Agreed. My issue with the film comes from an unfair comparison with the later ones.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 16,340
    mtm wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    What did you dislike about Mission Impossible? I can't really think of anything unique about that film's look apart from some dutch angles and De Palma's usual split diopter stuff.

    The film looked too "bleak" for me, for a M:I film that is.

    Interesting, not really thought of it that way. Fair enough.

    I lot of that comes down to the vibe they were going for. It has a lovely Cold War-esque to a lot of it, for my money. Especially the scenes in Prague.

    Yeah, I love the chilly Euro thriller feel it has. If anything, there's an argument to say it perhaps dresses itself in the clothes of being an Eastern European spy thriller whilst actually being a big blockbuster which is a bit disingenuous, but well, darn it, I like those clothes :)
  • Posts: 727
    MaxCasino wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    It all narrows down to aesthetic preferences, in my opinion. There's no "right" look to a film, only the look one likes. Take Snyder's DC films, for example. Some people call his colour schemes ugly; I like them. Some people say SP is an ugly-looking film; I disagree completely. I think De Palma's Mission : Impossible is one of the ugliest-looking films I've ever seen though. But in all three examples, I doubt that a hard naturalism -- just photographing the world "as is" without any adjustments -- would work.

    For once, I agree with @mtm. Lighting and colouring are just two of the tools in the filmmakers' shed. Like salt on our fries, a little goes a long way, but too much makes you sick; I'd never advocate overusing anything. But it's the filmmakers' choice ultimately, and we can decide afterwards how much we like it, if at all.

    I'm also reminded of the look of KOTCS, where people were given an artificial 'halo' to more closely resemble the aesthetics of older films. I remember listening to a podcast that had its hosts railing against the use of that, while another podcast, at the same time, praised the look of the film. Clearly, it's all subjective anyway. ;-)

    I’ve heard people call Avengers (2012) a TV movie. They’re right it does look like one, in more ways than one. Normally, MCU movies don’t look like TV movies.

    It’s the flat lighting. Movies can tell a story by how light and shadow interplay with an actor’s face. Marvel movies usually have none of that. Just a neutral, gray, foggy look all around every movie. It’s boring.

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    The ironic thing is that THE AVENGERS was shot by Seamus McGarvey, who typically shoots gorgeous looking films. I have to assume there were two factors involved. 1) it was his first time shooting digitally, so he wasn’t familiar on how to compose images like he does with film 2) the flat lighting was probably imposed in order to make the 3D conversion easy in post.
  • Posts: 727
    We are way past the 3D fad (if Avatar 2 doesn’t revive it) and marvel movies still look terrible. And they are actively getting worse looking.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited January 2023 Posts: 16,340
    Yeah I was watching the last Spider Man with my nephew a few weeks back, and it is kind of amazing how little effort appears to have gone into some of the shots. So much work with the CG etc. but none at all with the lighting, just flat, boring shots.
    Already Papamichael's work on Indy 5 looks way better than that; and I thought Ford vs Ferrari looked gorgeous.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,340
    A Hasbro toy launch has confirmed that Helena's surname is Shaw.

    So any 'leak' that says she's called Helena Brody: that'll be a lie.
Sign In or Register to comment.