Pajiba

and Last Crusade is fun. Not great — possibly not even good — but fun.

Are you insane?

No shit?

Also, I believe I sold the first dvd box (I sold a LOT of stuff in the lean times) and the 2008 set aren't the greatest dvds. I'd just bought a 720 TV and learned that HD demands quality and makes lesser stuff look murky. I don't know if the earlier set was a better transfer but they might've been, so I'm very happy to hear this.

I'm having a little one-man party tomorrow and I'll have another one for this.

While I do love Spielberg's attitude with respect to not screwing with his classic movies, I have to ask whether there was ever any doubt that Spielberg > Lucas. Does anyone really think the opposite?

Leaving aside production credits for both of them, Lucas brought us the original Star Wars triology (which I have always been lukewarm towards, but is obviously important and much beloved), American Graffiti, and story credit for Willow and Indiana Jones. Everything else he has written or directed is a terrible prequel or a ridiculous remastering/re-release.

Spielberg, on the other hand, has given us Indiana Jones, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, and the story for The Goonies, along with a ton of decent if not inspired stuff (Hook, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, Amistad, etc.). No contest.

My biggest gripe with Last Crusade is the shameful treatment of both Sallah and Marcus Brody. Both characters are strong, intelligent sidekicks in Raiders and goofy, comic-relief idiots in Last Crusade.
Lucas did the same thing to C-3PO. In A New Hope he is a helpful and resourceful ally, but in Empire he is a decidedly unfunny comic relief who spends the entire movie quoting idiotic odds like some tin-plated Jimmy the Greek.

If Spielberg were here right now in front of me, I would blow him. Seriously.

Mr. Boom! and I were having a nerdwar over that very same digital fuckery.
I said NO!
He said, BUT I LOVE! AND BLU RAY!!

I gave in, but he has to keep 1-3 in the garage where I can't see them and hopefully will be destroyed by vermin and dust.

If you look at these movies individually as movies, rather than a beloved trilogy, there are really on 2 great movies, "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Raiders of the Lost Ark."

I also never get the impression that Lucas is a good director as much as he is a good animator. Why would the storytelling be so much stronger in Star Wars 3-6 than 1-3 if it was not because the others involved in the first 3 did the real work on those movies?

In other news, has CGI ever added rather than detracted from a movie? Has it ever strengthened the story telling or plot or character development or acting? Has it ever allowed an audience to connect more with a movie instead of less?

Darth you aren't the only one, I'm as rabid a fan as the next guy, but I really don't get why folks froth at the mouth.

Wow. Hope that limb doesn't break on you there.
This just in: Pizza > A Sh!t Sandwich
No, really.

I also enjoyed the prequels the first time through, though they're un-rewatchable (just tune in to Spike sometime).

In other news, has CGI ever added rather than detracted from a movie? Has it ever strengthened the story telling or plot or character development or acting? Has it ever allowed an audience to connect more with a movie instead of less?

Posted by: Haystacks at September 15, 2011 12:19 PM

Yes, but only when Andy Serkis is involved.

I'm sorry, but Temple of Doom is nigh unwatchable beyond the prologue to me. (Well, okay, the last act--from the mine car ride to the bridge sequence--is also a lot of fun.) Last Crusade was a marked improvement.

Raiders? Raiders is as perfect a film as Spielberg's ever made. Bar none.

I'm glad George didn't get his grubby little producer fingers on these films. I don't mind all of the "special edition" tinkering in Star Wars (though the addition of an imperial shuttle to the final chase scene is the kind of thing that a 12 year old with no sense of tempo might do), but man, enough's enough. Make another film already!

Posted by: Haystacks at September 15, 2011 12:19 PM

In the old days that was a common argument. But now CGI is used in every movie that comes out. In fact, most digital effects are so subtle you don't even see them anymore and even if you do they don't look digital.

In addition to LOTR, Jurassic Park and T2 stand out for me as being enhanced by by CGI rather than hurt by.

REPOSTED

In other news, has CGI ever added rather than detracted from a movie? Has it ever strengthened the story telling or plot or character development or acting? Has it ever allowed an audience to connect more with a movie instead of less?

Posted by: Haystacks at September 15, 2011 12:19 PM

In the old days that was a common argument. But now CGI is used in every movie that comes out. In fact, most digital effects are so subtle you don't even see them anymore and even if you do they don't look digital.

In addition to LOTR, Jurassic Park and T2 stand out for me as being enhanced by by CGI rather than hurt by.

First Indy:
Charlie and Short Round make Temple of Doom nearly unwatchable for me. For some reason, that kid's character worked great in the Goonies, but was just non-stop high pitched ear torture in Temple of Doom. Charlie's the same way, but with out a Goonies to give the actress any kind of benefit of the doubt.

Raiders of the Lost Ark is awesome and easily the best of the trilogy. (Yeah trilogy damn it!) The Last Crusade is a bit childish, but still has a lot of great memorable scenes in it. One could say the same for Temple of Doom, but swapping out Charlie and Short Round for John Rhys-Davies and Sean Connery is a huuuge upgrade.

Re Star Wars:
The Empire Strikes Back has the best lightsaber duel in all of the Star Wars movies, including the technology aided sequels, and that's probably why I like it better than the original. In fact it's probably aided by the lack of technology at the time, because of all the tension of the duels in the earlier films was replaced with flips and jumps and fancy new force moves. Return of the Jedi is ok, but I don't think it quite lives up to the first two films. I'm not sure why I didn't like it as much as the others, but I'm guessing the Ewoks didn't help.

Finally, at least Spielberg isn't in denial that he is some how making his movies better by updating them. He tried it once, saw that it added nothing to the movie and angered the fans who adored it. Lucas, I think, is just surrounded by so many people who refuse to challenge him, that he thinks everything he does is gold, regardless of the reaction of fans and the general public.

Thank you. I thought it wasn't right, but was too lazy to just go damn IMDB and look up the names.

Oh, and for the record I am in NO way arguing Crusade over Raiders because... no. Just no.

But especially compared to the reorbquel hell that ate Hollywood, Crusade is a damn fine movie.

foolsage:

The brilliance of that scene is what came next. After Satipo drops the idol and runs, Indy doesn't even hesitate and just launches himself over the gap. He barely even backs up. Then he falls short and grabs a fine stopping his plunge into the abyss. He grins at his luck for a second, then grimaces as the vine gives way and he very nearly falls anyway. Indy quickly hauls himself up, rolls under the closing door, and at the last second reaches back under the door and grabs his hat just before it slams shut.

There are very, very few scenes in cinema that worldlessly capture the personality of a character in less than a minute and its the first scene in the movie that combines everything we grow to love about the guy.

I guess, Pookie, it's as if you've found a particular... ah... ladyfriend who's brought you a great deal of joy and then during one of your later visits, decides that you'd be just as happy when you find out that she's now a dude.

"My biggest gripe with Last Crusade is the shameful treatment of both Sallah and Marcus Brody. Both characters are strong, intelligent sidekicks in Raiders and goofy, comic-relief idiots in Last Crusade."

Posted by: Tranjo at September 15, 2011 12:01 PM

This. Exactly.

Raiders is the Greatest Movie Ever made, and one of the reasons was the fantastic supporting cast. Both Brody and Sallah lent a sense of gravitas, and gave the viewer a sense of the danger Indy was in, just by the amount of concern they showed for him. With a lead character who refuses to dwell on such things, that's important.

Also: Nazis make terrific villains but they should be appropriately terrifying.

The less said about Temple of Doom or Crystal Skull, the better. They (and Last Crusade) have their moments, but Raiders stands alone.

I was invited to that L.A. showing, but couldn't make it.

I hate myself so very much.

For Lucas, he doesn't seem to recognize one of the rules of filmmaking; there is no such thing as a flawless movie. There is however such a thing as a perfect movie, but perfect does not mean flawless. Lucas seems to think that if he continues to potchke with his movies, he can somehow remove all the flaws and otherwise improve the movie until it is somehow perfect. "Flaws" in this case not just meaning technical gaffs like matte lines or scratches, but entire elements of the story itself being hacked away whether there was a call to alter them or not. Like Francisco de Orellana before him, he seems doomed to continuously meanders onward searching for the unattainable at the cost of all things equally valuable along the way. All movie have blemishes, but that still doesn't make them great just as they are.

Spielberg at the very least was tempted for a time by the attraction of going back an putting some polish on things that might have stood out in his mind's eye. But unlike his counterpart he pulled back from the abyss, realizing that audiences don't give a damn if everything in the film is exactly as it should be, but rather the feelings that it invoked within them. And from there after repeated viewing of the original material there comes a sense of familiarity and comfort too. So much so that when the audience realizes someone's messing around with the movie, we become so distracted by that, we miss out on achieving those very feelings we wanted to relive again.

What Lucas doesn't get is that audiences accepted the original flaws long ago. Those flaws are as much a part of the movie's fabric as everything else and to alter it takes something away. We don't sit there and point out the mistakes or shortcomings, we simply let them pass. In fact to rectify mistakes is often to create as many new problems as it solves. And then come the "improvements" that George insists on adding to. If he wants to hole up his wine cellar edit suite and keep adding and subtracting things to it like his own celluloid Xanadu, he's welcome to it. But we want the original work back- not the bells and whistles. He might see nothing but the flaws and the could-have-beens, but we saw the perfect movies- flaws and all. Perfection in movies isn't in a technically flawless film, it's in an emotionally flawless one.

Spielberg finally gets that. Lucas probably never will.

Ask me why I've seen Skull but not Crusade? I've seen the other two on cable , skipped Crusade at the movies but paid to see Skull instead of Iron-Man. Now I don't even want to bother with Crusade at all. skull killed all my interest in the series.