George Lucas is detroying franchises. STOP HIM!!

Good God i hope that's not true!

Is anyone even amazed with CGI anymore anyway? I think it's ruining alot of films. It's all a bit :yawn: these days.
 
I disagree with a lot of you on this thread - Indy IV was way better than I expected and I think it stanRAB equally with the other Indy films. I watched Raiders on DVD the day after seeing Crystal Skull and honestly, it was not much better - except that I was spotting scenes throughout that have been referenced time and time again in more recent films and TV series.
 
Of course I did - how else could I sit in judgement? :D

TBH it was an OK film - an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours. My expectations weren't that high having talked to other people and from past experience, so I wasn't massively dissappointed. Having said that, I still wouldn't feel there was a big hole in my life if IJ4 had never been made.
 
CGI doesn't bother me because indy films have aways exploited the special effects technology available at the time. But Lucas does seem to go overboard and quite frankly ILM's CGI is too cartoonish. If you compare it with WETA's which is much more sophisticated.
 
I've watched it too - and the 'background' music drove me mad.

It reminded me of the old silent movies - where if it got exciting the music got louder and faster.
 
Can't remember exactly. I remember he said the film was too lightweight for his tastes and the time he had to put into it, that he wishes he and Spielberg had done something else together, and that he called Lucas a "social cripple"

That last bit still makes laugh.Fair enough. I thought they were a lowlight of an otherwise pretty good film.
 
ILM managed to make the Transformers look completely real, in a real world setting.

Lucas' approach to CGI is that the live action be fit around the CGI when it should be the other way round. As Michael Bay said, Lucas' films often have a kind of "pastel" look.

The opening of Revenge of the Sith (idea came from Spielberg) is terrific, but then Lucas completely destroys the atmosphere by filling the screen with droiRAB.

It could be said of Lucas that he chose the cup of CGI.

He chose...poorly. :D
 
I think Last Crusade is the second best Indy film (Raiders being the best)...its great fun. For me, Temple of Doom is the weakest of the original three, from what I have heard Crystal Skull is slightly better than Temple of Doom.
 
Hah! What a great idea! I'll be sure and remember that one when I hear the next saddo internet fanboy rant. I'll be sure and point out just how daft the originals were. It amazes me that they pick on scenes in the new Indy film, but completely accept say, a big green monster roaming around the lanRABcape (Hulk), or a bloke that has Spider-like powers. Or even worse, a bloke who decides he can fight crime by dressing up as a bat (of all things), and leaping about the place. Pffft.

I'm with you. Raiders is by far the best, but then it's one of, if not the best action adventure ever made. But I've loved the sequels just as much when I was a kid, and I still love them all now. This new one was a great return for me, and I loved the whole thing. Can't wait to see it again.
 
He co-wrote the story. He's credited with the story in the opening credits!


I don't think it's Lucas totally at fault. I think Ford was far too old to return to Indiana Jones The notion of a 66 year old action star is, with respect to Mr Ford, ludicrous. He tried his best in Kingdom but he had no energy, no spark. It was no surprise most of the action was done by Shia LaBeouf.

KOTCS shouldn't have been made, it was 19 years too late. Having said that, if you don't mind an old Indiana Jones huffing and puffing his way through an adventure, a hero showing little heroism (count how many times Ford did something heroic!), it's entertaining. Just arrive five seconRAB late for the beginning so you avoid the truly awful CGI 'Gordon the gopher' intro. :rolleyes: Poor George Lucas must have been on some illegal substance when he thought up that idea!
 
I agree with what you say about Lucas' use of CGI. However, a couple of the scenes in Attack of the Clones and Reveng of the Sith I like the 'pastel' look of as it pays homage to the artwork of Ralph McQuarrie
 
Indy 4 and the Star Wars prequels have nothing to do with art. It's all about money and the fact that Lucas can't come up with any decent new ideas anymore. The simple fact is we didn't need another Indy 4, Last Crusade ended the trilogy nicely with Harrison Ford still young enough to keep his cred, and as for Star Wars we didn't really need to know why the Jedi were decimated, where Vader got the chip on his shoulder from or why Yoda ended up living in a mud hut. It's all about the mighty Dollar and a lack of forward thinking and imagination.
 
Thats 2 hours of my life I can not get back. Hubby and I went with an open mind.

But it was unbelievably bad, no chemistry between the actors, no excitement, no tension, no humour, fantastic actors under used, stupid story line, if there actually was a plot!

I don't care if the other films had bad special effects or continuity problems. They were on the whole fun, humorous, full of excitement, had a PLOT and had great character interaction.

It was almost like they were taking the P, lets see if we can make this really bad and still make money!
 
Seconded. The propensity of totally unnecessary cutsy CGI creatures in Lucas's films lately is getting over the top.

Three things spoiled the feel of the film for me. The CGI prarie rats, the cartoony tarzan scene with the monkey entourage, and the rip off of "The Mummy" scarabs, killer ant scene
 
Indy I agree with, but not Star Wars. People were screaming for the prequels (and sequels) for two decades. That it didn't out how we wanted is by the by, he delivered films that the public were asking for.

There was no such request for Indy 4, and as far as I can tell, this is just kicking off a Shia led new series that George can get his teeth into - probably without Speilberg.
 
Ah, but you can only point out ludicrous aspects of the series you're talking about. Spider-man is about Spider-man, full stop. The Hulk and Batman also - they are fantasy films. The IJ saga is not a fantasy series, it's an action series with fantastic elements and there's a big difference. Likewise, you can point out the kiddie aspects of the original Star Wars trilogy when fanboys whinge about the scenes in the new films.
 
Back
Top