Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls

HungFist · Post by **HungFist** » 18 Feb 2008, 16:24

Maybe I missed something, but what makes you think Spielberg is cleaning up the movie, and not only the trailer?

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 18 Feb 2008, 16:31

In the European version of the trailer they cut out the part with the American flag.

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 18 Feb 2008, 17:01

I'm thinking it's not on the good road based on the trailer, the trailer is like the window display, of course, we can't tell until the film is finished and released, but this stuff is so reminding of the worst of both filmmakers, it as me worried... but still I want to believe.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 18 Feb 2008, 18:01

I thought it was just because the MPAA have started to crack down on film marketing campaigns, forcing changes to posters and now trailers. I seriously doubt speilberg will be making these changes to the actual film, the MPAA allow a lot of violence at PG & PG-13 so I can't see either they or Spielberg having a problem with evil soldiers pointing their guns at indy.

Plus, he's making an Indiana Jones sequel, not an E.T sequel. E.T has always been a "young" family film but the Jones films have always been violent, and he would have toned down the violence in the Indy triliogy for the DVD SE boxset release a few years bacl if he ever intended to make an Indy film for a "young" audience.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 18 Feb 2008, 19:04

Also, Spielberg said a while ago that he'd be keeping CGI to a minimum and doing proper stunts like the original films.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 18 Feb 2008, 22:05

The trailer has loads of CGI in it.

thelostdragon wrote:In the European version of the trailer they cut out the part with the American flag.

Interesting. Flag waving does always piss me off. You're patriotic fine but don't ram it down my throat!

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 18 Feb 2008, 22:35

Like with the UK version of Toy Story 2 replacing the American flag waving bit with the globe.

dvdvision · Post by **dvdvision** » 19 Feb 2008, 07:00

Or the Live Free Die Hard trailer which replaced the words "I'm going to teach this country a lesson" by "I'm going to teach the world a lesson"

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Feb 2008, 09:49

gasteropod wrote:Like with the UK version of Toy Story 2 replacing the American flag waving bit with the globe.

Is that actually changed in the movie?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 19 Feb 2008, 12:09

The flag did seem pretty gratuitous... did the makers of the trailer think Americans would get confused if it wasn't there...? I noticed some CGI but maybe (hopefully) they stuck the bulk of it in the trailer. I want good old-fashioned stunts and squibs. I liked the bit with the whip and the jeep.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 19 Feb 2008, 14:45

grim_tales wrote:
gasteropod wrote:Like with the UK version of Toy Story 2 replacing the American flag waving bit with the globe.
Is that actually changed in the movie?

Yeah.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 19 Feb 2008, 15:02

Region 1 for me then..

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 19 Feb 2008, 15:23

For once, I don't actually care. It appears to be Pixar themselves who localise the films, so that's good enough for me. That's why I got the UK Blu-ray of Cars, despite the Jeremy Clarkson thing.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 19 Feb 2008, 18:18

[rant-mode ON] As you would expect from me, I hate it when they alter a movie/trailer or whatever, for different regions.
I hate patriotic flagwaving as much, probably more, as the next guy, but there is absolutely no need whatsoever to fucking edit it out of the movie for me! In fact, if it's a good movie but it has flagwaving, I can get past that, and I would still buy it.

Editing the movie, I can NOT get past that, and thus I wont buy the altered version.

Anyway, the new Indy trailer looks like Uncharted: Drakes Fortune (PS3), except instead of a handsome hero, it has a senior-citizen in the lead role.
Too much CGI for my liking, and all the alterations/censoring(?) just makes me less interested about it than I already was.

Spielberg should grow some fucking balls.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 19 Feb 2008, 18:40

I too thought the trailer looked like Uncharted! Especially the bit with the two cars at the edge of the cliff. Bits also looked like Operation Condor!

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Feb 2008, 22:45

Firstly Yi please turn your RANT MODE OFF

Secondly does it matter when the director/studio themselves endorse the changes? Personally I think it really enhances the film. I much preferring a UK celebrity I know and like than some two bit American I've never heard of.

Clarkson in a film about cars, great stuff!

dvdvision wrote:Or the Live Free Die Hard trailer which replaced the words "I'm going to teach this country a lesson" by "I'm going to teach the world a lesson"

Which way round? I can't say I noticed.

Markgway wrote:I noticed some CGI but maybe (hopefully) they stuck the bulk of it in the trailer. I want good old-fashioned stunts and squibs.

Me too. Why does every fucking director think CGI looks better? IT DOESN'T!

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 19 Feb 2008, 23:02

There is no off-switch to the 'rant-mode'

And I really like Top Gear and Clarkson, but TBH I just want my movies with the original voice-actors, and IF you ARE going to include local guys to substitute the original voice-cast, at least offer an OPTION to still select the original voice-cast. The technology is there, so just use it.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Feb 2008, 23:06

I agree with that. It doesn't have to be the default track.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 19 Feb 2008, 23:20

bradavon wrote:Why does every fucking director think CGI looks better?

They don't. In fact, most of them think it's outdated and should only be used when necessary and when it looks good, meaning that nobody will ever notice (like wire-removal or muzzle flashes if it turns out that they weren't caught on film).

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 19 Feb 2008, 23:31

I caught a few glimpses of the Star Wars movies (the new, poor ones) on TV, and the horrible CGI just made the movie laughably bad.

I dont mind CGI when it's done RIGHT, but when it's done WRONG, it just totally fucks up a movie.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 19 Feb 2008, 23:39

CGI is outdated? That's a strange thing to say but I take your point. The "WOW/Whizz factor" has gone and they've started using it less.

It's still used way too much though, whenever it's a bit hard to create a model now it gets CGI'ed.

I caught a few glimpses of the Star Wars movies (the new, poor ones) on TV, and the horrible CGI just made the movie laughably bad.

Episode 3 looks awesome but the prior two are poor.

I dont mind CGI when it's done RIGHT, but when it's done WRONG, it just totally fucks up a movie.

Agreed.

The truth is there is no substitute for a real explosion or whatever. It's one of the reasons 80 action films IMO still hold up so well.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 19 Feb 2008, 23:51

bradavon wrote:CGI is outdated? That's a strange thing to say but I take your point. The "WOW/Whizz factor" has gone and they've started using it less.

Of course they keep on developing the CGI technology. What I mean however is outdated as a stylistic device in movies. The audience is sick of it and most filmmakers know that.

It's still used way too much though, whenever it's a bit hard to create a model now it gets CGI'ed.

I'm not against CGI as an assisting device for things such as wire removal as I pointed out already. But do we really need to see every bullet in slow motion and in a close-up?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 20 Feb 2008, 00:04

You can spend a million bucks to make a CGI special effect of a jet fighter plowing into and through a huge flat, taking out dozens of people in close-up, and then having a big HUGE explosion... and the crowd goes 'wow... cool...'

...or you can have Tony Jaa or some other guy do a fantastisc flip-kick combination, shot from a nice angle, as part of a nice choreography, and the crowd is STUNNED.

I rather see the 2nd option in a movie.
Very often, less = more.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 20 Feb 2008, 00:36

That jet fighter sequence you described reminds me of the finale of "Transformers" and I have to admit that the film wouldn't have worked as well without CGI. It is a truly great film and the finale that includes some CGI jet fighters looks stunning, too.

It's not CGI itself that sucks, it's always the way/reason it is made use of.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 20 Feb 2008, 01:00

Ow I agree with that. Like I said, if they do it well and has a function, it's very welcome and will make a movie better. A movie like Transformers just couldnt be any good WITHOUT CGI, unless you do it all in animation ofcourse...

It's how you use it and when and why.