I was born in the late 80's and enjoyed IJ as a child and teenager. I didn't really critically evaluate them until the last 5-10 years.
I know the series was groundbreaking at the time for it's quality and cinematic portrayal of pulpy serials, but I don't see how it crushes similar films of the last 20 years. Primarily, I'm not sure why Raiders of the Lost Ark would be "better" than Curse of The Black Pearl as an example.
Despite strong moments throughout the trilogy, I don't see how any of the initial IJ films compare to even the MCU.
Aside from doing certain things first, what makes Indiana Jones so highly regarded?
Without it, you wouldn't have got films like the POTC films.
It's the forerunner.
Like Star Wars, it used a "sense of the old" with the serialised pulp adventures but with a more modern sensibility.
In that period, superhero movies weren't that good. Sure, Superman and Batman had a couple of good films each ... but they also had a few bad ones each - and Marvel was yet to have a "good one".
Marvel's "revitalisation" (with the first "Iron man" film, only happened because Jon Favreau was also a fan of those films and they were one of his motivators for making movies.
trexmeyer wrote: Aside from doing certain things first, what makes Indiana Jones so highly regarded?
Kind of answering your own question.
Cultural touchstones usually come in two flavors; they did a particular thing first, or they did that thing in a particular way at just the right time.
Honestly, I'd consider Jones to be the later rather than the former, but it was a well made and high budget (for the time) pulp adventure film that kind of capstone the genre. It's a genre that was generally not taken seriously but was turned into a serious film with serious chops rather than just being a pulpy camp fest. You could call the Indiana Jones movies the point where the genre of pulp adventure heroes reached their then maturity as a medium.
trexmeyer wrote: I was born in the late 80's and enjoyed IJ as a child and teenager. I didn't really critically evaluate them until the last 5-10 years.
I know the series was groundbreaking at the time for it's quality and cinematic portrayal of pulpy serials,
That right there is your answer.
trexmeyer wrote: but I don't see how it crushes similar films of the last 20 years. Primarily, I'm not sure why Raiders of the Lost Ark would be "better" than Curse of The Black Pearl as an example.
Raiders/Temple/Crusade DON'T crush similar films. Because similar films share the same qualities that make the first 3 IJ films great. Good story, good effects, good action sequences, memorable moments, etc. A good score helps too (Don't tell me you don't hear the IJ theme whenever you even hear/think the words "Indiana Jones") as does the right cast. Being well edited is also really important but most people won't ever realize that when trying to describe what made a film great.
When these things are correctly mixed? The result sticks in & fuels the imagination for decades. You'll happily watch & re-watch these movies.
What they crush are films that try & copy them but fail to meet the bar(s) they set. Including the series own 4th instalment. Crystal Skull =/= Raiders.
trexmeyer wrote: Despite strong moments throughout the trilogy, I don't see how any of the initial IJ films compare to even the MCU.
Actual quality. The first three IJ films stand far above much of the MCU
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chromedog wrote: Without it, you wouldn't have got films like the POTC films. [ /quote]
That's a big maybe.
chromedog wrote: In that period, superhero movies weren't that good. Sure, Superman and Batman had a couple of good films each ... but they also had a few bad ones each - and Marvel was yet to have a "good one".[ /quote]
In "that period"?? 1980 -'89? DC: Superman had 3 films. Batman had 1. And I think Swamp Thing was direct to video. Marvel: :( They have a feeble line-up of 3 films (not counting stuff on TV) - Red Sonja, Howard the Duck, & Dolph Lundgren's attempt at the Punisher (technically it was a film release....)
I generally concur with some of the points made, but I think a part of it was it knew when to stop (there are 3 films, no more, no less !) rather than get subjected to the diminishing returns that modern franchises mania inflicts they will always be fondly remembered
Also, they kind of stood alone in the wider movie market. Yes they spawned imitators, but can you name any of them? About the only ones that spring immediately to mind would be Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile. Perhaps The Goonies as well.
So when each came out, it was a refreshing departure for audiences.
Turnip Jedi wrote: I generally concur with some of the points made, but I think a part of it was it knew when to stop (there are 3 films, no more, no less !) rather than get subjected to the diminishing returns that modern franchises mania inflicts they will always be fondly remembered
To be fair until you hit the current slew of Marvel films, most films rarely got beyond 3 or so films in a series and even that could be a hard battle to get too.
You've a handful of exceptions like the Carry-On series of films/minifilms; but in general most films were 1 and done or 1 and 2 sequels of diminishing returns and often production value. Which I think is one area Indie did well in. The sequels were of equal production value to greater in the original Trilogy. Often you'll see sequels like we got for Dragonheart (which admittedly is an extreme example) where each iteration after gets a vastly smaller budget and often smaller release till you hit the death of "Direct to DVD"
Or worse straight to SyFy, and yes Highlander I mean you !
Also Indy had some other media spin offs and homages, a couple of decent PC adventures and of course Rick Dangerous / Lara Croft (the born awesome 90s version)
trexmeyer wrote: Despite strong moments throughout the trilogy, I don't see how any of the initial IJ films compare to even the MCU.
Actual quality. The first three IJ films stand far above much of the MCU
I might agree with much now because I really dislike Phase 4, but before that I'd pick an MCU film over IJ on a coin flip. I feel like the cultural influence of IJ is far superior to the actual films (the same is true of Star Wars).
trexmeyer wrote: Despite strong moments throughout the trilogy, I don't see how any of the initial IJ films compare to even the MCU.
Actual quality. The first three IJ films stand far above much of the MCU
I might agree with much now because I really dislike Phase 4, but before that I'd pick an MCU film over IJ on a coin flip. I feel like the cultural influence of IJ is far superior to the actual films (the same is true of Star Wars).
It seems underwhelming for the modern eye, at least a bit, because it literally set standards that films in the next decades had time to improve on. For the time, it was in many ways revolutionary, but people looking back at it from today have about 40 years of additional developments in writing and technology to chose a 'better' film from.
No. Indiana Jones looks better than every single MCU film. By far. It's not even close. That trilogy is gorgeous. My criticism of IJ is the characterizations and story. Raiders of the Lost Ark for example has no room to breathe. The movie feels like they're sprinting from one set piece to the next with minimal bits of hamfisted dialogue shoved in here and there.
There's definitely something to be said that quality practical effects and sets just age better than CGI.
Like, Jurassic Park comes to mind too. There is some bad CGI in a few places that hasn't aged well but also a lot of practical stuff that still looks great.
Alien the original to, and the first three Indiana Jones movies. The Thing. The more time goes on in the age of CGI (and I don't hate CGI) the more appreciation I have for the way the limits of physical work impact the way a movie is made and presented.
It feels more authentic even if it doesn't always look as fantastic.
I remember being blown away by how much I enjoyed the first Pirates film and I think it would have a much higher standing in popular culture if the sequels had been better (i.e. part of this is because Indy had three good films in succession.
As for LordofHats point, I had often wondered what an old school practical effects film would look like if it got modern blockbuster money, because even accounting for inflation the budgets are far, far higher now than in the 80’s. And then we got Mad Max Fury Road and I got to find out!
LordofHats wrote:There's definitely something to be said that quality practical effects and sets just age better than CGI.
Like, Jurassic Park comes to mind too. There is some bad CGI in a few places that hasn't aged well but also a lot of practical stuff that still looks great.
Alien the original to, and the first three Indiana Jones movies. The Thing. The more time goes on in the age of CGI (and I don't hate CGI) the more appreciation I have for the way the limits of physical work impact the way a movie is made and presented.
It feels more authentic even if it doesn't always look as fantastic.
Heck go watch Red Dwarf or SpaceBalls - the spaceships in those age way better than a lot of CGI space ships.
Physical models and such still work so so well!
Jadenim wrote:I remember being blown away by how much I enjoyed the first Pirates film and I think it would have a much higher standing in popular culture if the sequels had been better (i.e. part of this is because Indy had three good films in succession.
As for LordofHats point, I had often wondered what an old school practical effects film would look like if it got modern blockbuster money, because even accounting for inflation the budgets are far, far higher now than in the 80’s. And then we got Mad Max Fury Road and I got to find out!
Honestly I think the Pirates films would have done better if Jonny hadn't spent most of the 2 sequels dancing around like a confused drunk loon. They overplayed his character traits so much that he just kind of lost all gravity and meaning to his character; which kind of shot the bottom out of them.
That or just give the original (not British style) Barbossa his own pirate series!
Jack Sparrow is one of the those characters who is at his best when he isn't the focus of attention. The more attention you put on him, the less interesting and more annoying her becomes.
The character was best playing off straight-man characters like he did in the first movie.
LordofHats wrote: Jack Sparrow is one of the those characters who is at his best when he isn't the focus of attention. The more attention you put on him, the less interesting and more annoying her becomes.
The character was best playing off straight-man characters like he did in the first movie.
What they done said, I liked the first one but even then I thought Will and Elizabeth's stories had some mileage regarding social standing, gender, and expections, all sadly foghorned out by Dame Sparrow Panto'ing it up like a demented Eddie Izzard, the less said about the last ones the better
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also, they kind of stood alone in the wider movie market. Yes they spawned imitators, but can you name any of them? About the only ones that spring immediately to mind would be Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile. Perhaps The Goonies as well.
So when each came out, it was a refreshing departure for audiences.
Would you put the Brendan Fraser The Mummy films in that group, Doc, or are they a bit too late for that?
Things like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Flash Gordon, The Wizard of Oz, etc. become cultural touchstones BECAUSE they are groundbreaking at the time they are made.
Yes, they all are eventually outdone by later productions, with better technology. The Matrix. Iron Man. Avatar. But we still remember the cultural touchstones, if for no other reason than because the later productions are building on those cultural touchstones to reach new heights. (Usually...)
I would include the Mummy. But I would also include films like National Treasure as a mix of Indiana Jones and Dan Brown, an adjustment of the formula for the times.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Also, they kind of stood alone in the wider movie market. Yes they spawned imitators, but can you name any of them? About the only ones that spring immediately to mind would be Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile. Perhaps The Goonies as well.
So when each came out, it was a refreshing departure for audiences.
Would you put the Brendan Fraser The Mummy films in that group, Doc, or are they a bit too late for that?
Definitely in the same mould, but too late to be contemporary
Vulcan wrote: Things like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Flash Gordon, The Wizard of Oz, etc. become cultural touchstones BECAUSE they are groundbreaking at the time they are made.
Yes, they all are eventually outdone by later productions, with better technology. The Matrix. Iron Man. Avatar. But we still remember the cultural touchstones, if for no other reason than because the later productions are building on those cultural touchstones to reach new heights. (Usually...)
There's also some value in looking back at how those things were done in the days before current technology, and seeing just how far the makers of those things managed to go with what they had to work with.
And yes, I'll add to the chorus of praise for practical effects. Singling out Star Wars specifically there, the visual difference between the space scenes with model ships vs the visually impressive but cartoony CGI space scenes is really striking.
LordofHats wrote: There's definitely something to be said that quality practical effects and sets just age better than CGI.
Like, Jurassic Park comes to mind too. There is some bad CGI in a few places that hasn't aged well but also a lot of practical stuff that still looks great.
Alien the original to, and the first three Indiana Jones movies. The Thing. The more time goes on in the age of CGI (and I don't hate CGI) the more appreciation I have for the way the limits of physical work impact the way a movie is made and presented.
It feels more authentic even if it doesn't always look as fantastic.
That's certainly true. A big chunk of the problem with the Hobbit films (aside from the insane stretching of the tiny plot) vs the LoTR films was the CGI. Nothing that happened in the Hobbit had any weight to it at all. The CGI was an opportunity to get up and do something else, because the story stopped for the duration of whatever antics were happening. Meanwhile, the LOTR characters cowering and hiding from a horse was nailbiting.
Vulcan wrote: Things like Indiana Jones, Star Wars, Star Trek, Flash Gordon, The Wizard of Oz, etc. become cultural touchstones BECAUSE they are groundbreaking at the time they are made.
Yes, they all are eventually outdone by later productions, with better technology. The Matrix. Iron Man. Avatar. But we still remember the cultural touchstones, if for no other reason than because the later productions are building on those cultural touchstones to reach new heights. (Usually...)
The best of them hold up though. Raiders is still a pretty fantastic film, full stop.
Plenty of thrills and action for kids, without anything too much (OK Temple of Doom requires specific edits!)
Bit of romance.
Witty dialogue.
Even a fairly realistic male lead. Whilst a well read man of action, Indy is hardly the muscle bound beefcake. He’s not infallible. He’s not perfect. But he always tries his best. And when he saves the day, it’s typically Brains over Brawn.
I mean….Raiders? Knowing not to look at the Ark of the Covenant. At least trying not to set off the trap at the beginning.
Temple of Doom? Knowing the chant to activate the Sankara Stones, scattering them once again and dooming Mola Ram.
Last Crusade? Making informed decisions more or less throughout, even challenging his preconceptions (hey. X did mark the spot.
It’s all pretty wholesome family fare. Just enough oomph to it that parents wouldn’t shield their kids, but enough that the kid knows it’s a bit of a treat, something distinctly more adult than they might usually get to watch. Granted it’s been a long time since I was wee, but that is my memory of it.
Thought on the Temple of Doom edits? I was too young to see it the cinema, and when it aired on TV the gorier parts were trimmed. We still saw the sacrifice, but the heart removal, burning body and heart bursting into flames were gone. More or less seamlessly. Certainly enough remained to give the gist without the gruesome. Were those cut from the original run and added in later home media releases?
They were always there. I remember my parents worrying that we would have nightmares, even though those scenes were pretty tame for 80’s movies. Around the same time they just put on The Gate for us without thinking twice about it since it was a “kid’s movie”.
Worse than MCU? Got to be kidding. MCU films are almost all generic, formulaic, assembly line, poorly done CGI fests. Most of them deserve 3/10, maybe 4/10 rating at best and serve as something you watch in 4 instalments over 4 days to have something to do while eating dinner. And that's assuming such cinema is your guilty pleasure.
Compare Indy to something like Fury Road and we can be talking.
It is a bit embarassing for me to watch original Star Wars or Ghostbusters now but Indy, Terminator, Aliens, Back to the Future are easily as good now as when I first saw them.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They were always there. I remember my parents worrying that we would have nightmares, even though those scenes were pretty tame for 80’s movies. Around the same time they just put on The Gate for us without thinking twice about it since it was a “kid’s movie”.
Seems it was cut for the U.K. Theatrical Release to qualify for PG. Which makes sense, as the grading at the time was U (Universal) PG (Parental Guidance) 15 (over 15’s only) and 18 (self explanatory).
BobtheInquisitor wrote: They were always there. I remember my parents worrying that we would have nightmares, even though those scenes were pretty tame for 80’s movies. Around the same time they just put on The Gate for us without thinking twice about it since it was a “kid’s movie”.
The heart rip gave me nightmares for years. It wasn't until I loved Last Crusade that I went back and rewatched it. I still consider it the worst film of the 4, though the minecart scene is one of the most influential scenes from the whole series.
I’m sorry to hear that. Perhaps we were more inured to gore effects in my family.
We got to see Robocop when it came out on VHS. My dad told me there was one scene that was too gory, so he would fast forward at that part and we had to look away. (When the gang kills Murphy.) So then the movie opens with ED-209 blasting a business man into bloody chunks. The scene just kept going, a fireworks display of squibs blasting the guy apart. Didn’t need to skip that scene. The henchman doused with toxic waste, staggering around with his skin melting off until a speeding car bursts him into roughly human-colored goo? That’s fine.
for years I was wondering, how gory must that one scene be?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’ve never understood why Temple of Doom is so poorly thought of. It’s probably my favourite of the bunch.
The characters are more cartoonish, the plot more straight-forward and less built on a race against the bad guys to find and decipher the clues, the child-friendlier-sequel effect.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’ve never understood why Temple of Doom is so poorly thought of. It’s probably my favourite of the bunch.
Easy answers:
White man falls from the sky and solves 'native' problems. Womanizer where woman hates him (because he seriously kidnapped her for no reason) and resists enough to still be problematic when she gives in.
The colonialist propaganda, from the 'crazy food' to the problematic 'Indian blood cult' that just needs to be exterminated by the British army. Which...actually happens on screen and presented as the cavalry saving the day.
Personal pet peeve- Expert means perfect knowledge of all subfields, no matter how unrelated they are (which in archaeology is extremely problematic -south/central American and 'Middle Eastern' (more properly Biblical, but it wandered a lot) was dubious enough, don't add China and India on top)
Other pet peeve- the overt magic (in particular, 'holy' death magic in all cases) of the first three is somehow more acceptable than alien tech. I... don't get it.
You start with some big name like Indy or Star Wars. You enjoy it at the time because they’re enjoyable films.
Then, as you explore more movies, you see how they influenced the overall industry. This reveals the impact a solid, crowd pleaser movie can have.
You may find Really Good Films which started as cash-ins. You’ll definitely find Bloody Awful Knock-Offs. Some of those will have a charm all their own. Some will just be utter crap.
And like watching Spaced, the more and more you see, the more references you spot in other media.
You might then start exploring the influences behind those initial films. The serials, the Kurosawa movies.
And from there, with no formal training in it, you develop media literacy and can go really tinfoil
An example I’ll always fall back on for Rabbit Holing? Robocop. It is absolutely a Big Dumb Action Movie. And you can watch it as such and walk away satisfied from a well made, rounded movie going experience. But. Lurking just below the surface is the initial layer of satire. And down and down and down you go, until you see it’s full glory as an absolute cinematic Masterclass in how to pack a movie full of meaning, metaphor and satire without being an enigmatic arsehole about it. Basically it’s the movie version of Freeform Modern Jazz, but actually good, and not right up it’s own arse.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m sorry to hear that. Perhaps we were more inured to gore effects in my family.
We got to see Robocop when it came out on VHS. My dad told me there was one scene that was too gory, so he would fast forward at that part and we had to look away. (When the gang kills Murphy.) So then the movie opens with ED-209 blasting a business man into bloody chunks. The scene just kept going, a fireworks display of squibs blasting the guy apart. Didn’t need to skip that scene. The henchman doused with toxic waste, staggering around with his skin melting off until a speeding car bursts him into roughly human-colored goo? That’s fine.
for years I was wondering, how gory must that one scene be?
It's worth noting Robocop was rated R, and Temple of Doom rated PG. There's a distinct difference in expectations between the two.
The writer Chuck Klosterman has a theory that while many people reflexively assume extremely popular things are bad, they are, in fact, usually very good. Plenty of bad things become popular, but the things that really become cultural touchstones are generally the best examples of their genre. You might not like the genre, but even within genres you hate, the most popular stuff tends to be the best.
In movies, flawed but enjoyable movies can become cult classics, or even hits, but never an all time great. "The boondock saints" is wildly entertaining while being... not great. Even then, in a world full of B movies, the Boondock Saints is probably one of the best, with some strong acting performances and some excitng fight scense.
So, why is Indian Jones such a big deal? The movies were huge hits, usually the top or top three gross for the year. they've had a long cultural shadow. But they're also just really, really finely crafted. Speilberg is arguably the greatest "popcorn" director of all time, and filtred George Lucas's ideas nicely. Harrison Ford wasn't a complete unknown by then, thanks to Star Wars, but they still were able to buy low on one of the most charismatic actors of the time. The music, of course, is spot on.
One of the things that some people dislike about the movies are their momentum. They intentionally never go more than 5-10 minutes between action set pieces. You don't have the slow start or exposition heavy middle, but you learn a lot about the characters during the set pieces.
In short, the movies are just really good. The two movies that most obviously model themselves off Raiders are National Treasure and the Mummy, as both feature treasure hunters solving clues. But you can pull back further, and see that many of the more successful MCU movies use the model.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I’m sorry to hear that. Perhaps we were more inured to gore effects in my family.
We got to see Robocop when it came out on VHS. My dad told me there was one scene that was too gory, so he would fast forward at that part and we had to look away. (When the gang kills Murphy.) So then the movie opens with ED-209 blasting a business man into bloody chunks. The scene just kept going, a fireworks display of squibs blasting the guy apart. Didn’t need to skip that scene. The henchman doused with toxic waste, staggering around with his skin melting off until a speeding car bursts him into roughly human-colored goo? That’s fine.
for years I was wondering, how gory must that one scene be?
It's worth noting Robocop was rated R, and Temple of Doom rated PG. There's a distinct difference in expectations between the two.
Yes and no. The rating should set expectations, yet If I had a dollar for every parent who brought a child to see Robocop in the theater (presumably due to it’s name), I could executive produce the next Robocop reboot.
Polonius wrote:Plenty of bad things become popular, but the things that really become cultural touchstones are generally the best examples of their genre.
That would explain why Avatar and Avatar 2: It's Avatarin Time have zero cultural footprint. In thirty years we'll still have references to Vasquez but no one will remember who John Scurvy was.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Yes and no. The rating should set expectations, yet If I had a dollar for every parent who brought a child to see Robocop in the theater (presumably due to it’s name), I could executive produce the next Robocop reboot.
I remember people bringing five year olds to the original Jurassic Park even though it was rated R because dinosaurs.
Honestly there are some bad things that achieve cultural footprint simply for how bad they are or because they were bad in particularly hilarious ways.
Memes especially give certain things a longevity far beyond their medium or quality.
Example;
Jim Carry's Riddler in Batman and Robin.
All around bad movie, but Carry's performance was so iconic it has kept the film alive in culture through memes and references.
I'd lump the Star Wars prequel trilogy in here too. Terrible movies, but with particular stand out performances and scenes so good or so bad/cheesy, they have kept the films alive through decades of popular culture. Compare to the sequel trilogy, which literally no one wants to talk about anymore if only because they're tired of arguing their merits/demerits.
Meanwhile, the prequels have spawned at least a hundred different meme formats and references even people who don't like the movies will recognize.
EDIT: Even better, The Emperor's New Groove (road to el dorado too) a bizarre average film in almost every way, that doesn't stand out in terms of plot, comedy, or art. It's not bad at all but it's hardly the stuff cultural icons are made up. Except that every scene in the movie is a meme format. Browse the internet long enough you can probably watch the entire film via memes without even streaming it.
Polonius wrote:Plenty of bad things become popular, but the things that really become cultural touchstones are generally the best examples of their genre.
That would explain why Avatar and Avatar 2: It's Avatarin Time have zero cultural footprint. In thirty years we'll still have references to Vasquez but no one will remember who John Scurvy was.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Yes and no. The rating should set expectations, yet If I had a dollar for every parent who brought a child to see Robocop in the theater (presumably due to it’s name), I could executive produce the next Robocop reboot.
I remember people bringing five year olds to the original Jurassic Park even though it was rated R because dinosaurs.
Rated R because dinosaurs absolutely makes no sense in the culture. Dinosaurs are functionally kids products. Dino-toys are the stepping stone to action figures.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I think you’ve got his meaning backwards. The film was rated R, but parents brought kids because dinosaurs (are for children).
Wait, are the JP movies really rated R? Its mostly jump scares with offscreen cuts, and some fairly bland viscera strewn about that most kids probably can't even identify. My nephew's Christmas was basically a dumptruck full of Jurassic Park toys.
There's enough out there to swamp the old Kenner Star Wars toy line- the end market merchandise for Jurassic Park is aimed almost entirely kids under... 8? 10? 5? (whatever age plays with action figures now).
EDIT: Even better, The Emperor's New Groove (road to el dorado too) a bizarre average film in almost every way, that doesn't stand out in terms of plot, comedy, or art. It's not bad at all but it's hardly the stuff cultural icons are made up. Except that every scene in the movie is a meme format. Browse the internet long enough you can probably watch the entire film via memes without even streaming it.
The Emperor's New Groove is one of those odd films where the parts are somehow better than their sum.
Voss wrote: Wait, are the JP movies really rated R?
The first one was. While not slasher film gory there is quite of bit of violence including people being eaten and a dismembered arm dangling down. Nothing to wacky for teens/adults, sure, but for a five year old it would be quite intense. I remember a guy bringing a kid to the first Mortal Kombat and right at the beginning it zooms in and Shang Tsun and turns into a skull. Adults and teens were fine but the kid lost it and was screaming until the child was taken out of the theater.
Jurassic Park was PG-13. It was nowhere near violent enough to justify an R rating and it would easily have been the highest grossing R movie at the time.
It's also listed as PG-13 on IMDB.
And then it depends on the kids. My lovely 8 year old neurodivergent daughter recently announced that she only ever wanted to watch films she has already seen so she doesn’t get scared…
And yet when she was in nursery, one of her 4 year old compatriots was extremely happy showing off his velociraptor impression
LordofHats wrote: Honestly there are some bad things that achieve cultural footprint simply for how bad they are or because they were bad in particularly hilarious ways.
Memes especially give certain things a longevity far beyond their medium or quality.
Example;
Jim Carry's Riddler in Batman and Robin.
All around bad movie, but Carry's performance was so iconic it has kept the film alive in culture through memes and references.
That was technically Batman Forever, the third in the series. And you kind of made my point, because you remember Jim Carrey as the Riddlker (good!) but not the name fo the movie (... not... good)
I'd lump the Star Wars prequel trilogy in here too. Terrible movies, but with particular stand out performances and scenes so good or so bad/cheesy, they have kept the films alive through decades of popular culture. Compare to the sequel trilogy, which literally no one wants to talk about anymore if only because they're tired of arguing their merits/demerits.
The Star Wars sequels are basically Avatar with better press. Simply by including legacy characters, there will always be some affection for them, but they're objectively bad movies that aren't well loved.
The prequels have bad writing and some wooden acting, and some plots that are tough to follow, but the technical aspects are great, and they include amazing set pieces. We'll be watching the Darth Maul fight long after we forget the throne room fight from TLJ.
Again, this sort of proves my point, that popularity is correlated with quality. If the only Star Wars movie that had ever been made was Solo, it would be talked about like John Carpenter!
Meanwhile, the prequels have spawned at least a hundred different meme formats and references even people who don't like the movies will recognize.
EDIT: Even better, The Emperor's New Groove (road to el dorado too) a bizarre average film in almost every way, that doesn't stand out in terms of plot, comedy, or art. It's not bad at all but it's hardly the stuff cultural icons are made up. Except that every scene in the movie is a meme format. Browse the internet long enough you can probably watch the entire film via memes without even streaming it.
Yeah, but that's true of a LOT of content. I never saw Tiger King, but I can laugh at an "I'm never going to financially recover from this" meme.
Memes are a way to take a scene or line from something that really captures a specific feeling or expereince. That's not the same as being an overall loved piece of media.
Polonius wrote:Plenty of bad things become popular, but the things that really become cultural touchstones are generally the best examples of their genre.
That would explain why Avatar and Avatar 2: It's Avatarin Time have zero cultural footprint. In thirty years we'll still have references to Vasquez but no one will remember who John Scurvy was.
Avatar continues to be the strangest pop cultural artifact. Avatar was good! It really was! It was certainly gorgeous, and made excellent use of 3d. I think what hurts it's appeal is that as probably the greatest 3d movie, it doesn't translate as well to 2d, since the characters and plot start out 2d. Hey oh!
So, I would argue that Avatar is the best example of a 3d movie that needs to be seen in theaters. That explains it's huge box office, but minimal fandom.
trexmeyer wrote: Jurassic Park was PG-13. It was nowhere near violent enough to justify an R rating and it would easily have been the highest grossing R movie at the time.
It's also listed as PG-13 on IMDB.
You're right. For some reason I always want to think the first was rated R. Probably because I recall the complaints of parents that took very young children then were upset the four year old was crying. Usually I see that kind of thing with parents taking kids to rated R movies so it may just all blend together.
Polonius wrote: Avatar was good! It really was! It was certainly gorgeous, and made excellent use of 3d.
No, it wasn't. It really wasn't! What it was was a great tech demo. It was a milquetoast film stapled to an amazing FX presentation.
Staying power could also be a factor. The first 3 movies in the Jones series are still fairly well regarded, have a wide appeal to anyone who likes adventure films. They've aged well as some movies do and some don't.
The MCU is a bit mixed, for every ironman who will stand the test of time IMO you have an Incredible Hulk which we just... kinda forget about. Some have janky charm like the Peter Macquire spidermans for sure. Others are just, set dressing for the bigger movies. Like, oh yeah ant man is here in civil war. He had a movie right?
It's part of why the Justice League did as bad as it did. Besides being incredibly bland it also threw in some important characters like the flash and cyborg who didn't have time to be fleshed out within that movieverse. (Yeah they're pre-existing characters but I hope i get across what I mean.)
Adeptekon wrote: I can't think of Indiana Jones without Tomb Raider coming to mind.
Right, because Indiana Jones was the original Tomb Raider.
Lots of interesting thoughts on this, and I've a few to add.
Part of what made "Raiders" resonate was the choice of protagonist but also his costume. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg decided that Harrison Ford was the new Gary Cooper. Go look at "Star Wars." Ford is wearing almost the same outfit as Cooper did in "High Noon."
For "Radiers," Ford is wearing Cooper's outfit from "For Whom the Bell Tolls." These were deliberate decisions which people in the 80s recognized because even if you didn't know the originals, odds were you watched them on Sunday afternoon on TV.
Folks have talked about how "Temple of Doom" is a little off. No kidding. It was made while George Lucas was going through an epic nasty divorce with his wife Marcia. The heart being ripped out of the chest? Yeah, that's Marcia.
There's a reason why Lucas had to do his "Special Edition" versions of Star Wars - he had to undo Marcia's edits. Marcia (and others) got an Oscar for best editing - George didn't even get nominated for Best Director. George had feelings, okay?
"Temple of Doom" originated the PG-13 rating. Lucas and Spielberg were not going to accept an "R" rating for an Indiana Jones movie, so the MPAA invented a new one just for them.
Voss wrote: Rated R because dinosaurs absolutely makes no sense in the culture. Dinosaurs are functionally kids products. Dino-toys are the stepping stone to action figures.
I did not read the whole thread, but there is also the fact that everyone saw them on ABC's Sunday Night Movie; and then everyone talked about them the next day.
Now-a-days, there are very few films that can become a cultural touchstone BECAUSE no one is watching the same media.
Back in the day, everyone watched either the ABC Sunday Night Movie or the NBC Sunday Night movie. There was not much else to watch!
As I sit here in my Parlour, DVD rack to my left, Blu-ray Discs on the mantle piece, and no less than 6 streaming services, it can be hard to remember that as a kid, movies were typically something I had to wait to air on TV, or perhaps at a friend’s birthday party.
We did eventually get a VHS Player (around 1987/88) but tapes were flipping expensive, so again became relegated to Birthday/Christmas presents, and periodic rentals in the colder months. Sure I could record something, but it had to air first.
So stuff like Indiana Jones became quite big draws. At school, you’d find out or share when it was airing. Your friends might even pile round someone’s house to watch it together.
And in the U.K., you always hoped the BBC would have the airing rights, so you didn’t have to put up with adverts, and instead watch it in one sitting.
The upside was daytime TV usually put a film on to fill the schedule. Nothing modern, but that’s how I discovered Doug McClure and Harry Hausen movies etc.
Easy E wrote: I did not read the whole thread, but there is also the fact that everyone saw them on ABC's Sunday Night Movie; and then everyone talked about them the next day.
Now-a-days, there are very few films that can become a cultural touchstone BECAUSE no one is watching the same media.
Back in the day, everyone watched either the ABC Sunday Night Movie or the NBC Sunday Night movie. There was not much else to watch!
It's plot also just isn't as good as the 1st and 3rd films. Like really. It's just a weaker plot. Even without all the issues with the annoying side characters, it still wouldn't be as good as the other two OG films.
As I sit here in my Parlour, DVD rack to my left, Blu-ray Discs on the mantle piece, and no less than 6 streaming services, it can be hard to remember that as a kid, movies were typically something I had to wait to air on TV, or perhaps at a friend’s birthday party.
We did eventually get a VHS Player (around 1987/88) but tapes were flipping expensive, so again became relegated to Birthday/Christmas presents, and periodic rentals in the colder months. Sure I could record something, but it had to air first.
I remember passing through eastern Montana in the... hmmm... the mid 90s. Stopped at a Pizza Hut in some small town that probably had a name, as the rest of the state was basically most of a day's drive by itself (and then Idaho and finally on to my destination), and I overheard the waitresses' talking as I walked in:
"There was a movie on TV last night!"
That stuck with me, as I didn't expect the small town I was heading towards to be much different. (It was a bit better, but my car was quickly bright green from all the corn fields, which stretched as far as the eye could see.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: She got away with it, too, by disappearing those meddling kids and their dog.
For peak Murder, She Wrote silliness, may I recommend Pushing Up Roses on YouTube. She does breakdown summaries of MSW episodes, and I find them highly entertaining. They’re not being mean about the show, but revelling in its inherent silliness.
I think every decade gets a really good adventure film, and that's the one for the folks from the 80s. The 90s got The Mummy, and the 2000s got National Treasure. I'm drawing a blank for the 2010s. Much like heist movies, whichever one you see first becomes your gold standard for the others of its genre.
I’d argue the later Jumanji films come from much the same mold. So those would cover the 2010’s.
If you enjoyed them. Which I for one did, but can appreciate they might lack the same universal appeal as Indy.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another thought has bubbled up from the foetid morass of my mind.
Like many Dakkanauts, I grew up in the Star Wars/Indy world. Whilst I predate some entries, they’ve functionally always been part of my life, and I grew up with them.
But, Dakkanauts of similar vintage will also have grown up with the Internet. And so those films were also part of early internet culture - particular once DVD came out, and we had access to director commentaries, deleted scenes, documentaries etc.
And so that era of films, and their fans, were the bedrock of early internet discourse and dare I say, media literacy, in those fans. The first time we really had the resources and sounding boards to dig into why we loved them.
I certainly enjoyed a lot of the films on that list.
In my opinion, Kingsman has a good claim to being a pretty iconic adventure film from that period. Its even derivative of other adventure properties from previous eras
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I’ve never understood why Temple of Doom is so poorly thought of. It’s probably my favourite of the bunch.
It's Willie and Short Round.
Yes. Short Round is supposed to be a Chinese street kid, but if he were, he'd have devoured the entire Indian buffet and asked for seconds. Kid acted like he was raised in Malibu.
As for Willie...Spielberg was hosting her on the casting couch and later married her, but for everyone else, she's grating and annoying.
Gitzbitah wrote: I think every decade gets a really good adventure film, and that's the one for the folks from the 80s. The 90s got The Mummy, and the 2000s got National Treasure. I'm drawing a blank for the 2010s. Much like heist movies, whichever one you see first becomes your gold standard for the others of its genre.
Would The Book of Eli fufull the conditions of great adventure film for the 2010s? I personally remember it fairly fondly.
There's definitely adventure films, but I can think of few in the mold of Indiana Jones since the 90s. That kind of purposefully pulpy fiction, made in the styles and manners of serial works from the Depression and post-war periods, just isn't something that gets made much anymore.
It’s specifically family friendly adventure for me that’s rare.
Many are made for kids. Adults get outright thrillers.
But “something for everyone” films are rarer. We could look to Journey to the Centre of the Earth starring Brendan Fraser. That is of course another adaptation of the Jules Verne classic. And indeed its sequel, Journey 2 with The Rock. Been ages since I saw them, but I think they might fit the bill.
It might also be because of some generational change.
Don't forget dads today aren't the same as they were 20-30 years ago. So the style of film that they consider family is different to then.
They are far more likely to day to consider a fantasy/sci-fi/comicbook film "family" friendly and such.
Furthermore it might also be that fewer families are going to the cinema and that its teens and young adult groups that are more dominant.
Thus it could just be that your traditional "family" film is changing its spots and also that its not as much in demand and thus what we are getting is different (and we might not think of them as family films) and there is just less of it.
I think the argument that if you mess it up you've a film for no one is the same no matter if you make a general family film or one for a niche. A niche film that's mucked up won't fit the niche and won't interest people from outside the niche to even bother considering the film.
So it still ends up a film for nobody
Also very much true. Tolerances have shifted as cinema continues to push and prod away at boundaries.
Now I’ll freely identify as a filthy minded Gore Hound. I like a bit of the Cinematic old Ultra V, and I’ll award even objectively awful movies extra points for inventive kills, even if the effects behind that kill are dodgy.
And yes. Cinema is getting more explicit in terms of violence as the years and decades creep by.
Indeed. To quote Sheila Brovlawski in South Park, The Movie?
Horrific, deplorable violence is OK, so long as nobody says any naughty words.
LordofHats wrote: There's definitely something to be said that quality practical effects and sets just age better than CGI.
Like, Jurassic Park comes to mind too. There is some bad CGI in a few places that hasn't aged well but also a lot of practical stuff that still looks great.
Alien the original to, and the first three Indiana Jones movies. The Thing. The more time goes on in the age of CGI (and I don't hate CGI) the more appreciation I have for the way the limits of physical work impact the way a movie is made and presented.
It feels more authentic even if it doesn't always look as fantastic.
I would like to mention something about practical effects. The remake/prequel to The Thing was originally supposed to use practical effects for the monsters, then they did make them. They made them, and shot all the scenes with them. Then in post-production they CGIed over them. I'm not opposed to CGI touchups or slight adjustments, but it was total replacement. I've seen the original footage, and it was somehow creepier, and should have been used.
cuda1179 wrote: I would like to mention something about practical effects. The remake/prequel to The Thing was originally supposed to use practical effects for the monsters, then they did make them. They made them, and shot all the scenes with them. Then in post-production they CGIed over them. I'm not opposed to CGI touchups or slight adjustments, but it was total replacement. I've seen the original footage, and it was somehow creepier, and should have been used.
This is a topic near and dear to my heart. CGI had a ton of potential and it has generally been a net negative. Adversity creates the conditions for greatness while ease breeds mediocrity.
Pre-CGI films had to be far more conscientious about what they chose to show and they also typically had one take to get it right. What that meant was that the visual effects were paired with higher-quality acting and storytelling, because one isn't going to waste a $1 million shot on a movie with lame dialogue.
By the way, this applied to all films of that era. "White Nights," which is a now a forgotten dance film, features the crash of an actual 747 - they had one plane, and one take. Why? To make the film feel real, and therefore compelling. It worked.
Roger Ebert once declared the air assault sequence from "Apocalypse Now" to be the best battle scene ever recorded on film. He's still correct. Real aircraft, real pyrotechnics and ONE TAKE. No post-production "let's just redo the whole thing."
Also - actors perform better on real sets than in front of green screens.
Heck the Red Dwarf intro scene from Red Dwarf has aged really well because it was all practical effects. In a series which is full of cheaper effects and a shoe-string-like budget feel the practical ship effects still stand strong today over cheap CGI
I think also whilst we can hyper detailed with CGI there's often a case of things feeling "floaty".
I noticed that the building explosions in the end of The Quick and the Dead were really impactful. Something about them really hit harder than a whole transformers film chock full of explosions.
I think its not just the nature of CGI VS reality but also the fact that CGI can let you do something that's insanely expensive but copy-paste it so often that you can become cheap with them. Things can lose impact.
old CGI also suffers from not being laid down on the same film stock at the same time as the rest, so as things age and deteriorate in defferent ways they fit together less and less well
you can see similar effects when a film got a major re-shoot after the first focus group showings with the new material blending in ok on the films release, but 10 years later it sticks out as very clearly different
Roger Ebert once declared the air assault sequence from "Apocalypse Now" to be the best battle scene ever recorded on film. He's still correct. Real aircraft, real pyrotechnics and ONE TAKE. No post-production "let's just redo the whole thing."
Also - actors perform better on real sets than in front of green screens.
Back when they filmed The Fellowship of the Ring, how the Balrog would look like on film was deliberately held back from the public and trailers, to make it suitably impressive and impactful when it made its entrance in the movie. In an interview before general release, some journalists tried to pry Sir Ian McKellen how it looked, to which he famously replied that it was small, yellow, round and on the tip of a broomstick, because they did it in CGI totally, and he never once saw anything of it before viewing the finished movie for himself. That's one of the things that stuck with me over the years - you need to be hell of a good actor to take the scene seriously when your monstrous opponent is a tennis ball they're waving around to give you an idea where the face of the CGI beast will eventually be...
I don’t mind CGI, but I do take exception to crap CGI.
Early stuff not ageing well doesn’t bother me, as, well, it’s early stuff.
Plus it leads to lazy hacks making bloody awful films. Think drivel like Sharknado. Those only exist because of CGI, and require little to no thought or effort.
Consider. You want to make a monster movie of some kind, and you only have practical effects to realise it. Puppetry, costumes, animatronics, stop motion, mattes etc are all at your disposal.
Now those aren’t without their limits. And as a film maker, you need to obey those limits, or like The Thing, come up with interesting ways to push those limits, and film around any cut corners.
This in turn makes you really think about your scene, and whether it’s really needs to be shot.
With CGI? You can just film an empty corridor, and animate whatever you want.
The limits and demands of practical effects are what make the likes of Alien so good. When you see the on-set photos of the starbeast, the suit is clearly heavy, cumbersome and stifling. And honestly? Not as good as you might think.
This was of course compensated for with strictly limited glimpses, and clever lightning. And the film works because of those choices and necessities.
If it was just done in CGI? It could well have ruined it. I’m not saying CGI = Hack Director by default, but it can remove tough choices in film making, and that can be to the detriment of a movie.
Use it where its impact is best seen. Think the final fight in Endgame, with the portals and gathering forces. Or the sweeping battle shots of Lord of The Rings.
The limits and demands of practical effects are what make the likes of Alien so good. When you see the on-set photos of the starbeast, the suit is clearly heavy, cumbersome and stifling. And honestly? Not as good as you might think.
This was of course compensated for with strictly limited glimpses, and clever lightning. And the film works because of those choices and necessities.
In the case of Alien and the wider Alien franchise, it is also done by extremely demanding physical work from stuntpeople that are often recruited from ballet dancers, gymnasts or other lines of work that require extreme mastery over the body. The original suit was piloted by one Bolaji Badejo, at the time exchange student, who was picked for his extreme body type after Ridley Scott randomly met him in a pub:
Roger Ebert once declared the air assault sequence from "Apocalypse Now" to be the best battle scene ever recorded on film. He's still correct. Real aircraft, real pyrotechnics and ONE TAKE. No post-production "let's just redo the whole thing."
Also - actors perform better on real sets than in front of green screens.
Back when they filmed The Fellowship of the Ring, how the Balrog would look like on film was deliberately held back from the public and trailers, to make it suitably impressive and impactful when it made its entrance in the movie. In an interview before general release, some journalists tried to pry Sir Ian McKellen how it looked, to which he famously replied that it was small, yellow, round and on the tip of a broomstick, because they did it in CGI totally, and he never once saw anything of it before viewing the finished movie for himself. That's one of the things that stuck with me over the years - you need to be hell of a good actor to take the scene seriously when your monstrous opponent is a tennis ball they're waving around to give you an idea where the face of the CGI beast will eventually be...
I loved the Harrison Ford interview before The Force Awakens where they bribed them for spoilers for the new Star Wars movie. Ford pockets the money, leans in, “I hear they’re making one.”
If it was just done in CGI? It could well have ruined it. I’m not saying CGI = Hack Director by default, but it can remove tough choices in film making, and that can be to the detriment of a movie.
I think it already has has ruined films. You can watch a whole city block getting vaporized and it's totally "meh."
That's because we've all seen it dozens of times. In fact, we keeps seeing more of it, because why not?
The point of "hiding the monster" was that they couldn't make anything nearly as scary or reality-breaking as what the audience could imagine. That made for better films.
Similarly, if you have only enough money for one really impressive scene, you absolutely have to build up to it.
Use it where its impact is best seen. Think the final fight in Endgame, with the portals and gathering forces. Or the sweeping battle shots of Lord of The Rings.
I'm one of the few who think Peter Jackson's movies came close to true greatness, but because he couldn't resist stupid dwarf jokes, second-guessing Tolkien, and using too much CGI when he didn't need it, he made them merely mediocre.
Remember: if the Rohirrim were only 20 minutes late, the Scrubbing Bubbles of Death would have killed all the orcs and Theoden would have had lunch in the White Tower without getting his armor dirty.
Clover field did it well I think for precisely the reasons mentioned above. Even though the monster was the size of a building, you spent most of the film just seeing glimpses. They did massive damage, but it always felt quite claustrophobic as the films focus was right down on just a few people that didn’t know what was going on.
The partial is yes, CGI has made “grand spectacle” easy to achieve. And in some circumstances, such grand spectacles being easy to include does seem to be the only reason they were put into the film. Ref Man of Steel with the casual destruction of bits of Metropolis.
But. Compare that to Pacific Rim and Kong Vs Godzilla.
Those two are Kaiju movies, so building destruction is just on the cards regardless. Indeed I argue watching Matchstick City get flattened again is such a compulsory part of Kaiju Movies, we’d feel cheated if we didn’t get it.
I mean, I’ll watch Kaiju slap each other silly anytime. But if they’re doing it in a featureless desert it just wouldn’t be the same.
And, when done well, CGI there is superior to model work and men in suits. Not dumping on the latter or being snobby. I’d double argue some of the fun of seeing Matchstick City getting wrecked is precisely because it’s Matchsticks.
But Kong Vs Godzilla nailed it for me. It helped sell the scale of the Kaiju. And there was enough thought to physics included for me to “ooof, I felt that” with every bone crunching impact.
So yes. Partial agreement. As ever, when done poorly, or because you’ve run out of ideas, mass destruction via CGI can be crap, and an unwelcome inclusion.
But done well, and for the right reasons? It can be glorious. It can also help with novel scenes. Ref Dr Strange with the dimension folding stuff.
CGI is a tool, and like most tools, it can both do new things old tools couldn't, and do things old tools could do, but can do them in a different way or at a different cost.
I think the best uses of CGI are for things that simply could not be done with practical effects. Kaiju fights, physically impossible aeiral moves, that sort of thing.
Next are things that could be done practically, but are way, way cheaper than with CGI. Crowd scenes, background explosions, that sort of stuff. Moves like Gettysburg could show thousands of soldiers only because they literally trucked in reenactors, and Waterloo used the Soviet Army.
Dead last are things that were done really well, and while expensive, weren't cost prohibitive. This is traditional practical effects and stunt work. Even streaming on a basic TV, you can tell in a New Hope when the shots switch from CGI to models, and the models look better (well, aside from some shots of the Death Star surface).
In a show like Deep Space Nine, which has hilariously bad CGI, without it we'd never see Odo shapeshift, and we'd probably never get a space battle beyond two ships flying past each other. The CGI is bad, but essential.
In a show like Deep Space Nine, which has hilariously bad CGI, without it we'd never see Odo shapeshift, and we'd probably never get a space battle beyond two ships flying past each other. The CGI is bad, but essential.
Fun fact about DS9 and CGI. The show started when practical effects were the norm, and lasted well into the CGI era. Literally EVERY shot you see of the station itself is practical effects with a miniature, with the sole exception of the last few seconds of the very last episode. Apparently they had the AGI model ready to go since early season 3.
I’d argue DS9 didn’t have poor CGI, just early TV CGI.
Yes it looks dodgy, but at the time it was pretty impressive. Certainly superior to many contemporary uses, all the more so for it being used sparingly, and arguably only when absolutely necessary.
I certainly enjoyed a lot of the films on that list.
In my opinion, Kingsman has a good claim to being a pretty iconic adventure film from that period. Its even derivative of other adventure properties from previous eras
I loved Kingsman, and The Golden Circle to a lesser extent because it was a bit too cheesy, because it had that perfect mix of action and comedy that just makes things fun. Just like Deadpool and the MCU stuff trying to cash in on Deadpools success.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The partial is yes, CGI has made “grand spectacle” easy to achieve. And in some circumstances, such grand spectacles being easy to include does seem to be the only reason they were put into the film. Ref Man of Steel with the casual destruction of bits of Metropolis.
But. Compare that to Pacific Rim and Kong Vs Godzilla.
Right, but that's a very genre-specific situation. You need something to show the scale of the critters otherwise the fight appears to be a CGI version of two dudes boxing in rubber suits (I can't recall which Godzilla movie where he actually does boxing fancy footwork - clearly they weren't taking themselves too seriously).
But it is very much overused today and its used in lazy ways. For example, CGI allows the use of period-appropriate vehicles and ships like never before. How many WW II movies had to use repainted modern tanks? Or the famous T-6 Texan with a meatball on the side pretending to be a Zero? Now that can be completely fixed, and yet I'm told that the Midway movie used the wrong model of the B-25.
I think the easy availability of CGI causes people to make botches like that, or - again to throw shade at Peter Jackson - film stuff that didn't need to be filmed, like the Tomb Raider sequence in Moria. If he had to build an actual set for that sort of thing, it wouldn't have happened and the movie would have been better as a result.
That's the larger point - constraints make for better filmmaking. George Lucas got better results when he was under tight constraints. Once he was playing with his own money, there was no one to tell him how awful some of his choices were.
Interesting that Spielberg has come out and said that "re-editing" films to add or remove things is a mistake and he regrets tinkering with "E.T." after the fact.
Oh, and since someone brought up DS9, I'll give a shout-out to the far superior Babylon 5 that also used CGI and it improved by leaps and bounds during the course of the show, rising to the point of making some really need effects, such as the reflection on Londo's face as he watches mass drivers destroy the Narn home world.
Because it was still expensive, acting and story were what made the show.
The partial is yes, CGI has made “grand spectacle” easy to achieve. And in some circumstances, such grand spectacles being easy to include does seem to be the only reason they were put into the film. Ref Man of Steel with the casual destruction of bits of Metropolis.
It also makes some scenes possible in the first place. For instance, in Independence Day, if you want a REAL chopper taking off of a real patch of grass in front of a "real" white house being blown to smithereens by the big bad alien threat. . . . well, some people are going to take issue with the white house getting blown to smithereens. That movie did, IMHO and IIRC make a few missteps with CGI in terms of using too much of it, but there are a few instances where it sort of makes the film really work
And I think that's part of that grey area of film making. As you said, having Kaiju crash through all the buildings is part of the "rules" of making a kaiju movie. No building destruction, and youre gonna have pissed off fans. In Independence day, it's similar (IMHO) in that you need to have spectacle to illustrate just how bad the big bad aliens are. Is the eye-laser trimming of Metropolis really necessary to that whole sequence though, or does the director owe a favor to his cousin who's a CGI worker??
- they had one plane, and one take. Why? To make the film feel real, and therefore compelling. It worked.
