Lortzmann
Ehemaliges Mitglied
Beiträge: 418
Dabei seit: 23.04.2013
Wohnort: -
|
Betreff: Warum die weltweite Ablehnung gegen Teil 4?
Hallo! Wie die meisten Kinogänger war ich als längjähriger Indiana Jones-Fan und Sammler mehr als nur entäuscht von "Skull". Der Film gilt zurecht als unwürdige Fortsetzung. Die Macher von "South Park" haben es damals auf den Punkt gebracht. Unser guter Freund wurde vergewaltigt und wir haben nur zugesehen und nichts gemacht. Eine grandiose Folge...
Mittlerweile haben die Macher die Ablehung akzeptiert. Shia hat das als erster getan... Ford durch die Blume auch... und Spielberg auch. Aber wie kam zu diesem gigantischen Reinfall? Nun, die Macher haben sich nicht an ihre eigenen Regeln gehalten. Aber lest selbst:
1)
Producer Frank Marshall stated that the film would be shot the same way as the previous three - with stunt men, and using CGI only when necessary.
2)
Screenwriter David Koepp looked at all the film's previous drafts, and kept what he felt were good ideas. He tried not to make his work a "fan script," avoiding any trivial references to the previous films. He noted that the story would have to acknowledge Ford/Jones's age, and also aimed for the mix of comedy and adventure from the first film, trying to make it less dark than the second film and yet less comic than the third film.
3)
Ford: "My ambition in action is to have the audience look straight in my face and not the back of a stuntman's head. I hope to continue that no matter how old I get."
4)
"The first thing Steven said was he didn't want this look like a slick action-adventure movie with digital backgrounds and effects or stunts that you coludn't do in reality," Kennedy says. "Part of an Indiana Jones story is that you want to believe that Indy - and consequently Harrison Ford - is doing his own stunts..."
5)
"[...] the style is the same, the humor is the same, the characters are the same - everything is the same and we've been able to build on it. The relationships are stronger and even more fun than they were in the first one. But we're careful not to try and top ourselves - which I think is the mistake that many filmmakers make when they do sequels. We are focused on the characters, we are focused on the plot, and trying to tell a really great story." Lucas, Complete Making of Indiana Jones, Page 266
6)
GL is talking about the great REAL Stunts in the "Bourne"-Movies and then...
"... but when you get to the next level, whether it's Tomb Raider or the Die Hard series, where you've got one guy with one pistol up against 50 guys with machine guns, or he jumps in a jet and starts chasing down a freeway, you say, I'm not sure I can really buy this. Mission Impossible's like that. They do things where you could not survive in the real world. In Indiana Jones, we stay just this side of it."
7)
Marschall: There’s been so many films that have tried to copy the Indiana Jones franchise and most of them have failed, except for the Bourne films. I think the reason people like Bourne is that he’s a credible, believable hero, much like Indiana Jones. Jason Bourne does some amazing things but that’s because he’s been so well trained in martial arts and different forms of killing so it’s not totally unbelievable, like the Mission Impossible films.
We looked at the Bourne films, and we thought that maybe Indiana Jones could do some more dangerous things in this film, and still have that seem BELIEVEABLE. The key is you have to believe that Indiana Jones can do the things he does and not say ‘There’s no way he could’ve survived that situation!’, so you walk a fine line. What sets the Indiana Jones films apart is that you can’t just call them action movies. They’re supernatural mysteries with elements of action and comedy and, in this film, some science fiction.
GL
"I think Tom Cruise proved that people are getting bored with that kind of stuff," Lucas said when asked about over the top action sequences. "What they want to see is something different. And 'Indiana Jones,' if nothing else, is always different.
9)
Marschall about "Indy I - III":
"One of the things I enjoy about these movies is that they do recall the old cliffhanger serials of the thirties and forties," said Marshall. "We didn't have computer effects in those days, we couldn’t easily erase things and I think one of the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers lazy. You become more creative when you have to hide ramps with a tree rather than erase it later as you can today."
"In Raiders, that's a real ball rolling behind him so Harrison really is in some danger running in front of that; these are real situations and that adds to the excitement and the creative energy on the set."
Marschall about a part 4 in 2003
We're not done with the script on Indy 4 but I think we're going to try and rely, like the first two movies, on realism and not try to do too many things with the computer.
Marshall:
When you start getting into computers you get fantastical situations like in The Matrix or movies like that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-Movie feel. We want to make Indy 4 like we made the first three."
10)
GL: "And, yeah, we didn’t make it bigger and better, we made it EXACTLY the same. So if you loved the other ones, you’ll love this one. But if you expect to have F-14s flying under freeways — that isn’t there. It’s just another period adventure movie with this wacky archaeologist.”
11)
George Lucas / Empire Magazine
"A lot of people think Indiana Jones is so outrageous, it is believable. That was the thing what we did that James Bond didn't do - especially in that middle period where they weren't very interesting"
12)
GL: "We wanted to make the best Indiana Jones film that we could. We decided that we were going to do it very realistically, with real stunts and with a real story about real people, and what happend after that is the adventure just follows on from the characters."
13)
HF: "Every moment on screen needed to be invested with real emotion. You need to be able to connect with the audience with that emotion. That's why all of us were happy to do the stunts and the action sequences oldschool. I had to be able do it myself or the stuntman had to be able to arrange for me to do it myself. It allows the audience to connect with the physics of the event and feel as if it is not just make believe."
14)
"I think we all agreed that Indiana Jones had to be vulnerable. He had to be a real person. Part of him had to be the audience saying, 'I could be that guy'
Dieser Beitrag wurde 1
mal editiert, das letzte Mal am 14.05.2013, 14:03 von Lortzmann. 
|
Suche
Team
Registrieren
Login
Datenschutzerklärung
Druckoptimierte Version