• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: The InfoDroid Edit

--------------------------------

Edit:
Yo InfoDroid and the other people that think i kinda sux right now...i want to say this:
this my personal opinion, but cant you take criticism then i dont think you should edit anything at all..
if noone ever criticize the things you do you can never improve yourself and get any better...
i dont shit on your work...i give my opinion of it...easy as that...
--------------------------------
Ok, ive watched it now and this is what i think of this edit:

I love adigitalmans edit of this but you seem to ripped it apart in a weird, over-the-top way,
when i read your Cutted-list i see in my head:
Jaws without a shark, Gremlins without a Gremlin or back to the future without Dr. Emmett Brown..
And after i watched this fanedit a while that becomes the truth....

Im sorry, but if you take away and/or tone down Short Round's overacting and classics like "Hold on to your potatoes!"
and then take away the eating-weird-bugs and eyeball soup, give Wilhelmina 'Willie' Scott much less space and make her less whiney
And THEN cut away most of the indy-getting-possesed scenes this movie dies...

For me You try to delete all the things we love about Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom dude, and thats just weird...im sorry, im a big fan of fanedited movies but edits like this doesnt work for me.......at all...and once again i say:
this my personal opinion....and i cant see why you people got so mad over it...afterall ThrowgnCpr criticized you 2

And some people probably loved this edit..but i dont...

Great effort though....
 
InfoDroid said:
Oh God...

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I feel bad now that you've changed it so quickly. I was only giving you a ribbing...I hope you took it that way. :)
 
No, you were absolutely right, Antman! Haha... It was just the font.

But I DO hate you for saying it. ;)
 
My work has never been compared to a "terrible sphincter malfunction" before. I'll consider including that in the tagline. ;)

Also, does anyone know if I'm supposed to be responding to these reviews, providing answers or defending my choices? Or does that come across as bad fanedit etiquette in this community? :lol: Just wondering.
 
hehe, infodroid, good question.
There is no easy answer to that. Of course you can reply to anything and you of course can do it (almost) any way you find appropriate, but it will be read by others as well, who might think you want to just defend yourself, or are not wanting to see the truth, or promote a bad thing out of egomania, etc, etc.
Personally I answer to reviews, always. I try to take them seriously and I also try to understand the opinion of the one who wrote it.
What I try to avoid is explain my ideas to someone, who did not get my vision, because that never works. A movie is either entertaining and in this self explanatory, or it isn't. If they don't like it, it's ok. If others do, then it can't be that bad.
I always enjoy it, when there are people on both sides.
Technical discussions are of course always ok. Any kidn of rudeness stops me from discussing it with the person, who is rude.
 
I agree with boon. These reviews are here to give others an idea of what they thought of the movie, and potentially help the editor with any technical issues for future improvement.

With your edit, there were very few technical flaws. I enjoyed the movie a lot. I didnt necessarily agree with every single cut choice, but hey this is YOUR edit. AND it was still enjoyable. But this is my personal opinion. Others may think differently. I think RealBManSweden's comments were way over the top. I would avoid getting defensive about why you chose to cut this or that. It is clearly in your information at the top of this thread.

So dont worry about defending your edit choices here. You can feel free to explain any technical issues you had (not really applicable to you here though) or why something didnt turn out right.

Not everyone will see a film or an edit the way you do, so dont worry about that. I think you have a good edit here, and I believe others will concur.
 
Thanks, Boon and Throw. That's good advice.

I just don't want to come across as one of those punks on American Idol who talks back to the judges when they get a bad review. :grin: I always hate those guys. More often than not, they actually suck and just don't realize it or won't admit it. I don't wanna be that guy.

Since this is my first (released) fanedit and I'm in the land of experts here, I think I'll wait for a few more reviews to come in to get more of a general consensus and try to gauge whether this whole editing thing is really for me...or not.

But I probably should "disclaim" up front that if you're a huge fan of the original who loves monkey brains, has all of Short Round's dialogue memorized, and can't get enough of the heart-ripping sacrifice scene, then this is not the version you should be watching. If, however, you're like me, and haven't seen it for a while because you feel all of those things detracted from an otherwise good Indy movie, then give it a spin.

I appreciate the fact that a lot of people grew up with this movie since the early 80's, and editing it to them feels almost as unholy as editing A New Hope. But I wasn't one of those kids. In fact, Temple of Doom was the one I "wasn't allowed to watch" growing up. I discovered it later on VHS in the late 90's and although I enjoyed it, there were many things, obviously, I felt could be better. So, that's the viewpoint I was attacking it from. That coupled with the fact that I've read many, many articles over the years about Temple of Doom being the red-headed stepchild of the Indy Trilogy, so I know there's a large contingent of people out there that share the same view.

Like I said, if you think Spielberg's original is the cat's pajamas, then I'd recommend ADM's version, because I think his edits always show great respect to the generation that grew up with films like this. But if you lean more toward my viewpoint, give it a try.

--ID
 
ThrowgnCpr said:
I think RealBManSweden's comments were way over the top. I would avoid getting defensive about why you chose to cut this or that. It is clearly in your information at the top of this thread.

So dont worry about defending your edit choices here. You can feel free to explain any technical issues you had (not really applicable to you here though) or why something didnt turn out right.

Not everyone will see a film or an edit the way you do, so dont worry about that. I think you have a good edit here, and I believe others will concur.
Click to expand...

as i said InfoDroid and you other people, i gave you my opinion and my feeling that i got after i watched this edit...
i dont mean you suck in anyway but this is what i think of it.....
 
Well, I respect your opinion, Realbmansweden. I'm sorry you didn't have a better experience. Thanks though, for taking the time to give it a chance and for letting me know what you thought of it! :)

Throwgncpr, you mentioned in your comments that the scene where we transition back to "Shanghai, the previous day" was a little uncomfortable for you...could you go into more detail on this? The reason it worries me is that my Star Wars: Reborn project is entirely dependent on the concept of moving back and forth through time in a very similar way. Flashbacks, flashforwards and so forth. So, if you could just describe what you didn't like about it, (was it the sound? was it the fade? maybe you just weren't expecting it?) it might be extremely helpful to me. :)
 
InfoDroid said:
Well, I respect your opinion, Realbmansweden. I'm sorry you didn't have a better experience. Thanks though, for taking the time to give it a chance and for letting me know what you thought of it! :)
Click to expand...


dudes, Please read the added stuff to my first post of this so i get a change to explain myself....
i dont think InfoDroids´s work with this movie suck in any way, its perfect, but as i said: i dont like the way this movie is edited...
 
don't worry, Rbms. It is ok to state that you did not like a fanedit. It has to be. And thank you for getting into more detail about what did not work that well for you. This is always helpful, both for the faneditor and the other people, who want to check out what others thought before just downloading out of the blue. Criticism is VERY important, be it positive or negative. It is very appreciated, especially when announced constructively. And this is what you did.

It is always a good thing to state in the end that you are not writing a generalized opinion but your own. i have to do this all the time as well, because it sometimes seems, people read my comments as the opinion of this website, which is not true. Fanedit.org is neutral - but I am just audience like everybody else.

I am sure there are no hard feelings here anyway, so let's keep on discussing this fanedit. It's a great time for Indiana Jones fanedits. :)
 
Wow, some savage comments there.
I started to watch this last night and then got called away. I only saw about 15 minutes.
My early impressions (for those wanting a gauge, I saw this in theaters when it came out):

Opening fade from Paramount logo is jarringly poor (sorry, I just hated it). In the other Indy films I always thought "Oh, cool." In this case it seems too fast and the statue brightening from a silhouette looks strange.

I didn't think the previous day cut was done so poorly at all. I might rephrase the title and bring it in closer to the cut, but other than that it's fine.

Willie is MUCH less stooopid. I still can't decide if the problem with Willie is how the part was written or if she just can't act.

Edits are clean and on the whole I'm liking it better than I anticipated. I'll say more when I've seen the rest.

One question: why did you decide to make a flashback out of the opening? The first and third Indy movies are linear in construction, so I assume you had a specific reason for cutting it this way.
 
My guess would be it's because the trip to Pankot Palace is the first scene in the movie which flows similarly to the opening scenes of the other films, and seeing as that is the kind of opening he wanted...



How close am I, Info?
 
Hmmm, watching further, although I found the flashback to not be so jarring, the cut from the jungle to evening at the palace was more so.

All of a sudden you have to fill in missing time that you've already seen at the beginning of the film. (Shudder)

No, I'm afraid I don't care much for this, but that's pretty much based on my tastes rather than any technical or continuity failings.
 
Very close, Antman.

To answer your question DoctorM, The actual story of the Temple of Doom doesn't truly begin until that point. Everything that comes before it is prologue. It's hard to deny that the entire scene plays as if it was the beginning and has a feeling eerily similar to the beginning of Raiders, and by all rights, that's where the film originally should have started. But, it's also important to go back and find out how those three characters ended up there. The great thing about movies is that you're able to cut back and forth through any given point in time.

The other reason would be that we're all constrained by the amount of source material we have to work with. Based on what was available, that was the scene I wanted to start with. I wouldn't agree that Last Crusade has a perfectly linear opening. It doesn't start out in the future, but it does start in the distant past, then it cuts to 1938. So, I feel, that set a precedent to allow me to play with the timeline slightly.

As far as the first shot/paramount logo... That was an improvisation on my part. Starting the film at that scene created a problem for me because there's not one shot of a mountain in Temple of Doom. And since Temple of Doom originally opened with the shot of the mountain engraved on the gong, I wanted to do something slightly different than just another mountain shot. So, I was going through nature documentaries looking for candidates, and came across that one. When I lined it up, it had the exact same position that the Paramount mountain had, and it was the only one that just seemed to work. I wasn't crazy about how it faded from the silhouette, but the sculpture is obviously of Eastern origin and fits the setting nicely. I thought it was an interesting take on it and for me it works. I'm much more satisfied with it than I would've been had I chosen to ignore the established Paramount logo tradition, or had simply thrown a stock mountain shot in there. Granted, I agree with you that it's too fast, but sometimes you've got to go with what you've got.
 
Are you saying the original shot contained a silhouette that brightened to the full image?
If you didn't care for that, why didn't you use a still of the fully visible statue?
 
I gotta say... as a fan of this film for all the reasons you cut... I'm not entirely sure I'd like this edit... but, I can see the reason you did it...

At the same time, I think you loose a GREAT deal of what made this film so different... It was meant to show the dichotomy between sillyness and darkness... and to those extremes, it went... but you're cutting down almost all the juvenile aspects of the film... I just think it's a bit of a loss...
 
Well.....I guess the verdict is officially in. My first venture bombed. :-(

The general consensus seems to be that it was technically good, but it wasn't anything anyone really wanted to see done to Temple of Doom.

Ah well, should I even bother releasing "Last Crusade"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom