There's also the not well known Indiana Jones-inspired Tom Selleck film, High Road to China. That should be preserved. Is it even on Laserdisc? Watched it SEVERAL years ago and found it fun. Vaguely remember it. Most assuredly I'll be seeing this in cinemas on Sunday or Tuesday. Can't wait for another adventure with Indiana Jones!
I'm sorry but for those of you who have seen it already, your reports don't seem all that great....it just seems like a ho hum movie....nothing really there to grab my attention or imagination to motivate me to get up and go see the thing.....I was hoping you guys would come back with shinning reviews and say, "don't even think get off your ass and go see the thing", but that doesn't seem to be the case.....yawn.
I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.
Nobody needs to 'take over'. ...why does it have to be an Indiana Jones spin off? Why must eveything be franchised to within an inch of it's life? Alien is a case in point - great one-off sci-fi horror film... and now it's just a cheap joke.
I'm sorry but for those of you who have seen it already, your reports don't seem all that great....it just seems like a ho hum movie....nothing really there to grab my attention or imagination to motivate me to get up and go see the thing.....I was hoping you guys would come back with shinning reviews and say, "don't even think get off your ass and go see the thing", but that doesn't seem to be the case.....yawn.
Nope. Its not that special; but of course it IS special because its Indiana Jones and he's back. And thats a thrill. But the movie itself could be better. Its not that it bad, oftentimes it is quite good, but its uneven. Sort of like how ROTS has some really great moments in it where you think "yeah, this is great!" but then theres those two or three "what? for real?" moments that take you out. But then the film has good acting and good dialog so maybe its more like Return of the Jedi. Yeah, thats what its like. The "wtf moments" are inappropriate silliness like Mutt swinging through the jungle like Tarzan and backflipping into a jeep, or when he's stradling two racing jeeps through the jungle spread-eagle while still doing a swordfight and hitting his balls on plants and bushes that they drive through, and then an ending that falls flat without satisfying all the needed character resolutions. I'd say it's a 3/5 rating. Honestly some people are saying its amazing but its not, they are just excited to see Indy on the screen, and I've read even more about people saying its awful and a piece of crap that defiles the franchise but thats totally untrue too, its just a fun adventure that entertains for 2 hours but is flawed and not a classic the way the other 3 were. If you didn't expect that then I think you had unrealistic expectations here.
Hey guys. Been away for a while. But that's enough introduction.
My girlfriend and I went to see it last night, and what we saw was really good. I just have no idea how it ends because just as Cate Blanchet's character is vaporized, the movie screwed up. They restarted it two more times, but the picture always cut off and went to a pink screen at that exact same moment. So they sent us away and told us we could use our stubs to come back for free.
I'm trying to gauge public opinion while avoiding any spoilers about the last however many minutes were left in the film. As for me, I liked it. I, too, was a bit dubious over the whole Tarzan thing. How many George Lucas movies can have Tarzan moments in them anyway? Now we have Jedi, Sith, and Crystal Skull with Tarzan bits in them. I also agree that the music wasn't too terribly impressive. The whole college town chase sounded just like the storming of Naboo at the end of Phantom Menace. But those "big damn ants" creeped me the hell out, and it's great to see Indy back in action. I didn't even think the whole alien plotline was bad, and that was what worried me the most going into it.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
Any one remember the 1982 Indian Jones inspired T.V. show "Tales of the Gold Monkey" staring Stephen Collins? That was a GREAT and fun show that never made it into a second season. I think they only had like 21 episodes. Wish that show would come out on DVD, but with such few episodes it's unlikely.
I'm sorry but for those of you who have seen it already, your reports don't seem all that great....it just seems like a ho hum movie....nothing really there to grab my attention or imagination to motivate me to get up and go see the thing.....I was hoping you guys would come back with shinning reviews and say, "don't even think get off your ass and go see the thing", but that doesn't seem to be the case.....yawn.
Here's my take: It's miles better than ANY of the prequels ever hoped to be. If you're worried about Indiana Jones being ruined by this film, don't be. I highly recommend it if you liked "Last Crusade" - they're both very fun movies, but can't live up to what came before (I won't touch "Temple of Doom" here).
And I'm in total agreement on the music - NO recognizable theme for the Commies, nor for the Skulls, or even Mutt - it seemed like a thrown-together mess of "Raiders" cues that Williams may potentially have supervised. Very disappointed in that regard.
I just saw Indy 4 tonight, and I'll second ChainsawAsh on the Williams music. It was pretty lacking.
zombie84 said:
...[I]ts just a fun adventure that entertains for 2 hours but is flawed and not a classic the way the other 3 were. If you didn't expect that then I think you had unrealistic expectations here.
Zombie, I track with you on a lot of your posts, but I gotta disagree here. Spielberg and Lucas just didn't pull this off. Now, I didn't walk out of the theater wanting my money back, but there was SO much that just wasn't up to Indy standards. The movie wasn't as kinetic as the others.
I had read that Spielberg was conciously going to try to emulate the directorial style he had back when he did the original movies and that his current director of photography was going to try to emulate the style of the original DP. The movie failed on both accounts.
Especially in the beginning of the movie, character scenes were sluggish with a lack of crisp cuts during dialogue. In the diner scene, it felt as if the production hadn't had time to go in for the tighter shots in the Indy/Mutt coversation. The character action/interaction also didn't seem to have that same flow/connection that Spielberg gave them in the originals.
The look of the film matched pretty closely with the vibrancy of the previous films in certain scenes, but in many scenes, especially those with large outdoor vistas, the movie looked "artificial", for lack of a better term. The colors were too clean, while the overall shots looked a bit washed-out.
I could've over-looked those things more, but the script didn't really come through either. It didn't go into enough scholarly detail to make the pursuit of the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a deserving Indy pursuit. It was that and the lack of character emotion coming through. Indy and his enemies weren't cast in high enough relief to make his adventure and ensuing plights a lot of fun to watch as the good guy overcomes the bad guys. And unlike the other movies, the characters were largely thrown together with very little in the way of character development.
To my point of disagreement with you, Zombie, if you can't expect a great deal from a legendary franchise helmed by legends like Spielberg, Lucas, and Harrison Ford coupled with Academy-Award-winning director of photography Janusz Kaminsky, who can you expect great things from? Much like the Star Wars prequels, I wonder if a more worthy installment couldn't have been made by fans of the originals.
Oh I agree, but after a 19 year absense, a 65 year old Harrison Ford, George "I lost my mind somewhere between 1977 and 1997" Lucas, and a script that was by all accounts rushed, realistically why should we expect greatness? Even were it made under ideal circumstances I wouldn't expect greatness because, much like the OT, the two Indy sequels were sort of lucky accidents, that normally doesn' t happen, and it happened twice (and even then, many people have issues with either Crusade or Temple of Doom). The original three were lightning in a bottle, that magic can never be re-captured, I would say even that Last Crusade was a very lucky sort of fluke. Crystal Skull is flawed but fun, the worst of the four but entertaining nonetheless, and I think thats sort of what we were realistically looking at from the outset. Not every film Spielberg makes is perfect, not every film Ford makes is perfect, and half of Lucas' filmography is crap; with the first three everyone beat the odds but this time they stumble--but only a bit. I'd say thats not as bad as wee've deluded ourselves to believe.
I don't even think either of the Indy sequels were all that good, or necessary, to be completely honest. All three films with "Indiana Jones" in the title are inferior popcorn flicks that tried to build a film around the established Jones character of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," instead of having a truly compelling story that the character could take part in. The way I look at it, there's "Raiders of the Lost Ark," then there's a trilogy of adventure films that happen to have Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones in them with a few ties to his adventures in "Raiders." And KOTCS lived up to my views on that matter.
The funny thing is Crystal Skull is the best of the summer blockbusters simply because it is Indiana Jones and stars Harrison Ford. it may be garbage in comparison to the originals, but is still worlds better than the hulk, iron man or any other hollywood dreck.
As for how it matches up against say the dark knight that is another story, still batman was not one of the movie heroes of my youth since the first film came out in 1989. Indiana Jones was, as well as the real star wars heroes of the oot. not hayden and co.
And Despite how i like Tim Burtons take on Batman i find it esoteric and bizarre, like a bad circus act. Maybe that is how he saw it because he was jaded and could not take heroes seriously and at face value. Batman Begins was the best i think because Batman Year One is simply the best characterization i have ever read of him in the comics.
While we are on the subject of Harrison Ford despite what the critics say his last good movie was K-19 the widowmaker. i cannot believe ford and neeson were not nominated for awards for that.
Sure in terms of Box office ford's last hit was Airforce One. Which was okay but no way near as good as Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger.
Hollywood Homicide was Mildy humorous and fun for maybe one viewing, despite the really bad rap murder plot.
Firewall was ok but a really lame excuse for a movie for Harrison Ford one of hollywoods best actors.
Random Hearts and what Lies Beneath , and Sabrina are also awful films.
What happened to good films like Witness, Presumed Innocent, The Fugitive, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger. Serious acting roles. Not Saturday Matinee Serial fare.
Ford had lots of good films for nearly two decades and started making shit films.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
And Despite how i like Tim Burtons take on Batman i find it esoteric and bizarre, like a bad circus act. Maybe that is how he saw it because he was jaded and could not take heroes seriously and at face value. Batman Begins was the best i think because Batman Year One is simply the best characterization i have ever read of him in the comics.
Batman Begins was good because Warner Brothers realized how bad they screwed up by letting Schumacher direct two Batman films and nearly kill the franchise. So with BB, they got two guys that love the comics and wanted to do it justice and gave them free reign. Batman Begins was essentially Batman without any studio involvement. It shows how good a movie can be when you don't let the execs touch it and leave it to people who are huge fans.
Schumacher was a fan of the TV series, which explains perfectly why the Batman movies became what they did under his control.F Scale score - 3.3333333333333335
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
The funny thing is Crystal Skull is the best of the summer blockbusters simply because it is Indiana Jones and stars Harrison Ford. it may be garbage in comparison to the originals, but is still worlds better than the hulk, iron man or any other hollywood dreck.
I'm afraid I'd have to disagree there. Iron Man gave me hope for the future of the film industry, that maybe movies would start getting better again, and then Indy 4 brought it back down. I can't help but wonder if I somehow saw a different movie from the rest of the posters in this thread, because I thought KOTCS was absolutely terrible.
i thought it was pretty disappointing. It had a few decent moments & was much better than the prequels in terms of acting, but there were just too many things that had no place in an IJ movie to me. Honestly, most of the things i hated were quite obviously Lucas's influence (as that other thread points out...)
I think that had he been banned from touching this thing once the basic storyline (which i actually didn't have a problem with) it actually would have been a pretty good movie.
Spoilers ahead....
The things that really ruined it for me were things like the stupid hot rod race at the beginning... what was that? it served no purpose but to look cool. ok, that happens sometimes in adventure films, but usually the "looking cool" sequences at least involve key characters or have SOME sort of relation to the story at large. This HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ELSE IN THE MOVIE. It was just there b/c Lucas likes hotrod racing.
The gophers.... Oh my gosh, what the heck?!? Once again, totally pointless & out of place in the context of the movie itself, & definately in the context of the series.
The way the gunpowder traveled in a perfectly level to the floor path that winded around the crates. This was just bizarre. The exact same thing could have been done in a much more beleiveable manner to the same (well, better) effect.
The very inconsistent magnetic attraction of said crate. It pulls some guys' guns, but not the guns on the backs of the guys carrying the crate??? This, again was not a bad idea, just executed poorly & sloppily.
THE MONKEY SWINGING MUTT! UGH!! that was pure Lucas garbage at its worst.
The monkeys themselves. Why did they need to be CGI? THEY DIDN'T. That little bit actually could have been ok if they used like monkeys for as much of the sequence as PETA would allow. & even the mutt swinging from the trees might've been ok if it were done with real stunt work, action set peices, etc like the stunts coreographed for the first three films.
Same goes for the sword fight. It was lame, but it didn't have to be. It could have been pretty cool & exciting if it wasn't blatantly blue screen CGI. Seriously, would the whole drug underneath the truck & crawling all over it, running from the boulder, fighting on the tank, fighting on the rope bridge, sequences have been half as exciting if they were'nt ACTUALLY happening, but filmed in a nice safe sound stage green screen & cgi'ed together?? NO. So why couldn't we get that kind of stuff in this one??
The wedding. Not terrible, just doesn't really fit the Jones character very well imo.
The crystal skull's power was never explained in a way that we really understood why anybody wanted it so bad. a small bit of dialogue could've easily fixed this & made the adventure resonate a little more.
I was a little disappointed that Marion & Indy's relationship felt flat & a bit forced. Not on the level of Anakin & Padme (thank goodness!!), but they just didn't have that great chemistry from Raiders. I wasn't surprised, as it's been a long time, but i was a little disappointed none the less.
The nuclear explosion fridge survival was just too over the top. I might have bought it if the fridge didn't go flying hundreds of feet through the air. Indy is escapist adventure & he survives things no man really should, but that one was a bit extreme even for him.
The death of Spalko. Felt very anticlimactic & uninspired. The commander guy's ant death was WAY cooler. Spalko was the big baddie & she should have had a gruesome, shocking death that we didn't see coming. Not the bland Raiders imitation we got.
CGI CGI CGI!!!!! ARRRGGHHH !!!! I remember Speilberg saying they were going to use lots of big action sets, on location shooting, stunt work, etc like the old films & that would have been GREAT. I don't hate CGI, i just hate its overuse & this was a major example of over use. It's also a perfect example for those of us who believe that CGI DOES make filmakers lazy & uncreative. Instead of doing the hard way of building big action sets, coordination dangerous stunts on location, & actually having to creativley solve the problems of bringing things that couldn't actually happen into realization on a live set, they just take the easy way out & use green screen & cgi. BLEH!!
All that being said, there were parts i liked. Harrison did a decent job over all. Not his strongest perfarmance by any means, but good enough.
To my surprise, i didn't hate Mutt. He made for a decent sidekick. Although, i absolutely do NOT want to see the series continue with him.
the cemetary exploration sequence was pretty awesome.
the parts of the jungle chase that weren't a blatant over the top cgi crapfest were pretty fun. the waterfall part wasn't bad either, though i think three times was a bit much. I guess they just had to out do TOD...
THE ANTS!! THAT was cool. got a little too cgi-ish in a couple of parts but over all they were great. The guy getting taken into the ant hill as they eat his face off was classic gruesome indy death scene.
The chase through the campus. Felt about on par with some of the chases in TLC. I enjoyed it.
The way Indy & Mutt initially get away from the KGB in the diner. Indy getting mutt to start a fight between the greasers & the jocks made me laugh. Classic Indy using his wits to get out of something on the fly.
The Akator sequences up until it turns into a CGI cartoon towards the end.
Over all, i thin there was a good film in there somewhere. Unfortunately, i think George's influence really killed it for me. Had they kept him away from it once the story was laid out & then had a gutsier editor who would stand his ground & cut out the crap like the gophers, it could have been pretty fun. As it is, the bad just outweighed the good too heavily for me to be able to really like it. Jones will stay just a trilogy for me....
The things that really ruined it for me were things like the stupid hot rod race at the beginning... what was that? it served no purpose but to look cool. ok, that happens sometimes in adventure films, but usually the "looking cool" sequences at least involve key characters or have SOME sort of relation to the story at large. This HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ELSE IN THE MOVIE. It was just there b/c Lucas likes hotrod racing.
I have to disagree with you on that since it was just the teaser for the opening credits and pretty much follows suit with the style done with the other Indy films. In Raiders, the opening credits was simply shots of shadowy people walking through the jungle, and it was only after the credits finished rolling that the story actually started. Same for Crusade: just shots of the desert and really wide shots of people on horseback. And then there's Temple of Doom that started out with a musical number from Anything Goes that had nothing to do with the plot. It was simply there because something had to go over the credits, and Spielberg always wanted to direct a big musical sequence.
My point is is that you're not supposed to expect a huge amount of story while the credits are rolling. Most movies do it this way. And this sequence is no more distracting than others. It sets up the time period and it also introduces the military men, who become agents of action as soon as the credits finish rolling and they enter the base.
But as for the rest of your arguments, I did agree with most of them. The seemingly random prevalence of the gophers especially left me scratching my head.
There is no lingerie in space…
C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.
It sounds like George's fascination with little fury creatures continues.....remember all the space rats and dino asses he put into SW IV SE? Fat bastard, why won't he just retire and leave the movie making to sane people?
I love everybody. Lets all smoke some reefer and chill. Hug and kisses for everybody.
There are a lot of scenes in this film that are homages. The hotrod scene for instance is a American Graffiti one, others are like aliens homages to e.t. and close encounters.
Tarzan because Edgar Rice Burroughs tale inspired elements of both star wars and Indiana Jones.
If your gonna get mad at a director for bad ripoff scenes or homages to other films you must hate the film transformers and Michael Bay. that movie references so many other movies you lose count, it is actually silly.
As for all the fake cgi George Dismantled and sold off the old physical effects unit.
Plus many coming out of university and trained in the field of special effects these days are all digital trained and not traditionally trained.
Many of the old ilm'ers arre either retired or work exclusively with computers sadly.
To do a big film like any of the original star wars trilogy films or indiana jones films would be almost impossible. their are nobody trained to do traditional matte painting on glass, cinematography on film, or model builders anymore. ALL the universitys teach cgi and green screen since that is where hollwood went in terms of filmaking.
Sure Lucas could have rehired all the old team who did those films but cgi is more cost effective.
You don't have to fly away to expensive location or pay extras just make it all in the computer.
If you compare the two different ilm special effects books. one is exclusively traditional effects which a few early computer graphics like star trek II genesis effect or star wars trench run. Then you get to the second published book by Mark Cotta Vaz which is called into the digital realm and its focus is exclusively cgi.
The first book is a beatiful work of art, the second book is complete garbage unless you like fake cgi. which needs to be updated every couple of years versus traditional effects from more than twenty years ago that hold up well and do not draw attention to themselves, they only enhance the story.
They don't take you out of the movie by loudly shouting "HEY LOOK AT ME I"M A SPECIAL EFFECT!!"
in george's own words "a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing" - From Star Wars to Jedi
Turns out the prequels were a special effect without a story, LOL. which proves the man changed from then to now.
I have no problem with them using cgi for what traditional techniques cannot accomplish. In terms of enhancing a story and blending the digital with the traditional so it is seamless.
As for the Indiana Jones films starting out with Indy on an unrelated adventure not relevent to the plot, as used in raiders and temple of doom was lifted from the bond movies.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
their are nobody trained to do traditional matte painting on glass, cinematography on film, or model builders anymore.
Uh, its actually the opposite. Its hard to find good DP's experienced with digital because nobody shoots digital, they all use film, nobody wants to touch digital because it looks like fucking shit.
But you are probably right about models though--you can still find plenty of modelmakers, just not at ILM, I mean Episode I had more practical models than all of the OT combined, and many FX houses still have a small model unit or have people available to do modelwork. If you want modelwork done, its not hard to find people. Glass matte painting, on the other hand, thats a dead art, you'd have to get people out of retirement or bring them back from wherever they went when the whole method imploded in the later 90's--they are still around though, its only the older guys (back then) that are done for good. Anyway, if Spielberg wanted to make the movie this way he easily could have.
what i meant was all the college kids who will eventually make their way into the industry shoot on video not film and cut on a computer, most likely a mac.
You can't deny that eventually all the old and grey cinematographers will retire.
Plus the u.s. according to mr lucas is singular in not adopting dlp and digitally shot HD video as the mainstream. He claims in an interview someplace that Europe already has, making remarks about france always being the center of avant garde and so on.
Accordingly the magazine american cinematographer's focus has been on all things digital at least for more than a decade.
Even cinefex focus is on films shot mostly on hidef video or cgi.
You see i am one of those people who like the old art form of cinematography and effects on film. as well as hand drawn cel animation. the thing is these things pretty much met their death knell in the mid 90's.
Even most of tv is now shot on digital videotape and not film. Shows like Sg-1 and Galactica for Example.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
College kids still shoot on film though, thats the "big thing" they aspire to do but sometimes can't because of costs, but even still about 50% of student films are on celluloid. American Cinematographer is definitely not centered around digital at all, its still centered around celluloid because the industry is centered around celluloid, especially on the big productions.
Modelwork and CG is another thing though, most FX students are CGI artists of some kind, though practical model work will still survive for a few more decades, it still gets passed down, but eventually I think it will wither away. The reason it will stick around for a while longer is because its not yet obsolete, its still an option in some scenarios.
what i meant was all the college kids who will eventually make their way into the industry shoot on video not film and cut on a computer, most likely a mac.
I go to Columbia College Chicago's film school, for film editing.
A couple weeks ago I finished my final film for Production I.
We shot on 16mm black & white reversal stock using an old Bolex hand-crank silent camera.
We edited using a razor blade, block, MovieScop, and tape. No computers involved at all.
Don't be so quick to shit on modern filmmaking, and don't talk about things you don't really know as if they're fact - film is VERY much alive, complete digital takeover is decades away, if ever at all.
I don't work in the industry and only know what the media and magazines report, unfortunetely.
I just assumed i guess that the big colleges all used cgi, and trained a lot of students to make videogames on the same computers the teach animation and film editing on.
So are you telling me i could drop by usc for instance and they would still have rows of movieolas or kem tables?
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
Hey, it's cool - digital filmmaking *is* getting bigger (unfortunately, in my opinion). Here at Columbia, currently only Production I and Image Design actually cut on film, but next semester Production I is moving to digital editing. We'll still shoot on film in all film production classes, but editing will be done on computers, which is how it's done 99% of the time in the industry anyway, which is, really, a shame. I enjoyed it while it lasted, and I hope someday in the future when I'm working in the industry, a director will bring me on as an editor and want to cut on film. Not likely, but one can dream.
Oh, and, a quick tidbit - Spielberg still cuts on film, not computers like everyone else, so even though KOTCS was stuffed full of CGI, it was still edited with celluloid workprints. Or so I've been told.
I work in the film industry as a camera assistent (basically, the camera technician), and while HD is definitely creeping up, film is still the center piece of the art. Many TV shows shoot on HD because its cheaper and easier for a series, and its okay because TV is allowed to look like crap, but on big TV series like Lost its all 35mm, and on feature films its pretty much always all 35mm. You still see the odd 16mm TV series actually. Feature films that shoot digitally are experiments in the minority--and most the time they are the decision of the director, NOT the DP, DP's are almost unanimously against digital. People like James Cameron and Lucas and Rodriguez and Singer are making the decisions to shoot digitally, not their DP's, and its creating false propaganda, because its not easier, its not really cheaper in big budget shows, and its pretty much unanimous that it looks like utter shit. Most the time it limits you artistically as well, for technical reasons. People like Cameron and Lucas go on about HD but thats not because they are particularly informed or are making rational choices--its a sort of fetish, they have this obsession with "pushing technology," and they are right when they say HD is the future, but few cinematographers want to or choose to shoot on digitally, and not just because they are stubborn old men afraid of change. HD has much potential but its a slow curve that must be delicately transitioned, not irrationally jumped into for love of technology the way Lucas has done, its created a lot of public misconceptions. But on the indie side of things, its amazing HD has totally transformed budgetary issues on low/no-budget independent stuff.
