logo Sign In

Indiana Jones IV — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
Originally posted by: Han Solo VS Indiana Jones
Indiana Jones 4 is going to suck, just like the Star Wars prequels.


Thanks for that insight Schwami - can I borrow that crystal ball for a sec?


Thats all we ever get from HSvsIJ negativity sure you used to get it from me but not much anymore.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
Apart from 1941, the man does not direct shit.


One word: Hook.


I thought Hook was enjoyable. Certainly better than the sequels that Disney has been churning out recently.

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.

Author
Time
Post link
Ever heard of a Spielberg film called Duel? Personally I loved it, but plenty of people have described that film as shit. Yes, even worse than Hook. Anybody else seen Duel?

I think by making a fourth Indy movie they are killing the balance. The three movies are great, the second one could be better, but it is enjoyable enough. It is weird to think it will no longer be a trilogy, since that is what it has been for so long. Also Ford it looking a little old. My general reflex about the idea of a fourth Indiana Jones is "NO!" but I think it will be one worth hitting the cinema for. If it sucks just don't add it to your collection. As long as the other three are still around...

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Ever heard of a Spielberg film called Duel? Personally I loved it, but plenty of people have described that film as shit. Yes, even worse than Hook. Anybody else seen Duel?

I think by making a fourth Indy movie they are killing the balance. The three movies are great, the second one could be better, but it is enjoyable enough. It is weird to think it will no longer be a trilogy, since that is what it has been for so long. Also Ford it looking a little old. My general reflex about the idea of a fourth Indiana Jones is "NO!" but I think it will be one worth hitting the cinema for. If it sucks just don't add it to your collection. As long as the other three are still around...


Duel is awesome. It's Jaws with a truck - what's not to love? Plus, for a directorial debut, and a made-for-TV film to boot, it's an amazing piece of work.

I think we need to re-think the paradigm of trilogies. Qaudrologies are the new Trilogies, lol. There's a big difference between a trilogy, and a film series that has 3 films in it. Lord Of The Rings - definately a trilogy. Star Wars OT - definately a trilogy. The story is contingent upon the others, and things that are established in the first one reach their conclusion and resolution in the third.

Indiana Jones, Die Hard, Rambo etc...are series that have 3 films (currently) in them. Nothing happens in 'Raiders' that reaches resolution in 'Last Crusade.' They are three-act films in and of themselves, but there is nothing established in the first film that needs to be resolved in the third. Indiana Jones has a character arc in each movie, but not one in the overall series, like say, Luke Skywalker or Frodo.

If a character is enjoyable, I see no reason that provided the quality remains high, that a series can't have multiple installments. Witness James Bond - sure he's had some crummy films in the series, but 'Casino Royale' is invigorating and introducing the character to a whole new generation.

Author
Time
Post link
I love Duel, too many people find it too boring to sit through, which is sad and unfortunate. Honestly by the time you get to the end ever second was worth it. Duel isn't a film, it is an experience

Good point about trilogies. Seriously I would have loved for there to have been a good number of Indiana Jones movies. I am sorry they stopped at three, I would have been in line at the cinema for as many Indy movies as they would be willing to throw at us. But that isn't what happened. They made three and for as long as I can remember there has been a rumor of a fourth. I guess we all kind of gave up on it, then we saw TPM and decided maybe it is best a fourth Indy never happened. I guess the PT just has us all concerned about what this may end up being. Maybe we shouldn't be using the PT as our standard. There is no reason Indy 4 can't be a good movie. While I don't agree that ol' Steven knows no wrong when it comes to movies, I have not personally been a fan of his recent stuff, there is no reason Indy 4 automatically has to suck or even to be the blacksheep of the Indy movies. Thanks Cassidy, you got me looking on the bright side of this.

*C3PX walks away smiling while Monty Python sings Always Look on the Bright Side of Life in the background*

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
I love Duel, too many people find it too boring to sit through, which is sad and unfortunate. Honestly by the time you get to the end ever second was worth it. Duel isn't a film, it is an experience

Good point about trilogies. Seriously I would have loved for there to have been a good number of Indiana Jones movies. I am sorry they stopped at three, I would have been in line at the cinema for as many Indy movies as they would be willing to throw at us. But that isn't what happened. They made three and for as long as I can remember there has been a rumor of a fourth. I guess we all kind of gave up on it, then we saw TPM and decided maybe it is best a fourth Indy never happened. I guess the PT just has us all concerned about what this may end up being. Maybe we shouldn't be using the PT as our standard. There is no reason Indy 4 can't be a good movie. While I don't agree that ol' Steven knows no wrong when it comes to movies, I have not personally been a fan of his recent stuff, there is no reason Indy 4 automatically has to suck or even to be the blacksheep of the Indy movies. Thanks Cassidy, you got me looking on the bright side of this.

*C3PX walks away smiling while Monty Python sings Always Look on the Bright Side of Life in the background*


LOL - no problem, man.

Your point is well taken about being aprehensive about the film based on the Prequels. The fan base for Star Wars is pretty much the same fan base for Indiana Jones, so cynicism is to be expected as we've become a pretty disilluisioned lot, but every major participant with the exception of Douglas Slocombe (Deholm Elliot, Pat Roach, Lawrence Kasdan...) is back for Indy IV, so I have no reason to believe that it will be shit until I see it.

Author
Time
Post link
I'm cautiosly optimistic about this one. I don't think it can be as good as the others, but I think it can still be an entertaining and fun movie. Steven Spielberg and Harrison Ford returning seal the deal in my book. And George Lucas may be a hack, but Spielberg isn't. Lucas is just a producer after all, so I don't think he'll be much of a problem. And even though the prequels sucked hard, thet's no indication this will. Like I said, Lucas is only a producer, and plus, this is a sequel, not a prequel. Prequels almost always suck, no matter what series, mostly because we know what will happen eventually and everything feels cheesy because of it. Sequels, however, let characters evolve and branch off into new territory.

I hope there's little to no CGI, and I think there probably won't be much. Spielberg probably wants to make this like the old ones, so CGI will only be used once in a while, as it should. Lucas might throw a fit at not having Jar Jar in, but he's probably in the minority in the crew of this film.
Watch DarthEvil's Who Framed Darth Vader? video on YouTube!

You can also access the entire Horriffic Violence Theater Series from my Channel Page.
Author
Time
Post link
George Lucas is on the record as saying that Spielberg is shooting on film, and if Kahn wants to edit it on a Movieola, so be it. Like I said, I think skepticism is warranted, but we can't place too much stock in Lucas' involvement creatively.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
I thought Hook was enjoyable.


I agree. The movie may have some odd parts, but it's very fun.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
quote"Maybe in a star-powered crossover, Indiana Jones and Robert Langdon can debate about whether or not the Holy Grail really was a cup. "

never compare the great doctor jones to the hackwork of dan brown. They use davinci code in college writing courses as an example of poor writing. imho his books have some of the worst diction i have ever seen and way too many factual inaccuries being brought across as facts, his knowledge of history is muddled as well. Not a very good biblical scholar spent too much time inventing things and ripping off king arthur tales.

the way the character's talk, there conversation style is extremely annoying and off putting in angels and demons.

the hack work only sold because of it's controversial themes, mass marketability does not a good book or author make. I have seen some stuff on the new york times bestsellers list that was crap, should be used as toilet paper to wipe one's ass.

the movie of davinci code is also laughable is is one of the single worst movies ever made in recent years and was a black mark on both tom hanks and ron howard's careers. To follow up a great film like cinderella man with such trite drivel is beyond comprehension.

“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.

Author
Time
Post link
Calling Dr. Giggles ... funny-bone transplant needed in O.R. 5.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Dude, is every author a hack in your opinion? Just thought it was funny since you called Rowling a hack not too long ago. I must agree that Da Vinci Code was poorly written, and it would not surprise me if is often given as an example of a poorly written novel in college courses. However Angels and Demons was much better written. Dan does take a lot of liberties with fact, which some would say take a lot of credibility away from his work, but then again I would not go calling H. G. Wells a hack just because Martians never really invaded earth. As long as Dan Brown isn't claiming to be an expert in the field of history (he isn't is he?) and sticks to writing fiction I don't have a problem with him.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Exactly. The whole "everything in this book is fact"....or something to that effect...that he has in the beginning of the book is to put you in the mood. I loved reading the book and reading things I just knew were not true but in the world of the novel, having these things as fact makes everything around them that's happening much more interesting. It's the media and religious groups that have taken it too seriously and delved to far into something that no one can ever really know at this time. I've never seen a religious group get all pissed off over say....the ending on Mission to Mars (which basically disproves all religions). Or any alien movie for that fact. Just having aliens in a movie goes against the history of earth taught by most religions, or at the very least conficts pretty greatly with it. Even Jurassic Park.

Anyways, that was so off topic I feel bad for typing it all....sorry.

I think Indy 4 will be, at the very least, fun. I get some really cool thoughts running through my head when I think about it being shot in that sort de-saturated, washed out, hand-held camera type of way...like Children of Men or War of the Worlds. But that's just me and my wish that some movies where shot twice and in two styles....just to see what it'd be like.

Hey look, a bear!

Author
Time
Post link
Kuminsky and his washed-out look would be infinitely better than that crappy digital camera GL used to film the prequels.
40,000 million notches away
Author
Time
Post link
Exactly. The whole "everything in this book is fact"....or something to that effect...that he has in the beginning of the book is to put you in the mood. I loved reading the book and reading things I just knew were not true but in the world of the novel, having these things as fact makes everything around them that's happening much more interesting.


Michael Crichton does this in his book as well. For instance, in "Eaters of the Dead/ The 13th Warrior" the introduction says that the book was an exact translation of a recently-found manuscript of a viking fellow. Or in Jurassic Park's intro, it talks about the corporation InGen as if it actually existed. Although I will say, they were a bit more tongue-in-cheek than Dan Brown's intro, where he pretty much says "The following book is based on fact." Brown needs to learn that subtlety is a good thing.

If so many other books have done this in the past, I wonder why "Da Vinci Code" got so many people so worked up? Is it because it's about Jesus?

I personally thought the "Da Vinci Code" movie sucked, though.

http://i.imgur.com/7N84TM8.jpg

Author
Time
Post link
They're doing this Indy movie in 2007. One big question I have about the FX is...

Are they going CGI or pyrotechnics/stop-motion? Personally, I would be really happy if no CGI was used whatsoever. Look at Last Crusade. 1989. The shots of the guy who "chose poorly" look just as fake as the Nazis' demise at the end of Raiders. But everyone loved it- it's part of the charm.

They have to keep that old-school, innocent, "charm" factor of older movies, IMHO.


Indy: I'm going to CONTINUE to do things the way I think they should be DONE! *smooch*
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, that scene does look fake, but you are right, for some reason it is a lot more forgivable than old CG (Like the 1997 Jabba, always reminds me of Pete's Dragon and Song of the South). What is even more unforgivable is the lack of models used in film making. For a while there every car crash was painfully CG. I would always laugh when people would say, "Nah, that looks pretty good, you can barely even tell it is computer generated." The whole point is not to be able to tell at all and the fact that you can even tell at all that it is CG shows it is inferior to models.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Interesting points, above.

Here's what has changed since the original 3 Indy flicks.

The Bad - LFL sold off it's model making division.
- Longtime sound designer Ben Burtt left LFL. No word if he's returning.
- Traditional matte painting artists unemployed, replaced by CG matte painters.
- I gurantee Lucas will push to use some of the crew members from the Prequels, like the "set" designers
and costumers. Considering this will be the first Indy film not shot on UK sound stages, there is a good chance
all new crewmembers in smaller roles will not be the same as the first 3...kind've sucks.

In short, I very much doubt that traditional effects will be used, replaced by CGI. But the sky isn't quite falling yet, Chicken Little!

The Good- Spielberg will not settle for anything short of perfection on this. Remember, his collaboration with ILM brought us
the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park which at the time were totally believable.
- The CGI won't be as heavy as the Prequels, and I very much doubt Spielberg will shoot in front of all of that greenscreen.

I short, although things have changed, Spielberg is the Director and he relies on the story to tell the CGI, whereas Lucas relies on the CGI to tell the story. It will probably look and feel different, but I'm sure they will do as best as possible to maintain the look of the first three. As a side note and interesting tidbit, the filmmakers have apparently approaced some costume designers to replicate Indy's look from Raiders which had subtle costume differences from the other two. This could lead down the road to capturing the look and feel of Raiders which is totally cool by me!
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
Remember, his collaboration with ILM brought us the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park which at the time were totally believable.



It is my belief that films should not be made for "at the time" but that they should be able to stand the test of time and be viewable for generations to come. "At the time" does not cut it. Models look real for all times (with some exceptions of course). However I still enjoy Jurassic Park and find the CG very fitting in that film. Jurassic Park used just the correct amount of CG, and was very cautious with it. After all it was one of the pioneers of CG film making. The texture of the dinosaurs look fantastic. I think that movie is a perfect example of how to use CG. Take a look and the 1997 incarnation of "A New Hope" the Jawa's Ronto (sp?) seems like it should be on par with Jurassic's dinosaurs, but instead it is very cartoony and even blurry. Cassidy, what you said it very true about Lucas relying on CG to tell the story, and Spielberg using story to to work the CG. You have to wonder what a great film George would have come up with had he been the one to direct Jurassic Park. My personal favorite scene would have been when Dr. Grant meets a genetically engineered talking dinosaur who shows him around the island, unfortunately for poor Dr. Grant, this talking dinosaur is very clumsy and he wishes he had never met him.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Agreed, C3PX on all accounts.

In terms of a films' effects withstanding the tests of time, I think it's dangerous to think that a film from, say 1933, or even 1977 should hold up to a film from 2007.

I think that the way you experience a film changes over time. For example, audiences were completely sold on the reality of King Kong in 1933. In 2007, I can watch the film and appreciate it's cultural and historical significance. It doesn't take me out of the reality of the film, but the way I experience it is different.

Same goes for Star Wars. In 1977 I totally bought into the reality of the film. In 2007 I don't experience Star Wars in the same way - I appreciate it more for the nostalgic value than the actual worth of the film...if this makes any sense at all.

Author
Time
Post link
I don't know about you guys but when the T-Rex makes it's first appearances outside the fence and is fully CG...it looks more realistic than almost every other CG shot I havce seen in my life. It 100% fucking looks like they filmed a T-Rex walking in the rain. I can't find a single thing that looks fake in the shot. Colors, lighting, movement....it's all more perfect than most anything I saw in King Kong, LOTR trilogy, the PT. It's the best series of CG shots ever made. End of story.......IMO of course.

Side note....i love the single frame near the end of JP where they just sort of forgot to animate the raptor in the Rex's mouth.

Hey look, a bear!

Author
Time
Post link
Don't thank ILM.

Thank Stan Winston.

In the close ups the T-Rex was an animatronic.

http://members.tripod.com/~CARIART/Stan_Winston_2a.jpg

Not to rain on your parade or anything...
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
Agreed, C3PX on all accounts.

In terms of a films' effects withstanding the tests of time, I think it's dangerous to think that a film from, say 1933, or even 1977 should hold up to a film from 2007.

I think that the way you experience a film changes over time. For example, audiences were completely sold on the reality of King Kong in 1933. In 2007, I can watch the film and appreciate it's cultural and historical significance. It doesn't take me out of the reality of the film, but the way I experience it is different.

Same goes for Star Wars. In 1977 I totally bought into the reality of the film. In 2007 I don't experience Star Wars in the same way - I appreciate it more for the nostalgic value than the actual worth of the film...if this makes any sense at all.


By withstanding the test of time, I don't necessarily mean it should look state of the art 30 years down the road, but that it should be made to last. Of course you cannot judge the effects of a 50 year old movie by today's standards, but it can still be a good movie and the effects can come off as archaic rather than cheesy. There are some fantastic movies from the 30s and 40s that I still love watching today, then there are movies from the nineties that are laughable. There is a difference between using state of the art effects to make somebody say "wow" one year and "pfft" the next and making a movie built to last. Some movies you look back on and you laugh at the cheesy effects, others you look at them and think how impressive the effects were for the time. I think the first Jurassic Park was built to last, as was Last Crusade. The effects of the Nazi with the super fast aging action at the end of the film may not be up to todays standards, but it worked and you can watch it without it taking you out of the film. Where obvious CG shots inserted here and there always do the trick of pulling me right out of a film.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Wow - you just made a light go on in my head.

All the CGI tools in the World can't disguise bad artistry. Compare Jurassic Park with Van Helsing, 11 years after.

Which one will stand the tests of time and be remembered?

As an aside, rumour has it that Steve "Spazz" Williams deliberately made the 1997 SE Jabba look like shit because he was dissatisfied with ILM & LFL.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
http://members.tripod.com/~CARIART/Stan_Winston_2a.jpg

Isn't that a picture of Ford looking at Spielberg?
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.