logo Sign In

Indiana Jones IV — Page 3

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

Isn't that a picture of Ford looking at Spielberg?



Nope - it's a picture of Ford looking at the last guy that said he was too old for Indy.
Author
Time
Post link
From a fan (not me. my artwork isn't very good anyway.):


http://www.throwmetheidol.com/art_images/shipper/indyIV_e.jpg


Kick ass.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, that's one by Paul Shipper. He gets better over time, but really should try a different style than Struzans, IMHO.
Author
Time
Post link
yes...i know up close it was animatronic. I meant the far shots like it chasing Grant and Malcom or walking away from the first car toward the flashlight....nothing looks the slightest bit fake to me. Not once in that movie am I taken out of the world Spielberg and countless artists and animators created. Even the shot that most people say looks fakest (the brachiosaurus in daylight when they first get there) looks incredibly convincing to me. Or perhaps it's my childhood memories of me being convinced they were real when I was 7 that spill over to today.

That's a nice poster. He looks oldr but still perfectly able to get the job done. I'm so damn excited for this movie.

Hey look, a bear!

Author
Time
Post link
hopefully they will hire drew struzan to do the official poster.

Have heard nothing about John Williams or the LSO's return to Indiana Jones but it is still early at this point.

At least Steven Spielberg is directing it, early on there was some indication he might not and old georgie would direct it himself.

having Kathleen Kennedy who worked on e.t. as the producer is also a very good idea. as well as it being shot on film, any dumbass who considers himself a cinematorapher knows HD video does not reach the quality of 35mm motion picture film and is not a lasting format for archiving for the future.

“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
You calling Mr. Lucas a dumbass?

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

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
hopefully they will hire drew struzan to do the official poster.

Have heard nothing about John Williams or the LSO's return to Indiana Jones but it is still early at this point.

At least Steven Spielberg is directing it, early on there was some indication he might not and old georgie would direct it himself.

having Kathleen Kennedy who worked on e.t. as the producer is also a very good idea. as well as it being shot on film, any dumbass who considers himself a cinematorapher knows HD video does not reach the quality of 35mm motion picture film and is not a lasting format for archiving for the future.


A while back I attended a meeting of the Canadian Society of Cinematographers. The pupose of the meeting was to debate 35mm versus Digital. The camera that was used to shoot Episode II was there (yes, one of the actual cameras), and they showed footage from the Stargate TV series shot with a traditional 35mm rig and the Sony/Panavision HDW-F900.

The general consensus was that apart from the reds being a bit overblown in HD, there was not that much of a discernable difference, and any distance between the two was rapidly closing with the advent of better lenses and other technical improvements.

My point? No one would be criticizing HD if the Prequels were any good. If the story was rich and compelling, we'd all be praising the camera and excitedly looking toward the future. The fact that EP's II-III were shot in HD just gives Fanboys one more thing to rag on.

Holding on to film is noble, but to deny the possibility of HD is folly.

Author
Time
Post link
He looks very old in that picture. Older than he actually looks on screen. I hope any real pics will have him looking far less geriatric, else he'll make those Rocky jokes look tame.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
using the stargate t.v. series and episode II or the prequels in the same post is presposterous. Stargate is one of the better sci fi shows ever and the prequels sucked. They also looked like a friggin video game. when I go to a movie I want to see a movie not video game cutscenes, or cgi fakeness.

who else thinks movie have become nothing more than a contest between compteting effects houses?

when I go to a movie I want characters and story. hollywood just does not get it and all of lucas freedom from the system what had it been good for?

is it not blantantly obviously that lucas cannot write and thought he could contruct, or write the story in the editing room during post. very, very bad. no one to tell him that is a bad idea. Lawrence Kasdan, Kershner and Kurtz all added to the scripts of the original trilogy. There was also the huycks and of course Leigh brackett.

He did not take his own advise. quote from star wars to jedi from gl " a special effect is just a tool, a means for telling a story. a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing"

that one quote and sentance from mr. lucas sums up what I think of the prequels.

quote from thecassidy"The general consensus was that apart from the reds being a bit overblown in HD, there was not that much of a discernable difference, and any distance between the two was rapidly closing with the advent of better lenses and other technical improvements".

this is simply not true a discerning eye can tell the difference between a single frame shot on HD or 35mm. I can pick apart movies fowards and backwards and tell where the gaffes and mistakes, jump cuts have been made if done poorly. Sure the everyday filmgoer or average american will not notice, but what about cinephiles. the only reason that lucas used HD video for the prequels is one word "cost". since he had to fund them himself.

Lucas was said to once have the talent to spot fakeness in a shot just like walt disney was able to spot a naked women put in a film in a single frame by one of his animator's, where has that talent gone?

one of the reasons people do not like to watch movies with me is I can pick out the real and the fake. I watched all three lord of the rings and king kong and could tell where the cgi fakery began and ended from shot to shot. I also don't think I am anything special and the filmgoing public is underestimated for their intelligence. Sure there are those dumbasses who like movies simply for there killing scenes, sex, or explosions but I need something more.

“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
Originally posted by: skyjedi2005
using the stargate t.v. series and episode II or the prequels in the same post is presposterous. Stargate is one of the better sci fi shows ever and the prequels sucked. They also looked like a friggin video game. when I go to a movie I want to see a movie not video game cutscenes, or cgi fakeness.

who else thinks movie have become nothing more than a contest between compteting effects houses?

when I go to a movie I want characters and story. hollywood just does not get it and all of lucas freedom from the system what had it been good for?

is it not blantantly obviously that lucas cannot write and thought he could contruct, or write the story in the editing room during post. very, very bad. no one to tell him that is a bad idea. Lawrence Kasdan, Kershner and Kurtz all added to the scripts of the original trilogy. There was also the huycks and of course Leigh brackett.

He did not take his own advise. quote from star wars to jedi from gl " a special effect is just a tool, a means for telling a story. a special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing"

that one quote and sentance from mr. lucas sums up what I think of the prequels.

quote from the cassidy"The general consensus was that apart from the reds being a bit overblown in HD, there was not that much of a discernable difference, and any distance between the two was rapidly closing with the advent of better lenses and other technical improvements".

this is simply not true a discerning eye can tell the difference between a single frame shot on HD or 35mm. I can pick apart movies fowards and backwards and tell where the gaffes and mistakes, jump cuts have been made if done poorly. Sure the everyday filmgoer or average american will not notice, but what about cinephiles. the only reason that lucas used HD video for the prequels is one word "cost". since he had to fund them himself.

Lucas was said to once have the talent to spot fakeness in a shot just like walt disney was able to spot a naked women put in a film in a single frame by one of his animator's, where has that talent gone?


Ooookkkkaayyy...but what the shit does that have to do with your technical criticism of HD versus 35mm. I wasn't making an argument about which is better, Stargate or Star Wars.

Quite frankly, this thread is to discuss Indiana Jones IV. If you have nothing constructive to say about it, then bugger off and post in one of the 1,000,000 "I Hate Lucas" Threads.
Author
Time
Post link
I will quote what I posted then if you don't undetstand my take on HD.

" a discerning eye can tell the difference between a single frame shot on HD or 35mm"

If i can spot the diffrences your telling me cinematographers will not? huh.

I posted this in the indy IV thread because I was relieved spielberg stepped in and said no HD, were going to shoot this the old fashioned way. Hopefully he can also stop the additions of unusually fake cgi, but who knows now that the physical effects unit has been sold off. perhaps then can hire the services of the lucasfilm employee, or ilm'er it was sold to.

film is'nt any good right so we may as well throw out star wars or raiders of the lost ark, or empire strikes back, , because those old fuddy duddy cinematographers shot them on film. while were at it lets add in wizard of Oz, casablanca, gone with the wind, ben hur, and lawrence of arabia. how about the ten commandements, or spartacus?

most of lucas friends shoot on film and will not shoot on HD despite his trying to make them. Ron howard, Robert Zemeckis, steven spielberg etc.

the older cinematographers will refuse to use HD, so I guess we must throw them away like rubbish and bring in the new kids who are willing to shoot on an unproven technology.

by the way i'm not attacking you or challenging you thecassidy, your opinions are your own as are mine.

But i will challenge mr. lucas for his decisions any day of the week, he ruined star wars period. Not only that but he insulted the filmakers and technicians by pretending the oot did not exist for years. Then he craps all over them again releasing the movies they worked on as bonus material on a shoddy non anamorphic dvd.

I believe history should be preserved and those technicians should be honored not just replaced by cgi or swept under the rug, by someone who prentends there work to be his own even if they were his employees.

“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
Dude, calm down. Nobody ever said anything about throwing out old 35mm movies. You are absurd for even mentioning it. You said HD sucks, Cassidy said that a consensus of cinematographers felt that HD was not as bad as people make it out to be, and in fact very comparable to 35mm quality wise. Fair enough. You don't have to agree with that, I myself was shocked because I always heard the contrary. Of course as technology gets better HD will look better. 35mm has been around for a long time, it is silly to believe that someday some new technology wont replace it, but it is even sillier to say that because it gets replaced that everything ever filmed on 35mm must go too.

A hint of advice, sit back and enjoy the movie with your friends. Like you said it just annoys the crap out of them when you pick it apart like that.

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

Author
Time
Post link
HD can be used to good effect in some cases.

i will say the first spiderman was genius use of the camera. cannot say the same for episodes II and III.

By the way i enjoyed king kong and the lord of the rings trilogy immensely because there was actually a story there.
regardless what medium it was shot on.

there was cgi in the first 2 x-men films and i enjoyed them very much for the story.

I saw Indiana Jones III, or The Last Crusade in theaters and loved it. and ever since have dreamed of a fourth one.

By the way I think Raiders is the Best.

“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
Hmm, I didn't know that Spider-Man was shot on HD Video instead of film. Learn something new every day, I guess.

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
Originally posted by: Gaffer Tape
Hmm, I didn't know that Spider-Man was shot on HD Video instead of film. Learn something new every day, I guess.


I am pretty sure it wasn't. But then again I am a human and we have been known to make mistakes from time to time.

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

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: JarHead413
yes...i know up close it was animatronic. I meant the far shots like it chasing Grant and Malcom or walking away from the first car toward the flashlight....nothing looks the slightest bit fake to me. Not once in that movie am I taken out of the world Spielberg and countless artists and animators created. Even the shot that most people say looks fakest (the brachiosaurus in daylight when they first get there) looks incredibly convincing to me. Or perhaps it's my childhood memories of me being convinced they were real when I was 7 that spill over to today.


There's one shot in Jurassic Park that always amazes me. The camera is in the car with Malcolm and Grant, and you see the animatronic T-Rex through the glass roof of the car. Then the camera pans down slightly so that you no longer see through the roof, and the CG T-Rex starts walking towards the other car.

Movie magic at it's finest.

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

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
He looks very old in that picture. Older than he actually looks on screen. I hope any real pics will have him looking far less geriatric, else he'll make those Rocky jokes look tame.


I just keep wondering if they are going to use the CG age reduction techniques in the new Indie movie. They are really getting awsome at making all actors look 20 years younger. Just look at Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen in the beginning of X-Men 3. Also look at the directv commercial with Christopher Lloyd playing the infamous Dr. Brown. They made him look just like he did back in ol' 1985.
Author
Time
Post link
I have not seen the Dr. Brown commercial, but I still think the scene in X-Men looked a little odd. I must say they did look good, and Patrick looked just like he did back in the early Next Gen days, but something didn't quite look natural about it. I really can't lay my finger on it though.

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

Author
Time
Post link
No way are they going to make Harrison Ford look younger for the film.

At most, I could see them using a younger actor to set up the storyline in the opening sequence...I've heard Marion is back for Indy IV so maybe the opening could be a flashback to him meeting her and Abner, I don't know.

Lucas, Spielberg and Ford are all on the record that the film won't overtly deal with an aging adventurer, but it will figure in, in some minor capacity.

Besides, I fail to see what the big deal is with people's obsession with aging movie stars. John Wayne was 60 when he made True Grit. Lee Marvin was 62 in Delta Force. Harrison Ford was 40 in Raiders. What's the big deal?
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: TheCassidy
No way are they going to make Harrison Ford look younger for the film.

At most, I could see them using a younger actor to set up the storyline in the opening sequence...I've heard Marion is back for Indy IV so maybe the opening could be a flashback to him meeting her and Abner, I don't know.

Lucas, Spielberg and Ford are all on the record that the film won't overtly deal with an aging adventurer, but it will figure in, in some minor capacity.

Besides, I fail to see what the big deal is with people's obsession with aging movie stars. John Wayne was 60 when he made True Grit. Lee Marvin was 62 in Delta Force. Harrison Ford was 40 in Raiders. What's the big deal?


I have no issue whatsoever with aging movie stars. As a matter of fact, I think older actors are much better than they were in their younger years. I think what most people are afraid of, myself included, is what direction they will take the movie since Harrison Ford is much older than he was when he first put on the hat and held the whip. We are all just scared they will destroy the enjoyment of the first three with the introduction of this one. Much like the PT did to the OOT.
Author
Time
Post link
Watching Rocky VI today (I refuse to call it Rocky Balboa) makes me belive that Indy 4 can actually be done.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Why do you refuse to call it Rocky Balboa?

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
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
No Sallah ...


Sad news indeed. Why bother casting Ford if they want to "go younger"? My friend had a good point about this, it seems like they're setting up for continuing the series without Ford. Maybe Young Indiana Jones Chronicles: The Next Generation.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
I just count this as further proof that Lucas is simply out of touch with his own characters and situations. Expect the next shoe to drop when the name is announced. Just like "The Phantom Menace" left people going "huh?" so will "Indiana Jones and the Tiddlywink of Fufununu."
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.