Hey, just noticed there's a new Indy film in the works.
Just wondering if anyone knew any info about it?
Here's the IMDB page. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462764/)
Looks like Indy is searching for the burial ground of Ghengis Khan! The chinese seem to be the main antagonists searching for the holy cross, drenched in the blood of Jesus Christ, which seems to be the holy relic in the this film. It apparently grants invincibility to it's owner or something.
Lucas said he's looking to put Shia Lebouf as the main character and have Harrison Ford with a role like Sean Connery's in The Last Crusade.
Meh. Well I suppose I should just be glad it wasn't Aston Kutchner in Indy 4! The plot that you say, Ghengis Khan etc - would be awesome, no doubt.
Hehe but what is the connection between Ghengis Khan and the Holy Cross? Did he nail himself on it so he could resurrect centuries later as an invincible
mummy zombie? :=
Spoiler
Actually if these information are correct I'd expect something like this:
The Ghengis Khan thing was just a short opening sequence, that the good tomb raider young Indy meets the evil Chinese tomb raiding troopers in the underground tomb, where they have intense fights and have to dodge ancient futuristic traps at the same time. After that incident comes the main plot of the movie, that the good and evil race against each other to find the Holy Cross.
Things go formulaic. No?
Go go evil Chinese!
...What?
I would rather have CGI Indy to be honest.
I probably shouldn't be talking about this, but I plan on kidnapping and tortouring Shia (maybe Michael Bay as well), PM me if somebody wants join in. I just hate Shia, he's not cool in any possible way...unhless I was like a 12 year girl or something.
Actually watched 4th movie yesterday (watched 'till the end this time) and the movie just doesn't have any of those Indiana Jones moments that make the movies cool, comedy was flat and overused, plot was just overly stupid. All in all it just didn't have the spirit of the other 3 movies.
Besides that I thought they tried doing the Indy turns into his father in Skull movie, so it wouldn't be that different.
Quote from: IndieBoy on Mon 28/09/2009 10:56:09
I would rather have CGI Indy to be honest.
Anything is better than Shia, ANYTHING!
Yep. As a big Indy fan, I fear they really botched who their "next Indy" would be. As you say he's the "get girls interested" element. Oh well, whatever, what's done is done. I guess all we can do now is sit back and watch him become Indiana Jones.
The best bit in Crystal Skull, to me, was the part where they remenised about Marcus Brody and then ran into his statue not long after. The rest was a temple of ballz.
They probably picked Labeouf because he was in Transformers, which inexplicably was a big hit (mainly with boys).
Yep, and I suppose of all the generic young male hollywood stars he is one of the "hardest" looking. It's just a shame they never have long hair anymore. The original John Conner (T2) had long hair and so did the original young Indy (River Pheonix). And I don't know why but I still think both those characters & actors are dead cool. But La Buff is just too generic, gormless, boring, meat-heady. Ford is Indy to me, always will be - and in the same way I just don't care for Die hard 4 or Terminator 4 or Indy 4 I'm sure I won't be overwhelmed by any fifths that come out either. But still, maybe they WILL build on what sucked in Indy 4 and make it work for Indy 5, and Indy being the Sean Connery of Indy 5 WILL still make it quite a fantastic relationship to watch on screen. I hope! ;) All in all just so long as they ditch the studio work and use next to none CGI and actually put the actors through some hardship (like the first 3 films) it could be a masterpiece. But no, it'll be full of CG, costumes that never get dirty and jungles that are really just sound-stages. GAH
In a world where companies are constantly promoting "average joe" to make movies it starts to become clear to a lot of people where they cheat in films and stuff. The more I understand film-making the harder it is for me to appreciate stuff like CGI cheats and sound-stages. I really, really look forward to the day they spend the CGI budget on unbelievable life sized props and effects and I always thought the sequel to Indy Holy Grail would BE that, but nope :(
I completely agree with you, Mark.
Yes, the scene when they reminisce about Marcus is no doubt my favorite.
What almost ruined it for me almost imediately was the use of the prairy dogs... CG of course... in a Disney animation movie sort of way. And then they KEPT USING THEM AS REACURRING "CHARACTERS".
Then when we get to the jungle scene we meet those huge ants. BAH. Obvious CG animation AGAIN. And then what puts the icing on the cake is the jungle scene when Shia's swinging through the vines and there's 100's of those fucking CG ANIMATED MONKEYS ALL AROUND HIM! Stop with the fucking CGI already! You've RUINED the fucking movie, not to mention the movie's plot itself.
Oh, and the clincher:
Spoiler
All through the movie, especially after the atom bomb scene, which I loved (and hated at the same time for obvious reasons), I kept thinking, please, for the love of god, please don't make this alien related...
Well, knock my nuts, butterskin, that's what it was.
Big spaceship flying up and back into outerspace in the end...
There's so many different ways this movie could have gone for the better, and then come to find out that Spielburg didn't even WANT it to have ANYTHING to do with aliens...?
I also hated the sand trap scene. They through in the snake just for the sake of referencing... gah.
I liked the movie mainly because it was another Indy movie. But I hated it for all the reasons already discussed above my post and the too much
unecessary use of CGI.
I'm with IndyBoy, I'd much rather see an animated Indy movie next. But with real animation, no CG. But will I put the next movie on Netflix? No doubt.
There are moments you "wish they'd rather use CGI". Such as when someone moves a photo cutout towards the camera...
(http://www.indrek.org/i/indylc.jpg)
But in general, pity Harrison Ford got old before more movies were made. After seeing Kingdom of Crystal Skulls I lost belief in screen future of Indiana Jones.
Rubbish! You cannot fault the CGI in the indiana jones trilogy, you try and do better!
Kingdom of the alien bullshit sucked so bad. I refuse to accept it's existence.
Yes, as soon as I saw the aliens and the rotating rock temple ship or whatever it was, it lost me. Then again Shia Laboeuf is in Holes so it hasn't lost me entirely! I just hope they don't make his leather jacket and comb combo some kind of trademark though.
Quote from: Mods on Mon 28/09/2009 12:51:33
The best bit in Crystal Skull, to me, was the part where they remenised about Marcus Brody and then ran into his statue not long after.
My favourite part was when the screen went black and all those names appeared.
I think I properly lost touch with Raiders of the Secret Alien Thing during the jungle chase scene, and the following "flesh eating ants can form prehensile tools out of themselves" fiasco.
I think the best thing that could happen for the franchise would be for it to die.
I agree with everything Flibble said except I lost touch with Crystal Skull the moment I read the plot synopsis. Pure adulterated rubbish with a side of mediocrity. It just furthers my theory that all of the creativity of the 80's-early 90's directors got sucked out by some evil Hollywood device bent on remakes and series-destroying sequels.
PROVE. ME. WRONG.
Also, anyone who would go to see shia as the star of an Indy vehicle is about as dumb as dirt. I'm sorry, but if you're reading this Mr. Dirtdumb then I suggest you watch the original trilogy and then come back and apologize to me for ever suggesting that a sequel with Shia as the star would be a good thing. Just end the damn series, for the love of the Ark of the Covenant let it end!
I'd watch it. I wouldn't 'pay' to watch it. But I'd definitely watch it.
Doesn't mean I'll like it.
Exactly, Ryan. No matter how much I'd hate it, I'd still sit there like a penis head and watch it. Just like S Club 7.
Quote from: Snake on Mon 28/09/2009 19:06:24Stop with the fucking CGI already!
Better get with the times and start using PHP already! ::)
As far as Indy goes I understand the argument that KoCS (read as: COCKS) wasn't really "up-to-par" with the originals but honestly could we have expected anything more? As has been said, the glory days of movie making are dead and gone.
It's all about remaking the same horrible bad movies in a worse way now. That and thoroughly destroying everyone's beloved movies from yesteryear with overly sufficient, literally as much as can possibly be forcibly crammed into a measly 25 FPS, doses of human, and in some cases ape, feces reprinted with the next sequential digit following the title of the film!
There are still some jewels released from time to time (such as Pixar's UP, amongst others), but unfortunately for all of us those are becoming fewer and further between with every passing year.
Oh and just to shake things up by actually posting something on-topic here, I too am of the disposition that if they release it, I'll watch it. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for Spielburg to take it away.
Interesting question: which was better: The Mummy 3 Or IJatLotCS? Both had their dire moments. The Mummy 1 is certainly better than IJ4 but probably not as good as IJ1-3
The jungle scene is just...well they're cutting through it in the begining, but suddenly there's a chase scene and that small jungle trail they we're cutting turns into a three lane goddamn highway. A HIGHWAY!
And that swinging with the monkies is just too ridiculous even for a Indy film and in ti we saw Nazis melting to the bones and endless mines for riding in a mining cart etc. but this is just...I can't believe somebody wrote that in the script and thought "Well this is pretty cool"
Oh, and going into that crypt - they enter in a dark stormy night but exit like no more than an hour later and it's a birght sunny day...things like that piss me off, I know that happens but to literally change the time and weather while it doesn't really affect the scenes is stupid.
And all that mystery that used to be so fun to see (especially in the Raiders) is here just skipped over - oh, there's "return" written on the wall, well must be a map on the floor, aha, he meant return the head, but where is the head, aha, it's this map of a tomb somewhere in the jungle, but the profesor didn't find the skull actually or did he...what the f***.
[/rant]
On a more pleasant topic, I liked some of the Young Indiana Jones adventures and wished that they made the 4th film earlier and made Sean Flannery as the son. He didn't have the exact coolness of Ford, but I still always felt that he was like Indy but not so sculpetd with life yet and that's perfect.
They're probably going with Shia and I hate them for it.
Get with the times? I'd rather join an underground movment.
Using CG for the little things that can be hidden, like say, a quick spirt of blood, don't bother me. It's when it's used for things that can be done with a little more work and makeup.
I'd much rather see photo cutouts infront of a green screen and midgets swinging around on vines in ape constumes than it be done in CG.
CG ruins it for me especially when they use it for movement... it's just too, I don't know any other way to describe it but, Disney-ish. I'm not watching The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lava Girl here, I'm watching Indiana Jones.
Take out all the actors that were used, replace them with highschool drama-club students, keep the script the same and we've got a badly written fan film in which the writer had only HEARD of the Indy films.
I hope that it will be better that the previous one :-\
Am I the only one here that actually enjoyed KOTCS for the most part? Well, enough to consider it a true Indy movie at least.
There were two major problematic bits for me in the movie. One was the ending. They evidently kept changing and cutting it so much that it had little sense and the last comment by Indy about "knowledge being the 'El Dorado' inhabitants' treasure" was plain ridiculous in face of everything being wiped from the ground and Jones having little interest in the "oh so precious" knowledge which just got irrevocably lost.
Another thing about the ending is that after beating the ants Indy is passive till the very end - just running around with the group.
The other weak part was how the film jumps from the cemetery to the jungle. It's awfully done - pulls the viewer out from the movie. And we are supposed to believe that Jones stayed a well-behaving prisoner during the whole journey to the boat and then on the boat...
One more thing. The character of Marion was mostly wasted in the film, but Karen Allen seems to have lost her charm anyway.
I find it wrong or atleast hysterical to go solid pro/anti-CGI.
A movie is a movie. If well-done 3D animation let's screenwriter make movie as good as he wants, without becoming too apparent, crossing some physics law or whatever hard to reproduce otherwise, why not?
Imagine Matrix done with classic cinematography... while it would be a fun experiment to see :D movie itself would probably suck (more... :/ face the fact, the movie is nothing but one good dystopian idea and some neat fx, sucks in every other department... and IMO, for that unattractive, old broad somehow being oh-so-important)
Or take a look at Dune (1984) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_JP6ECfNDc). I watched this movie and cried. They SERIOUSLY lacked 3D-technology back then, everything's abysmal, from shields to worms to weapons, save for steampunk scenery, which wasn't that bad or simply stood out from everything much, much worse.
Then again, true, if CGI is in, it can and usually will be overdone.
Opinions about visual effects are just that: opinions. I found the effects in Dune to be quite effective and nice!
You're first one I know saying that then.
I'd feed costume/scenery/fx designer to a sandworm if I were David Lynch.
I hope some brave director makes a decent remake someday in my life.
My main peeve about KotCS was the overuse of the crystal skull itself as a deus ex machina. Seriously, if it had been an adventure game you could pretty much have gotten through it with the skull as your only inventory item:
You are attacked by a swarm of giant fire ants -> Use Crystal Skull with Fire Ants
You are threatened by a tribe of angry Aztecs -> Use Crystal Skull with Angry Aztecs
You are standing in front of an ancient stone door, it is locked -> Use Crystal Skull with Ancient Stone Door
I'm sure there's even more examples.
Overall the screenplay just seemed lazy, especially considering how long they had to write it. There was nothing clever at all about John Hurt's deranged riddles, unlike the grail diary and the X marks the spot scene in Last Crusade, which is my favorite Indy movie - probably because I loved the game so much. Also, the locations were kind of samey, it didn't have the globetrotting feel of the previous movies at all. Way too much jungle. I, for one, actually loved the intro with the nuclear test site - and yeah, the fridge part was silly, but so was the airplane lifeboat escape in ToD. It didn't seem out of place in the Indy universe, and I couldn't help feel it was a nod to the original Back to the Future screenplay (where the time machine was an old fridge and they had to drive it into an atomic test site to generate the 1.21 gigawatts necessary to send Marty back to 1985).
Quote from: GarageGothic on Tue 29/09/2009 23:39:27
My main peeve about KotCS was the overuse of the crystal skull itself as a deus ex machina. Seriously, if it had been an adventure game you could pretty much have gotten through it with the skull as your only inventory item:
You are attacked by a swarm of giant fire ants -> Use Crystal Skull with Fire Ants
You are threatened by a tribe of angry Aztecs -> Use Crystal Skull with Angry Aztecs
You are standing in front of an ancient stone door, it is locked -> Use Crystal Skull with Ancient Stone Door
I'm sure there's even more examples.
Cate Blanchette's overracting is pissing you right off > use Crystal Skull with decapitated alien.
Quote from: SSH on Tue 29/09/2009 11:19:47
Interesting question: which was better: The Mummy 3 Or IJatLotCS? Both had their dire moments.
Assuming Mummy 3 is the one where Jet Li appears to play a CGI character who does nothing but roar angrily - there's no question at all for me. I could
watch Cyrstal Skull. From beginning to end. Okay, I'm not a big Indy fan so I could just switch my brain into Neutral and laugh at how ridiculous it all was. (Though even as a braindead CGI action-fest it was sub-par...)
Mummy 3 was unholy in it's badness. A turgid combination of writers with no good ideas at all, a director who seemed to have only the vaguest notion of what a film is meant to be, and the worst editing EVER - every single frigging scene seems to last for 30 seconds. It's okay in an episode of
Scrubs but this is meant to be a bloody film! Not even the 'action' could sustain my interest in the slightest.
To put it in perspective, I had never before walked out of a movie. I walked out of Mummy 3
twice. (My friends wanted to go to the movies, but there was no way I was watching
The House Bunny with them, so I plumped for Mummy 3 seeing as nothing else was on - the film got too awful when they met the goddess in the cave and I figured they must have been through - but they weren't. So then I went in and watched some of the retarded final battle scene until I JUST COULDN'T TAKE IT ANY MORE.)
The Mummy 3 was so 'so bad it's good' that I had plenty of fun watching it. Honestly, if you expect anything out of it then don't watch it at all.
Now, watching Kingdom of the Crystal Skull--that was just painful. I could not help but cringe the whole time through while waiting for any non-existent redeeming qualities in it.
I was working in a movie theatre/restaurant during both these movies (IJ & M3). Indy did far better for me. People who are generally more satisfied with the film tend to leave better tips, so I guess the general public thought it was okay. Though I did hear a lot of people raising the question, "ALIENS?!?" :D
The Mummy 3 was one of the worst films I think I've ever seen (and I never actually watched it straight through start to finish). It was much more popular with "families" and young teens than anybody else. Which I guess that was who they were targeting but still, I found the movie horrid personally.
So yeah, I pretty much agree with Jared. :=
Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 29/09/2009 23:28:33
Opinions about visual effects are just that: opinions. I found the effects in Dune to be quite effective and nice!
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 29/09/2009 23:30:49
You're first one I know saying that then.
I'd feed costume/scenery/fx designer to a sandworm if I were David Lynch.
I hope some brave director makes a decent remake someday in my life.
Gotta second ProgZ there. More modern technology would've been nice but when I watched Dune I didn't really care, cause that movie is great and it looked okay (especially the worms). In fact it's my favorite sci-fi movie ever.
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 29/09/2009 23:30:49
You're first one I know saying that then.
I'd feed costume/scenery/fx designer to a sandworm if I were David Lynch.
I hope some brave director makes a decent remake someday in my life.
I also think Dune's effects and photography is awesome. The movie's script it a mess, but it's beautiful.
Bt
Quote from: Blackthorne on Wed 30/09/2009 15:46:07
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 29/09/2009 23:30:49
You're first one I know saying that then.
I'd feed costume/scenery/fx designer to a sandworm if I were David Lynch.
I hope some brave director makes a decent remake someday in my life.
I also think Dune's effects and photography is awesome. The movie's script it a mess, but it's beautiful.
Bt
The lasers and all optical effects were complete crap. Some of the space traveling scenes were just photo cutouts of ships with fake looking drawings in the background. There were a lot of beautiful scenes in Dune, but many things just looked silly.
I gave up on the Mummy movies after watching the first 15 minutes of the first one. Zero excitement or intrigue. KOTCS is way better. Also, there are more interesting mummy movies around.
QuoteImagine Matrix done with classic cinematography...
Poor example. The Matrix is about the world around you being computer generated. It's expected and blends right the hell in. Indiana Jones? Not so much.
They may as well have made the prairy dogs talk with a little squirell voice and the monkeys sing a song from Jungle Book.
I also expected a ton of CG for Transformers, which I didn't like to begin with, but the CG didn't bother me since, I was expecting it. I expect very little CG use in Jones movies.
I am Legend? Ruined by CG. I loved the story only because I'm in to zombie's and post apocolyptical stories, but ruined by those CG people running around constantly openening their mouths and roaring while their mouth is
shaking... much like a cartoon character in a kid's movie would roar.
I don't hate CG, it's handy and can most certainly fill in the lines if needed, but over-use and done poorly where a non CGI alternative would have worked better in the first place, scrapes the underside of my penis.
What I believe is that a CG is successful as long as the audience doesn't think it of being a CG. We all know a plenty of CG's were used in the Lord of the Rings films, but I think only a few people would think of "How a nice effect, it must be hard to make it!" or "That's not a successful one" while watching Gandalf on work, the only thing audience perceived was Gandalf creating miracles. A CG must be persuasive.
I agree, Gord.
Like I said, I don't hate CG. The prairy dogs weren't even badly animated, it just didn't fit with the movie. Same with the monkeys in the jungle or the ants. They could have taken all of those out and it wouldn't have made a difference (they could have deleted that whole scene anyway). Well, besides the ants. But they could have done something else... like a plain old fist fight. The ants were too outrageous (not mentioning the spaceship) to begin with. It was too reminiscent of those beetle things in The Mummy (but I didn't mind them in that movie at all).
Besides those three CG things that dissapointed me, I can't remember anything else that stood out like that. Maybe the waterfall scene (compared to the plane scene in Indy 2)?
But anyway, like Gord said, the CG being used has to go along with the movie itself and not take anything away from the story telling. If you're off in you mind wondering, "Jesus, that could have been done better" or similar, it's bad enough where it's a distraction.
Quote from: InCreator on Tue 29/09/2009 23:25:25
Imagine Matrix done with classic cinematography... while it would be a fun experiment to see :D movie itself would probably suck
This is silly, have you seen the special features from the matrix DVD? The way they do the 360 camera is bloody clever and i would consider it classic and innovative cinematography (not sure if they did it first though). Also if you take the first matrix film and compare it to the toss that is Matrix Revolutions you can clearly see the negative effect CGI has, even in a film based around a computer generated reality.
It's clear that CGI is over used in almost every hollywood action flick, this is largely down to the rules put on producers regarding actors safety when stunts can be substituted by CGI. Why risk people's lives when the same effect can be achieved with a good 3D artist? Because it makes a far more satisfying watch! I like to know that someone has risked their life for a role convincing scene, i respect them for it. I'd choose real life action heroes blowing themselves up over sweaty men sat in middle of a rendering farm.
Sorry to rant.
I liked the last Indiana Jones movie, even bought it on DVD. But during the whole movie I was thinking, WOW, Indy looks so damn old now. :'( (Temple of Doom was my favorite of all of them)
How about the Movie TRON. I have that movie on DVD also and to this day I think it looks great. I never really researched how they made that movie, but how much CGI was in that movie or green screen?
I might be off-topic, I don't know.
Quote from: Domino on Wed 30/09/2009 23:50:26
I liked the last Indiana Jones movie, even bought it on DVD. But during the whole movie I was thinking, WOW, Indy looks so damn old now. :'( (Temple of Doom was my favorite of all of them)
Really? I think the last movie sucked and Temple of Doom was the worst of the old movies. My favorite was The Last Crusade.
Quote from: Mr Matti on Thu 01/10/2009 00:00:20
Really? I think the last movie sucked and Temple of Doom was the worst of the old movies. My favorite was The Last Crusade.
Same here, except I don't harbour as much as hatred as everyone else for the last movie. Sure it was overdone, but it was great to see Harrison Ford reprise his role and I love that Indy charm he has. Kind of makes up for all the sucky bits.
Guess I'm just a Ford fanboy :D