And it looked so much cooler than when Patrick Swayze did it for real, lol.New trailer....yay. See that 80 year old man jump out of an airplane....along with the girl sass-talking him......
Cameron is finally getting revenge for Top Gun outgrossing ALIENS in 1986 and TLC for outgrossing The Abyss in 89.Maybe they should have just made this a fully animated Indy movie. That's what Cameron would have done.
I’m watching some old episodes of Star Trek 60s atm and in HD the cuts between actors and stunt people are priceless.Every stunt looks like a CGI puppet.
This is just going to be terrible. Sorry.
Thank god Mads is in it for a bit so I have something to watch without cringe.
My first reaction to this was not Cameron style animated but tv show style animated. That could be great but more than likely it would be awful.Yikes... hopefully looks better in motion.
Maybe they should have just made this a fully animated Indy movie. That's what Cameron would have done.
Budget revealed to be almost $300 million. So what's the chance this will even break even at the box office? Just about zero.
You do know that only one movie has ever earned over $300M in a single weekend (Endgame), right? Well, domestically anyway...300 million?
So in other words a Cameron Weekend.
Cameron had Disney redistribute those earnings to AWOW. Hulk getting nerfed for the final battle was also his contribution to the film's final cut, an insurance policy he called Directive 4. He can't have the studio's products turning against him.You do know that only one movie has ever earned over $300M in a single weekend (Endgame), right?
I grew up with those movies and while I still love the stunts and practical fx, many of them look very dated now. My point is I don't care about "less than 100%" CG as long as the story, characters and pacing are good.Today seems like nearly every major stunt sequence is mostly CGI FX yet back in the 70s and 80s they did it all (or most) for real.
It's surprising that filmmakers never seem to realize that it may be stunningly good CGI, but it just doesn't look 100% real (in some cases even 90%,) and that undermines the scene's tension.
Considering the pride he seems to take in the role of Indy, I'm thinking he did his best, whatever level that is.Regardless of what anyone thinks of the films themselves Ford turned in good performances for both TFA and TROS and then he also had a respectable return as Deckard in BR2049 so it'll be too bad if he ends on such an embarrassing note with Indy.
That'd be great.I see Mads wearing a belt strap across his chest like Indy... could it be he lost his arm in the past and now has that mechanical arm we've all been waiting for since Raiders?
View attachment 622685
View attachment 622686
You’ve partly explained why they use cg now. The stunt work in the seventies and eighties were so reckless there were injuries and deaths all the time. The second cg became a thing they suddenly realised hey we can have really safe action scenes.Today seems like nearly every major stunt sequence is mostly CGI FX yet back in the 70s and 80s they did it all (or most) for real.
It's surprising that filmmakers never seem to realize that it may be stunningly good CGI, but it just doesn't look 100% real (in some cases even 90%,) and that undermines the scene's tension.
Enter your email address to join: