Indiana Jones Announcement

[Anakin]

If you mean ruin as in making sequels that are so great that they manage to eclipse the originals -

,....eclipse the originals?,... you think the new pt star wars crap eclipse the originals?..,,

 

[gdb]

,....eclipse the originals?,... you think the new pt star wars crap eclipse the originals?..,,

In the minds of younger viewers I do. Unless you grew up in the 70s or 80s, the f/x in the originals seem tame and the pacing is slow and some of the fashion in ANH is just silly. (Mind you, I'm old, I LOVE the original movies. I have great affection for them, warts and all.)

Movies, in a way, are like cars. The newer cars are just better than the older ones -- faster, safer, they have air bags and cruise control and OnStar. Sure there are classic cars and cars can hold nostalgia for a person and, argueably, there are cars that have better elements than cars of today, but, by and large, car making advances so much that each car is better than their previous modles. The same is true with movies. If it wasn't true, then Godfather and Citizen Kane would still be playing at your local movie houses instead of Snakes on a Plane. I'm not saying Snakes on a Plane is a wholy better movie, I'm just saying that it, and its kind, eclipse the older films.

I just saw Indy 3 on TV not too long ago and by today's standards... I was not impressed. I loved it when it came out, but I'm a different viewer than I was then and the film just didn't work for me -- like in "at all". So I don't subscribe to the third-rail mentality towards Indy. I say, come on, bring it on!

 

[Wor-Gar]

I just saw Indy 3 on TV not too long ago and by today's standards... I was not impressed. I loved it when it came out, but I'm a different viewer than I was then and the film just didn't work for me -- like in "at all".

I just have to say, I never liked Indy 3, even when it came out when I was a kid. I thought is was a very "lazy" sequel -- not slow, just lazy in the way it was thought out and the way the set-pieces were put together. For instance, Indy's bag strap that "traps" him while hanging off the tank's cannon, yet neither seems to snag in the first place nor seems to be any trouble for him to unhook when he climbs back up on the tank. That is just one instance of many throughout the movie that just bugged me.

 

[pjam]

Whoa, wait a sec -- there was an Indy 3?

 

[SnapJimmy]

I thought they already started shooting New Indiana Jones in Vancouver.
I found this couple weeks ago....
https://www.trekearth.com/gallery/N...rn/British_Columbia/Vancouver/photo408533.htm

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

I thought they already started shooting New Indiana Jones in Vancouver.
I found this couple weeks ago....
https://www.trekearth.com/gallery/N...rn/British_Columbia/Vancouver/photo408533.htm

Yeah, that's from the scene where Indy goes to cash his social security check.

 

[Darklord Dave]

I loved Indy 3 - not quite up to Raiders - but still a great action flick.

 

[TheObsoleteMan]

I loved Indy 3 - not quite up to Raiders - but still a great action flick.

I think I actually prefer Last Crusade to Raiders. Ford and Connery were great together.

 

[DarkArtist81]

Crusade was great but it lacked the excitement that Raiders and Tomb had... at least IMO. But I will still love the trilogy as a whole, and that movie was worth it for Connery and Ford's chemistry alone. I never once doubted that Sean was Indy's father. Best Father/Son duo in film history.

 

[doesitmatter]

I think Crusade made up for a lot of Temple. TOD is by far the weakest of the three IMO.

I was really excited about this news. In 1995. Now I'd rather get an Indiana Jones announcement from Sideshow.

 

[Indiana Fett]

I think Crusade made up for a lot of Temple. TOD is by far the weakest of the three IMO.

I was really excited about this news. In 1995. Now I'd rather get an Indiana Jones announcement from Sideshow.

Here, Here! 1/4 and 1/6 Indiana Jones from Raiders Of The Lost Ark!!!

Indy!!! Indy!!! Indy!!!

 

[superado]

In the minds of younger viewers I do. Unless you grew up in the 70s or 80s, the f/x in the originals seem tame and the pacing is slow and some of the fashion in ANH is just silly. (Mind you, I'm old, I LOVE the original movies. I have great affection for them, warts and all.)

Movies, in a way, are like cars. The newer cars are just better than the older ones -- faster, safer, they have air bags and cruise control and OnStar. Sure there are classic cars and cars can hold nostalgia for a person and, argueably, there are cars that have better elements than cars of today, but, by and large, car making advances so much that each car is better than their previous modles. The same is true with movies. If it wasn't true, then Godfather and Citizen Kane would still be playing at your local movie houses instead of Snakes on a Plane. I'm not saying Snakes on a Plane is a wholy better movie, I'm just saying that it, and its kind, eclipse the older films.

I just saw Indy 3 on TV not too long ago and by today's standards... I was not impressed. I loved it when it came out, but I'm a different viewer than I was then and the film just didn't work for me -- like in "at all". So I don't subscribe to the third-rail mentality towards Indy. I say, come on, bring it on!

I'm an old guy too. But to use the car analogy, like in film, technical limitations fostered more innovation. By making do with what you have at any given moment, you are challenged to "compensate" for the lack of digital technology by applying a fierce and patient dedication in engineering that perfect engine via tedious trial and error, using windtunnels and wooden bucks to create areodynamic car bodies, etc. Sure, a Ferrari 250-GTO from the early 60's is no match with today's Ferrari Modena in terms of engineering precision, but IMO, the pride of craftsmanship and love that went into the creation of the older beauties (vs. "production" of today's cars) raise them to a level of impeccible masterpieces and works of art.

In film, the "high tech" f/x houses like ILM and Apogee that American film-makers enjoyed during the early 80's, were beyond the budgetary reach of British film-makers (which has been the condition even in earlier decades), forcing the Brits to improvise with skill and creativity to "compensate," whilst their American counterparts often fell into the danger of laziness and throwing money as a solution to acheiving certain shots. The new SW trilogy is a perfect example in which all stops were pulled, yet (to me at least) the result was a sensory overload that detracted from the drama taking place on the screen. Because of this, today it's common place to see state-of-the-art CGI being outdone in terms of realism by low-tech approaches like matte paintings, model-work and physical stunts. And looking at the use of computer-aided optical printers during the 80's that nonetheless used the film medium through the whole process, I still stand impressed at the level of the results considering the techniques used, vs. CGI today that still cannot, for me, accomplish that upper percentile of realism.

 

[gdb]

I can agree with you, superado. Limitations are often the birthplace of brilliance. And CGI is often used today as a crutch just as blue screens were a crutch in the 80s and smoke and mirrors before that (all the way back to bladders filled with blood in Shakespeare's day and there was something before that I'm sure).

But I would suggest that the sensory overload arugement is a bit like the old Greek adage: Kids with their loud music today! It's a sort of a culture clash. The taste of the average movie goer today demands much more to stimulate them, visually, auditorily, etc.

To continue with the car analogy, I foresee a future where classic car clubs are made up of fully restored Hummers, classic Escalades and antiqued Prius's. (I don't know what they'll be using as fuel as we'll have run out of oil by then, but still... )

 

[Murderofcrows71]

I'm 35 and everytime i watch Raiders, I still feel it's the best movie ever.....imo. Special effects of today are cool, but remember the Indiana jones movies are not only a throwback to the old adventure serials, but also to a way of filmmaking that really wasn't even used much anymore. So if a new Indiana Jones films includes real stunts instead of cgi people, real staged explosions instead of computer ones it's because the Indy movies are meant to be that way. They're a nod to the old adventures our parents and even grandparents grew up watching on their Saturday matinee. If you feel they are a little out dated by todays standards,...that's the point.

 

[Darth Caedus]

I'm 35 and everytime i watch Raiders, I still feel it's the best movie ever.....imo. Special effects of today are cool, but remember the Indiana jones movies are not only a throwback to the old adventure serials, but also to a way of filmmaking that really wasn't even used much anymore. So if a new Indiana Jones films includes real stunts instead of cgi people, real staged explosions instead of computer ones it's because the Indy movies are meant to be that way. They're a nod to the old adventures our parents and even grandparents grew up watching on their Saturday matinee. If you feel they are a little out dated by todays standards,...that's the point.

I'm 23 and I feel the same way you do. Older movies maybe had less special effects, but they had to have a better story to "make up" for it. Movies nowadays try to impress you with special effects with a crappy story. I would rather have it the other way around. When EVERY movie had special effects throughout the movie, they aren't SPECIAL anymore.

 

[BDboystoys]

I'm 23 and I feel the same way you do. Older movies maybe had less special effects, but they had to have a better story to "make up" for it. Movies nowadays try to impress you with special effects with a crappy story. I would rather have it the other way around. When EVERY movie had special effects throughout the movie, they aren't SPECIAL anymore.

Agreed.
Special effects are turning hollywood into something else. Its all about making money off how many crappy(but some brilliant) superhero movies they can churn out. How many blockbusters, and everyone LOVES it.

Me? I prefer the glorious days where instead of amazing effects every minute, its filled with this charm this quality, this timelessness in it. Still Im not dissmissing there are still wonderful movies nowdays, but there definately are alot of the very average due to the technology.

 

[Coheteboy]

Exactly. Special effects lead to lazy filmmaking. They stop thinking about whether or not they SHOULD do something, just because they can. The prequels, though successful, is FILLED TO THE BRIM with lazy filmmaking. The only one isn't as lazy actually is Episode 1 because they were figuring things out even at that point.

Think about ESB and Yoda. They had limitations with the puppet so they had to map out the best possible way to film it. And that's how they thought up the idea of putting yoda in a backpack. Wow, how clever! Now if they did it with current effects, he'd be walking alongside and it would just... lose the appeal of it all.

Just because you CAN make Jabba in CG doesn't mean you should, and we have proof that it doesn't make it better.


OH and TEMPLE OF DOOM IS MY FAVORITE INDIANA JONES MOVIE. Don't ask me why because for me, it was just the most entertaining, funny, exciting of the bunch. Raiders is 2nd. And though I like the chemistry of Sean Connery and Ford, it just felt like a redo of the first.

 

[Migwit]

Harrison Ford turned 64 in July (according to IMDB.com) and I think he looks every year of it. He hasn't looked ten years younger than his actual age since... well, let's just say he looks his age and not one day younger! Don't get me wrong, I love Harrison Ford, and he's responsible for some of my all-time favorite movies EVER, but he's always looked a little craggy and being 64 years old, he looks even craggier.

Still, LOVE Harrison Ford, and it would be interesting to see how an additional Indy movie would play out.

 

[Murderofcrows71]

speaking of Indiana Jones, I figured I'd update my 12" Indiana Jones figure. Hopefully the Star Wars fans won't storm my house with fire and pitchforks. I'm just starting this custom/kitbash but I thought I'd let others in on the whole process and see how it turns out eventually.

 

[superado]

I'm 35 and everytime i watch Raiders, I still feel it's the best movie ever.....imo. Special effects of today are cool, but remember the Indiana jones movies are not only a throwback to the old adventure serials, but also to a way of filmmaking that really wasn't even used much anymore. So if a new Indiana Jones films includes real stunts instead of cgi people, real staged explosions instead of computer ones it's because the Indy movies are meant to be that way. They're a nod to the old adventures our parents and even grandparents grew up watching on their Saturday matinee. If you feel they are a little out dated by todays standards,...that's the point.

I just watched the Indy Trilogy making of featurettes a couple of weekends ago, and in it Lucas stated how he intended to approach Raiders dramatically differently from Star Wars in terms of effects and go quick and low-tech to emulate the look of the old serials and not just pay homage to these, and to place more emphasis on stunts and action...which is certainly what we got in spades.