Indiana Jones IV- A great movie, or a total disaster?

Although I want another Indy I think it would be interesting if Lucas, Spielberg and Ford would get together and make someting totally different (in addition to a new Indy of course ).

 

Didn't they try that in Hell Boy?


Steven Speilberg could film a decomposing hedgehog in time laps, and it would look stelar compared to The Least Crusade.

It would be interesting to see Harrison Ford play a villan, but that would most likely go over like a lead balloon.

 

Here's what I want from "Indy 4". I've read recently that Lucas has stated that this installment will be a bit more dialogue driven than previous entries (but will still have some barnstorming action scenes), and I like that idea.
I always envisioned "Indy 4" being about Indiana Jones being forced out of retirment to go on one last adventure. I don't want it to be the same as the other three. I want it to have a unique voice all of it's own.
If done right, Spielberg and Lucas could tell a lovely story about an ageing adventurer, trying to recapture that youth that's eluded him, that smell of derring do that he's missed so much, and trying to operate in a time and place that he doesn't understand.
I want it to have a warm, bucholic feel. This seems to me to be the right way to tell this story, and it could be a satisfying coda to the series. I want to see it made.

 

Reminds me of Godfather III and Lethal Weapon 4.

 

Hellboy used Nazis involved with supernatural powers. I'm inclined to think that Lucas and Speilberg would not end up rehashing a Hellboy-ish plot (which wasn't very good anyway).

INDY IV needs a singular villian that stands out amongst the "bad guys". Since the film will likely be taking place in the 1950's, some sort of Soviet threat would be time-period correct.

 

I'm concerned that Harrison and Connery are to old for this type of film, a grandparent and great grandparent are the main characters in an action film?

 

Well, I can see that being a pretty funny premise for an action/comedy, and also opens the door for some drama, so yeah, I can see that.

 

I think Sean Connery's role is only meant to be a small cameo....

 

This morning, I was flipping through channels, I stopped on E where they were doing hollywood news/indiana jones 4 speculation.
According to the report--Indy 4 will have NO CGI. That to me was exciting news. I have some hope for the movie, though I don't anticipate it as being better than the original three.

-Seldon

 

I read an article about that.

To me, it sounds like they just won't digitize the stunts. I'll bet that the models and opticals will still be CGI.

Something like the melting Nazi effect would look pretty bad in CGI.

 

Sweeeeet. Old school film making!

 

Terrible idea. It will make the film look dated. CGI is the best innovation in film.

 

Jeepers - this thread has been around for five years. So much has happened in that time -


except for Indiana Jones IV....

 

CGI looks more fake than anything. Even the cheapest of old effects look better.

Just look at old-fashioned effects like ESB's asteroid field, Raiders' melting Nazi, and Robocop's ED-209.

Then look at Jar Jar Binks, The Incredible Hulk, and most of Attack Of The Clones.

CGI looks good if used only when necessary, like In Jurassic Park, Terminator 2, and Twister.

But in recent years, it's being used for everything.

 

Actually, I think Jar Jar Binks looks pretty good, even when compared with the likes of Gollum, King Kong, and Davy Jones. Though I agree that CGI should be used sparingly in Indy 4. It just wouldn't fit. But I wonder if the movie is going to be filmed in digital.

 

Not even in whatever silly world your mind lives in is this true. Practical effects look great when they are used in realistic settings. However, when used to try and create something out of this world (and if we are to believe the leaks, that is the direction of this movie) they stand out and look awful.

Granted, this report is wrong anyway. There will be CGI, because SS isn't a complete retard.

 

Have you seen Raiders' melting Nazi effect?

Have you seen BTTF's time travel effect?

Have you seen ROTJ's AT-ST effects?

Any one of those is better than all of ATOC effects.

 

First of all, it is AOTC... second, all the effects in AOTC are better than those horrid practical effects.

 

I was typing fast, and please tell me why those effects are supposedly horrid.

 

Look, I love practical effects for stills, and when they represent things in the normal world. Like, I really don't like it when cgi is used during car chases because there seems to be far less weight to the effects than practical ones.

However, when you use practical effects to do something other worldly, I find that practical effects always look like practical EFFECTS. There is always a reality to them that reveals the effect. Whereas very good cgi might be identifiable as an effect, but I can't see the seams of it in the shot. In the shots you mentioned, the scene is an effects shot.

Specifically, the melting shot, if you did that with cgi you would not have to frame the shot as an obvious effects shot. You could do it from different angles and the character could be framed more naturally.

Also, just watch the asteroid sequence in ESB and AOTC. If I make an effort, I can see every effects element of the ESB sequence. Since it is all cgi in AOTC, it is seamless. So, I actually look forward to full cgi photo realistic movies, where the actors are just voices and mocaps. Then everything will be possible and we won't have any more bluescreen sillyness.

 

It's shown head on because it looks very effective from that angle. They could have used multiple angles, but they just decided not to.

Older practical effects aren't completely seamless because they didn't have the technology to properly remove errors. I have no problem with CGI being used to enhance practical effects.

 

The point being, when you use only practical effects for that kind of shot, even today, it will not look seamless unless you frame the shot statically. Sure, you can do different angles, but everytime you do it, it will be framed statically. You will just edit around it.

Whereas with a cgi shot (whether it be a combo practical and cgi) you can shoot the sequence dynamically and make it look seamless.

I am all for practical effects when cgi is unnecessary. However, some people like to pretend like everything is better than cgi (which is what got this discussion going) and I consider that ridiculous.

 

What's wrong with static shots anyways?

 

Turbo,

I know what you're saying about the over use of CGI but really the four screen shots you used to compare the Indy Nazi Face Melt were crap. The first shot is the real person, the second shot is obviously a model, then the others look ok as still pictures but when you watch it in motion, the movement is totally unlifelike.

The BTTF effect is great, as is the AT-ST in ROTJ, but even with that said CGI when used correctly is much better than stop go animation, IMO.

Anyway, onto the thread topic, Indy IV.... hmmmm, I just can't imagine old man Harrison being an action hero. I do HOPE they can work it out and make it good but I'm not holding my breath.

 

I couldn't find any better shots.

The actor's face is probably used for comparison to the model.

As far as I can remember, the actor's face is shown, the camera cuts away, then it cuts back to the model.

The movement is a bit unrealistic, but it's still very effective.

Only when used correctly is CGI better. But the only places that I've seen it used correctly are Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, and Apollo 13, which all use it only when necessary.

I find it nearly impossible to tell if the AT-ST's are stop-motion when watching them. The movements are fabulous.

And as for Indy IV, Ford is quite fit for his age, and a bit of makeup can do wonders.