Though really, I've seen people predicting such would be the result of the new film for the past couple of years.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
An Indiana Jones without Indiana in the lead is... WRONG!
Stick to screwing up Star Wars, you heathen!
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
I'm excited about the new movie, and glad that (they say) they've kept it stylistically like the previous installments.
But I think they should end Indiana Jones with that. If Mutt is popular with the younger crowd, then they should give him the nickname "Tallahassee Jones" and start a new series which breaks from the old series by using more modern pacing, filming styles and techniques, and is designed to appeal to a new generation, while leaving us old folks with our fond Indiana Jones memories intact. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'd... Feared that that was what someone was hoping for with the introduction of LeBoeuf's character...
It just really strengthens my feeling that Lucas has gone entirely tone deaf with regard to the tastes and desires of his audience.
Or to put it less gently, it rather makes me hope he gets hit by a bus before such a travesty is allowed to become a reality.
I don't viscerally hate LeBoeuf, but I've never gone to a movie because he was the lead, and I haven't seen anything from him that suggests that I ever will.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its not your movie though its his.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I never said otherwise. It being "my gun" doesn't prevent me from shooting myself in the foot with it, even if that's a really stupid thing to do with said gun.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think this has more to do with the ever popular Lucas bashing than it does any real feelings about hypothetical and theoretical future Indy movies.
It's way too early to even talk about whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, since the 4th one isn't even out yet. Who knows if it'll be a good or bad idea? Certainly no one here, since no one has seen the next one. If Crystal Skull bombs, then that's that, especially if Shia, who I'm actually really not fond of, sucks. Otherwise I think these'd really be like New Adventures of Indiana Jones after a fashion, only on the big screen.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Erm. Hem.
"You are so beautiful!
It's only because I'm so in love . . .
No, it's because I'm so in love with you!..."
...Maybe it's Lucas bashing. But one could hardly say he hasn't earned it. I really do think he's gone tone deaf with regard to his audience... To the point that, maybe unfairly, if Skull doesn't fail it will be Spielberg I'll thank.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
You know, Lucas really has some great ideas-- when he cedes some of the creative process to someone else. It's only when he has too-complete control that he wrecks stuff. Indy wouldn't be what he is without Lucas involved. Luckily, Spielberg is also involved. Which is why I still have hope for Indy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I agree with KQ, but it seems like Lucas has not had a new idea in decades.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Not quite KQ, the very first Star Wars, ep. IV, was directed by Lucas because he wanted to "lay the groundwork for the later films" as he said in an interview with a film critic, I think his name was Leonard Maltin? Anyway, that movie was great, so the man has it in him, but I think he lost it long ago.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: I'd... Feared that that was what someone was hoping for with the introduction of LeBoeuf's character...
It just really strengthens my feeling that Lucas has gone entirely tone deaf with regard to the tastes and desires of his audience.
Or to put it less gently, it rather makes me hope he gets hit by a bus before such a travesty is allowed to become a reality.
I don't viscerally hate LeBoeuf, but I've never gone to a movie because he was the lead, and I haven't seen anything from him that suggests that I ever will.
Ironically, early reviews indicate that LaBoeuf is the best thing about what is otherwise a mediocre CGI-fest.
I've seen lots of stuff about Ford "picking up a paycheck" and Spielberg "asleep at the wheel," and almost every review voices dismay at how much influence Lucas seems to have had on the film. But most reviews also note that LaBoeuf does excellent work, despite the unremarkable-ness of the rest of the movie.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Not quite KQ, the very first Star Wars, ep. IV, was directed by Lucas because he wanted to "lay the groundwork for the later films" as he said in an interview with a film critic, I think his name was Leonard Maltin? Anyway, that movie was great, so the man has it in him, but I think he lost it long ago.
Yes, but he wasn't in charge of everything even for that movie. He had help with the script, production, direction, etc.
AND I should point out that cool as the original is, I'd call it the weakest, writing- and performance-wise, of the three movies.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Transformers was a bad movie. Greatest Game was a good movie. I don't think he was responsible for Transformers being a bad movie; the script was really, really dumb. But I also don't think he was the uplifting element of Game. He had good material to work with; he was "good enough". In some ways Holes was actually the more stand-out performance, in part because America seems to be producing so few competent child actors these days. But once you reach young adulthood, "good enough" is just that, and no more.
You might think he's better than that. You're welcome to your opinion. I disagree.
In another four or five movies, I may garner enough respect for Mr. LeBoeuf that I will be actively glad to see him. I don't think a continuation of Indiana Jones is likely to accrue that respect. Conversely, I'm actively glad to see Harrison Ford, despite the fact that he's made a fair number of actively bad movies in the last decade.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Shia, in many ways, reminds me of a young John Cusack (one of my favorite actors).
But then I just think, "Gosh, John Cusack would have been even better in that role."
Oh well...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Not quite KQ, the very first Star Wars, ep. IV, was directed by Lucas because he wanted to "lay the groundwork for the later films" as he said in an interview with a film critic, I think his name was Leonard Maltin? Anyway, that movie was great, so the man has it in him, but I think he lost it long ago.
Yes, but he wasn't in charge of everything even for that movie. He had help with the script, production, direction, etc.
AND I should point out that cool as the original is, I'd call it the weakest, writing- and performance-wise, of the three movies.
Right on, it's nowhere near the film that "The Empire Strikes Back" was. It just gets all the credit for being the first film.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Personally I'm a Jedi gal, myself. But Empire and Jedi both have much better writing, and better performances from the SAME actors, than ANH does. Not that I don't love ANH!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
A New Hope is really a different creature in some ways than the other two. It stands alone; it's a fairy tale, complete with dashing heroes, princesses in need of rescue, and a lone hero who manages to defeat an army.
(And, yes, it has some really cringe-worthy moments along the way for anyone over the age of nine. Still...)
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Transformers was a bad movie.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Transformers was a bad movie.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Transformers was a bad movie.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Transformers was a bad movie.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Transformers was a bad movie.
Sorry...I just get so excited when someone besides me says that... Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I don't get Transformers bashing. I think it was one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. The robots actually had human emotions instead of the typical *robotic voice* "What are feelings?" stereotype.
The human actors were good. The transformers were believable. The crisis made you care. The writing was good--for that type of movie. It had humor, action, and drama.
Transformers was a GREAT movie.
I haven't seen a movie that good since Independence Day and Wild Wild West...I'm totally not pulling this off, am I?
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: I'm totally not pulling this off, am I?
Oh, man, you totally had me. *stops hyperventilating*
For me, the best moment of Transformers was when (and I don't remember exactly how far into the movie this was) I suddenly realized that, should an enormous explosion blow up all the humans, and all the transformers, I would have considered that a satisfactory conclusion.
After that I mainly stayed in the theater because I had already paid my money, and wanted something to complain about. Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
I just felt I should add, before returning this thread to its proper topic, my favorite interview statement I've ever read regarding a movie was when the people responsible for Transformers promised that in the sequel they would "maintain the same depth of character" as the first movie.
Be still my soul.
Back on topic: I'm really hoping I'll get to see Indy tomorrow night, but I don't know if that'll work out.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeorge: Originally posted by Sterling: Transformers was a bad movie. Sorry...I just get so excited when someone besides me says that...
That was the short version. Much more invective was hurled upon it here... Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Ironically, early reviews indicate...a mediocre CGI-fest.
Most of the early reviews I've seen have praised the fact that CGI is kept to a minimum, with lots of stunt work, models, and whathaveyou being used instead.
[ May 21, 2008, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
A couple of the actors involved in the production got in trouble for spilling that they did a -lot- of greenscreen work.
Early reviews on sites like Cinematical and MTV's movie blog support that more than a few of the action sequences have that ol' CGI plastic sheen. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Interesting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: A couple of the actors involved in the production got in trouble for spilling that they did a -lot- of greenscreen work.
Early reviews on sites like Cinematical and MTV's movie blog support that more than a few of the action sequences have that ol' CGI plastic sheen.
That's disappointingly since Spielberg said several times during filming that he preferred traditional special effects rather then just using CGI everywhere.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
Enjoyable, silly and fun. Kind of weird (but not in a bad way) to see Indy in a different decade. As far as I'm concerned, Mutt is definitely NOT a strong enough character to warrant a spinoff series.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think he could carry his own movie, not after that movie. There were parts that were obviously CGI, but a lot of it looked like setwork, so if that was a CGI fest (with the exception of the last 20 minutes or so, which totally was), then it was damned fine CGI, because for the most part I couldn't tell which was which.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Already I'm seeing the hype articles doing a turnaround, praising Skull for using a fully-rendered CGI "virgin jungle" for one of the film's big action pieces.
After all the griping about old-school purity and hand-crafted cinematic warmth...mostly, people want something that looks good on screen, no matter how it's made. Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Anyone who gripes about the end of Crystal Skull being heavy on the special effects should go back and watch Raiders again. Or, either of the other two. All three laid on the special effects pretty thick, especially at the climax. It may not have been CGI back then, but the effects weren't any more realistic looking for not being computer-generated. These days we don't do cheesy looking spirit-wisps and melting wax figures. We do CGI. But FX are FX, as far as I'm concerned, and Indiana Jones has always had its fair share of them.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)