All-Purpose Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull [Archive]

Sabrina_Fried

02-03-2007, 03:17 PM

For a moment there, I thought GL had TOTALLY lost his mind and decided to give Indiana Jones Force powers or something.

Then I read the article.

Yeah, please no Chi Whip! I mean, really, they let actors handle guns on every two-bit, low rent TV show (and yes even guns firing blanks CAN be dangerous), so why do they draw the line at a bit of twisted leather? Just give him a good teacher to learn how to use it safely, a stunt coordinator that knows what s/he is doing, it's all good!

Sabrina

Jared

02-03-2007, 03:56 PM

That is a such a stupid rule, that I'm with Ford. Stuntman can dive off buildings and set themselves on fire, but Indiana Jones can't carry a whip on set?! Blunted swords are still dangerous, and actors use those all the time.

I remember Ford on the Tonight Show a few years ago, they brought out a whip for him to demonstrate if he's kept up his skills. He couldn't make it crack properly, but he did look like he basically knew what he was doing.

And yes, I too thought the chi being referred to was of the Eastern life-energy variety.

Chevan

02-03-2007, 04:48 PM

Athena Bast

02-03-2007, 05:11 PM

Chevan

02-03-2007, 05:37 PM

It might be just a whip but it's a signature piece for the character of Indiana Jones like the leather fedora.

I agree, the whip and the fedora are the visual trademarks of Indiana Jones.

However, I don't think being a visual trademark requires actual physical presence. I very much doubt there was a single leather fedora used for all of the Indiana Jones movies. Shit happens, and they probably went through more than a couple hats. However, what mattered was that he had a hat. It was the image of the fedora was what was important, not the fedora itself.

It's the same with the whip. There was likely more than one whip used during the filming of all the IJ movies so far. The whip is iconic, but again, it's the image of the whip that's iconic, not the whip itself. They could have changed individual whips between consecutive scenes, and nobody would know. All that mattered was that Indie had a whip.

This is a similar situation. The image of Indiana Jones, whip included, would still be maintained in the final product; the only difference is that there wouldn't be a physical whip used when the movie was filmed. Would any integrity be lost by using a CGI whip? Is Indiana Jones somehow lesser because in this instance his whip wouldn't have a physical presence on set?

I don't believe so.

mattx110

02-03-2007, 05:57 PM

i support the real whip because i think if they use a CGI they'll go too nuts with the grab and reach infinit abilities a CGI whip could have that reality can't do. i want a normal guy reacting to fantastic situations, not a guy with a magic whip.

oh, and the reason it took me this long to post is because i couldn't think of a good joke for "chi whip"

parrish

02-03-2007, 06:21 PM

Darn, now that is being a little over protective of Ford. I wonder how much more its going to cost for the CGI whip.

Cyke

02-03-2007, 07:48 PM

Psh. Asking Ford to wield a CGI whip is like asking Beethoven to sample.

Athena Bast

02-03-2007, 09:10 PM

I agree, the whip and the fedora are the visual trademarks of Indiana Jones.

However, I don't think being a visual trademark requires actual physical presence. I very much doubt there was a single leather fedora used for all of the Indiana Jones movies. Shit happens, and they probably went through more than a couple hats. However, what mattered was that he had a hat. It was the image of the fedora was what was important, not the fedora itself.

It's the same with the whip. There was likely more than one whip used during the filming of all the IJ movies so far. The whip is iconic, but again, it's the image of the whip that's iconic, not the whip itself. They could have changed individual whips between consecutive scenes, and nobody would know. All that mattered was that Indie had a whip.

This is a similar situation. The image of Indiana Jones, whip included, would still be maintained in the final product; the only difference is that there wouldn't be a physical whip used when the movie was filmed. Would any integrity be lost by using a CGI whip? Is Indiana Jones somehow lesser because in this instance his whip wouldn't have a physical presence on set?

I don't believe so.

See.. I'm one of those people who like authenticity in my movies. Too much crap is being CGI'd.

It's not if he had 12 hats throughout filming it's that he had a hat which is THE HAT.

It's why the original Star Wars movies are damn cool and the new ones are just movies to many.

It's why the corkscrew car jump in 'Live and let Die' is amazing because they researched the physics and everything and shot it ONCE. I know it's a real car doing that jump not some CGI blue screen mock up of a car on wires.

It's why in Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson use miniatures and "Big-atures" instead of CGI. It made it real and added to authenticity of what they were doing. It's why there was a shorter person running around as Gimli and not just CGIing in a scaled down version of John Rhys Davies.

You should only CGI stuff that you otherwise can't do/use/make.

Athena Bast

02-03-2007, 09:13 PM

Darn, now that is being a little over protective of Ford. I wonder how much more its going to cost for the CGI whip.

I wouldn't think it's just cost it's also how the whole instrument would feel carrying around and in use.

It's like knowing when someone is lip syncing and when they are actually singing.

Fish Sauce

02-03-2007, 09:16 PM

It's why the corkscrew car jump in 'Live and let Die' is amazing because they researched the physics and everything and shot it ONCE. I know it's a real car doing that jump not some CGI blue screen mock up of a car on wires.

Then they screwed it with the "wooop!" sound effect. :(

Ontir

02-03-2007, 09:25 PM

Let the man have his whip!

Don't screw up, what could be the first time in years, and perhaps the last time ever, that a Harrison Ford movie will make money!

DonC

02-04-2007, 12:04 AM

It looked that way to me, too, but the story's confirmed by a bunch of other movie news sites.

Every article I've seen quoted this first one, which was so poorly-written it has to be fake. Can you say, "Run-on sentence?" I knew you could.

The Batman

02-04-2007, 01:55 AM

Well that article does really give off a bit of a BS vibe doesn't it?

Assuming it is true, I still don't see what the fuss is all about. I imagine when and if this movie ever gets made they'll have any number of techniques at their disposal for any possible whip stunts. I mean, hasn't that always been the case? I DO have a feeling, now that the idea of a CGI whip is out there, that when and if we ever do get to see this movie, there'll be complaints over how fake the whip looks or that all the whip stuff was done on the computer regardless of if that's the case of not.

Speaking more generally to the whole Pro/Con CGI debate, I'm of the school of thought that says that so long as the end result looks solid and feels right, the manner of movie magic is used to achieve the end result isn't as important.

Ontir

02-04-2007, 02:04 AM

To be honest, when I saw "Chi Whip," I thought it was about Starbucks in his rider! :p

The Batman

02-04-2007, 02:23 AM

Chi tea latte does = yummmy :D

TheLazy

02-04-2007, 06:15 AM

Psh. Asking Ford to wield a CGI whip is like asking Beethoven to sample.

It aint that bad!

If they're doing it for safety then I suppose I can see where they're coming from, but fi they're doing it so that he can do inhuman stuff with it, then Im against it.

CGI does get overused nowadays, but that doesnt mean that it shouldnt get used at all, its just film makers should know when to show a little restraint.

:)

Dr. Banner

02-04-2007, 09:24 AM

The whip can also be an acting tool for Ford. It'll look more (as in, 100% more) realistic when he has the real whip. He'll have the weight of it in his hand, the physics that go with handling a whip, the body motions that accompany that...

I think much of that will be lost if he doesn't have the realness to work with. It will look like someone just swinging their arms.

And, of course, he's Harrison Ford and this IS Indiana Jones. Let him have his whip. It worked well enough for the other movies.

Chevan

02-04-2007, 12:03 PM

See.. I'm one of those people who like authenticity in my movies. Too much crap is being CGI'd.

I guess that's where we're not seeing eye to eye.

I don't see any appreciable difference in "authenticity" between physical objects and computer generated objects.

Howard Allan

02-04-2007, 12:04 PM

It's why the corkscrew car jump in 'Live and let Die' is amazing because they researched the physics and everything and shot it ONCE. I know it's a real car doing that jump not some CGI blue screen mock up of a car on wires.

Just for your info. That was done in The Man with The golden Gun, not Live and let Die. Sorry I'm a bond fan and like to get things right.

Brian "Vash" Ashby

02-04-2007, 12:39 PM

Even conventional special effects can be unbelievable. Such as when Bond and Dr. Quinn medicine woman outmaneuvered 3 motorcycle riders in their double decker bus.

Black Atom

02-04-2007, 02:54 PM

A CG whip? Really?

This movie is going to suck.

Athena Bast

02-04-2007, 03:24 PM

Just for your info. That was done in The Man with The golden Gun, not Live and let Die. Sorry I'm a bond fan and like to get things right.

Really? I thought they revisited the area in the South and the county Sheriff has this hate on for Bond.

At least I got the right Bond. Funny.. cuz I don't remember ever watching Man with the golden gun in it entirety. Just bits and pieces of it.

Hmmm... thanks though. Much appreciated.

drwho

02-04-2007, 04:45 PM

I refuse to see Indie with a CGI whip.

Captain_Video

02-04-2007, 05:10 PM

Good to see someone turning against pointless CGI ( ok so it is in a slightly un needed sequel but small victories ).

The man can USE a whip, we have seen him do it, he can DO stunts.

Save some money and make a much better more spectacular product.

Sell talent for once.

Come on everybody Indy, Indy, Indy !!

Unless this is an elaborate publicity stunt, "thats right fans he WILL use the whip" ( fans cheer )

Cyke

02-04-2007, 05:59 PM

It aint that bad!

If they're doing it for safety then I suppose I can see where they're coming from, but fi they're doing it so that he can do inhuman stuff with it, then Im against it.

CGI does get overused nowadays, but that doesnt mean that it shouldnt get used at all, its just film makers should know when to show a little restraint.

:)

We're asking for CGI restraint... from George Lucas?!

I have no problems with CGI, but if it's used in place of even the simplest things, or in place of stunts that looked great because there was considerable time and effort used in planning it out (with lots of input between the director and the stunts/physics team), then I have a problem.

To me, two of the clearest examples of CGI done badly were the Matrix sequels (to the point where even mere cars driving by were inserted) and House of Flying Daggers (with the titular Flying Daggers). The former was really superfluous, the latter was just a bit lazy. Wushu directors have been getting such great angles from simple objects for years without CGI.

And I agree with the above post: Sell talent. We pay money to see actors do something (especially something that's more or less their trademark).

Chevan

02-04-2007, 07:58 PM

And I agree with the above post: Sell talent. We pay money to see actors do something (especially something that's more or less their trademark).

If Harrison Ford was a bull whip stunt man whose only talent was elaborate tricks with a whip, I would completely agree with you. But Ford is an actor, and the talent he's being paid for is his acting talent.

Indiana Jones is Ford's trademark, not the whip that Jones carries. Is Harrison Ford somehow less of an actor because his character isn't using a real whip? Is Indiana Jones somehow less of a character because the whip he's using was created on a computer instead of existing on the set?

I don't think so. The image of Indiana Jones will be the same in the final product, regardless of whether the whip he used ever existed. Ford's trademark character will still be the same.

And more likely than not, the audience wouldn't know the difference.

kmeyers

02-04-2007, 08:07 PM

When I saw the post I was like, "They want Indie to generate a whip from his life force?"

This made me seriously laugh out loud.

There is no way this is for real. Wasting money on a completely unecessary effect? Come on.

mattx110

02-04-2007, 08:11 PM

And more likely than not, the audience wouldn't know the difference.

that's kinda what we're hoping for. which is why we like the idea of a real whip, not a magical CGI one that can do anything.

Chevan

02-04-2007, 08:15 PM

that's kinda what we're hoping for. which is why we like the idea of a real whip, not a magical CGI one that can do anything.

Just because the whip happens to be CG does not automatically mean they're going to be using it in ways that whips are not capable of being used.

Look at the reasons they cited for not letting Ford use the whip: Safety laws and insurance requirements. They didn't say, "We're not letting Ford use a real whip because he can't do all the impossible things we want him to do." I'm sure that if it weren't for those restrictions, they would go ahead and let Ford use the whip.

Athena Bast

02-04-2007, 08:27 PM

If Harrison Ford was a bull whip stunt man whose only talent was elaborate tricks with a whip, I would completely agree with you. But Ford is an actor, and the talent he's being paid for is his acting talent.

Indiana Jones is Ford's trademark, not the whip that Jones carries. Is Harrison Ford somehow less of an actor because his character isn't using a real whip? Is Indiana Jones somehow less of a character because the whip he's using was created on a computer instead of existing on the set?

I don't think so. The image of Indiana Jones will be the same in the final product, regardless of whether the whip he used ever existed. Ford's trademark character will still be the same.

And more likely than not, the audience wouldn't know the difference.

It's just that.. he's not using the whip to flick out a cigarette in someone's mouth he's wrapping it around trees and bars to swing from. Or around arms to stall a bad guy from running away.

Half the time I think stunt doubles and whip professionals are there to do the important whip stunts from off camera.

He's a practical whipper not a flamboyant one.

Howard Allan

02-04-2007, 08:58 PM

Really? I thought they revisited the area in the South and the county Sheriff has this hate on for Bond.

At least I got the right Bond. Funny.. cuz I don't remember ever watching Man with the golden gun in it entirety. Just bits and pieces of it.

Hmmm... thanks though. Much appreciated.

No Prob. The sheriff was in TMWTGG. He and his wife were taking a vaction in the same place that Bond was in. The sheriff is looking at a car in a car dealership and bond jumps in asks if he wants a test drive and crashes the car through the dealership window to chase Scaramanga. The corkscrew jump takes place about 3/4 of the way through the chase.

Chevan

02-04-2007, 09:17 PM

It's just that.. he's not using the whip to flick out a cigarette in someone's mouth he's wrapping it around trees and bars to swing from. Or around arms to stall a bad guy from running away.

That doesn't change what I said.

Ford is paid to be an actor and to perform the character of Indiana Jones. The whip is secondary to that; it's is an important part of his image, but Jones is not his whip. Whether he's doing flamboyant tricks or practical ones, it still doesn't change that the whip is not integral to his character.

A CG whip is not a degradation of Jones as a character because there is a lot more to him. He's a skilled archaeologist, an accomplished brawler, and an intelligent man. That is what's truly important, and that's what will (hopefully) be intact for the fourth movie. A real whip would be icing on the cake, but if the whip has to be CG it's no real loss.

I think Harrison Ford is being stubborn about a trivial issue.

kmeyers

02-04-2007, 09:25 PM

That doesn't change what I said.

Ford is paid to be an actor and to perform the character of Indiana Jones. The whip is secondary to that; it's is an important part of his image, but Jones is not his whip. Whether he's doing flamboyant tricks or practical ones, it still doesn't change that the whip is not integral to his character.

A CG whip is not a degradation of Jones as a character because there is a lot more to him. He's a skilled archaeologist, an accomplished brawler, and an intelligent man. That is what's truly important, and that's what will (hopefully) be intact for the fourth movie. A real whip would be icing on the cake, but if the whip has to be CG it's no real loss.

I think Harrison Ford is being stubborn about a trivial issue.

The whip is a prop. There are so many ways to film around him(or a stunt man) using a real whip.

Why don't we just CGI everything, because real locations can be dangerous. He might stub a toe in a rocky setting...

It's stupid, and completely visually unauthentic to have Harrison Ford pretend to crack an invisible whip...for no good reason.

Chevan

02-04-2007, 09:46 PM

The whip is a prop. There are so many ways to film around him(or a stunt man) using a real whip.

Exactly. It's a prop. The whip is not vital to the story, and it is not an integral part of the character; it's merely there to complete the image and further the action.

And one of the ways that they can get around the restrictions on Ford not being able to use a prop is to create the prop digitally.

It's stupid, and completely visually unauthentic to have Harrison Ford pretend to crack an invisible whip...for no good reason.

For no good reason? Laws and insurance regulations aren't put in place arbitrarily. There wouldn't be restrictions on actors using actual whips if there hadn't been real problems in the past.

As for whether it would be visually authentic, I believe Ford has enough skill to make it convincing.

Why don't we just CGI everything, because real locations can be dangerous. He might stub a toe in a rocky setting...

That slippery slope might be applicable if it had been the sole decision of the staff of the movie to use a CG whip. I have no doubt that if they could, they would be using a real whip, but the laws and regulations that are preventing them from doing so are not their fault.

kmeyers

02-04-2007, 10:03 PM

Exactly. It's a prop. The whip is not vital to the story, and it is not an integral part of the character; it's merely there to complete the image and further the action.
It's not like he's going to be slinging a nuclear bomb from his hip. It's a few pieces of leather.

And one of the ways that they can get around the restrictions on Ford not being able to use a prop is to create the prop digitally.
And waste an incredible amount of money on an effect that would look better done real.

For no good reason? Laws and insurance regulations aren't put in place arbitrarily. There wouldn't be restrictions on actors using actual whips if there hadn't been real problems in the past.
Yeah, no good reason. It's a silly rule/law/whatever, and it's unfortunate that you agree that this is somehow a worthwhile restriction. Stuntmen do much more dangerous stunts everyday. So is this new insurance regulation putting them all out of jobs?

As for whether it would be visually authentic, I believe Ford has enough skill to make it convincing.
Not if he doesn't want to, and I don't blame him at all.

That slippery slope might be applicable if it had been the sole decision of the staff of the movie to use a CG whip. I have no doubt that if they could, they would be using a real whip, but the laws and regulations that are preventing them from doing so are not their fault.
What's to keep these new regulations from imposing furthur on how all movies are shot? Next, movies will have to be filmed in front of a green screen for safety?

The Batman

02-04-2007, 10:37 PM

1) We have no idea how accurate this story is. The original article, the article that most every other article refered to when discussing the story, had a certain tabloid BS vibe to it.

2) Even if the article is accurate we have no clue exactly how the CGI whip might be used. Maybe it's nothing more than for trick shots where the whip is used to wrap around people or hit people? Maybe it's just for one quick bit? There's really not a whole lot in that article to base any sorts of judgements on. At any rate, if seems a tad early to start calling suckage on Indy 4 because their might be some CGI in it.

3) I'm impressed that the thread has made it to 4 pages and so far I don't think anyone has made any George Lucas CGI cheap shots. Awesome!!

Chevan

02-05-2007, 01:23 AM

3) I'm impressed that the thread has made it to 4 pages and so far I don't think anyone has made any George Lucas CGI cheap shots. Awesome!!

Sorry to say it, but there was a cheap shot in post 38 (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=4340682&postcount=38).

It's not like he's going to be slinging a nuclear bomb from his hip. It's a few pieces of leather.

So if you admit that it's just a few pieces of leather and not something that will make or break the character, why are people getting worked up that it's being replaced by CGI?

And waste an incredible amount of money on an effect that would look better done real.

Then that's the movie makers' discretion about how they're going to spend their budget and not something we should be worrying about.

I'm not saying I necessarily like the idea of having a CG whip, but I believe that making it the huge issue it is right now is ridiculous. Ford being disgruntled over not being able to use a real whip is not something that should stop the movie from getting off the ground.

Yeah, no good reason. It's a silly rule/law/whatever, and it's unfortunate that you agree that this is somehow a worthwhile restriction. Stuntmen do much more dangerous stunts everyday. So is this new insurance regulation putting them all out of jobs?

No. You said the key bit yourself: They're stuntmen.

And Harrison Ford isn't. Stuntmen are trained to do the things that they do properly and safely. Harrison Ford may have known at one point how to handle a whip, but he isn't a stuntman. He's an actor.

What's to keep these new regulations from imposing furthur on how all movies are shot? Next, movies will have to be filmed in front of a green screen for safety?

What's going to keep the "new" regulations (New is in quotes because the last Indie movie was made seventeen years ago) from restricting future movies is the existence of people specifically trained and registered as stuntmen.

The safety laws and insurance regulations aren't stopping a whip being used at all, they're stopping Harrison Ford from using a whip. Just because Ford isn't allowed to do something slightly dangerous in this one movie does not automatically mean that nothing dangerous is ever going to be allowed in any movie from now on.

kmeyers

02-05-2007, 01:54 AM

Sorry to say it, but there was a cheap shot in post 38 (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=4340682&postcount=38).

So if you admit that it's just a few pieces of leather and not something that will make or break the character, why are people getting worked up that it's being replaced by CGI?
because it's silly to pay more for pretend.

[Then that's the movie makers' discretion about how they're going to spend their budget and not something we should be worrying about.
funny, it's not at the movie maker's discretion. This nonesense is being forced on them.

I'm not saying I necessarily like the idea of having a CG whip, but I believe that making it the huge issue it is right now is ridiculous. Ford being disgruntled over not being able to use a real whip is not something that should stop the movie from getting off the ground.
No. You said the key bit yourself: They're stuntmen.

And Harrison Ford isn't. Stuntmen are trained to do the things that they do properly and safely. Harrison Ford may have known at one point how to handle a whip, but he isn't a stuntman. He's an actor.

Really? No actor ever did his own stunts? Go rethink that.

Chevan

02-05-2007, 02:46 AM

because it's silly to pay more for pretend.

But it's still at the movie makers' discretion to pay for it. Just because it's "silly" does not give the general public sufficient reason to go into an uproar about it.

funny, it's not at the movie maker's discretion. This nonesense is being forced on them.

No, it is at their discretion.

Nowhere in that article was it said "We cannot have the physical presence of a whip anywhere on set." All that was said was "We cannot allowed Harrison Ford to use a whip."

Please tell me you see the distinction.

Really? No actor ever did his own stunts? Go rethink that.

So because actors in the past have been known to do their own stunts that automatically means that oh golly gee, the lawyers must have been wrong? Harrison Ford can use a whip?

In the case of this movie, Harrison Ford's prior experience is not sufficient, and the use of a whip requires a stunt man. If the story is indeed true, if the lawyers of the production studio are being paid at all, they'll have looked for a way for Ford to use his whip to keep him on the project. That he's threatening to walk off is proof that they haven't found a way and that what he's done in the past isn't enough for them to let him handle a whip.

TheLazy

02-05-2007, 06:56 AM

We're asking for CGI restraint... from George Lucas?!

I have no problems with CGI, but if it's used in place of even the simplest things, or in place of stunts that looked great because there was considerable time and effort used in planning it out (with lots of input between the director and the stunts/physics team), then I have a problem.

To me, two of the clearest examples of CGI done badly were the Matrix sequels (to the point where even mere cars driving by were inserted) and House of Flying Daggers (with the titular Flying Daggers). The former was really superfluous, the latter was just a bit lazy. Wushu directors have been getting such great angles from simple objects for years without CGI.

And I agree with the above post: Sell talent. We pay money to see actors do something (especially something that's more or less their trademark).

Not Lucas, hollywood in general. Lucas would probably thing 'less CGI' was sarcasm and meant more CGI.

Id be very dissapointed if IJ4 turned out like Reloaded or Revolutions, which where pure CGI fests. But just because they are having Indy use a CGI wip doesnt mean that it will, they are just trying to make best out of an awkward situation.

:)

Captain_Video

02-05-2007, 10:31 AM

But it's still at the movie makers' discretion to pay for it. Just because it's "silly" does not give the general public sufficient reason to go into an uproar about it.

No, it is at their discretion.

Nowhere in that article was it said "We cannot have the physical presence of a whip anywhere on set." All that was said was "We cannot allowed Harrison Ford to use a whip."

Please tell me you see the distinction.

So because actors in the past have been known to do their own stunts that automatically means that oh golly gee, the lawyers must have been wrong? Harrison Ford can use a whip?

In the case of this movie, Harrison Ford's prior experience is not sufficient, and the use of a whip requires a stunt man. If the story is indeed true, if the lawyers of the production studio are being paid at all, they'll have looked for a way for Ford to use his whip to keep him on the project. That he's threatening to walk off is proof that they haven't found a way and that what he's done in the past isn't enough for them to let him handle a whip.

Interesting anecdote, at one point in the original Indiana Jones filming Harrison Ford was taken aside by the stunt man and asked if he could stop doing so many stunts, as the stuntman was losing money.

With CGI even if Harrison Ford did not use the whip a stunt man is losing out on money.

In this case there is no excuse for CGI, as a whip in a semi realistic movie, should not be doing things a whip can not do in reality.

This is one argument that is cut and dry, use a real whip, save money, real whips are cool.

( and in the right hands sort of kinky ).

Athena Bast

02-05-2007, 04:32 PM

That doesn't change what I said.

Ford is paid to be an actor and to perform the character of Indiana Jones. The whip is secondary to that; it's is an important part of his image, but Jones is not his whip. Whether he's doing flamboyant tricks or practical ones, it still doesn't change that the whip is not integral to his character.

A CG whip is not a degradation of Jones as a character because there is a lot more to him. He's a skilled archaeologist, an accomplished brawler, and an intelligent man. That is what's truly important, and that's what will (hopefully) be intact for the fourth movie. A real whip would be icing on the cake, but if the whip has to be CG it's no real loss.

I think Harrison Ford is being stubborn about a trivial issue.

We might as well CGI the hat too... and the gun... and the leather jacket.

We might as well not call him Indiana and call him Henry. Indiana was his dog's name.

I can tell you right now the guns (which I'm sure Ford will be using one) and explosives they will be using on the set will be far more dangerous than the whip.

kalorama

02-05-2007, 04:49 PM

It's stupid, and completely visually unauthentic to have Harrison Ford pretend to crack an invisible whip...for no good reason.

There's at least one very good reason: Harrison Ford is an old man. The studio would rather not have their 7-figure (at least) investment in the film scrubbed because he put an eye out (his or someone else's) with a real whip.

Chevan

02-05-2007, 05:22 PM

We might as well CGI the hat too... and the gun... and the leather jacket.

If there are legitimate reasons that prevent the creators of the movie from using the real hat, gun, and leather jacket, as there are in the case of the whip, then CGing those items would make sense.

But your slippery slope doesn't hold when you consider that this is not a spur of the moment, we'll-do-it-because-we-feel-like-it decision.

We might as well not call him Indiana and call him Henry. Indiana was his dog's name.

That's up to the writers, then. For all we know, someone in the next movie will call him Henry all the time.

Black Atom

02-05-2007, 06:05 PM

It's not that the CG-whip itself is a big deal, it's kinda what it represents. The Indy movies thrived on simple pulp action. The kinda stuff you'd see in any wild west stunt show that never gets old. CG-ing a whip epitomizes missing the point. I think it reminds us of how utterly soulless some CGI-stand-ins are in favorite films. I don't really see why it's so difficult to reproduce as a practical effect, anyway (which makes me doubt the legitimacy of the article to begin with).

Magneto_X

02-05-2007, 06:10 PM

Just replace him with Nathan Fillion and get on with it.

Ford's time is over.

Isn't there a sequel to Hollywood Homicide he should be working on? ;)

Magneto_X

02-05-2007, 06:12 PM

He's an old, cranky Harrison Ford pretending to be Indiana Jones... not Coney Island Jones.

Fixed it for you.

The Batman

02-05-2007, 06:52 PM

There's at least one very good reason: Harrison Ford is an old man. The studio would rather not have their 7-figure (at least) investment in the film scrubbed because he put an eye out (his or someone else's) with a real whip.

You know, this got me thinking that maybe it's those actors and stunt people that might have old man Ford swinging that whip in their directions that would rather see some CGI involved.

Again, assuming that this story is at all true.

wingsofdamnation

02-05-2007, 10:28 PM

why the hell would they want to give him a CGI whip? thats retarded on so many levels. health regulations? give me a break

Cyke

02-05-2007, 11:20 PM

See, the thing is, Ford wants a real whip. So what if he's rusty? That's what pre-production training is for. The whole thing reminds me of Jackie Chan in Rush Hour 2: he nearly stormed off the set and nearly turned down doing RH3 because Brett Ratner said Chan should cut down on all the stunts. Batting against Ratner was that 1. Chan knew he could do those stunts(and proved it in later, Asian movies) and 2. Chan wanted to do it and felt he was robbing the audiences of cutting down his own stuntwork.

Ford is an actor, we pay to see his stuff. But if there are abilities that he's sincerely trained for and wants us to see it, then, by all means, let the man show it.

kalorama

02-05-2007, 11:34 PM

Ford is an actor, we pay to see his stuff. But if there are abilities that he's sincerely trained for and wants us to see it, then, by all means, let the man show it.

Right. He's an actor. He's not a professional, lifelong rodeo performer or cowboy or anyone else who might use a whip oin a daily basis. More specifically he's an actor pushing 70. Would you want to be in swinging distance of a 65 year old man swinging a whip around? I doubt it. He plays an never aging, indestructible hero in the movies. In real life, guys that age have a significant decline in reflexes, reaction time, visual acuity, all things that might be an issue for someone wielding a bull whip in close proximity to other people.

why the hell would they want to give him a CGI whip? thats retarded on so many levels. health regulations? give me a break

It's health regulations by way of legal and insurance regulations, most likely. If they let him use a real whip chances are that the insurance and bonding costs will go up significantly, perhaps even prohibitively. On a movie that's pretty much guaranteed to cost small fortune to begin with, that could be a major issue.

Cyke

02-05-2007, 11:49 PM

Right. He's an actor. He's not a professional, lifelong rodeo performer or cowboy or anyone else who might use a whip oin a daily basis. More specifically he's an actor pushing 70. Would you want to be in swinging distance of a 65 year old man swinging a whip around? I doubt it. He plays an never aging, indestructible hero in the movies. In real life, guys that age have a significant decline in reflexes, reaction time, visual acuity, all things that might be an issue for someone wielding a bull whip in close proximity to other people.

I normally never give League of Extraordinary Gentlemen any credit, but the one (and only one) thing that the movie did well was having Sean Connery in the fight scenes. He was old. He was sluggish. But you could definitely feel the power behind dem punches, and it was a decent idea to contrast him with the younger Tom Sawyer. One of IJ4's themes (in most of its drafts, but not sure about the final product) is the theme of generations and age.

Same thing with Patrick Stewart as Capt. Picard.

And, on top of it, for a guy in his sixties, Harrison Ford looks better than most guys in their 40s. What really helped justify Chan's anger against Ratner was that Chan proved him wrong two years later regarding his physical abilities. He gave himself his own chance when others wouldn't. If Ford wants that chance, give it.

The Batman

02-06-2007, 12:00 AM

Cyke

02-06-2007, 12:17 AM

Also, we don't know really any of the particulars of this supposed CGI whip or even if that article is even remotely legitimate.

It seems a bit premature, not too mention a little unwarranted, to call Indy 4 a terrible movie or to declare the character ruined.

Oh, I admit that it's a bit premature, and I doubt Indy 4 would be totally ruined by a CGI whip. Even if it's a fine film, I just don't think it'll be as authentic as some other attempts to bring back old film series. I know I bashed on the Matrix sequels and House of Flying Daggers earlier in this thread for unnecessary CGI, but if you check some of my earlier posts (provided they weren't wiped out), I gave Reloaded and House of Flying Daggers 3.5 out of four stars. Would actual cars and daggers push them to 4 stars? Would more CGI reduce them to 3 stars? Doubt it on both counts. But there is something to be said about old fashioned authenticity.

Now, the CGI Ghostbusters flick, I don't really have a problem with, since the concept of mere humans fighting ghosts on their own turf is outlandish enough. The Indy movies, on the other hand, had intricate and complex stunts, with animated special f/x kept to a bare minimum.

Athena Bast

02-06-2007, 07:31 AM

Myabe I'm getting old but I don't recall seeing the whip used against a person and if it was they can shoot it so it looks like Ford did it and then have a stuntie do the close up technical stuff.

kalorama

02-06-2007, 09:17 AM

I normally never give League of Extraordinary Gentlemen any credit, but the one (and only one) thing that the movie did well was having Sean Connery in the fight scenes. He was old. He was sluggish. But you could definitely feel the power behind dem punches, and it was a decent idea to contrast him with the younger Tom Sawyer. One of IJ4's themes (in most of its drafts, but not sure about the final product) is the theme of generations and age.

Same thing with Patrick Stewart as Capt. Picard.

And, on top of it, for a guy in his sixties, Harrison Ford looks better than most guys in their 40s.

(A) There's a difference between a fight scene and handling a whip. It should be rather obvious that a person has a lot more control over where his hand goes than where the end of a whip traveling at up to 100 mph goes. And the consequences of the missing the mark are much worse for the latter than the former.

(B) How good Harrison Ford looks is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Myabe I'm getting old but I don't recall seeing the whip used against a person...

Not really the point. There will be people within striking distance of the whip (other cast, the crew, Ford himself) when the stunts are being done, regardless of whether he's using the whip against someone else in the scene or not. All of those people are at risk, and that risk has an impact on the film's financial bottom line.

...and if it was they can shoot it so it looks like Ford did it and then have a stuntie do the close up technical stuff.

Or they can just CGI the whip in and avoid the problem altogether.

Cyke

02-06-2007, 09:38 AM

(A) There's a difference between a fight scene and handling a whip. It should be rather obvious that a person has a lot more control over where his hand goes than where the end of a whip traveling at up to 100 mph goes. And the consequences of the missing the mark are much worse for the latter than the former.

Forgive my memory, but has Indy ever used his whip on a person? Hasn't he only used it as a tool for swinging/grabbing and other things that aren't close to people?

Unless he used it on a bad guy's hand to disarm, say, a sword. If I'm forgetting something like that, then forgiveness.

About your earlier comment about how Ford is merely an actor, not a bullwhip expert: He did train for the whip for the first movie, and went back and practiced again for the sequels. In the context of your statement, it's like saying Nathan Lane is merely an actor, that we don't pay him to sing or dance. Or that Keanu Reeves is merely an actor, we don't pay him to film martial arts fights.

Ford's also a practicing carpenter (even before Star Wars) and an emergency helicopter pilot. Surely *one* of those jobs says something about his dexterity and hand-eye coordination.

(B) How good Harrison Ford looks is utterly irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Huh? Isn't his age-defiance an indication of his physical fitness? I thought this entire pro-CGI whip side's defense was because of doubts of Ford's ability to handle said-whip.

Jmacq1

02-06-2007, 10:02 AM

Well, given that they've announced an official release date for Indy IV (May 22nd, 2008), I'm pretty sure we can agree that this article is either bogus, or the matter has been resolved.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/31468

kalorama

02-06-2007, 10:09 AM

Forgive my memory, but has Indy ever used his whip on a person? Hasn't he only used it as a tool for swinging/grabbing and other things that aren't close to people?

Unless he used it on a bad guy's hand to disarm, say, a sword. If I'm forgetting something like that, then forgiveness.

About your earlier comment about how Ford is merely an actor, not a bullwhip expert: He did train for the whip for the first movie, and went back and practiced again for the sequels. In the context of your statement, it's like saying Nathan Lane is merely an actor, that we don't pay him to sing or dance. Or that Keanu Reeves is merely an actor, we don't pay him to film martial arts fights.

Ford's also a practicing carpenter (even before Star Wars) and an emergency helicopter pilot. Surely *one* of those jobs says something about his dexterity and hand-eye coordination.

None of them say anything of any relevance about his ability to safely handle a whip, which he likely hasn't done since filming wrapped on the last Indy film almost 20 years ago, because the skill set for each is completely different.

And I'm pretty sure that Nathan Lane's singing and dancing doesn't run the risk of physical injury to bystanders. (See the previous comments about the difference between fight stunts and whip handling for a response to the Reeves issue.)

Huh? Isn't his age-defiance an indication of his physical fitness?

(A) Not really. (B) He can be in great shape for a guy his age and still not have the right physical requirements to safely handle a whip.

I thought this entire pro-CGI whip side's defense was because of doubts of Ford's ability to handle said-whip.

And his ability to handle a whip cannot in any meaningful way be determined by how young he looks.

The Batman

02-06-2007, 10:14 AM

Oh, I admit that it's a bit premature, and I doubt Indy 4 would be totally ruined by a CGI whip. Even if it's a fine film, I just don't think it'll be as authentic as some other attempts to bring back old film series. I know I bashed on the Matrix sequels and House of Flying Daggers earlier in this thread for unnecessary CGI, but if you check some of my earlier posts (provided they weren't wiped out), I gave Reloaded and House of Flying Daggers 3.5 out of four stars. Would actual cars and daggers push them to 4 stars? Would more CGI reduce them to 3 stars? Doubt it on both counts. But there is something to be said about old fashioned authenticity.

Now, the CGI Ghostbusters flick, I don't really have a problem with, since the concept of mere humans fighting ghosts on their own turf is outlandish enough. The Indy movies, on the other hand, had intricate and complex stunts, with animated special f/x kept to a bare minimum.

For the record, my comment wasn't directed against you specifically. It was more of a general comment about some of the reactions to this story that have popped up throughout the thread. As a general rule I figure that if it's safe, affordable, and possible to, you should use the real thing as much as possible - if for no other reason that it's going to look real on film alot easier than getting CGI to look real. That being said, we have no clue how true this article is, nor do we know any of the details about how this proposed CGI whip is going to be used. As I said, there seems to be little cause for all the worry I'm seeing.

Cyke

02-06-2007, 10:18 AM

None of them say anything of any relevance about his ability to safely handle a whip, which he likely hasn't done since filming wrapped on the last Indy film almost 20 years ago, because the skill set for each is completely different.

Compared to, say, Anthony Hopkins, who was in his 60s and wielded a whip in a similar Indy fashion in the Mask of Zorro in 1998? He seemed to do just fine with an actual whip. IIRC, there was no real complaints with Hopkins doing any of his own stunts, including his weapons.

Is Anthony Hopkins, who had zero-whip experience prior to the movie, better qualified than a man of comparable age and in better physical condition who actually did train with the whip?

And I'm pretty sure that Nathan Lane's singing and dancing doesn't run the risk of physical injury to bystanders. (See the previous comments about the difference between fight stunts and whip handling for a response to the Reeves issue.)

Ribs were broken and sprains were suffered on the Matrix sets, notably suffered by Carrie Anne Moss. Are you sure about the lack of physical injury there? Or should they have just CGI'd her kicks?

(A) Not really. (B) He can be in great shape for a guy his age and still not have the right physical requirements to safely handle a whip.

And his ability to handle a whip cannot in any meaningful way be determined by how young he looks.

Physical intelligence. According to modern psychology, the mindset that dictates how you exercise and maintain your body is the same mindset that dictates the desire to increase physical ability. Hell, as old as George Foreman is, I'm pretty sure he can still box even just a little.

It's pretty clear that he has the desire to put that ability to use. The guy says so himself. It is kind of foolish to believe that any professional would jump into filming without refreshing those skills in the first place.

Black Atom

02-06-2007, 10:47 AM

Cyke

02-06-2007, 10:51 AM

The idea that there's a safety issue that makes an actual whip impractical is just stupid, that's why the article seems bogus. It's no more of a safety issue now than it was 20 years ago or for anyone that has ever used a whip, sword, stick or any prop weapon in a movie. There are people who's job it is to make these practical effects work safely, while still appearing realistic. This has been a part of cinema since the beginning. Or do you think they just rely on the actors to have enough precision to not hit someone for real?

I think that, even if it is a safety issue, Indy's always used his whip on inanimate objects anyway. Couldn't the crew stand 50 ft away from Ford and do a closeup while he fires his whip onto a cliff? It's not like Ford was somersaulting and then whipping something in the air. If there's anyone that needs to be somewhat close to Indy, some creative camera cuts or angles will easily solve the problem of distance.

Captain_Video

02-06-2007, 10:55 AM

It would be cheaper to hire a stuntman, this would give them extra work to feed their families assuming Ford is "too decrepid" to use the whip.

There will no doubt be a lot of CGI in the movie anyway, that way nobody loses out on a payday.

Black Atom

02-06-2007, 11:06 AM

I think that, even if it is a safety issue, Indy's always used his whip on inanimate objects anyway. Couldn't the crew stand 50 ft away from Ford and do a closeup while he fires his whip onto a cliff? It's not like Ford was somersaulting and then whipping something in the air. If there's anyone that needs to be somewhat close to Indy, some creative camera cuts or angles will easily solve the problem of distance.

Exactly! I mean, there really shouldn't be anyone in the vicinity to be hit "accidentally" by a whip. And anyone who works on a movie knows there's different props for different scenes/effects etc. The whip you see on Indy's hip is probably replaced with a lighter one for scenes where he's striking at something/someone and, like you said, the rest is all camera angles/cuts etc.

Chevan

02-06-2007, 05:38 PM

Myabe I'm getting old but I don't recall seeing the whip used against a person and if it was they can shoot it so it looks like Ford did it and then have a stuntie do the close up technical stuff.

IIRC, at the beginning of the first movie Jones uses his whip to disarm a man who was about to shoot him.

Gezora

02-07-2007, 01:43 AM

A CG whip or a real one....

Such a silly argument, really.

Gargus

02-07-2007, 06:15 AM

I think they could at least try to make an exception for Ford.

However, I also think that Ford is being stupidly stubborn about this. Dear god, man, it's a whip. I really don't think it's worth getting worked up about.

How is he being stubborn? He thinks a cgi whip would be stupid and I personally agree with him. I hate cgi effects in movies. I dont care how good they are you can tell whats fake and what isnt and that ruins the atmosphere of a film. If your sitting watching a movie and see something thats obviously fake then it detracts you away from the movie putting your mind back outside reality.

Besides cgi stuff is just a crutch in most cases. Instead of spending time making a effect look good they take the cheap, easy and quick route out of it and just throw some money at the cgi guys to take care of it.

Id take animatronics and prosthetic effects over cgi anyday. And anyone who says that stuff isnt as good never saw dark crystal, old star wars movies or whatnot.

If they did use a cgi whip I know what would happen. They would make it all flowing and cool looking and not natural. Would look like crap.

Athena Bast

02-07-2007, 07:36 AM

IIRC, at the beginning of the first movie Jones uses his whip to disarm a man who was about to shoot him.

Yeah.. that was nigh on 30 years ago.... when he was half the age he is now.

And I'm pretty damn sir they'd write a script showing Indy's age. He'll have to prove he can still do stuff, except get the girl because he's like Indiana Jones, Yo!

Chevan

02-07-2007, 10:03 AM

Yeah.. that was nigh on 30 years ago.... when he was half the age he is now.

You might not want to change your argument midstride.

You made the argument that you didn't "recall seeing the whip used against a person," implying that the safety rules didn't make sense because there was never any chance for people to get hurt. Cyke has the same point. You also suggested that even if the whip had been used on people, fast cuts and camera trickery could be used to hide that it wasn't actually Ford using the whip. That verifies that you were talking about the safety rules and their applications to Ford, not anything regarding his age.

How is he being stubborn? He thinks a cgi whip would be stupid and I personally agree with him.

Harrison Ford is threatening to quit a movie because one of the props will be CG.

This is a prop that does not require physical presence on set in order to complete the image of Indiana Jones. It is a prop that is not vital to the plot or to the success of a movie. It is a prop that will probably be used, at the very most, ten times in the final movie. It is a prop that, if CG, will be created by ILM - the same people who created the nearly flawless dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, and the same people who are considered one of the best special effects companies in the business.

Ford's attitude about the CG whip fits the definition of stubborn:

stub·born (stŭb'ərn) Pronunciation Key
adj. stub·born·er, stub·born·est
1.A. Unreasonably, often perversely unyielding; bullheaded.
B. Firmly resolved or determined; resolute. See Synonyms at obstinate.
2. Characterized by perseverance; persistent.

Just because you happen to agree with his opinion does not make his actions any less stubborn.

Cyke

02-07-2007, 10:47 AM

You might not want to change your argument midstride.

You made the argument that you didn't "recall seeing the whip used against a person," implying that the safety rules didn't make sense because there was never any chance for people to get hurt. Cyke has the same point. You also suggested that even if the whip had been used on people, fast cuts and camera trickery could be used to hide that it wasn't actually Ford using the whip. That verifies that you were talking about the safety rules and their applications to Ford, not anything regarding his age.

I really don't think age will hamper Ford all that much, no. And yes, there are ways to film whip scenes while still maintaining safety regulations.

I'm reminded once again of Anthony Hopkins. CGI wasn't good enough back in 1998 to superimpose his face onto a stuntmaster, nor was it good enough to copy the look of a whip. Most whip scenes are on inanimate objects. One of the most memorable scenes in the movie has Hopkins putting out candle flames with the whip without touching the candles at all. I'm pretty sure that Hopkins isn't at that level, that it's merely Hopkins firing the whip at the candle and someone else blows out the flame. But it was a great effect nonetheless and the fact that Hopkins clearly has the whip gives it authenticity. It's the illusion that matters, and if people can see through that illusion, then it's sort of moot.

My point being, age and safety shouldn't be that much of a concern, if the cinema's been showing such scenes for decades now.

This is a prop that does not require physical presence on set in order to complete the image of Indiana Jones. It is a prop that is not vital to the plot or to the success of a movie. It is a prop that will probably be used, at the very most, ten times in the final movie. It is a prop that, if CG, will be created by ILM - the same people who created the nearly flawless dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, and the same people who are considered one of the best special effects companies in the business.

With all due respect to ILM's achievements with the Jurassic Park films, it's not like they could've switched from a CGI raptor to a real raptor as if they were filming Charlotte's Web, which had both real and CGI pigs.

Just worth noting, though: frequently, during space battles, ILM foregoes the CGI model whenever possible for certain scenes for the sake of filming an actual model of a space ship for the sake of visual clarity.

Again, I'm not saying a CGI whip will necessarily hurt or improve the film, but sometimes even ILM says no to CGI.

Athena Bast

02-07-2007, 05:11 PM

Thorlief

02-11-2007, 05:21 AM

It's been one of the best franchises of the movie history and totally rocked the eighties, and I believe some of us (a LOT of us actually) are going to take a seat on day one..but will the movie be a true success? If you asked me ten years ago then I'd have said "its freaking Indy,what you think" because its popularity was still present even if Crusade is '89, but in 2008? I honestly have my doubts, and fear only a moderate success that wouldnt do the franchise justice and not a good way to end a saga.

I just dont see how, in the CGI era, a old school adventure movie could appeal the masses-aint talking about the true movie fans, but THE MASSES..y'know, the people who only like CGI-..now that even the TV gives us series that feel like a blockbuster movie (and I have nothing against em..I love 24,for example ) isnt really too late for a Indy movie?

I feel they waited too much for it, it shouldve been done yars ago. It's just a feeling, maybe the movie will be a 400$ bucket, who knows...what do you think? Will people still be interested when it hits the theaters?

david r

02-11-2007, 08:20 AM

I agree that they took too long getting this movie out there. But I suspect that it'll be a smash hit. The reunion of Ford/Lucas/Spielberg and the Indiana Jones "brand" will ensure a giant turnout on opening week.

Whether it has staying power is another question. Younger fans who don't seem to enjoy going to movies may yawn at 60-plus year old Harrison Ford. And if they stick to the FX of the 80s, they're in trouble. Personally, I think Indy 4 WILL be a more modernized movie---FX wise.

Magneto_X

02-11-2007, 10:13 AM

Gargus

02-11-2007, 11:17 AM

Honestly as much as I love the character I would wish they wouldnt do this movie, just leave it alone as it is.

I think to much time has passed. The vision and ideals of spieldberg and lucas has changed to much over the years. They lost what they used to have in making movies. Neither have made a decent movie in a decade or more. Even in watching old interviews on dvd bonus material they were excited about their projects and talked about charcter, plot and so on. Now its them looking bored and talking about special effects.

Just like star wars, back when lucas was energetic about making movies and it really showed as the movies were great. But then alot of time passes between the original trilogy and the new ones and the new ones barely resemble the old ones. Its all about having more and that ruined the movie to me.

I dont care how old ford is or whatnot. But big budget special effects and apathetic directors will ruin this film I am betting. I do have some hope it will turn out to be good and Ill be surprised, but I have serious doubts.

marshal99

02-11-2007, 11:26 AM

The same reason people watched or will watch the new Rocky movie or die hard movie. Nostagia will ensure people will still want to watch it.

EZMOHR

02-11-2007, 12:32 PM

This movie will make more than Firewall...so lets get that dumb statement out of the way. Sorry, Magneto-X, you usually make smart statements, but I've got to call you out on that one. That movie made what, $35 million all together....an Indy movie will make more than that in a weekend.

But, on to the real question, will people be excited. Sure there will be a nostalgia factor there. People will be excited opening weekend. It will be the first Indy movie in 19 years. And we will take out kids...kids that don't understand what Indy the movie meant to us as kids. Kids under the age of dare I say 17-18 years old, don't give a fig about Indiana Jones. Sure, they are good movies, they just don't look good comparitive to kids who grew up with CGI.

Then, there is the underlying factor that by the time this movie hits theatres, Harrison Ford will be closer to the age of 70 YEARS OLD, than to the age of 60. Simply put....I don't want to see Indiana Jones looking almost 70 years old.

And if the reports are true...that Sean Connery will be in this too, well, lets get real, Sean Connery is only 13 years older than Harrison Ford. And while 20 years ago Harrison Ford still looked like a young 40 ish year old man, and Sean Connery looked like he could conceivably be his dad....Sean Connery looks exactly the same now that he did 20 years ago. Time on the other hand has not been kind to Harrison Ford. Harrison Ford looks every day of 65 years old. He does not look youthful anymore. In fact, Harrison Ford exudes that skeeviness of a 60ish dude trying to still recapture his youth, ie divorcing the old wife for Calista Flockhart, and that stupid ear ring he's always got on now.

So will I see the new Indy when it comes out. Yes. It's the right of everybody involved to make it. Will it be good. Sure, why not, it will be what it is, and action/adventure yarn. But, I'm not excited at all to see this. It is just gonna be sad to see a almost 70 year old dude doing stuff that no 70 year old can do. I potentially think this can tarnish some of the Indy luster.

I say the movie makes around $175,000,000. Tops.

Magneto_X

02-11-2007, 01:48 PM

It will make more than Firewall. That's guaranteed.

But I'm not sure it'll be much more.

Unless it's *serious good* it won't have "legs".

It may do better on dvd/video.

I'm an Indy fan, too.

But I just don't like the idea of Ford in the role now. He's not a young whipper-snapper anymore.

Like you said it's just to much of a stretch in credibility. And he hasn't aged well----unlike Connery.

I'd like to see a tv show, new movie trilogy, comics and/or novels on the property but the idea of Ford still involved just makes me shake my head.

EZMOHR

02-11-2007, 02:33 PM

Yeah honestly, they should just leave this franchise where it is at. The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles proved nobody will buy another actor or group of actors as Indy. (And yes, that show didn't last because the ratings were bad.)

And, I think most people agree Harrison Ford looks, well, like a 65 year old these days.

Basically, its Lucas/Spielberg's right to make this movie. But, I don't think people are clamoring for another Indy movie. In 1994, yes they were. Now, I think most people just see this movie as some kind of freak show, ie "Dude, how is almost 70 year old Harrison Ford gonna be in this."

And I know the release date is set now, something 2008. I don't know about most people....but I see this as becoming some sort of Watchmen type thing...ie they can keep putting a release date to it, but it will never ever happen.

kalorama

02-11-2007, 02:58 PM

Of course people will be interested. The Indiana Jones series has made billions at the box office. The character is a pop culture icon that appeals acrosss a broad spectrum. Does that guarantee success? Of course not.

The film will certainly open strong as people come out to see whether Ford can pull it off, if Spielberg can still do crowd pleasing fun after doing several more "substantive" films in recent years, and whether Lucas can recover from the missteps of the Star Wars prequels. But once the curiosity factor gets them into the theaters, it'll be up to the film to build on the interest and draw an ongoing audience.

SoulOnIce

02-11-2007, 07:13 PM

EZMOHR

02-11-2007, 07:29 PM

I am as excited as hell for this picture.

Spielberg alone will genere 100 million plus....plus the built in franchise factor. I would be surprised if this makes less than 175 million. A lot of older people are very fond of the Indiana Jones movies.

Who cares if Ford is 65 years old. If the movie is good then that is all that should matter.

See, I think that fact that Harrison Ford is 65 years old takes A LOT away from the movie. Lets be honest, Harrison Ford can not pull off younger than his age anymore. He looks like a 65 year old man. This movie just has ME PERSONALLY feeling like I will be sitting there watching it saying, "damn, an almost 70 year old guy can't do this Indiana Jones stuff."

It's just not the legacy Indiana Jones should got out on. Indiana Jones should not end with people watching an adventure on the movie screen saying, "damn he looks freaking old and he couldn't be doing this stuff concievably."

It was fine with Rocky Balboa, because a.) Sylvester Stallone still looks 50 years old, and not his 60 he actually is, and b.) professional boxers are a group of people who seem not to get the fact they are old and box competitivly until old age. Look at George Foreman. Although the movie seemed a little too out there...it could maybe actually happen.

Big time action heroes who fight the Nazis and do so with an action scene every ten minutes is not fine. Harrison Ford can not pull this off with any credibitliy. And, Indiana Jones not not being Indiana Jones will not be a good movie period. If Indiana Jones is training a son, daughter, understudy, or if Indiana Jones is not doing action scenes at break neck speed.......forgive me, that is not an Indiana Jones movie. That is not an Indiana Jones movie by a mile.

Nate Grey

02-11-2007, 08:47 PM

Well, like Rocky, I'll bet they'll make his age a part of the story somehow. So I doubt it will like he'll be 60+ pretending he's late 20's doing flips or whatever.

I think the movie will open big, just not sure if it'll keep its momentum past the opening weekend.

kal_el21

02-11-2007, 10:53 PM

The story will determine that. Ford said he would only do it if the script was right and he himself did not want to play "younger than his age". I remember reading an interview he did around the time of the SW prequels where he said he would never do Han Solo again and that if were to do another Indy film that it would have to be set in the '50s to better refelct his age.

I'll hold off judgement. Either way the hype machine for this film will be HUGE!

StoneGold

02-11-2007, 11:16 PM

At this point, it's what, Indy in Vietnam?

Thorlief

02-12-2007, 04:51 AM

it'd be more the 60 than the '50 actually, being Indy born in 1899. Yep, I was shocked that he was about 37 only in LC

Jmacq1

02-12-2007, 06:58 AM

I think a lot of folks are missing the "Spielberg factor" here. As someone above noted, Spielberg alone will put people in seats. Add to that the Harrison Ford fans, and the Indiana Jones fans, and if nothing else, it'll probably have a huge opening weekend. Whether it has "legs" beyond that will be the trick.

From what I've heard, they script accounts for the fact that Indy is "too old for this stuff." That's not to say there won't be plenty of action, but I'm sure they'll take into account that Indy isn't as young as he used to be. Much like "Rocky Balboa" where they put the age issue front-and-center, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see something similar done here (albeit likely in a more tongue-in-cheek manner). Spielberg's too crafty to just gloss over it.

It could conceivably be one of the best Indy flicks ever, because let's face it: It's more interesting to see characters using craftiness and wits to overcome obstacles than simply muscling through it all. I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of the underlying themes of this film ends up being "Old age and treachery beats out youth and speed anyday."

Basically, I'm not ready to write it off as a failure just yet. I think there's the potential for a really good send-off for Indiana Jones. It'll just depend on how its' crafted.

EZMOHR

02-12-2007, 10:03 AM

I think a really good send off for Indiana Jones was, oh I don't know...the end of THE LAST CRUSADE (I think LAST probably should have been a key word to the people involved) when Indy and his friends were riding off into the susnet. That was the perfect ending.

And I can see how some people feel, and thats cool. But the Indiana Jones movies are built on adventure...no matter what people said. They had some deeper elements sure....but Indiana Jones through and through was about action and adventure, and a history buff James Bond.

Harrison Ford can't do that anymore. Just my opinion.

And, yeah there is a Steven Spielberg factor there...sure. But, and I hate to beat a dead horse cause I think the guy has gotten it a litte to rought since 1999...but there is a GEORGE LUCAS factor there as well. And, sorry, just like A-Rod in the playoffs.....whether people want to believe it or not, with three movies that did not live up to the hype and one for sure that was sub-par, there has to be some concern there as well. Sure, Indy was never the overall cash-cow that the Star Wars franchise was....but, do people conceivably want that to happen to the Indy franchise.

Not saying it will happen...just saying it could happen. And to be honest with you...the Spielberg name isn't exactly been wowing me since Minority Report /Band of Brothers either. Catch Me If You Can was letdown for me. Munich was good, but I felt it could've been better. The Terminal was awful. War of the Worlds was a letdown for me. He's not exactly on some huge win streak himself.

I'm just fearful that they are gonna try to ring some deeper meaning to the Indy series that frankly will tarnish the Indy luster (ie my biggest fear is that yes we are gonna get an Indy protoge.....a protoge who is a child he did not raise. That in itself is not horrible, it's just predictable. Cue the awkward, I hate you talk from the kid, then the inevitable Sean Connery, old guy giving the kid advise, the reconciliation between Indy and the Kid, then torch being passed to the kid, while Indy and Sean Connery sit on the porch watching him ride off in the sunset.)

Jmacq1

02-12-2007, 10:48 AM

Lest we forget, the "George Lucas Factor" is hardly a bad thing. For all the whining that people do about the prequels, they all made several hundred million dollars in box-office sales.

People can complain about them all they want: They were still massive "hits" despite the critics.

In other words, Lucas doesn't hurt Indy's chances at all. He may be reviled by the "hardcore fan audience" but that doesn't stop the millions of people in the "not quite as ardent" audience from going to see the flicks.

Black Atom

02-12-2007, 11:14 AM

Harrison Ford was born the same year as my dad (making him 66, by the way). My dad doesn't look nearly this good:

http://imdb.com/gallery/ss/0408345/Ss/0408345/6164r.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Ford,%20Harrison%20(I)

Ford's no spring chicken, but he's hardly the crotchety old man people are making him out to be. I think people will be surprised by what he's still able to pull off and people will go to it for that curiosity factor alone. I think there's potential for a good Indy movie here, even if it is a long shot. If it's a good, fun action flick, people will see it.

hoffmandu

02-12-2007, 11:33 AM

Well, to be fair, the "Last" in Last Crusade, was aimed at the last crusade for the Holy Grail, not the Last Indiana film. To put it into a better perspective, I went to Firewall on opening night. It sucked, bigtime, but Ford rocked the house in it. The movie did well, I believe. People love him, I love him, people really love Indiana etc.. Come on, Indiana Jones is bar-none, the best adventure series ever to grace film. I'll be there with wearing a fedora.

JDogindy

02-12-2007, 11:35 AM

It'd be something if Indy began at a college, and then daddy comes in to tell him that the Nazis are after this holy relic of some sort AGAIN.

Ontir

02-12-2007, 01:03 PM

If Ford is believable in the action, the story is good, and it gets decent reviews, I'll see it. I'm going to have to see a review on this (which is unusual for me), because it IS Harrison Ford, who hasn't had a great track record of late. Firewall was passable, and I enjoyed Hollywood Homicide, but other than that, the last really good film with him, that comes to mind, is Working Girl.

EZMOHR

02-12-2007, 02:05 PM

Oh, I still enjoy Harrison Ford movies. Hell, even 10 years ago in Air Force One, Harrison Ford was passable as an action hero. Damn Passable. And, I kind of liked him in What Lies Beneath. Just him though.

So, I will see Indy the first chance I get. I don't need to see any reviews at all....I want to see it.

But, quality wise...man lets just say my expectations are low. I could care less if George Lucas or Stevens Spielbergs name still generate piles of cash.....Lucas's work quality wise, is not anywhere near his heyday. Not even CLOSE. And since I have no financial stake in what a movie makes....the quality of a movie is all I care about.

And I would even venture to say Spielberg's work is not as good as it was in the past.

So, yeah people will be excited to see the movie. Sure. But, I think this movie has a fine line it has to dance. It has to be up to the high quality for old fans, but it can alienate new fans with 66 year old Harrison Ford doing the action. And I think both of those factors are mutually exclusive. I will say, the name Indiana Jones does guarantee it will make close to whatever it costs to make the movie.

Kaos

02-12-2007, 07:30 PM

well I'm a go see it....IT'S INDY

Magneto_X

02-12-2007, 10:43 PM

Lest we forget, the "George Lucas Factor" is hardly a bad thing. For all the whining that people do about the prequels, they all made several hundred million dollars in box-office sales.

That's not the "Lucas Factor". It's the "Star Wars Factor".

If Lucas started another franchise from scratch it wouldn't be 1/10th as successful as a new Star Wars movie. No matter how crappy it was.

Magneto_X

02-12-2007, 10:45 PM

but other than that, the last really good film with him, that comes to mind, is Working Girl.

The only movie I've liked that he was in was What Lies Beneath.

And he wasn't the star in that. Michelle Phieffer was.

Every single movie where he's the lead in over the last few years has sucked big time.

The Batman

02-12-2007, 10:54 PM

There's no doubt that that was certainly part of it but I imagine that alot of people who aren't huge Star Wars fans still went to see the films because they looked fun and interesting. I imagine the same thing will be true of Indiana Jones. I mean, wouldn't there be an "Indiana Jones Factor" too? It was after all a popular franchise back in the day.

kalorama

02-12-2007, 11:06 PM

...but other than that, the last really good film with him, that comes to mind, is Working Girl.

The fim was rather mediocre, but Ford gave a great light comic performance in the movie. And an unfairly overlooked one, given that Weaver and Griffith both got Oscar nods for much less impressive jobs.

DLFerguson

02-13-2007, 07:54 AM

This is going to flop big-time.

The only people who are going to be able to take a 60 year old Indy seriously are hardcore Indy/Harrison Ford fans.

It should do slightly better then Firewall.

They really should just do a new trilogy with a new Indy. Like Nathan Fillion. It won't be as popular as the originals, but it should do better then what Ford can bring in.

I agree 100%. Sign up Fillion or Dennis Quaid (who is uncannily looking and even sounding a lot like Harrison Ford in recent years) and just do a new trilogy.

kalorama

02-13-2007, 09:18 AM

They really should just do a new trilogy with a new Indy. Like Nathan Fillion. It won't be as popular as the originals, but it should do better then what Ford can bring in.

It shouldn't and it wouldn't. Harrison Ford is a brand name movie star. Nathan Fillion is somebody almost no one has heard of. Does Ford have the drawing power he once had? No. But he still has drawing power. The words "starring Harrison Ford" have some pull with the audience, esp. if followed by the words "in an Indiana Jones adventure."

I agree 100%. Sign up Fillion or Dennis Quaid (who is uncannily looking and even sounding a lot like Harrison Ford in recent years) and just do a new trilogy.

Quaid isn't exactly a spring chicken and Fillion's last couple of movies hardly packed them in.

Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones. It's really that simple.

Ekko

02-13-2007, 09:31 AM

I loved Minority Report, War of the Worlds, and the SW Prequels, and they were all box office hits. I'm not concerned about Lucas and Spielberg being attached to this movie. MY hurdle is trying to picture an aged Harrison Ford as Indy. Curiosity will probably lead me to go see it, but I can't honestly say that I wouldn't be in favor of them simply restarting the franchise.

Jmacq1

02-13-2007, 09:34 AM

Simple fix: They just cast Nathan Fillion as Indy's long-lost bastard son, and "pass the torch" onto him in the flick. ;)

Not that it'd really work, since before long they'd be getting too close to modern times for the setting to be nearly as interesting. "Cold War" Indy isn't likely to be quite as much fun as "Nazi-Busting" Indy.

madsci

03-16-2007, 02:07 PM

Over at Empire Online (http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=20511), there's an interview with Shia LaBeouf, who MAY or MAY NOT be in Indy 4, but the interesting news (and 1st of MANY rumoured........)

Then an email from an anonymous source dropped into Empire’s inbox this morning, which speculates that Messrs. Lucas and Spielberg may have finally settled on a title: it's all very unofficial at this point, but the current thinking is that the movie may wind up as Indiana Jones And The City Of Gods.

Sounds decent enough.... A HELL of a lot better than any of the prequel names, that's for sure.

ChrisIII

03-28-2007, 07:23 AM

Ray Winstone (The Departed) has apparentally been cast as a 'sidekick' character, although probably more of a Marcus/Sallah type than Short Round.

ChrisIII

04-13-2007, 01:18 PM

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=19878

The popular rumor is that he's Indy's son (Possibly by Marion) or one of his archaeology students.

Many people have compared the rumors to "The Mummy Returns", Jake Lloyd in "Phantom Menace" or Short Round in "Temple Of Doom". However, I don't think there's much to worry about-Shia is 21, not some annoying kid.

The Foreigner

04-13-2007, 02:07 PM

Shia's a very talented guy, so the "kid sidekick" thing is pretty moot.

Having said that, I still think Nathan Fillion should have been Indy's son...

ChrisIII

04-13-2007, 02:50 PM

Maybe there's still hope for Fillion, if they choose to do more sequels with the son taking up the whip. After all, arguably four actors have played Indy at different ages-Corey Carrier, Sean Patrick Flannery, Harrison of course, and George Hall.

It'd be interesting to see if the new movie aknowledges the YIC as part of the canon. In that series, "modern" elderly Indy has a daughter and has lost an eye. I've heard rumors though that Lucas has deleted these segments from the upcoming DVDs though, so maybe the "future" is open for Indy.

Magneto_X

04-13-2007, 04:39 PM

Shia's a very talented guy, so the "kid sidekick" thing is pretty moot.

Sure he's talented. But most of his roles are very similar and he still looks like he's 15.

He doesn't suit the Indy-verse at all. Some actors and actresses don't suit certain films. Unless they're uber-skilled and can play various roles with no trouble. Only Shia isn't there yet.

God, this movie is going to suck.

ChrisIII:

I'd like to see that happen but I doubt it will. If they wanted to Indy 4 could have been the start of a new trilogy with a new Indy (re: Fillion), instead they went with Harrison "mid-life crisis" Ford. I miss the Spielberg who took risks and did amazing sh*t more often. Not the current one whose adverse to risks and becoming a George Lucas clone (re: A.I.).

This franchise is going the way of Jurassic Park. :eek:

GremlinClr

04-13-2007, 04:49 PM

Magneto_X

04-13-2007, 05:46 PM

Many people have compared the rumors to "The Mummy Returns", Jake Lloyd in "Phantom Menace" or Short Round in "Temple Of Doom".

Kid sidekicks are hit or miss. I liked Short Rpund but hated kid Annikan.

However, I don't think there's much to worry about-Shia is 21, not some annoying kid.

Shia's growing as an actor but he's still mostly in roles where he's the clumbsy kid who gets involved in stuff. And I doubt his role in Indy 4 will have him more serious (re: Disturbia), it'll be more like Sam (re: Transformers).

Not to mention he still has a kid's personality in most roles and still looks like he's 15 years old.

ChrisIII

04-14-2007, 05:14 AM

If Shia is actually Indy's son, it'd be interesting to see who the mother is. Most fans seem to think Marion would be the prime candidate (Although Kate Capshaw apparentally is also considering a cameo). Can't be Elsa of course...
Could be the Cate Blanchett character, I suppose...

Ares

04-14-2007, 06:45 PM

Cool news on Shia, he's a good actor and his latest movie "Disturbia" was awesome.

ChrisIII

06-07-2007, 08:31 PM

DWEarhart

06-07-2007, 09:29 PM

I'm just not excited about this film, but I'll still watch it before jumping to any conclusions.

Sean Walsh

06-08-2007, 10:17 AM

Apparentally at www.indianajones.com, Sean said he won't be in the film because he prefers retirement. However, John Hurt has been cast (Possibly as the villain). Hurt is perhaps best well known as the unfortunate Kane in ALIEN, as well as Adam Sutler in V for Vendetta.
Interestingly if Karen Allen doesn't show up, this film will feel kind of more stand-alone than LAST CRUSADE did, since we won't see Sallah, Marcus, or Henry.

Well, there's a good (as in "logical," certainly not "happy") reason we won't be seeing Marcus........ :(

And actually, I never saw LC as stand-alone; Sallah was back and Marcus had a much bigger role.

Thorlief

06-08-2007, 11:58 AM

John Hurt is one of the best british actors around, my hopes are still holding up

yeah, shia's talented (altho i HATE his face)...but throwing a teenager in could be a disaster OR a good thing. It all depends upon how they will use the character

The Shadow

06-22-2007, 03:07 AM

Source: Lucasfilm
June 22, 2007

The Man With the Hat is Back! For the first time since 1989, Harrison Ford dons the familiar costume on Thursday, June 21, 2007, as the upcoming "Indiana Jones" adventure begins production under the direction of Steven Spielberg. The new "Indiana Jones" movie is set in the 1950s and stars Shia LaBeouf, Cate Blanchett, John Hurt, Ray Winstone and Jim Broadbent. The Lucasfilm Ltd. production will be released by Paramount Pictures worldwide on May 22, 2008. The photo was taken by Spielberg!

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p130/fniazi/firstindy4pic.jpg

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=21194

-----------

I peed my pants. :D

... twice.

:D

Albert

06-22-2007, 03:21 AM

Wow.... just wow.

Interesting to see that neither Connery or Davies is listed in the cast. Not a plus or minus, just interesting.

The Shadow

06-22-2007, 03:25 AM

Wow.... just wow.
I know what you mean!

Interesting to see that neither Connery or Davies is listed in the cast.

Not sure about Davies... but Connery is OUT (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2007/06/07/indiana-jones-connery.html) which is too bad too because the banter between Ford and Connery was great.

Thorlief

06-22-2007, 04:43 AM

looks like Ford lost his belly. Nice. And he actually looks GOOD
anticipation raised by 30%

Albert

06-22-2007, 05:25 AM

Not sure about Davies... but Connery is OUT (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2007/06/07/indiana-jones-connery.html) which is too bad too because the banter between Ford and Connery was great.

Agree agree agree. Jones Sr. was the only one who could give Indy lip and get away with it. Thanks for the link to the article. Here's hoping that Connery'll reconsider and at least make a cameo.

Captain Trips

06-22-2007, 07:28 AM

Harrison looks like he can still do Indy. That's a great pic, even if it is him just sitting there.

Thorlief

06-22-2007, 07:38 AM

Agree agree agree. Jones Sr. was the only one who could give Indy lip and get away with it. Thanks for the link to the article. Here's hoping that Connery'll reconsider and at least make a cameo.

"you call thish archaeology??!?"
Henry Jones sr is great

karaokefanboy

06-22-2007, 09:46 AM

Any word of a Short Round appearance? To see the sidekick all grown up but still sporting his gadgets would be a hoot.

hoffmandu

06-22-2007, 10:00 AM

Any word of a Short Round appearance? To see the sidekick all grown up but still sporting his gadgets would be a hoot.

I believe you're thinking of Data from Goonies, dude. Or should I say- N00B!

adamthered

06-22-2007, 10:13 AM

I wanna cry big manly tears of joy! That is awesome.

andy khouri

06-22-2007, 11:17 AM

He looks like hell. A 65 year-old man dressed up as Indiana Jones for Halloween, sitting on a porch rocker, waving a shotgun and yelling at children to get off his lawn.

The Xenos

06-22-2007, 11:27 AM

Shia LaBeouf

Uuum.. what the hell? Connery and Sallah is out, but this joker is in?

BoosterBronze

06-22-2007, 11:28 AM

this is the greatest day of my life.

Donald M.

06-22-2007, 11:31 AM

Source: Lucasfilm
June 22, 2007

-----------

I peed my pants. :D

... twice.

:D

Ford looks so old in that pic, I'm tempted to make a Depends joke.

StoneGold

06-22-2007, 11:39 AM

As it turns out, it's the years and the milage.

I think I hate myself now for that.

Jared

06-22-2007, 11:43 AM

(To steal a line from Egotastic)

He doesn't look 65, but he doesn't look like he could kick my ass either.

Thorlief

06-22-2007, 11:46 AM

lol^ he doesnt look THAT old in that pic. It's a amateur shot made during a moment of relax, it will look definitely better on screen. If Indy's really in his late 50 (he's born in 1898 if I'm correct) then I'm fine with Ford's look

Black Atom

06-22-2007, 11:48 AM

He looks like an aging Indy, which I guess is what they're going for, so kudos on that. I see no reason to start furiously pleasuring myself over a photo of a guy sitting in a chair.

The Shadow

06-22-2007, 12:25 PM

As it turns out, it's the years and the milage.

I think I hate myself now for that.

I know I hate you for that now

:p

SoulOnIce

06-22-2007, 01:38 PM

Ford looks great! Completely relaxed and in his element. This is my most anticipated movie in years. I can't wait.

Athena Bast

06-22-2007, 01:42 PM

I know what you mean!

Not sure about Davies... but Connery is OUT (http://www.cbc.ca/arts/film/story/2007/06/07/indiana-jones-connery.html) which is too bad too because the banter between Ford and Connery was great.

Davis said he was not going to reprise Sala a couple months ago.

maczero

06-22-2007, 02:51 PM

Looks in decent shape. Ford may be able to make this believeable after all.
Shia Lebouf
Uuum.. what the hell? Connery and Sallah is out, but this joker is in?I thought the same thing. How is the "Even Stevens" kid managing to get in so many summer blockbusters?

The Shadow

06-22-2007, 02:54 PM

Davis said he was not going to reprise Sala a couple months ago.

Huh. I hadn't heard that.

Too bad... but Sallah wasn't in #2... so him not being in 4 could just mean he's only going to do even numbered Indy movies ;)

TheLazy

06-22-2007, 03:06 PM

Wow.... just wow.

Interesting to see that neither Connery or Davies is listed in the cast. Not a plus or minus, just interesting.

:D I've just spent ten minutes laughing at this, whilst coming to the conclusion tat you sir, are a genius. Please accept the sarcificing of a thousand Bulls.

:)

andy khouri

06-22-2007, 10:16 PM

redlantern2051

06-22-2007, 11:33 PM

I'm genuinely surprised by the anticipation for this movie. Considering the dubious-to-dreadful output of Spielberg and Lucas in the last ten years, there's no reason at all to think this Indiana Jones sequel will be anything but an embarrassing fiasco.

The spectacle here isn't the new adventure of a geriatric Indiana Jones and his infinitely punchable sidekick, it's the NASCAR effect of seeing what grotesque lengths these filmmakers will go to in an ongoing campaign to undermine their once-great works.

Bit harsh, dude. I believe it will be a fine film, and Spielberg has done PLENTY of good work in the last 10 years imo. Lucas...well I hated the Star Wars prequels, in the main, but I did love "The Last Crusade", and I honestly believe Harrison back as Indy is going to be COOL.

I can't wait!

hulahulk

06-22-2007, 11:39 PM

dubious-to-dreadful output of Spielberg and Lucas
I hope you are at least referring to a collaberative effort between the two, because "Saving Private Ryan" came out in 1998, less than 10 years ago.

Error_2.0

06-23-2007, 12:17 AM

Is that rumor true about him using a CGI whip in this one?

Nomad

06-23-2007, 12:24 AM

As it turns out, it's the years and the milage.

I think I hate myself now for that.

Ha. Ha.

What are the odds that'll be in the movie?

StoneGold

06-23-2007, 12:56 AM

Hey, at least it's not like Indy has flames painted on him.

redlantern2051

06-23-2007, 01:07 AM

Is that rumor true about him using a CGI whip in this one?

I heard that was not true at all, according to Dark Horizons. Harrison Ford is very proficient with the whip in real life.

andy khouri

06-23-2007, 02:27 AM

I hope you are at least referring to a collaberative effort between the two, because "Saving Private Ryan" came out in 1998, less than 10 years ago.

Eight years, ten months and twenty-nine days ago, if you want to be a real pedant about it.

Albert

06-23-2007, 05:23 AM

:D I've just spent ten minutes laughing at this, whilst coming to the conclusion tat you sir, are a genius. Please accept the sarcificing of a thousand Bulls.

:)

I learned from the Jedi Wafflemaster himself.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/-/6/clinton_portrait.jpg

The Shadow

06-23-2007, 05:27 AM

Considering the dubious-to-dreadful output of Spielberg and Lucas in the last ten years
Spielberg did Munich right? What was wrong with that?? :confused:

there's no reason at all to think this Indiana Jones sequel will be anything but an embarrassing fiasco.
Except the pedigree, time involved in making sure the script is good and Harrison Ford reprising his best role.

The spectacle here isn't the new adventure of a geriatric Indiana Jones and his infinitely punchable sidekick, it's the NASCAR effect of seeing what grotesque lengths these filmmakers will go to in an ongoing campaign to undermine their once-great works.
:confused: :rolleyes:

Why the venom??

cactusmaac

06-23-2007, 05:52 AM

Bit harsh, dude. I believe it will be a fine film, and Spielberg has done PLENTY of good work in the last 10 years imo. Lucas...well I hated the Star Wars prequels, in the main, but I did love "The Last Crusade", and I honestly believe Harrison back as Indy is going to be COOL.

I can't wait!

Catch Me If You Can, Minority Report, Episode 3 and the Terminal were all at least decent.

DonC

06-23-2007, 10:12 AM

Is that rumor true about him using a CGI whip in this one?

No. That was just a stupid interent rumor.

GRANT!

06-23-2007, 11:33 AM

AI was good before the aliens showed up. War of the Worlds had some cool moments.

I think Spielburg is doing all right

That said considering Lucas and Ford's recent output I'm not that excited for Indy 4. Though Spielburg and the cast are bonuses.

BoosterBronze

06-24-2007, 09:40 AM

AI was good before the aliens showed up. War of the Worlds had some cool moments.

(psssst. Those weren't aliens.)

GRANT!

06-24-2007, 10:07 AM

(psssst. Those weren't aliens.)

Whatever they were they ruined the movie.

redlantern2051

06-24-2007, 03:46 PM

(psssst. Those weren't aliens.)

Really? What the things that come at the end and find him in the ocean or something? I only half-watched it. What were they? I don't remember it vbery well, but I thought they were aliens. *confused*

xnef1025

06-24-2007, 04:01 PM

They were other robots. Finding him was like finding a living australopithecus for us.

redlantern2051

06-24-2007, 08:47 PM

They were other robots. Finding him was like finding a living australopithecus for us.

I have no idea what a australopithecus is, man. :-) But they were alien robots right? I wasn't aware they were even robots. I didn't think they looked like robots. God, it was a boring film. I think i was drifting in and out of sleep by that point.

Black Atom

06-24-2007, 09:48 PM

I still have faith in Spielberg, but Lucas best days are far, far behind him. He's even gone back and pooed on the few good movies he did make. The less he has to do on this project, the better.

Man Without Fear

06-24-2007, 09:56 PM

I can't wait for this.

The Batman

06-25-2007, 01:37 PM

I have no idea what a australopithecus is, man. :-) But they were alien robots right? I wasn't aware they were even robots. I didn't think they looked like robots. God, it was a boring film. I think i was drifting in and out of sleep by that point.

They were robots that were thousands of years more advanced than David. They were our descendants and they inhereted the Earth such as it was.

The Xenos

06-25-2007, 09:28 PM

Is that rumor true about him using a CGI whip in this one?
No. That was just a stupid interent rumor.

Actually, they replaced his whip with a walkie talkie.

ChrisIII

06-30-2007, 05:55 AM

Some new photos have showed up on various sites (Warning: possible spoilers ahead). They show Jones in a grey suit similar to that worn in Venice in "Last Crusade" and Shia with a greaser look riding a motorcycle. Karen Allen has apparentally also been spotted on set.

Thorlief

06-30-2007, 06:16 AM

yes, i've seen that pic. Shia has a James Dean hairdo and Ford is very elegant.

One thing to notice: Ford hasnt dyed his hair. They are grey, so we're seeing Indiana with grey hair.

actually there's also a small clip available at one site I just found.

The rumored title is "Indiana Jones and the city of the Gods"

in the footage we see Spielberg raising a glass of champagne and saying "Here we are, eighteen years later..how time flies..noone's changed, we are all the same..I just wanna say do your best..cheers"

then we see Spielberg directing a car chase with Shia (not sure if he's him), discussing with Lucas behind the camera, and Lucas taking a ride in one of the cars.

SUPERECWFAN1

06-30-2007, 09:21 AM

Does anyone else get the feeling Shia is being groomed to carry the franchise since Ford is getting up in years ? That if a 5th Indy movie happens ...it could be him.

DonC

06-30-2007, 09:32 AM

Does anyone else get the feeling Shia is being groomed to carry the franchise since Ford is getting up in years ? That if a 5th Indy movie happens ...it could be him.

No. This isn't like the James Bond series where you can replace the star once he gets too old or uninterested. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones in the movies.

SUPERECWFAN1

06-30-2007, 09:36 AM

No. This isn't like the James Bond series where you can replace the star once he gets too old or uninterested. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones in the movies.

Yeah but they've also had the Young Indy Chronicles . I admit replacing Ford is a rough one down the line. But Shia seems to have the pedigree of luring this generation to his movies. I wouldn't be shocked if the plan is to do Indy movies set in the 30's/40's with him as the star.

Thorlief

06-30-2007, 09:45 AM

BoosterBronze

06-30-2007, 01:12 PM

I hope it will never happen

I love Indy, and I like Shia LeBoof, but I hope this never happens as well

Kan-Man

06-30-2007, 06:58 PM

in the footage we see Spielberg raising a glass of champagne and saying "Here we are, eighteen years later..how time flies..noone's changed, we are all the same..I just wanna say do your best..cheers"

then we see Spielberg directing a car chase with Shia (not sure if he's him), discussing with Lucas behind the camera, and Lucas taking a ride in one of the cars.

This is posted on IndianaJones.com, it's the first official video diary entry. The champagne toast marked the first day of shooting.

There's also a still picture of Ford as Indiana that was taken by Spielberg.

Thorlief

06-30-2007, 07:28 PM

really? I didnt know
is the title confirmed?

MaxofSteel

06-30-2007, 07:50 PM

Was anybody in the New Haven, Connecticut area this past weekend?

I managed to get a little peek at the production which was pretty cool. Although the only photos I managed to snap were just various props on my cell phone. Oh well... I did see Ford's stunt double though. :p

Kan-Man

06-30-2007, 09:05 PM

really? I didnt know
is the title confirmed?

As far as I know, no, the title has not been announced.

Dennis K

07-02-2007, 11:50 AM

No. This isn't like the James Bond series where you can replace the star once he gets too old or uninterested. Harrison Ford is Indiana Jones in the movies.

Let's not kid ourselves here. I'd be shocked, SHOCKED if the same thing wasn't said about Sean Connery as it regards James Bond.

ChrisIII

07-12-2007, 07:04 AM

A new video has been put up at the official site with some shots of Harrison in costume.

DonC

07-12-2007, 10:29 AM

Let's not kid ourselves here. I'd be shocked, SHOCKED if the same thing wasn't said about Sean Connery as it regards James Bond.

Possibly, but Connery wasn't the first actor to play Bond.

jesse_custer

07-12-2007, 10:33 AM

I quote Chris Rock: "You could drive a car with your feet if you want to. That don't make it a good fucking idea."

BoosterBronze

07-12-2007, 12:43 PM

IF they wanted to re-cast Indiana Jones, I don't imagine they'd cast LeBouf. While a talented actor, he is just about the opposite of Harrison Ford. He's unassuming, non-baddass, and kind of weak seeming.

IF they wanted to recast, I hope they'd go for someone more like Harrison Ford. (Cough Nathon Fillion Cough)

jesse_custer

07-13-2007, 07:39 AM

Dude, now I could buy Nathan Fillion over Shia. That's a smart idea.

Nate Grey

07-13-2007, 09:25 AM

Yeah but they've also had the Young Indy Chronicles . I admit replacing Ford is a rough one down the line. But Shia seems to have the pedigree of luring this generation to his movies. I wouldn't be shocked if the plan is to do Indy movies set in the 30's/40's with him as the star.

I think some clarity is needed here, cause I think everyone is taking it to mean RECASTING Ford with Shia. You mean a franchise of movies about Indiana's SON using his father's name, right? Cause that's what *I* thought you meant, but...looks like no one else did.

Perhaps "replacing" was the wrong word to use in your quote. I think you meant "passing on the torch", right? Indiana can't be replaced per say, but his legacy could live on in his kid.

BoosterBronze

07-13-2007, 10:48 AM

I think some clarity is needed here, cause I think everyone is taking it to mean RECASTING Ford with Shia. You mean a franchise of movies about Indiana's SON using his father's name, right? Cause that's what *I* thought you meant, but...looks like no one else did.

Perhaps "replacing" was the wrong word to use in your quote. I think you meant "passing on the torch", right? Indiana can't be replaced per say, but his legacy could live on in his kid.

I admit I'd see a "SON OF INDY" movie, taking place in the swingining 1960s.

"Hippies... why'd it have to be hippies."

As rampant speculation goes, it's not the worst idea, but I still don't see Shia LeBouf as that kind of action star.

Nate Grey

07-13-2007, 11:31 AM

I admit I'd see a "SON OF INDY" movie, taking place in the swingining 1960s.

"Hippies... why'd it have to be hippies."

As rampant speculation goes, it's not the worst idea, but I still don't see Shia LeBouf as that kind of action star.

Well the idea has grown on me, I must admit. But then I thought that perhaps people wouldn't like the idea cause of...height. Shia's a little over 5'10", while both Ford and Nathan Fillion are the same height, a little over 6'1". So they both LOOK like they could father and son, but while that's possible, that's also a tad stereotypical. Many people, including myself, am shorter than their father.

You've named other factors, no doubt, but I wouldn't be surprised if height played somewhere in there, too.

ChrisIII

07-13-2007, 01:14 PM

Interestingly, I think earlier scripts were going to have Indy's daughter, in a link to her mention in YIC. But apparentally the George Hall segments of the YIC are no longer canon, since they're not being included in the upcoming DVDs.

There were rumors that Natalie Portman might play the role, but there were some rumors that she had a falling out with Lucas over her role in ROTS so maybe that ended that line of thought.

jesse_custer

07-13-2007, 01:40 PM

I would rather Danny DeVito play Indy or his older, fatter, and shorter son than Shia. At least then I wouldn't fall asleep from all the boring situational comedy.

BoosterBronze

07-13-2007, 02:08 PM

I would rather Danny DeVito play Indy or his older, fatter, and shorter son than Shia. At least then I wouldn't fall asleep from all the boring situational comedy.

What? Are you still just being cranky because of Transformers?

jesse_custer

07-13-2007, 02:16 PM

I'm cranky from every project Shia has been involved with.

ChrisIII

07-17-2007, 05:31 AM

Apparentally filming has moved to Hawaii. Still no word if Karen Allen's in the film-maybe they're keeping her casting a secret.

DonC

07-27-2007, 04:09 AM

Steven Spielberg appeared at Comic Con via satellite and announced that Karen Allen is in the new movie.

MaxofSteel

07-27-2007, 08:25 AM

Steven Spielberg appeared at Comic Con via satellite and announced that Karen Allen is in the new movie.

I saw her in the Comic Con coverage on G4. She looks about as young as she did in Raiders. It's really weird. But cool too.

SoulOnIce

07-27-2007, 11:52 AM

Steven Spielberg appeared at Comic Con via satellite and announced that Karen Allen is in the new movie.

Awesome news!!

hoffmandu

07-27-2007, 12:03 PM

What's with all the Fillion love. The guy was in a canceled sitcom and canceled sci-fi show and film which bombed............he's nowhere close to Harrison, never will be. People hate on Shia. I like the kid. I first noticed him at my viewing of Constantine. He played that role like a harp from hell. And 'Formers? His level of acting was obviosly apparent compared to everyone else in the film. I honestly think he's perfect for an Indy flick.

Jared

07-27-2007, 12:59 PM

Spielburg apparently thinks that Shia could be the next Tom Hanks. Personally, I think it's way too early to even suggest that (and unfair on the poor kid, really), but I can at least see that as a possibility. But he'd have to be insane to think of Shia as the next Harrison Ford. Nathan Fillion is cut from a similar mold (and has already played Han Solo, in essence), but he doesn't have anywhere near Ford's charisma. If there's one actor who has the most Ford-potential, to me, it's Josh Holloway from Lost.

The Batman

09-10-2007, 09:58 AM

The title for the next Indiana Jones movie is officially:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Read here. (http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/Indy_4_Title_Announced_108699.asp)

Toku King

09-10-2007, 11:14 AM

I would rather Danny DeVito play Indy or his older, fatter, and shorter son than Shia. At least then I wouldn't fall asleep from all the boring situational comedy.

http://www.toadking.com/6x9=42/fail.jpg

BoosterBronze

09-10-2007, 11:29 AM

The title for the next Indiana Jones movie is officially:

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Read here. (http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/Indy_4_Title_Announced_108699.asp)

Sound pretty dope-sauce to me.

Which is a good thing. ;-)

Thorlief

09-10-2007, 11:39 AM

well thats a pretty long title if you ask me. I'm not liking it that much, I'd have preferred a shorter version. I.e. The Crystal Kingdom or something else

Nate Grey

09-10-2007, 11:43 AM

Well its one syllable longer than "Raiders of the Lost Ark" so I don't mind it.

Thorlief

09-10-2007, 11:45 AM

yes, but Raiders lacked Indiana Jones in the title

Nate Grey

09-10-2007, 11:47 AM

Originally, yes.

StoneGold

09-10-2007, 03:48 PM

It has a name!

And logo!

http://www.aintitcool.com/images2007/indylogolarge.jpg

Jared

09-10-2007, 03:59 PM

Is it just me, or does that title sound more like something you'd expect for Harry Potter?

I mean, it just sounds far more specific, and way less snappy, than Temple of Doom or The Last Crusade.

Thorlief

09-10-2007, 04:02 PM

I already hate the title, already posted my rant in the OT. And yes, it agrees with yours Jared

Chase

09-10-2007, 04:07 PM

That is a long title for a movie. O_O'

And the logo looks generic, and something a 10-year-old could whip up in Photoshop.

The Batman

09-10-2007, 04:11 PM

Well it's the Indiana Jones brand font that we've had around for awhile now isn't it?

I don't mind the title too much, though I'd have preferred they'd gone with 'Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods' which was one of the other rumoured titles.

Chase

09-10-2007, 04:12 PM

StoneGold

09-10-2007, 04:13 PM

That is a long title for a movie. O_O'

And the logo looks generic, and something a 10-year-old could whip up in Photoshop.

The logo looks generic because it's a 25+ year old logo. The only difference are the words in the font, which has had a knockoff version of it for ages.

The Batman

09-10-2007, 04:16 PM

True, but just because it's been around for awhile doesn't mean it's not very, very plain.

And? It's not like that's the promo poster or anything like that; it's just words. It's the new title for the new Indiana Jones movie in the 25 year old Indiana Jones font.

Albert

09-10-2007, 04:42 PM

I like it, it has the pulp/serial feel of "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe" or "Radar Men from the Moon". I'd rather the Kingdom of was dropped from the title, but that's a very small quibble.

Black Atom

09-10-2007, 04:44 PM

Thorlief

09-10-2007, 04:46 PM

^I still hope they change it

The Batman

09-10-2007, 04:53 PM

Sandoz

09-10-2007, 04:55 PM

ultramandingo

09-10-2007, 04:56 PM

........Indiana Jones and the Beating of the Dead Horse

mattx110

09-10-2007, 04:57 PM

Well, that's just not a very good title, is it? I mean, it's not terrible, but its clear whoever gets to come up with these (it's Lucas, isn't it?) has clearly lost their touch. You can expect people to just call this "Part Four" the same way they refer to the SW prequels by number instead of wrestling with the cumbersome titles.

to be fair there are six star wars movies and episodes 4-6 were made first. calling them ep.3 or ep.2, or just "The prequels" saves time,

but there are only going to be 4 indiana jones movies, starring the same lead, and well, almost done in continuity order. but "Crystal skull" compared to "temple" "raiders" and "last crusade". not bad, but not as succint and cool sounded.

either way, in the age of sequels we've enter, with spidey 3, T3, and every other 2, 3 or 4 movie... i don't think any title can escape it being called "indy 4"

StoneGold

09-10-2007, 04:59 PM

either way, in the age of sequels we've enter, with spidey 3, T3, and every other 2, 3 or 4 movie... i don't think any title can escape it being called "indy 4"

INDIANA JONES Bangs Your Grandma

The Batman

09-10-2007, 05:01 PM

When I first heard the title I couldn't help but think of this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6971116.stm).

I do think it's a bloated title, though. It just doesn't have the ring that "Temple of Doom" does.

I thought of this (http://www.world-mysteries.com/sar_6_1.htm) which I imagine is what they're going for anyway. It's something I still remember from this wacky Time Life series of books on World Mysteries that we had kicking around my basement when I was a kid in the 80's.

Tobias March

09-10-2007, 05:57 PM

When I first heard the title I couldn't help but think of this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6971116.stm).

You're not the first person I've heard mention that.

Thorlief

09-10-2007, 06:03 PM

INDIANA JONES Bangs Your Grandma

I hope he marries her, at least we'd have some big fat green dollars

The more I think about it the more this title sucks to me. Too long, not evocative enough, no good vibes

Black Atom

09-10-2007, 06:07 PM

Yeah, Lucas probably bullied that kid Speilberg into going along with this title by threatening to blacklist him in Hollywood if he didn't. "You'll never work in this town again you snotnosed kid!!" is what he said as he chewed on his big fat cigar. Yeah, that's what happened totally.

Why is it always Lucas's fault?

I don't know if it was or wasn't, really, I just thought the movies were mostly his brainchildren. In any case, I wasn't presuming there was any bullying involved. But it's not a terrible title, like I said--it's just cumbersome. Removing one of the nouns would help

The Batman

09-10-2007, 06:14 PM

As far as I know they are, more or less. That being said, I doubt that Spielberg doesn't have any imput into the films or that he'd just going to sign off on a bad movie, title, or idea just because it's coming from Lucas.

mattx110

09-10-2007, 09:16 PM

INDIANA JONES Bangs Your Grandma

given the time period, entirely possible. and i wouldn't mind the infidelity. it's indy.

Jared

09-11-2007, 02:31 PM

but there are only going to be 4 indiana jones movies, starring the same lead, and well, almost done in continuity order.

Speaking of which, is there some particular reason that Temple had to be a prequel to Raiders? I never understood the point of setting it first, and nothing in the movie jumps out and declares the date, that I can recall anyway.

StoneGold

09-11-2007, 02:37 PM

Speaking of which, is there some particular reason that Temple had to be a prequel to Raiders? I never understood the point of setting it first, and nothing in the movie jumps out and declares the date, that I can recall anyway.

It was probably some in-joke reference to an old movie serial Lucas and Spielberg watched.

Thorlief

09-11-2007, 03:29 PM

Speaking of which, is there some particular reason that Temple had to be a prequel to Raiders? I never understood the point of setting it first, and nothing in the movie jumps out and declares the date, that I can recall anyway.

doesn't it say China 1935 at the very beginning, just when the dancing chicks finish their choreography?

Probably they chose that year to avoid the usual Nazi enemies, who knows

BoosterBronze

09-11-2007, 04:46 PM

I'll say again, I think the title sounds really fun.

Can't wait to see the movie.

DonC

10-03-2007, 11:36 AM

Lucasfilm's lawsuit against some actor dude who revealed spoilers has been settled. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071003/ap_en_mo/indiana_jones_settlement_3;_ylt=Agx5DuNLUWOSWWD.CF 7YmOdkM3wV)

Thorlief

10-03-2007, 12:21 PM

lol, what an idiot. Way to ruin your career

I still cringe at the title, anyway. I wonder why it doesn't have a "The mighty adventures of" before it, that monster is going to freaking cover half of the poster

Donald M.

10-03-2007, 12:33 PM

Eh, the title's kind of lame, but that doesn't mean the movie will be.

Of course, that's what I said about the Star Wars prequels . . .

Justin D.

10-03-2007, 01:08 PM

jesse_custer

10-03-2007, 01:15 PM

Mastodon talks about crystal skulls on their new album, so I have this preoccupation with believing that this new film is somehow connected to the heavy metal group.

Thorlief

10-03-2007, 01:26 PM

I'm willing to bet the title gets shortened to "Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull" before it's released. However, when I think of a crystal skull, I think of the crystal skull form House II.

More than likely, the movie will have something to do with these crystal skull myths (http://www.crystalinks.com/crystalskulls.html).

that's what I thought as well. I remember reading a Arthur C.Clarke book about it when I was a child, and there was this crystal skull legend

..which is not quite a universal subject to investigate about, like the Ark or the Graal, that's just one of the things troubling me atm