Jump to content

The OFFICIAL Indy IV Thread


Recommended Posts

Well, the polders are quite unique. We just take them for granted.

Anyway, Indy IV is being made.

That's about all the news we have...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Netherlands is great (that doesn't sound right!).

Especially for a great many things which are illegal in most other countries ;)

:D

Drugs are bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Netherlands is great (that doesn't sound right!).

Especially for a great many things which are illegal in most other countries ;)

:D

Drugs are bad.

mmmkay?

For the record, I am neither endorsing [nor condemning] drug use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey just though I let you know that someone has posted a Indy IV Plot on the IMDB. This might contain some spoilers for those who doesn't won't to be spoiled in case if this plot is considered to be officially true...

To Read the Plot highlight to read...

"Indiana Jones returns to the big screen. Nineteen years after finding and losing the Holy Grail, Indiana is called by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the organization holding the Ark from "Raiders". The Council and it's counterpart cousin, the Trilateral Commission, are missing an important piece to the Ark. If found, it will restored to its original place in the world. However, this task won't be easy for Indiana because an artifact, "the All Seeing Eye Jewel of 12 Stones," called "Ephod," helps to find it and reveals about prophecy about the coming of Melchizedek from the book of Genesis and Indiana learns more than he bargained for."

Source: IMDB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dunno if this has been posted,

Empire Of The Sun alternate ending by George Lucas: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OD3Jx7GR9Ss I know... its off topic, but I found it whilst searching for the interview.

Oh and I couldn't find the O'Brien interview, but I did find this:

Conan O'Brien visits ILM: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=y2bhsv82HRA

EDIT: ^Just watched the O'Brien thing, VERY FUNNY! :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to producer Frank Marshall from this article, there will be no CGI in Indy IV.

Is this even possible in this day and age?

I'm all for the use of CGI in films if it is used sparingly and only when needed, and if there's one man who can pull it off, it has to be Spielberg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say great. Indy has never needed CGI (atleast not in the way it's used now), why should this be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say great. Indy has never needed CGI (atleast not in the way it's used now), why should this be any different?

Fair enough....but let's take a scene from TLC, the spectacular [for its time] effect of Indy crossing the rock bridge near the end of the film (blew my mind as a kid).

Now if a scene like that were to be filmed for the new movie, and assuming it was done by old-fashioned means of special effects via models and the like....would it hurt to spruce it up with a bit of CGI?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's the way I would want to see digital technology used: touching the old school effects up, making them more seamless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to correct the above poster who quoted Marshall, he did NOT state there would be no CGI at alll. Spielberg isn't crazy enough to have all his old effects done with traditional optical methods. It takes too long and the result isn't as seamless as digital, not to mention ILM's old practical and model units (last I heard) were shut down years back and are done externally now.

If he were getting that pedantic, he'd be filming with 20 year old cameras and recording the score analogue, too. Just ain't happening folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there are any melting faces in this one, I think I would prefer CGI to wax dummies.

Probably good for the time, but I don't think those scenes in Raiders have aged particularly well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ILM's old practical and model units (last I heard) were shut down years back and are done externally now.

Lat year, and it is not shut down. It was sold to one of ILM employers, and its called Kerner Optical. ILM contracts them when needed.

BTW, I think they mean there will be no CGI stunts and things like that. If planes appear in this movie, i hope it is not like in last Crusade. CGI can do better than that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And remember TLC had very groundbreaking CGI for its time (Donovan's destruction).

Except....that was not CGI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? I don't recall them mentioning that on the DVD.

It tellsh me that crosh poshting moronsh like yourshelf should try reading booksh inshtead of burning DVDsh!

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Spielberg was one of the producers for Transformers...which was probably why Shia got picked for Indy IV...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, right you are. Still, a bit vague for Neil, who's generally right on the money with his revised quotes.

I'm usually not one to go ahead and explain a joke, but I guess in this case it's warranted.

In this thread at FSM, "ahem" directly responded to you mentioning the digitally composited scene in Last Crusade.

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was over a week ago, in an inferior (in a way) forum. I can't possibly be asked to remember that!

Morlock- who found arguing with ahem enlightening, but still thinks that most of the effects in the Indy films are, by and large, not believable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it does not. The closing sequence in particular looks quite silly and extremely dated (the finale, not the warehouse, which looks quite believable).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even in 1981,i thought the effects for the final sequence were kind of shoddy.But it was still great.I always thought of Poltergeist as the film where ILM mastered the "ghost effects"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never had any problems with the FX in Raiders, they're good enough and used well, I don't see the problem. And what does a "realistic" ghost look like, anyway? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just remember after Poltergeist,I immediatly thought the end of Raiders would look a lot better if they had time to perfect the technology a bit more

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only effects that bother me are the obvious matte lines during the storm/discovery of the Ark chamber scene. The finale is unrealistic, but that only makes it more gruesome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. The only thing that bugs me a bit aside from that is the long shot of the clouds parting, but even the overhead shot of the pillar of fire following that looks really good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to look back, but it seemed a bit grainier and stuttery in comparison to the rest--I may have been noticing matte lines as well. I do remember the clouds standing out a bit. But again, even that isn't terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.