criterionforum.org

New pics

The one with the snake is hilarious.

Did Ford not even bother to go to the gym for this?

The one with Cate looks bizarrely soundstagey.

domino harvey wrote:Did Ford not even bother to go to the gym for this?

I'd be pretty happy if I looked like that in my sixties.

he looks like my grandpa.

If anyone is desperate, and can't wait eight more hours for the official release of the teaser, a bootleg version is up at Ain't It Cool News.

The trailer goes live on Yahoo at 9 AM EST.

Here it is.

I'm pumped, but too many one-liners for my taste...

exte wrote:I'm pumped, but too many one-liners for my taste...

Considering the other three movies are nothing but a torrent of one liners, that didn't bother me too much. For me, the trailer was just boring. It's just a lot more of the same setups (a bunch of unidentified "tribal" people; evil communists; fantastically fake sets) with seemingly less energy and verve. Harrison Ford looks too old, and while it seems they are going with that angle, I wonder how pliable that gag will be for a two hour running time.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Considering the other three movies are nothing but a torrent of one liners, that didn't bother me too much. For me, the trailer was just boring. It's just a lot more of the same setups (a bunch of unidentified "tribal" people; evil communists; fantastically fake sets) with seemingly less energy and verve. Harrison Ford looks too old, and while it seems they are going with that angle, I wonder how pliable that gag will be for a two hour running time.

Hard to say. I liked the trailer, though. It gave me goosebumps to see the famous silhouette of Indy and hear the theme music... Altho, I could have done without the recycling of the truck fight from Raiders in that one brief clip. It looks like it could be fun and will be in keeping with the other 3 films, I hope.

Antoine Doinel wrote:It's just a lot more of the same setups (a bunch of unidentified "tribal" people; evil communists; fantastically fake sets) with seemingly less energy and verve. Harrison Ford looks too old, and while it seems they are going with that angle, I wonder how pliable that gag will be for a two hour running time.

What direction would you suggest they have gone in? I disagree that the trailer lacks energy. It looks like a blast, and I think that Indiana looks like he can still cut it (albeit with a little computerized help). The one-liners have always worked well with the Indiana Jones persona, and it's a breath of fresh air to have him back if you ask me amidst all these comic-book characters they're adapting for all of our action flicks. Jones always had this bumbling, earthy appeal about him that fleshes out the character a little more. And Shia looks like he'll be a great complement to Jones' sarcasm/world-weariness. I agree with Fletch, it's great to hear that score.

I think a lot of people wax nostalgic when they hear the score, but honestly, the whole enterprise feels like a George Lucas marketing experiment like everything he's done for the past twenty years. Shia gets the teenage girls in the seats; Harrison Ford gets everyone who can remember the original trilogy in the seats and Cate Blanchett is in the indie factor. Add the familiar score, setup and gags (didn't we go through the "old timer" gags in The Last Crusade?) and we have another cash cow formula.

What do I want them to do? Preferably, I'd rather not see a sequel at all. But since we have one, how about one with a bit of a fresh spin. I'm not asking them to reinvent the wheel, but is a rehash of The Last Crusade (Harrison = Connery, Shia = Harrison) really the best they could do? It would've been more interesting to completely relaunch the franchise instead.

I was shocked, SHOCKED, to find that the trailer provided instant nostalgia for something I didn't know I was missing.

Perhaps it is proof of the imminent decline and fall of western civilization if this is what gets me pumped, but I'm looking forward to this in a way that transcends whatever the latest BatmanSupermanSpiderman et al. may have to offer.

And, I know what the secret is - it's the olive drab Army cars and trucks. I'm not kidding. God help me.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I think a lot of people wax nostalgic when they hear the score, but honestly, the whole enterprise feels like a George Lucas marketing experiment like everything he's done for the past twenty years. Shia gets the teenage girls in the seats; Harrison Ford gets everyone who can remember the original trilogy in the seats and Cate Blanchett is in the indie factor. Add the familiar score, setup and gags (didn't we go through the "old timer" gags in The Last Crusade?) and we have another cash cow formula.

I agree that I don't trust George Lucas, but Spielberg's in the reins, which I think is an important distinction. This kind of material is Spielberg's forte. Sure, we went through the old timer gags in The Last Crusade with Connery, but he was an outsider to the action. This time it's Jonesy who's aging, and that's a whole different ball-game. Shia is going to provide a very different angle on the younger counterpart than Jones did. Alright fine, the materials being recycled to some extent, but that doesn't mean that it isn't going to be fun (as long as the script is decent enough). And besides, this is pulpy, fun adventure. They've got a good formula. Sticking to it sounds about right to me.

Hah! When Indy swings on the light but completely misses his target and sails through the winshield of the German truck behind him, that was great, especially that little pause he takes to contemplate the almost improbable ill-luck of his failure. Some of the stunts, tho', looked too impossible in the usual action movie mode (I always liked how Indy in the past movies seemed physically grounded, surviving almost by luck of circumstance rather than a Die hard-style style invulnerability). Before I saw the trailer I didn't much care; now I cannot wait.

While I certainly feel the excitement, I was not so thrilled with the CGI special effects, which stood out like a sore thumb. When will Hollywood realize that the technology just isn’t there yet? It gives me the same displaced feeling I had seeing the Die Hard 4 trailer. Too much Nintendo mentality. But I will see the picture and hope for the best.

I think special effects peaked around the time of Jurassic Park and Forrest Gump, to be honest. The last decade has been filled with horrid examples of technology run amok. Some films (Star Wars Prequels, League of Gentlemen, first Spiderman film) look more like video games than cinema.

Feel free to kick 'ol Joe Buck in the beanbag if you disagree. Yeeeeeeooooooh!

No, CGI has pretty much always looked terrible. I always felt, that as it stands now, people should be using it to clean up matte/minatures/stop-motion etc. and make them look more realistic as opposed to abandoning every past technique and generating everything, which just looks unbelievable fake and tacky.

Mr_sausage wrote:Hah! When Indy swings on the light but completely misses his target and sails through the winshield of the German truck behind him, that was great, especially that little pause he takes to contemplate the almost improbable ill-luck of his failure. Some of the stunts, tho', looked too impossible in the usual action movie mode (I always liked how Indy in the past movies seemed physically grounded, surviving almost by luck of circumstance rather than a Die hard-style style invulnerability). Before I saw the trailer I didn't much care; now I cannot wait.

I agree. The trailer made the film look like its gonna be a lot of fun to watch. And as others have said, I think that Spielberg will be the balancing factor, here against Lucas' sensibilities that ruined the last three Star Wars films.

Joe Buck wrote:While I certainly feel the excitement, I was not so thrilled with the CGI special effects, which stood out like a sore thumb. When will Hollywood realize that the technology just isn’t there yet?

When the actor playing your action hero is 65 years old, practical effects may not be...well, practical.

Even in the old Indy movies it can be pretty obvious when Harrison steps out and a stunt double steps in. Old style special effects looked fake back in the day, CGI looks fake but can do more, to me neither is superior.

I'd always choose the old style special effects. At least it's physically there. I can buy an obviously fake stand-in, but I can't when its obviously fake AND looks like it was dropped in from a PS2 game, as opposed to actually being there.

Cold Bishop wrote:I'd always choose the old style special effects. At least it's physically there. I can buy an obviously fake stand-in, but I can't when its obviously fake AND looks like it was dropped in from a PS2 game, as opposed to actually being there.

Exactly. In the trailer, there are so many instances where I say to myself, "This is not Harrison Ford standing on an elaborate set somewhere in Tunisia, this is Harrison Ford standing on a table in front of a blue screen". Look at that shot of him running out of some kind of temple. The people around him all look fake, like Spielberg couldn't afford to hire a few dozen extras. That shot of the plane looks lame too. They couldn't get the old Lao Che plane from Temple of Doom? See, back then they'd actually film a plane flying. Sure, the plane crashing into the mountain looked a little cheesy, but that's the sort of special effect that CGI should be used for. CGI the explosion, not the whole damned plane. Now it's all about shortcuts, and blatantly obvious shortcuts.

Poor Shia tried so hard to grow facial hair-- too bad he can't just plastic surgery it on like he did his new nose

domino harvey wrote:Poor Shia tried so hard to grow facial hair

I agree, not shaving is a considerable amount of work. To some, a beard is just a beard; to me, my beard is a sign of my strong work ethic.