Indiana Jones

Denbigh

Zekidk wrote: »

Denbigh wrote: »

the biggest mystery to me is Boyd Holbrook and Thomas Kretschmann.

Kretschmann = nazi. Guaranteed! Or wait.... maybe he is the scientist?

But isn't Mads supposedly the scientist/main villain?

With both Kretschmann and Mikkelsen, it makes it hard to distinguish the possible roles.

mtm

https://twitter.com/lindajsinclair/status/1414913689195536388

This is cool because it confirms (even though we were fairly sure!) that this is Indy filming.

Tomorrow!!

Mr_Beach

Do you understand what James Mangold says in this video?

mtm

Something about 'it'd be great to watch his turnaround' as if he's suggesting a shot I think.

Matt007

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

It’s boring.
And you can’t deny it has far more and far worse CGI. Look at that dreadful runway scene towards the end with Tommy Lee Jones pretending to drive a car. Or that embarrassing train sequence. It seems kind of crazy people complain about Skull using CG when it’s full of real stunts. I spotted about two in Cap America.

I couldn’t disagree more, but that’s just personal preference.
As far as the CG, the work that was done on “ skinny “ Steve Rogers is exceptional and the rest suits the comic book source material of the film. I tend to be more forgiving when it comes to CG for a comic book adaptation. I expect more from Indiana Jones.

The skinny stuff is amazing (even if I never believe it), but the comic book thing is really just an excuse- it's awful CG and really ruins the film. I don't for a second believe that train abseil thing and it looks stupid. Basically it means people hold Indy to a higher standard, which is understandable but not fair. To gripe about the CG in that and look past horrible stuff like Cap Am has in the same genre (and made several years later!) is odd.
It's a very hollow and charmless film and just feels empty, drifting into a greenscreen world about two thirds in and never recovering. I was so disappointed that it came from the director of Rocketeer. KOTCS has bags more heart, flawed though it is.

We must have seen different movies . 😉

Well you think that wasn't all horrible CG then I'll have to give you the name of my oculist :D

The reason the cgi jars so badly in Crystal skull is because all the other films had to use more practice effects so stylistically it’s dissonant within its own franchise (I know about the cgi enhanced morphing used in the Donovan scene btw)

Captain America is visually aligned with the rest of the MCU

Matt007

Interesting isn’t it : raiders 1980 filming date date is closer to 1936 when it’s set, than 1969 is to now.

talos7

Matt007 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

It’s boring.
And you can’t deny it has far more and far worse CGI. Look at that dreadful runway scene towards the end with Tommy Lee Jones pretending to drive a car. Or that embarrassing train sequence. It seems kind of crazy people complain about Skull using CG when it’s full of real stunts. I spotted about two in Cap America.

I couldn’t disagree more, but that’s just personal preference.
As far as the CG, the work that was done on “ skinny “ Steve Rogers is exceptional and the rest suits the comic book source material of the film. I tend to be more forgiving when it comes to CG for a comic book adaptation. I expect more from Indiana Jones.

The skinny stuff is amazing (even if I never believe it), but the comic book thing is really just an excuse- it's awful CG and really ruins the film. I don't for a second believe that train abseil thing and it looks stupid. Basically it means people hold Indy to a higher standard, which is understandable but not fair. To gripe about the CG in that and look past horrible stuff like Cap Am has in the same genre (and made several years later!) is odd.
It's a very hollow and charmless film and just feels empty, drifting into a greenscreen world about two thirds in and never recovering. I was so disappointed that it came from the director of Rocketeer. KOTCS has bags more heart, flawed though it is.

We must have seen different movies . 😉

Well you think that wasn't all horrible CG then I'll have to give you the name of my oculist :D

The reason the cgi jars so badly in Crystal skull is because all the other films had to use more practice effects so stylistically it’s dissonant within its own franchise (I know about the cgi enhanced morphing used in the Donovan scene btw)

Captain America is visually aligned with the rest of the MCU

Excellent observation, and well stated.

mtm

Matt007 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

talos7 wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

It’s boring.
And you can’t deny it has far more and far worse CGI. Look at that dreadful runway scene towards the end with Tommy Lee Jones pretending to drive a car. Or that embarrassing train sequence. It seems kind of crazy people complain about Skull using CG when it’s full of real stunts. I spotted about two in Cap America.

I couldn’t disagree more, but that’s just personal preference.
As far as the CG, the work that was done on “ skinny “ Steve Rogers is exceptional and the rest suits the comic book source material of the film. I tend to be more forgiving when it comes to CG for a comic book adaptation. I expect more from Indiana Jones.

The skinny stuff is amazing (even if I never believe it), but the comic book thing is really just an excuse- it's awful CG and really ruins the film. I don't for a second believe that train abseil thing and it looks stupid. Basically it means people hold Indy to a higher standard, which is understandable but not fair. To gripe about the CG in that and look past horrible stuff like Cap Am has in the same genre (and made several years later!) is odd.
It's a very hollow and charmless film and just feels empty, drifting into a greenscreen world about two thirds in and never recovering. I was so disappointed that it came from the director of Rocketeer. KOTCS has bags more heart, flawed though it is.

We must have seen different movies . 😉

Well you think that wasn't all horrible CG then I'll have to give you the name of my oculist :D

The reason the cgi jars so badly in Crystal skull is because all the other films had to use more practice effects so stylistically it’s dissonant within its own franchise (I know about the cgi enhanced morphing used in the Donovan scene btw)

Captain America is visually aligned with the rest of the MCU

Sure, but that doesn't mean that Cap Am isn't full of much more egregious CG than Skull is, and yet Skull's CG is always moaned about as if it's terrible (it isn't). That Indy is held to a higher standard just shows how good it is compared to Marvel.

Indy films also never shied away from effects sequences- and used them much moreso than Bond, for example. Look at the jeep going over the matte painting cliff in Raiders or the almost-entirely stop motion minecart chase. Modern SFX in an Indy film were nothing new.

Matt007 wrote: »

Interesting isn’t it : raiders 1980 filming date date is closer to 1936 when it’s set, than 1969 is to now.

Well it's not massively surprising, to be fair: Mr Ford is 79 years old (today!) and they've dialled Indy's age down from that, so the gap would have increased.

Mr_Beach

Btw the gap between when each film is mainly set and when each film was released (assuming that Indy 5 will mostly be set in 1969):

Indy 1: 45 years
Indy 2: 49 years
Indy 3: 51 years
Indy 4: 51 years
Indy 5: 53 years

mtm

Mr_Beach wrote: »

Btw the gap between when each film is mainly set and when each film was released (assuming that Indy 5 will mostly be set in 1969):

Indy 1: 45 years
Indy 2: 49 years
Indy 3: 51 years
Indy 4: 51 years
Indy 5: 53 years

Oh wow: I didn't realise that the gap between Crusade and Skull was 'real-world' time (i.e. the same as between '89 and '08)- I just assumed they'd shortened it. That's very interesting.

mtm

Some glamorous car park rehearsals going on today :D

https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/gallery/rehearsals-held-car-park-glasgow-21045408

talos7

Looking good…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9784831/Harrison-Ford-79-cuts-casual-figure-birthday-stroll.html

mattjoes

That police car... weird seeing that more modern car in an Indiana Jones film.

mtm

Nice photos here:

https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19441841.filming-gets-underway-indiana-jones-5-set-extras-spotted-glasgow/?ref=twtrec

Mr_Beach

Great photos! Btw, you can view them in full size if you delete "?type=article-full" at the end of each link.

Zekidk

This is really exciting and looks more than extended establishing shots, with the attention to detail given. I wonder if they will make use of:

ShakenNotStirred

I don't know guys, think it might still take place in the 40s ;)
Great photos!

talos7

With digital set extension this shot will probably feature a significant NY landmark such as the Empire State Building , Brooklyn Bridge, etc.

mtm

Zekidk wrote: »

This is really exciting and looks more than extended establishing shots, with the attention to detail given. I wonder if they will make use of:

The url says this is in Toronto- where did you find this? Not sure it's the right thread.

Zekidk

@mtm
This was used for Robocop. We shall see the coming days, if they will use greenwall as set extension in Glasgow.

talos7

Zekidk wrote: »

@mtm
This was used for Robocop. We shall see the coming days, if they will use greenwall as set extension in Glasgow.

Without a doubt..

mtm

Oh I see. I doubt they'll use a green wall, because there doesn't seem to be one there :D I don't think they really have to- they can just paint in extra buildings where they need to.
The thing which I guess won't look right is that very particular light you get in NYC where everything is lit from diffuse light coming directly from above because of the tall buildings. Light in a city with skyscrapers isn't like light anywhere else.

Anyway, here's Mark Harmon Ford's stand-in on set:

007InAction

mtm wrote: »

Oh I see. I doubt they'll use a green wall, because there doesn't seem to be one there :D I don't think they really have to- they can just paint in extra buildings where they need to.
The thing which I guess won't look right is that very particular light you get in NYC where everything is lit from diffuse light coming directly from above because of the tall buildings. Light in a city with skyscrapers isn't like light anywhere else.

Anyway, here's Mark Harmon Ford's stand-in on set:

talos7

Plenty of green screen material in these photos.

mattjoes

007InAction wrote: »

mtm wrote: »

Oh I see. I doubt they'll use a green wall, because there doesn't seem to be one there :D I don't think they really have to- they can just paint in extra buildings where they need to.
The thing which I guess won't look right is that very particular light you get in NYC where everything is lit from diffuse light coming directly from above because of the tall buildings. Light in a city with skyscrapers isn't like light anywhere else.

Anyway, here's Mark Harmon Ford's stand-in on set:

I love this part of the interview. You can see Ford trying to keep from laughing as the silly music begins to play.

mtm

talos7 wrote: »

Plenty of green screen material in these photos.

Yes, good point: even in the one I posted! :))

mtm

PWB spotted :)

Denbigh

Oh my god, she looks amazing :)

mtm

Yes indeed, I'm very curious what her character is now. I wasn't too far off with the Diane Keaton vibe! :D

And here's Boyd Holbrook:

Denbigh

She could maybe be a journalist? And I do wonder if Indy will have two "sidekicks" in Phoebe and Boyd?