› ›

Indiana Jones

1…8182848687…199

Comments

  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 2021 Posts: 5,970
    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428


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

    Tomorrow!!
  • Mr_BeachMr_Beach
    Posts: 121
    Do you understand what James Mangold says in this video?
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    Something about 'it'd be great to watch his turnaround' as if he's suggesting a shot I think.
  • Matt007Matt007
    Posts: 1,314
    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
  • Matt007Matt007
    Posts: 1,314
    Interesting isn’t it : raiders 1980 filming date date is closer to 1936 when it’s set, than 1969 is to now.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,218
    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2021 Posts: 16,428
    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_BeachMr_Beach
    edited July 2021 Posts: 121
    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
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    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.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    Some glamorous car park rehearsals going on today :D

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

    0_JS239544787.jpg
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,218
    Looking good…

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9784831/Harrison-Ford-79-cuts-casual-figure-birthday-stroll.html
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    That police car... weird seeing that more modern car in an Indiana Jones film.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    Nice photos here:

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

    12795924.png?type=article-full

    12795967.png?type=article-full

    12795983.png?type=article-full

    12795985.png?type=article-full

    12795987.png?type=article-full
  • Mr_BeachMr_Beach
    Posts: 121
    Great photos! Btw, you can view them in full size if you delete "?type=article-full" at the end of each link.
  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,276
    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:
    Green-screen-in-toronto-007.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=a0afefd030ec8846d794a266a02cfcc8
  • ShakenNotStirredShakenNotStirred
    Posts: 1,398
    I don't know guys, think it might still take place in the 40s ;)
    Great photos!
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,218
    With digital set extension this shot will probably feature a significant NY landmark such as the Empire State Building , Brooklyn Bridge, etc.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    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:
    Green-screen-in-toronto-007.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=a0afefd030ec8846d794a266a02cfcc8

    The url says this is in Toronto- where did you find this? Not sure it's the right thread.
  • ZekidkZekidk
    Posts: 3,276
    @mtm
    This was used for Robocop. We shall see the coming days, if they will use greenwall as set extension in Glasgow.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,218
    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..

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    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:

    45444067-9788363-image-m-63_1626277398170.jpg?resize=470%2C490&ssl=1

    45443413-9788363-Busy_Director_James_Mangold_was_also_spotted_in_the_city_visitin-a-46_1626277232209.jpg?resize=708%2C486&ssl=1


  • 007InAction007InAction Australia
    Posts: 2,534
    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:

    45444067-9788363-image-m-63_1626277398170.jpg?resize=470%2C490&ssl=1

    45443413-9788363-Busy_Director_James_Mangold_was_also_spotted_in_the_city_visitin-a-46_1626277232209.jpg?resize=708%2C486&ssl=1


    Gph7.gif
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,218
    Plenty of green screen material in these photos.
  • mattjoesmattjoes Julie T. and the M.G.'s
    Posts: 7,021
    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:

    45444067-9788363-image-m-63_1626277398170.jpg?resize=470%2C490&ssl=1

    45443413-9788363-Busy_Director_James_Mangold_was_also_spotted_in_the_city_visitin-a-46_1626277232209.jpg?resize=708%2C486&ssl=1


    Gph7.gif

    I love this part of the interview. You can see Ford trying to keep from laughing as the silly music begins to play.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    talos7 wrote: »
    Plenty of green screen material in these photos.

    Yes, good point: even in the one I posted! :))
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,428
    PWB spotted :)

    E6RVe1WWEAY1S6E?format=jpg&name=small

    E6RVe06XsAA42jS?format=jpg&name=small
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Oh my god, she looks amazing :)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2021 Posts: 16,428
    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:
    E6RB9mZWQAI4QEb?format=jpg&name=large
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    edited July 2021 Posts: 5,970
    She could maybe be a journalist? And I do wonder if Indy will have two "sidekicks" in Phoebe and Boyd?
Sign In or Register to comment.