Prop Collector
Sr Member
I'm convinced that his costume in Blade Runner 2049 was just something he picked out of his closet.
Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
I'm convinced that his costume in Blade Runner 2049 was just something he picked out of his closet.
Solo4114
Master Member
I actually think that's a good thing, but has more to do with the Academy itself recognizing its own limitations and inherent biases. It's not a perfect solution, but it's a step in the right direction if you think the Oscars actually matter (and the Academy certainly does, at least).
My understanding (and I may be wrong here) is that this derived from realizing that it was always white folks, white crews, white directors, and mostly white actors who were winning and being nominated. That's not to say that there weren't members of minority groups who'd show up now and then, but it was primarily dominated by white folks who just so happened to be "the best" year after year. Like, really, it just so happened that over and over and over again only the white folks did well? Or that it's a remarkable thing when a minority performer wins or is nominated? "The first XYZ to be nominated!" It's an inelegant solution, admittedly, but it's at least an attempt to correct the issue.
Now, you ask me, any association that put Titanic above L.A. Confidential for best picture is already inherently flawed and you can't really trust their taste. They clearly disdain most genre stories, regardless of how good the story is or how well made the films are, outside of the FX and maybe makeup categories, of course. You know...technical stuff (he sneered). But to me, that just highlights the absurdity of the Oscars at a baseline.
And as for politics, it's always been political, just political in the sense of "who's connected to/favored by/related to whom."
See, that's the thing. He is in great shape for an 80 year old. That is what "great shape for an 80 year old" really looks like. The other shots may be from a favorable angle, and the costume likely does some of the work itself, but...yeah, that's pretty much what a really fit 80-year-old is. We should all be so lucky, and I don't expect any better than that.
It does, however, highlight the deeper issue of why octogenarian action heroes shouldn't be a thing.
They can take as much age off Harrison as they want to. It has all been routine work in Hollywood for years. The only question is whether they will have the right priorities and do it well.
I really hope they don't get quick-n-dirty on the CGI work to meet a release date.
Let's not forget that Indy should only be about 68 for this movie, not 79.
Harrison started off pretty close to Indy's age in 1981. But then he got older during the 1980s while the character stayed in the same period. By 'Last Crusade' Harrison was up near 50yo and it was only 2 years after 'Raiders' in the timeline.
I really hope they don't get quick-n-dirty on the CGI work to meet a release date.
Let's not forget that Indy should only be about 68 for this movie, not 79.
Harrison started off pretty close to Indy's age in 1981. But then he got older during the 1980s while the character stayed in the same period. By 'Last Crusade' Harrison was up near 50yo and it was only 2 years after 'Raiders' in the timeline.
Last edited:
Last edited:
It's getting there, but this isn't it.
It's not "Freeman".
Great face representation, but it demonstrates a few hurdles the industry will need to get through before we get there.
1. First one is easy, and it shows a common mistake with lipsynching for stuff like this.
Sound comes from the throat, not the lips. You can perfectly sync the sound wave with the lip motion, but it'll always be off because that's not where the voice comes from. At 30 frames a second, if you offset the sound forward in time by a frame or two - it depends how consistent the lip motion is - then it'll seem synched. If you think this is synched, watch it full screen, it's blatant.
2. Performance. I always loved Morgan Freeman, but there are traits that certain actors have that are proprietary to who they are as performers. It doesn't matter how much the face looks like him, or if the vocals are performed by him. If the physical performance, and subtleties of expression aren't there, then it doesn't work.
It's getting there, but this isn't it.
It's not "Freeman".
Great face representation, but it demonstrates a few hurdles the industry will need to get through before we get there.
1. First one is easy, and it shows a common mistake with lipsynching for stuff like this.
Sound comes from the throat, not the lips. You can perfectly sync the sound wave with the lip motion, but it'll always be off because that's not where the voice comes from. At 30 frames a second, if you offset the sound forward in time by a frame or two - it depends how consistent the lip motion is - then it'll seem synched. If you think this is synched, watch it full screen, it's blatant.
2. Performance. I always loved Morgan Freeman, but there are traits that certain actors have that are proprietary to who they are as performers. It doesn't matter how much the face looks like him, or if the vocals are performed by him. If the physical performance, and subtleties of expression aren't there, then it doesn't work.
It's getting there, but this isn't it.
Last edited:
If I was an actor, I would be either very nervous about how good technology is getting, or very excited as this could mean hefty paychecks for the use of their “likeness” vs. having to do any actual work.
Last edited:
Absolutely.
For better known actors, it'll likely mean residuals to their Estates (after they pass away). I predict a new movie starring Steven McQueen or Paul Newman in the next 5-8 years. Once they perfect the tech, it'll change everything.
But the business-end consequences are mostly unknown - and a little bit exciting (for the rest of us).
This isn't a new concern/argument. The same issue came up around Sky Captain. I think it was Lawrence Olivier who was recreated, & the question arose as to who the likeness belonged to- his estate or was it public domain since he was a public figure & now deceased.
Didn’t Mark Hamill sign a contract for the digital use of his likeness with Disney?
I could be mis-remembering.
I could be mis-remembering.
Last edited:
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
The way I understood it was that Hamill gave his blessing for his family to sell his digital likeness to Disney for use beyond his death, pending their approval of the content. I think the story of an actual contract with Disney for them to use digital Luke Skywalker forever was just a rumor. But I could be mistaken.
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
Everything should have an ending... movies, stories, characters, actors careers or abilities to be in films, no matter who or what they are. Without true endings they become less special. Imagine Indiana Jones 12, The Quest for an Audience, staring digital likeness Harrison Ford reprising his role yet again. No thank you.
The Goon
Sr Member
There is no spoon.
Deep fakes are intriguing from a gimmick perspective but that's about it. I have zero interest is seeing actors long passed being resurrected by an A.I. much less seeing a feature length movie starring them. It's creepy and will never replace the actual performance of a human being.
I'm in agreement that some properties just need to end for good. As much as I might love them, they begin to lose all meaning when they carry on forever.
I'm in agreement that some properties just need to end for good. As much as I might love them, they begin to lose all meaning when they carry on forever.
Similar threads
