I wonder how many jigawatts / gigawatts of electricity it will take to activate the Dial of Destiny and send Dr. Jones BACK to the year 1969???
Last edited:
Indiana Jones 5 officially announced
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
"Mangold describes [Helena] as a 'catalyst' for the film. 'She's a daughter of a friend of Indy's, who we will also meet in the movie,' he says."
So either they're resurrecting Denholm Elliott... or she's apparently not Brody's daughter after all.
So either they're resurrecting Denholm Elliott... or she's apparently not Brody's daughter after all.
CopperRevan
Master Member
This may be just a rumor but apparently Indy will have a new sidekick in this film and it's not a capuchin, it's not a Short Round, not even a ladiesman217...
It's this little gal...
Nippet
Seriously, if anyone on the RPF can make one of these things accurately, my wife would really appreciate it. Thank you
It's this little gal...
Nippet
Seriously, if anyone on the RPF can make one of these things accurately, my wife would really appreciate it. Thank you
CopperRevan
Master Member
Indiana Jones 6th installment is already in filming as well...
INDIANA JONES AND THE TOILET OF PRUNE
"NO ONE'S EVER TRULY GONE"
INDIANA JONES AND THE TOILET OF PRUNE
"NO ONE'S EVER TRULY GONE"
The pundits / trolls seem to be proven wrong…I keep hearing them referring to Helena as being “stunning and brave”. In the latest update, Mangold states she is not “stunning and brave” but is, rather, “charming and brilliant”. So…so, “there’s that”, I guess?
James Mangold revealed Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character, Helena, is “a daughter of a friend of Indy’s” who has “gotten herself into a bit of trouble” in a new interview with Entertainment Weekly.
James Mangold revealed Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s character, Helena, is “a daughter of a friend of Indy’s” who has “gotten herself into a bit of trouble” in a new interview with Entertainment Weekly.
Last edited:
Mangold failed to describe her with a specific phrase, therefore the detractors have the whole show figured wrong?
'Stunning and Brave' is a cliche'd way to describe a modern woman. Like calling her 'strong & independent.' It's a set of buzzwords. And these days you hear that particular pair being used in a mocking way more often than a flattering one.
I'm saying that Mangold would probably avoid using that phrase even if it was a perfect description of the character.
Last edited:
Sorry to have to break it to you...
VonMagnum
Sr Member
So Connery was the only hot & sexy actor/actress in Hollywood? I seem to recall them placing younger girls with him as he got older (e.g. Entrapment) so some of us guys into girls could get a stiffy too. I think that was the right actress as she's married to a much older man for real and Harrison is married to much younger woman himself (Calista Flockhart). Personally, I think Phoebe is very attractive, but that doesn't mean they'll market it her that way in the movie, although she sure marketed herself that way in Fleabag (as the writer and star).
It's hard to tell after Solo, though. That whole thing about Lando being turned on by a very non-human looking robot (voiced by her) was pretty far out there even for pushing boundaries and kind of made Lando seem very un-Lando-like compared to Empire and ROTJ, IMO. He's a ladies man in the future, but turned on by Droids when he was younger? Perhaps, we just didn't see that side of him in the earlier movies? Or perhaps it's pushing some bizarre woke agenda I'm unaware of (Robots need lovin' too?). The Japanese are working hard on sex robots as we speak, but I think they're trying to make them look more human, not less.
I think that was probably done to check off a box, plain and simple. "Make one of the characters not heterosexual." Never mind continuity or plausibility.
It makes more sense if you assume that they had a mandate to make SOMEBODY be SOMETHING other than hetero. Maybe they figured it would cause less ruckus to make Lando a robo-sexual than if they made him something closer to home like bisexual. It sends the issue into joke territory. The joke may or may not work, but either way they get fewer angry letters from parents than if they went with a realistic non-hetero orientation.
Last edited:
Ronculous could if he had not retiredThis may be just a rumor but apparently Indy will have a new sidekick in this film and it's not a capuchin, it's not a Short Round, not even a ladiesman217...
It's this little gal...
Nippet
Seriously, if anyone on the RPF can make one of these things accurately, my wife would really appreciate it. Thank you
Riceball
Master Member
I agree wholeheartedly. I recall there being some shots in the Last Crusade, namely during the whole Zepplin sequence that just screamed of green/blue screen and bad comp work.
CGI looks more objectionable when it's not perfect.
Optical composites & miniatures & glass mattes look more 'forgivable' to our eyes. The physics are generally less cartoonish. And images of real objects tend to look better than CGI-fabricated images even if the real ones are miniatures.
Optical composites & miniatures & glass mattes look more 'forgivable' to our eyes. The physics are generally less cartoonish. And images of real objects tend to look better than CGI-fabricated images even if the real ones are miniatures.
NakedMoleRat
Master Member
Well, I certainly hope they specifically film a scene that shows why Indy, in the 1930’s was using a WW 2 gas mask bag…
VonMagnum
Sr Member
You mean like de-aging Harrison Ford CGI cartoon fake? If it looks anything like Jeff Bridges on TRON: Legacy... Yikes. I've been hoping they'd release an updated version of TRON with newer de-aging software as it's absolutely cringe worthy as it is. I could accept it in the computer as you wouldn't necessarily expect computer people to look perfect, but that shot at the beginning of the movie was just awful.
'Tron Legacy' - a movie from 2010 doesn't tell us anything about the current state of the tech. The last 15 years have been a period of rapid advancement for CGI human faces.
There is no question that they can make a young Harrison Ford look convincing for most shots. Stunts, movement, etc. Hollywood has been doing CGI head replacements on stuntmen for years (full CGI fabrications of the star's head). The only question is how good it looks during closeup "emoting" kinds of shots.
Look at this CGI head doubling for 'Logan' in 2016. No clumsy obvious TRON-looking stuff there.
There is no question that they can make a young Harrison Ford look convincing for most shots. Stunts, movement, etc. Hollywood has been doing CGI head replacements on stuntmen for years (full CGI fabrications of the star's head). The only question is how good it looks during closeup "emoting" kinds of shots.
Look at this CGI head doubling for 'Logan' in 2016. No clumsy obvious TRON-looking stuff there.
Last edited:
ScourgiousJinx
Master Member
Oh golly Helena's "a lot of trouble," sounds like a recipe for some hijinks. I just can't wait to see Indy obnoxiously lampooned in the spirit of fun.
VonMagnum
Sr Member
TRON Legacy was just a very obvious example of how even in a movie designed around the computer world can still be jarring when a scene in the real world looks like garbage. It's why I said it needs updated, but I'm not convinced it still won't look fake in Indy 5.
Despite progress, everything has looked more or less like a video game since Jurassic Park. The new Avatar movie still looks unbelievably fake and they filmed it back to back in part to avoid the aging issue between lengths of time (Cameron called it the Stranger Things effect).
CGI is a menace. It's overused to death and the reason Top Gun Maverick and Impossible Mission movies look so much better than Marvel movies, etc as it's minimized there and Tom even does his own stunts. The original Star Wars movie still looks endlessly better than the prequels for that reason as well. Actors forced to imagine effects in front of a green screen often fails as well.
IMO, Hollywood has too many sequels, reboots, comic book movies and uses too much CGI. I'd welcome a lot more detective type movies, but even Knives Out and its sequel goes almost straight to Netflix. Comedy is a bad word because of possibly offending someone somewhere somehow. Movies have been going downhill for some time now, IMO. While Marvel has done well for the most part, I'm getting burned out on endless non-stop comic based movies. I think we had a better well rounded selection in the 1970s and 1980s.
Despite progress, everything has looked more or less like a video game since Jurassic Park. The new Avatar movie still looks unbelievably fake and they filmed it back to back in part to avoid the aging issue between lengths of time (Cameron called it the Stranger Things effect).
CGI is a menace. It's overused to death and the reason Top Gun Maverick and Impossible Mission movies look so much better than Marvel movies, etc as it's minimized there and Tom even does his own stunts. The original Star Wars movie still looks endlessly better than the prequels for that reason as well. Actors forced to imagine effects in front of a green screen often fails as well.
IMO, Hollywood has too many sequels, reboots, comic book movies and uses too much CGI. I'd welcome a lot more detective type movies, but even Knives Out and its sequel goes almost straight to Netflix. Comedy is a bad word because of possibly offending someone somewhere somehow. Movies have been going downhill for some time now, IMO. While Marvel has done well for the most part, I'm getting burned out on endless non-stop comic based movies. I think we had a better well rounded selection in the 1970s and 1980s.
Similar threads
