Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Indiana Jones

geo

Registered User
Messages
384
Location
Canada
How did the hat hold to his head in so many situations where any normal person would have lost theirs?

Solution of the mystery: he stapled it to his head! I have proof:

ij1.jpg
 

J. M. Stovall

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,152
Location
Historic Heights Houston, Tejas
Lauren Henline ... I hate most CGI and the only redeeming thing in my opinion, of the new Star Wars movies is the costumes. But without CGI, how are they going to make Ford go through all he did? The cheesy-post-computor madness special effects are way better in my opinion that CGI today. Let's face it- models rocked. So, that's my two cents.

I totally agree with you, but lately there has been a return to using models. I think most of the special effects people know it just looks better, more "real". The two most recent examples of this are Batman Returns and Underworld: Evolutions. They really only use computer 3D for the matte painting and some backgrounds, but all the stuff like cars and boats and batmobiles and elevated trains are all models! And I'm sure all those model builders are happy too!

The only exception is TV, it's still cheaper for them to do it all desktop.
 

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,262
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
Yes, there's actually been a bit of a backlash. Many recent effects-heavy films use models in addition to CGI, because models still tend to read more three-dimensionally on film.

For example, The Lord of the Rings films used large-scale models (referred to by the crew as "bigatures") for locations, vs. using CGI for armies of orcs and special effects. Thus, the parts of the Mines of Moria, Rivendell, Helm's Deep, Gondor, the towers of Isengard and Minas Morgul, etc., that weren't done as full-scale sets (like the Rohan stronghold Edoras, which was built full-size atop a mountain in a national park, or the Hobbit houses in the Shire, which were dug into the ground an entire year before shooting to let the foliage grow in and make them look ancient!) were enormous models. For example, the Gondorian walled city of Minas Tirith stood nearly 30 feet high, its spire almost touching the studio ceiling!

Put me in the camp that prefers models over CGI anytime...
 

Doh!

One Too Many
Messages
1,079
Location
Tinsel Town
Amen, brother(s).

Also, even if Ford has to rely on stuntmen moreso than he did back in the day, that's much more impressive than CGI people doing things (oh, like, say, Jedi jumping great distances that'd kill flesh and blood beings).
 

JerseyJones

Vendor
Messages
146
Location
New Jersey
I am very ambivalent about any thought of an Indy replacement, but if I had to choose, Dennis Quaid is a viable choice. Similar look, expressions, very good actor. Possible others Hugh Jackman (good balance of charm and grit) and of course, JerseyJones ! :cheers1:

JJ
 

geo

Registered User
Messages
384
Location
Canada
Indiana Jones can only be played by an actor that's credible both as a bow-tie wearing college professor and as an adventurer. It's a tough role, and I think that an actor that's only good as an action type of guy won't do. It takes an intellectual that can jump off tanks for the role. That's why Tom Selleck wouldn't have been as good for the role, because he's too much on the action side, and not credible enough as a professor. The only other actor who could have successfully pulled off "Raiders of the Lost Ark" would have been Michael Douglas. See him in "Romancing the Stone", he is a perfect Indiana Jones, and he's credible in a suit and tie too.
 

Steve

Practically Family
Messages
550
Location
Pensacola, FL
JerseyJones said:
I am very ambivalent about any thought of an Indy replacement, but if I had to choose, Dennis Quaid is a viable choice. Similar look, expressions, very good actor. Possible others Hugh Jackman (good balance of charm and grit) and of course, JerseyJones ! :cheers1:

JJ
Dennis Quaid could swing it, but Hugh Jackman is almost too buff and contemporary looking to pull it off.
 

geo

Registered User
Messages
384
Location
Canada
Here's what I found out from wikipedia.com, of all places:

Theatrical films
Chapter 23: The Temple of Doom (1984)
Chapter 24: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Chapter 25: The Last Crusade (1989)
Chapter 26: Indiana Jones 4 (2007) (categorized as "in production")
Chapter 27: (unproduced) Originally, George Lucas had signed a deal with Paramount Pictures for four theatrical sequels to Raiders of the Lost Ark. After the first three, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lucas announced he was finished with the theatrical films, leaving two of his promised sequels unmade. He now has announced his work on the third sequel, Indiana Jones IV. He now denies plans for a fourth sequel, claiming he never intended to do beyond three, but that the fourth film was "a brilliant idea he had." In saying he had a deal for four sequels, one could also speculate that he might not have counted The Temple of Doom as a sequel, and instead a prequel, which it was. This would leave room open for yet another sequel that is yet to be produced.
Chapter 28: (unproduced) Based on the fact that The Temple of Doom could be counted as a prequel, rather than a sequel.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
109,635
Messages
3,085,410
Members
54,453
Latest member
FlyingPoncho
Top