Indiana Jones 4

Mark Harris said:
I want some of what you're smoking.

I had hopes for it until I saw...


"LucasFilm LTD" in the credits.
Click to expand...

Oh, come off it. Yeah, the Prequels sucked but George is only producing. That worked out pretty well for the other three Indy movies (although Last Crusade felt a little lazy to me, which had more to do with the writing). The director they got isn't exactly a slouch. My biggest concern is David Koepp's name on the screenplay. Never been a fan of his. Hopefully Darabont's imprint bleeds through.
 
No, it worked well for the FIRST Indie movie. The other two are hardly watchable crap. Which is the reason I am not that excited about this one.
 
Mark Harris said:
No, it worked well for the FIRST Indie movie. The other two are hardly watchable crap. Which is the reason I am not that excited about this one.
Click to expand...

Well, you are a pain in the ass indeed...Calling them hardly watchable crap is laying it on thick. I recognize they are not as good as Raiders, but they are far superior to most of the garbage that passes for an action movie these days. It's like, Godfather III is only lousy in comparison to the other two films. Taken on its own it's actually not bad.
 
Batutta said:
Well, you are a pain in the ass indeed...Calling them hardly watchable crap is laying it on thick. I recognize they are not as good as Raiders, but they are far superior to most of the garbage that passes for an action movie these days. It's like, Godfather III is only lousy in comparison to the other two films. Taken on its own it's actually not bad.
Click to expand...

Ha ha, I only gripe so much about it because it is such a repeated trend with these knuckleheads. Lucas does the same thing over and over. Makes something good. Then decides he has to make it stupid for the sake of selling **** at burgerking and getting morons to like it. It pisses me off because they do it on purpose and for the basest of reasons. The cock-suckers have enough money, why can't they just make decent ****ing films? **** these jackasses.

Sorry, no coffee this morning...:)
 
Last edited:
I take it from the trailer that Mike Kahn is dead. Because the edit sucked.

For starters, what's up with this shot? Have we stumbled onto some BTS? It lingers and lingers. Think about who this is coming from and then think about just how terrible this trailer really is. Hmm... actually, not only is Michael Kahn alive and well, but he worked on this show! That can only mean one thing: Lucas broke into the edit suite after hours and mucked it all up. It's the only thing I can think of that can explain it.

:)

1203013369.jpg


e
 
Last edited:
Erik Olson said:
I take it from the trailer that Mike Kahn is dead. Because the edit sucked.

For starters, what's up with this shot? Have we stumbled onto some BTS? It lingers and lingers. Think about who this is coming from and then think about just how terrible this trailer really is. Hmm... actually, not only is Michael Kahn alive and well, but he worked on this show! That can only mean one thing: Lucas broke into the edit suite after hours and mucked it all up. It's the only thing I can think of that can explain it.

:)

1203013369.jpg


e
Click to expand...

You do know that editors of the film almost NEVER cut the actual trailer, especially on big budget films like these, so Michael Kahn is not to blame. Yes, the shot lingers, but this reeks of a shot that was only done for the trailer and probably isn't in the film. And trailer editors often have to cut their trailers from original media, so they can use shots, and heads and tails of takes that aren't actually in the movie.
 
I enjoyed the trailer but as stated the change in style I'm not exactly happy with but it wasn't bad by any means. I do agree with the KING KONG look to it all, especially the car chase shots, not a big fan of that look. But I think its subjective because this time around new things are possible that weren't in the old days. Who knows what the old films would be like if shot today, in terms of what can even be done in camera. That shot of Indy running on the boxes and jumping (hooking to the light) is a great shot but for some reason its something I think you would never see in the 80's. That kind of camera work just wasn't thought of or done, at least I've never seen that kinda of style in movies then.

No matter what it isn't going to be Raiders in terms of matching it completely, thats a given. Just the advancement of film stock quality would account for a difference but the DP definetly made it look different. Not as hazy (as was said), less smoke, etc. This one seems a lot more clean.

Even if they completely attempted to match the old films, the film would end up different because the man (Steven) is different. I'm definetly excited though, this is #1 for me this year hands down. Being an Indy nut I'm gonna be there midnight no matter what the weather.

Btw, Mark, idk why you only like Raiders. Doom had its lame parts but Crusade to me is just as enjoyable if not better to me than Raiders.

Kyle
 
Batutta, you're making it very difficult for me to complain about this trailer. I thought difficult was Mark's job?

e
 
Actually if im not mistaken, that mistake is still in there in Raiders. I watched the films the other day and I always look for it lol.
 
This teaser trailer can stink as long as the movie is good but a little air has been let out of the balloon for me. Shouldn't they have been able to come up with something a little better for such a short edit? All of the hamminess and nostalgia makes me worry that the story will be a retread of the previous films to give the audience Indy-isms, instead of a good story that can stand on its own.

I can begrudgingly get over the new look if the story is compelling, but David Keopp
as screenwriter has me a little worried. I wish Philip Kaufman could have been persuaded to come back.

It's only a teaser, so hopefully the trailer will have some intrigue and drama rather than explosions and jokes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top