Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny | June 30 2023 | Very mixed reviews out of Cannes

[stuart360]

10 minutes ago, Maggie said:

 

There will probably be a lot of those quirks as every action shot is going to be Fords face plasterd onto a stunt double.

[ThomasNicole]

2 minutes ago, stuart360 said:

There will probably be a lot of those quirks as every action shot is going to be Fords face plasterd onto a stunt double.

This happens in all movies unless it's a Tom Cruise or John Wick movie

[Firepower]

I really hope they'll fix those dodgy CGI explosions and stunt double CGI face, but the rest looks pretty good.

[grey ghost]

3 hours ago, John Marston said:

Kind of weird Disney is releasing Elemental and not this over Father’s Day weekend 

 Transformers comes out a week before Father's Day. 

[grey ghost]

I was hoping for a clever twist on the classic OT. This was just Crystal Skull with more memba berries.

[excel1]

Perfect flawless piece of marketing.

[RichWS]

Douglas Slocombe was the real hero of the original films. You can hire any DP you want and it's never gonna be quite the same.

[NamakFiskKa]

6 hours ago, Porthos said:

That's... not bad at all.

 

Have to see more, especially more of the "in motion" shots, but this really has progressed in a very short time.

 

That screenshot is good but they over animated his face , looked slightly wonky in those 5 seconds

[Ozymandias]

No Shia Labeouf?

[Noctis]

It looks like a classic fun adventure movie that we need more of - but my God, just retire Ford. 

 

 

[George Parr]

7 hours ago, stuart360 said:

Most of the shots have that sound stage look that Crystal Skull had, like everything was shot on a sound stage as oppose to on location.

The cgi looks bad, although time to improve, and 80yo Indy looks like ha can barely move, or talk.

 

I'll be surprised if this beats Crystal Skulls gross, at least in the US.

 

We will always have the orig trilogy though.

You mean unlike those original three Indiana Jones movies which were mostly shot on a sound stage?

 

Raiders had a bunch of days at the start shooting in La Rochelle, a bunch of days on Hawaii, and then much of the desert parts in Tunisia, everything else was on a sound stage.

 

Temple of Doom had not quite two weeks in Sri Lanka, everything else was on a sound stage, by far the movie with the least on location shooting.

 

Last Crusade started with three weeks in Spain, had one day in Venice and a few days in Colorado to shoot the opening. Everything else was on a sound stage

 

Crystal Skull started with three weeks on location in New Mexcio, Connectictut and Hawaii, the rest was on a sound stage.

 

All in all, Crystal Skull was very much in line with Last Crusade in terms of on location shooting, and easily ahead of Temple of Doom. Raiders might be a bit ahead due to having a shorter principal photography in general.

[Verrows]

33 minutes ago, George Parr said:

You mean unlike those original three Indiana Jones movies which were mostly shot on a sound stage?

 

Raiders had a bunch of days at the start shooting in La Rochelle, a bunch of days on Hawaii, and then much of the desert parts in Tunisia, everything else was on a sound stage.

 

Temple of Doom had not quite two weeks in Sri Lanka, everything else was on a sound stage, by far the movie with the least on location shooting.

 

Last Crusade started with three weeks in Spain, had one day in Venice and a few days in Colorado to shoot the opening. Everything else was on a sound stage

 

Crystal Skull started with three weeks on location in New Mexcio, Connectictut and Hawaii, the rest was on a sound stage.

 

All in all, Crystal Skull was very much in line with Last Crusade in terms of on location shooting, and easily ahead of Temple of Doom. Raiders might be a bit ahead due to having a shorter principal photography in general.

Thing is, these old movies have a way of not feeling like they were shot on a sound stage. Nowadays big budget blockbusters manage to look cheap and fake as hell. I don't get it....

[Macleod]

14 minutes ago, Verrows said:

Thing is, these old movies have a way of not feeling like they were shot on a sound stage. Nowadays big budget blockbusters manage to look cheap and fake as hell. I don't get it....

 

Yep -- It doesn't matter how or where it was shot...it matters how much you as a viewer believe in the world -- and that's down to whether these are shot by good filmmakers who TRULY know their craft or not.  I entirely agree with you on this -- most major Hollywood blockbusters these days are not coherent or believable consistently from one shot to the next.  Digital photography is a factor.  "Virtual sets" are a factor.  But the #1 factor is FILMMAKERS.  And we're moving into a generation of filmmakers who haven't even been schooled or experienced in using FILM anymore.  So I don't know if blockbusters as great-looking as RAIDERS ever come back.  

Edited December 2, 2022 by Macleod

[George Parr]

23 minutes ago, Macleod said:

 

Yep -- It doesn't matter how or where it was shot...it matters how much you as a viewer believe in the world -- and that's down to whether these are shot by good filmmakers who TRULY know their craft or not.  I entirely agree with you on this -- most major Hollywood blockbusters these days are not coherent or believable consistently from one shot to the next.  Digital photography is a factor.  "Virtual sets" are a factor.  But the #1 factor is FILMMAKERS.  And we're moving into a generation of filmmakers who haven't even been schooled or experienced in using FILM anymore.  So I don't know if blockbusters as great-looking as RAIDERS ever come back.  

Right, because Steven Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski really don't know how to work with film.

After all, Indy IV was made by them, and that movie supposedly loooked "fake".

 

This idea that "new" filmmakers are somehow incapable of working with film is just complete bollocks. You are confusing you not liking a look with them not knowing what they are doing. It's the same nonsense as "I didn't like the script therefore the writer was lazy", that's not how any of this works. This isn't a bunch of 15 year old working with a digital camera for the first time, these people, even the younger ones among them, have worked on this matter for decades, they know fully well how film works and what the differences between film and digital are. "Young" in terms of Hollywood isn't someone straight out of college.

 

Maybe what they came up with is not to your liking, or even in some cases to the liking of the majority of the people, but in no way, shape or from is that in any way connected to them knowing or not knowing what they are doing. People are perfectly capable of knowing exactly what they are doing and still delivering something you don't like. Your opinion on a matter has no bearing on how well those who made it understand filmmaking or technology.

[George Parr]

53 minutes ago, Verrows said:

Thing is, these old movies have a way of not feeling like they were shot on a sound stage. Nowadays big budget blockbusters manage to look cheap and fake as hell. I don't get it....

Um, the old Indy movies very much look like they were shot on a soundstage. I have no idea how one could pretend otherwise. It's blindingly obvious if you look at them, just like the special effects stand out quite clearly, Even more so when you look at the original versions, and not the ones that have been cleaned up and/or digitally enhanced.

 

Doesn't stop them from being great movies.

Edited December 2, 2022 by George Parr

[Elessar]

Old movies get a pass becasue they are old.

 

That said, there are ugly looking new movies.

 

I think Indy looks fine. Outside of the occasional wonky (unfinished) SFX which probably won't really be noticable without freeze-framing.

[Potiki]

Trailer looks much better on Apple Trailers than YouTube in this instance, I imagine due to the share volume of action scenes throughout the trailer leading to compression issues.

 

https://trailers.apple.com/trailers/lucasfilm/indiana-jones-and-the-dial-of-destiny/

[Hatebox]

It looks like what it is: an Indiana Jones movie made in 2022. The glimpse of the de-aging looked good but the green screen's horrible. This is why people still like Mission Impossible movies, they offer what so few other action films seem to bother with anymore.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Hatebox

[Verrows]

17 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

It looks like what it is: an Indiana Jones movie made in 2022. The glimpse of the de-aging looked good but the green screen's horrible. This is why people still like Mission Impossible movies, they offer what so few other action films seem to bother with anymore.

 

 

I was just going to say, a Tom Cruise movie is pretty much where it's at visually nowadays. Christopher Nolan movies too. As @Macleod put it, I buy what I'm seeing I'm those movies.

 

All this being said though, this looks pretty darn good! I'm talking about the movie in general and the visuals. The trailer hit the right notes for me, that's for sure.

 

Still wish it got moved to Christmas. I've said it a few times already: I don't like the date. There isn't any room for it to breathe, but I guess you can say that for all the tentpoles in the 2023 summer gauntlet.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Verrows

[ThomasNicole]

1 hour ago, George Parr said:

Right, because Steven Spielberg and Janusz Kaminski really don't know how to work with film.

After all, Indy IV was made by them, and that movie supposedly loooked "fake".

 

This idea that "new" filmmakers are somehow incapable of working with film is just complete bollocks. You are confusing you not liking a look with them not knowing what they are doing. It's the same nonsense as "I didn't like the script therefore the writer was lazy", that's not how any of this works. This isn't a bunch of 15 year old working with a digital camera for the first time, these people, even the younger ones among them, have worked on this matter for decades, they know fully well how film works and what the differences between film and digital are. "Young" in terms of Hollywood isn't someone straight out of college.

 

Maybe what they came up with is not to your liking, or even in some cases to the liking of the majority of the people, but in no way, shape or from is that in any way connected to them knowing or not knowing what they are doing. People are perfectly capable of knowing exactly what they are doing and still delivering something you don't like. Your opinion on a matter has no bearing on how well those who made it understand filmmaking or technology.

Right? I get it disliking something visually, is actually instinctive, so it's all fine. There are shots that looks unfinished and unpolished to me because well, the movie is far from finished and the image compression on the platforms are simply awful and make everything looks worse.

 

Still, those arguments that tbh reads as "i know what it's a good shooting, i'm better at it than the people working on it" is so weird. 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by ThomasNicole