Exclusive Crystal Skull soundstage pics :)

indy34 said:
It's not from raiders trust me;)
I think you need to go read some stuff in the Indy 4 section:D

Or perhaps you need to go back and actually read this topic.


It's a comparison, not anyone saying they aren't new sets. :rolleyes:
 

IndyFan89

Member
Kind of looks like this could be the same room or temple:

newwp.jpg
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Well, it looks like... a temple or kingdom, whatever. Not like I didn't expect as much since we have some kind of ruins of a temple in every movie anyway. But still, pretty cool.
 

commontone

New member
It seems every actor interviewed so far has made a point of mentioning how fantastic the sets are. The pics don't show a lot of detail but you can see that they were meticulously constructed..it's exciting :whip:
 

Professor Jones

New member
ResidentAlien said:
It's a comparison, not anyone saying they aren't new sets. :rolleyes:

I found them very "raiderish" too... They really DO remind me the first sequence of Raiders, and that's a wonderful wonderful fact, indeed! As most of us pointed out in many moments, if the movie reaches the style and the level of Raiders, we can call us luckily satisfied! ;)
 

commontone

New member
Joe Brody said:
Roots. . . .why does it always have to be fake roots . . . . and crap plaster.

The text w/ the pics says the set was dressed extensively with moss, dust, cobwebs, etc. I assume these pics were taken right before the set was to be torn down.

It won't look fake on film. Not any more than the opening temple in Raiders did, anyway.
 

Zorg

New member
No Ticket said:
I'd like to add that, those pictures remind me more of TOD than Raiders. Maybe KOTCS will be like TOD and Raiders mixed together... the temple/kingdom part being all creepy and stuff. lol.

Guess that's how it'll turn out, considering what Lucas and Koepp have said. "Closest in tone to Raiders". "Not as comedic as Last Crusade".

The pics are right on, the complete set must've been an impressive sight.
 

Grethe

New member
IndyFan89 said:
Kind of looks like this could be the same room or temple

My immediate thought too, but closer study reveals that the sets aren't 100% identical. There seems to be a more rounded/eroded cave opening around Indy and Mutt whereas there seems to be some sort of ancient doorframe in the other shot. Could be a result of the set having been slightly rebuilt and shot at different times though, the similarities are more than uncanny. See the quick pic comparison I did here:

http://www.hfm2.com/diverse/sets.html
 
Last edited:

SterankoII

New member
They are similar to both the temple at the beginning but with one difference I like: the color. It's either the way it's painted or the lighting there but the have a golden color which is different from previous ones. The Raiders temple has a green color, the Thuggee temple had this hellish red lighting from the lava pits. I don't the place actually supposed to be made of gold but if we get a clue from the poster there is more golden and amber lighting there. Or it could be that Struzan was just following the tradition of the previous movie posters with the warm hues.
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Well these PICTURES were a great bit of new years news. Things are starting to click now. "Cemetery" written in spanish. Dead conquistador legos from the up-coming temple playset. I wonder what kind of news we will get next. I might have to stop coming to these spoiler forums, part of me wants to know everthing I can, but part of me wants to be surprised.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
commontone said:
It won't look fake on film. Not any more than the opening temple in Raiders did, anyway.

Exactly. Raiders was made on a shoe-string over 25 years ago -- and they're still using the S.O.S. It saddens me.
 

commontone

New member
Joe Brody said:
Exactly. Raiders was made on a shoe-string over 25 years ago -- and they're still using the S.O.S. It saddens me.

That's kind of the point. Indy movies are supposed to be "B" movies at heart. They're not supposed to be totally slick and modern. The strategically used B-movie elements are a big part of their charm. Why do you think they've made such a point of mentioning that CGI will be minimized in Indy 4?

Anyway, we should all hold off judgment till the movie comes out. These are just a few small, grainy pics shot when the set was half taken apart.
 

No Ticket

New member
salussolia said:
i think the camera made the pictures look that color.
but idk

I don't, looks like set lighting to me. Especially if you look up in one of the photos. Although on film, I imagine it will look different. Even if it's not specifically the lighting used for the scenes, it is bathed in an amberish light in those pics at least. That's how it looks to me anyway.
 

thebacklot

New member
It's not set lighting. These pictures were taken by a camera phone after the crew had wrapped on the set. A camera phone is typically not good enough when it comes to white balancing, so what you get for tan and brown is gold under the stage house lights. If there were stage lights, kinos, etc, there would be crew, and where there's crew, there's actors, and where's there's actors, there is security, and there wouldn't be these photographs.
 

No Ticket

New member
thebacklot said:
It's not set lighting. These pictures were taken by a camera phone after the crew had wrapped on the set. A camera phone is typically not good enough when it comes to white balancing, so what you get for tan and brown is gold under the stage house lights. If there were stage lights, kinos, etc, there would be crew, and where there's crew, there's actors, and where's there's actors, there is security, and there wouldn't be these photographs.

That makes plenty of sense. Thanks for clearing that up. Because I was hoping it wasn't actually set lights, since I thought it looked kind of bad that way.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
commontone said:
It won't look fake on film.

commontone said:
That's [the fakeness is] kind of the point. Indy movies are supposed to be "B" movies at heart. They're not supposed to be totally slick and modern. The strategically used B-movie elements are a big part of their charm. Why do you think they've made such a point of mentioning that CGI will be minimized in Indy 4?

. . .I hope you realize that you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
 

commontone

New member
Joe Brody said:
. . .I hope you realize that you are arguing out of both sides of your mouth.

Not really. Your parenthetical correction ("the fakeness") isn't accurate. I'm not equating "fake" with "B-movie."

The set won't look obviously fake like an Ed Wood movie or something. It may be plaster but it will be covered with real moss, cobwebs that look totally real, etc--it will look totally acceptable in the movie. We won't be expecting Shia's foot to kick a hole in the rock walls or something.

BUT, going back to Raiders...the temple is the same way. It's passably real, there's nothing that screams "movie set" about it (on film anyway, most sets look kind of fake in person), but, at the same time, it has some kind of B-movie quality to it. It doesn't look fake but there's some kind of excess lavishness, or slightly exaggerated quality to it that keeps it just this side of believability.

The aesthetic "rules" they've adopted for these movies don't require the utmost realism in the sets. There's a thick line between a set looking obviously fake and looking utterly realistic. And in Indy movies, the sets fall somewhere in that gray area. What you're seeing as the "same old crap," I'm saying, it's not going to look as fake as you seem to think, but if it has that intangible B-movie quality just the same, it's intentional and appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Top