Dr.Sartorius
New member
This seems to be a constructed set. And why is there a production designer? Why couldn't they just film Indy's actual home? 
New video on Official Site
- Thread starter triklops
- Start date
ResidentAlien
Guest
IndyJr. said:
Wrong.
Color photography has been around in some form or another since 1861. Modern tri-color film processes were introduced in 1935.
commontone
New member
How do we know there won't be a scene where Indy is referring wistfully to his past adventures, but stoically proclaiming he's moved on, he's a changed man (probably talking to Jim Broadbent), but pauses to pick up Willie's (or some other character's) picture and look at it for a second...then the camera goes over his shoulder and shows us the picture...etc.
I hope that doesn't happen, and that the photos are something you can pick out in the shot, barely. Something that would end up as a trivia item on IMDB: "As Indy is talking to [..] in his home, a picture of Willie Scott is briefly visible between them in the background"
I hope that doesn't happen, and that the photos are something you can pick out in the shot, barely. Something that would end up as a trivia item on IMDB: "As Indy is talking to [..] in his home, a picture of Willie Scott is briefly visible between them in the background"
DarthLowBudget
New member
Cool video. As for the pictures, they are obviously going to be some sort of "in-thing" for fans. Of course Indy logically wouldn't have a picture of Willy decked out in the Club Obi-Wan dress posed in front of a white background.
TheLastCrusader
Active member
Spielberg wouldDarthLowBudget said:
TheLastCrusader
Active member
It's Willie btw 
ForbiddenEye
New member
Somehow I think that the movie won't focus on those pictures for five whole minutes...
I do like the picture of Him and Sallah!
I do like the picture of Him and Sallah!
TennesseBuck
New member
ForbiddenEye said:Somehow I think that the movie won't focus on those pictures for five whole minutes...
I do like the picture of Him and Sallah!
Interesting what they did to that picture. It was actually Indy in that pose with Marion, not Sallah! Hmmm...
Adamwankenobi
New member
I hope there are some YIJC items in the background somewhere. Guy Dyas can't be ignorant of that, can he? He is working on an Indiana Jones adventure after all.
But Dyas could have been a bit more subtle IMO. Having production photos and especially a picture of Willie Scott (just another run of the mill love interest for Indy).
But Dyas could have been a bit more subtle IMO. Having production photos and especially a picture of Willie Scott (just another run of the mill love interest for Indy).
Let's not forget that Willie is in show business. Perhaps she made it out to Hollywood or some such and had cause for eight-by-ten color glossy photographs. And, of course, while Willie may not be a big deal to Indy (we don't really know this; they could have been involved for awhile after Temple of Doom, for all we know), Indy surely would have been to her, having caused her to leave Shanghai and take part in an adventure the likes of which she'd never seen before. So, yeah, she'd have sent a picture to Indy. (Remember Indy? It's a movie about Indy.)
Adamwankenobi
New member
Right by the picture of Willie Scott, there's an image of one of the pyramids with a man riding a camel by it. Perhaps this is a photo from the "Curse of the Jackal" episode of The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles? Hmm...
WhipItGood
New member
Gee, I can't wait to sit in a theater full of fans who've eagerly awaiting this film for years, and then enjoy their howls of complaint when a few blurry framed photos are barely visible in the background for a second.
Seriously, can we lighten up a little? I don't remember RAIDERS dwelling on every tiny detail of Indy's house the first time around. Most filmmakers know enough not to lavish minutes of screen time on props which always... well... look a lot like props close up under bright lights. Let's give Spielberg a little credit, people.
Seriously, can we lighten up a little? I don't remember RAIDERS dwelling on every tiny detail of Indy's house the first time around. Most filmmakers know enough not to lavish minutes of screen time on props which always... well... look a lot like props close up under bright lights. Let's give Spielberg a little credit, people.
The halftone image of Willie in the Emperor's Tomb game booklet fit 30's Shanghai.
If the dress from Paris made it back to the states, I suppose a color glossy could work...
What's that line from Family Guy? "Lady only here because she humping director."
If the dress from Paris made it back to the states, I suppose a color glossy could work...
What's that line from Family Guy? "Lady only here because she humping director."
Indie House
New member
Just to drop the photo thing for a moment (and hopefully indefinitely)...
The size and layout of Indy's 'new' house is similar to the one we see in Raiders. This coupled with the comment about the fireplace and the piano suggests the acutal house and address is the same in both films.
Is this how everyone else has understood it?
The size and layout of Indy's 'new' house is similar to the one we see in Raiders. This coupled with the comment about the fireplace and the piano suggests the acutal house and address is the same in both films.
Is this how everyone else has understood it?
Niteshade007
New member
Indie House said:Just to drop the photo thing for a moment (and hopefully indefinitely)...
The size and layout of Indy's 'new' house is similar to the one we see in Raiders. This coupled with the comment about the fireplace and the piano suggests the acutal house and address is the same in both films.
Is this how everyone else has understood it?
No, they said that Indy had "moved on," presumably meaning he had in fact changed locations. So it's a new house, just similar to his old one.
Indie House
New member
'Moved on' could suggest a change of decor more befitting the 1950's...
No, it was stated pretty clearly that it was a different, larger house. However, there were certain similarities in layout and placement of key furnishings and fixtures that lend the new set some continuity with the old one. That's what they were suggesting, near as I could tell.
commontone
New member
I thought it was the same house. I thought the "moved on" part was more about a reflection of time passed, his personal history, but not a new house per se. Like, he had different drapes, new artifacts, had rearranged most things and had some new furniture and so forth, BUT it was the same house. My parents' house looks pretty different than it did a decade ago, just from "moving on" from this furniture layout, moving on from this color of front door, etc.
When they said the "layout was similar in some ways," I thought they meant the layout of furniture, not the architecture...I think they were emphasizing that the piano was in the same place at one point.
Why would they put him in a new house but make sure the layout was similar? As if he purposely chose a house with a similar design and layout to his old one, and put the piano in the same spot, etc.? No, it's the same house.
When they said the "layout was similar in some ways," I thought they meant the layout of furniture, not the architecture...I think they were emphasizing that the piano was in the same place at one point.
Why would they put him in a new house but make sure the layout was similar? As if he purposely chose a house with a similar design and layout to his old one, and put the piano in the same spot, etc.? No, it's the same house.