General Indy 5 Thread - rumors and possibilities

Honestly...will there be another Indy film in the next decade?


  • Total voters
    148

kongisking

Active member
I just finished watching Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf, and I was floored by the technology used in that film to digitally de-age Ray Winstone and make him a buff, badass warrior/demigod. I am now firmly sided with those who think a prequel would be the best course for this series to take. Problem is: Harrison would probably be really offended by the idea of him being digitally de-wrinkled, and would refuse to do it. And Spielberg and Lucas are too big of wimps to do something like that to such an iconic character.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
kongisking said:
I just finished watching Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf, and I was floored by the technology used in that film to digitally de-age Ray Winstone and make him a buff, badass warrior/demigod. I am now firmly sided with those who think a prequel would be the best course for this series to take. Problem is: Harrison would probably be really offended by the idea of him being digitally de-wrinkled, and would refuse to do it. And Spielberg and Lucas are too big of wimps to do something like that to such an iconic character.

I know that technology has moved on quite a bit since Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, but I think, given a choice I'd rather have a new actor and a reboot, or a completely animated series, than a digitized and de-wrinkled Harrison.
 

JP Jones

New member
kongisking said:
I just finished watching Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf, and I was floored by the technology used in that film to digitally de-age Ray Winstone and make him a buff, badass warrior/demigod. I am now firmly sided with those who think a prequel would be the best course for this series to take. Problem is: Harrison would probably be really offended by the idea of him being digitally de-wrinkled, and would refuse to do it. And Spielberg and Lucas are too big of wimps to do something like that to such an iconic character.

Well as for me, I think Beowulf looked like a really good ps3 game and not truley real. I found myself trying to except it as real, but it just wasn't.


beowulf.jpg


ray_winstone_1650619.jpg
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
JP Jones said:
Well as for me, I think Beowulf looked like a really good ps3 game and not truley real. I found myself trying to except it as real, but it just wasn't.

Yeah - but can you imagine what this technology will be producing in circa 10 years time?
 

kongisking

Active member
JP Jones said:
Well as for me, I think Beowulf looked like a really good ps3 game and not truley real. I found myself trying to except it as real, but it just wasn't.


beowulf.jpg


ray_winstone_1650619.jpg

Avatar fixed this problem. It is possible now to digitally touch-up an existing actor and make them look different while keeping complete photo-realism.
 

JP Jones

New member
kongisking said:
Avatar fixed this problem. It is possible now to digitally touch-up an existing actor and make them look different while keeping complete photo-realism.

I get what you're saying, but I don't know if you get what I'm saying. I understand Avatar did a great job replicating the actors faces digitally. It looked like the closest thing to real I've ever seen, but what I'm trying to get across is that man will NEVER be able to digitally recreate anything and make it look real. That takes nature.

CURSE YOU CGI !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
 

Indy's brother

New member
C'mon, guys. A digital Indy? Really? If you love ROTLA you can't be serious about any of this nonsense. The original high concept was to make a big budget modern film the old-fashioned way. That is it's charm. After all the internet b1tching about cgi in KOTCS, can you really say that a computer animated Indiana Jones is in any way a viable option? I hate that my last sentence even ended in a question mark.

The attraction to these films, pulpy as they are, is that you can see the stunt-work. It blows your mind that this is unfolding before your eyes. The second that a bunch of 1's and 0's start flitting around in a hard drive to take over the action, it's over. I mean, if that's what you want, then you should argue for a video game instead. At least then you have the opportunity to become immersed in the experience.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Indy's brother said:
C'mon, guys. A digital Indy? Really? If you love ROTLA you can't be serious about any of this nonsense. The original high concept was to make a big budget modern film the old-fashioned way. That is it's charm. After all the internet b1tching about cgi in KOTCS, can you really say that a computer animated Indiana Jones is in any way a viable option? I hate that my last sentence even ended in a question mark.

The attraction to these films, pulpy as they are, is that you can see the stunt-work. It blows your mind that this is unfolding before your eyes. The second that a bunch of 1's and 0's start flitting around in a hard drive to take over the action, it's over. I mean, if that's what you want, then you should argue for a video game instead. At least then you have the opportunity to become immersed in the experience.

Couldn't agree more.

Digital is the last option when something just can't be done for real.

The face of a digital character is the acting of an animator, and cannot compete with the skill of an actor, who can bring a human character to life, because that's what they specialize in doing.

As mentioned by somebody, Harrison may not be the greatest actor in the world, but he knew how to bring Indy to life, and get the most out of him.
 

Johnny Nys

Member
I totally agree: man will never be able to digitally recreate anything and make it look real.

Then I say: so what?

When I look at a CGI movie, I'm amazed by the level of realism they CAN achieve, and I enjoy myself immensely. I don't go sulk in a corner because it's STILL not perfect, I don't stare myself blind at dead eyes, I don't freeze each frame to check consistency in lighting or whatever. I accept what's there instead of cursing what's missing.

When your kid comes up to you with a drawing and he's colored outside the lines a bit, do you verbally abuse him for it? No, you still put his creation on your refrigerator. Why? Because he's still learning.

Same goes for the CGI artists. Some are better at it than others, but all of them are still learning. Because it's an art form and there's no such thing as "absolutes" in art as there are in math or physics or whatever.

Why do so many people insist on others to stop at what they're doing when their first attempt isn't immediately perfect? Are they harming you in any way? Do you hate it perhaps that you feel ashamed in their place? Should all research in this type of technology simply stop because, oh, we didn't get it right the first time, and chances are we'll probably never GET it right, ever?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Johnny Nys said:
I totally agree: man will never be able to digitally recreate anything and make it look real.

Then I say: so what?

When I look at a CGI movie, I'm amazed by the level of realism they CAN achieve, and I enjoy myself immensely. I don't go sulk in a corner because it's STILL not perfect, I don't stare myself blind at dead eyes, I don't freeze each frame to check consistency in lighting or whatever. I accept what's there instead of cursing what's missing.

When your kid comes up to you with a drawing and he's colored outside the lines a bit, do you verbally abuse him for it? No, you still put his creation on your refrigerator. Why? Because he's still learning.

Same goes for the CGI artists. Some are better at it than others, but all of them are still learning. Because it's an art form and there's no such thing as "absolutes" in art as there are in math or physics or whatever.

Why do so many people insist on others to stop at what they're doing when their first attempt isn't immediately perfect? Are they harming you in any way? Do you hate it perhaps that you feel ashamed in their place? Should all research in this type of technology simply stop because, oh, we didn't get it right the first time, and chances are we'll probably never GET it right, ever?

I don't think anybody's suggesting that CGI should stop, as though it was some form of occult artwork that's going to harm society.

The question of CGI here is centred on the future of Indy - should Harrison be replaced by a digital version of himself? Maybe for brief shots, but I wouldn't want to see a complete digital character, unless it was part of a purely animated film.

The thing that many people applaud ROTLA for, was the stuntwork, and high degree of real effects over animated effects. The danger is that as CGI becomes more commonplace, it will also become the first option for a director, rather than going the human route.

CGI can be beautiful and realistic, but there is no substitute for the wow factor of something done for real, when it's possible to do so. Do we submit to the acting skills of a skilled animator, or to the real actor who is dedicated to their craft? In time a combination of the two, with motion capture, may capture all the facial movements and miniscule mannerisms, and place a CG'd real actor seamlesly into a completely CG world.
 

EddyW

Active member
I wouldn't mind if they used it for a prologue of a flashback or something, but I wouldn't wanna see a film with a 100% CG indy throughout the entire film. About the value of actual stuntwork. Let's say Ford would play young Indy himself and his youngified CG face would be mounted on top of the original footage, the stuntwork would still be 100% real right? At least, I think I'd buy it. t's an interesting idea though. The thing that made Davy Jones feel so believable (to me at least) was the fact that you see Bill Nighy's own eyes all the time. It's all in the eyes when it comes to making CG 100% believable. Ford could do all the facial mocap himself, to get 100% genuine Ford acting and translate it to a younger CG face but keep the original eyes.That would be interesting to see.
 

seasider

Active member
CG makeup has made a lot of advances over the years but I think we're still years away from using it to make a live actor look younger. Avatar and Pirates of the Carribean dealt with alien or mythical characters but the human face is a lot more tricky and complex. Besides Ford's face, there's also the issue of his neck and his hair. Too much to overcome to make it look believable in my opinion.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Indy's brother said:
C'mon, guys. A digital Indy? Really? If you love ROTLA you can't be serious about any of this nonsense. The original high concept was to make a big budget modern film the old-fashioned way. That is it's charm. After all the internet b1tching about cgi in KOTCS, can you really say that a computer animated Indiana Jones is in any way a viable option? I hate that my last sentence even ended in a question mark.

The attraction to these films, pulpy as they are, is that you can see the stunt-work. It blows your mind that this is unfolding before your eyes. The second that a bunch of 1's and 0's start flitting around in a hard drive to take over the action, it's over. I mean, if that's what you want, then you should argue for a video game instead. At least then you have the opportunity to become immersed in the experience.

Sorry but I can't agree. The whole ethos of Raiders (like Star Wars) was to create something with a b-movie/Saturday morning serial vibe, but with big modern production sensibilities... hence the brilliant movie we got. I don't think they ever really tried to actually make it in an 'old fashioned way'. It just so happens that in the late 70's early 80's, it was more practical to use 'live stunts'.

Now I'm not making a case for not using live stunt work (because live actors will always be my preference), but simply pointing out that if they made Raiders today, with the same sensibilities, they would be looking to use all the state of the art techniques (whatever they may be), because that's what both Star Wars and the original Indiana Jones movies tried to do i.e. do something new.
 

EddyW

Active member
seasider said:
CG makeup has made a lot of advances over the years but I think we're still years away from using it to make a live actor look younger. Avatar and Pirates of the Carribean dealt with alien or mythical characters but the human face is a lot more tricky and complex. Besides Ford's face, there's also the issue of his neck and his hair. Too much to overcome to make it look believable in my opinion.

Yes, but don't forget we also had Benjamin Button. Most of the time the younger Brad was pretty convincing and by the time Indy 5 will be in theaters that film will be about 5 years old already.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
If Indy 5 is set in the 60s, should it deal with whatever B sort of movie was around in the '60s? Would Westerns be considered the "B Movie" of the 60s, analogous to what Alien movies were in the '50s?
Blaxploitation films are the B Movies of the 70s, and I mean if they really wanted to pursue a "Mutt Williams" series, that could era be believable, since Mutt would only be in his mid-late 30s (he was born in 1938 so a film set in 1975 say would have him at 38). Really they could make one last real Indy film, set like in 1959 perhaps--That would be Indiana Jone's last ride so to speak.
And then have the "Adventures of Mutt Williams" or whatever pick up say around 1961 and continue maybe to the mid 70s. A separate series not named Indiana Jones, but Harrison could show up in a cameo or something as an older Indy to give advice to "Junior."

Or, perhaps the first Mutt film could open with an Indy adventure as the prologue--separate from Mutt's adventure--where Indy finally meets his demise in 1961 while battling the bad guys for a treasure, and Mutt's quest is both to capture the treasure (or another, more important treasure) and also avenge his father. It would be something similar to "Utah 1912" where it's really a "Fedora" adventure interrupted by a young Indiana Jones--The first Mutt film would start off with a prologue similar to Raiders--separate, but with the main villain consistant throughout the film. It could either be like that, or something more like the "Mask of Zorro"--Either way Indy would meet his demise and Mutt would finally earn the "hat" (either literally or metaphorically) by showing himself to be the rightful heir to Indiana Jones. If they follow the "Mask of Zorro" route Indy would be a major force in the film but die in the middle or end, and perhaps it could include two separate but somehow connected quests, maybe Indy trying to recapture the Ark and something involving the Garden of Eden.
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
EddyW said:
Yes, but don't forget we also had Benjamin Button. Most of the time the younger Brad was pretty convincing and by the time Indy 5 will be in theaters that film will be about 5 years old already.

I'm sorry but there was a release date given for Indiana Jones 5?

To my knowledge they haven't even hired a screenwriter.
 
Last edited:

EddyW

Active member
No there wasn't, that was me being optimistic. Imdb has a 2012 release date on the Indy 5 page as you probably know.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Raiders112390 said:
If Indy 5 is set in the 60s, should it deal with whatever B sort of movie was around in the '60s? Would Westerns be considered the "B Movie" of the 60s, analogous to what Alien movies were in the '50s?

Weren't sexploitation films 'rising' in the '60s? How about a Russ Meyer styled Indy V? Indy running for his life from a hoard of buxom beauties (reprising the boulder run with bouncing boulder-holders...). I'm not, of course advocating this flight of fancy!

Raiders112390 said:
Blaxploitation films are the B Movies of the 70s, and I mean if they really wanted to pursue a "Mutt Williams" series, that could era be believable, since Mutt would only be in his mid-late 30s (he was born in 1938 so a film set in 1975 say would have him at 38). Really they could make one last real Indy film, set like in 1959 perhaps--That would be Indiana Jone's last ride so to speak.

Mutt and Huggy Bear team up... Maybe not...

Same goes for the 'Adventures of Mutt'.

Indy V is what we want to see, and hopefully VI as well. I can't see the market for a Mutt spin-off.
 
Top