Jump to content

Home

Indiana Jones 5


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Udvarnoky said:

 

I like how pulpy Blanchett went with the character, but her potential as a villain is really undermined every step of the way. While she seems ruthless enough, her most villainous acts (the slaughter of the soldiers at Area 51 and of the tribesmen at Akator) are carried out off-screen by henchmen. It doesn't help that her threatening of Marion's life to make Indy cooperate is just used to kick off a comic tiff between the couple. If the characters treat it as a joke when the bad guys have guns trained on them, how seriously are we supposed to take them? Spalko doesn't really have the menace nor the hissable qualities you'd want in an Indy baddie. Donovan, a much less colorful villain, nevertheless has the moment where he shoots Henry Sr. and gives Indy's final task a clock and some weight. Spalko doesn't really have that moment. At no point does she prove to be a credible threat to any of the main characters.

 

I also remain puzzled by the decision to make Spalko maybe have psychic powers but then again maybe not? It's an ambiguity that doesn't feel intentional (there was apparently a deleted scene that showed her powers to be legit) and it's certainly not welcome, because it's another example of the movie undermining her as an intimidating foe. When Indy scoffs at her psychic stuff, we're never really given any reason to think he is wrong to. We can kind of ascertain that Spalko's inability to "read" Indy and the skull's refusal to "speak" to her (by contrast to the "pure-hearted" professors, I guess) are related, but it's yet another idea in the movie that isn't developed to the point where it means anything. Why does it matter that she can't read Indy's mind if we never see her read anyone's?

 

Finally, Spalko is denied the kind of memorably grotesque death that any archnemesis in an Indy movie should be able to depend on. Bloodlessly disintegrating into CGI powder is really weak soup given the tradition it's following. Blanchett showed up to play, and it was squandered by shoddy material.

 

Yes! All of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

To be fair, that was De Niro himself being de-aged, so the issue was that he moved like an old chap despite supposedly being younger.


In this case, it sounds like a younger model is being used with a replaced face, probably using deep fake whiz-bang tech that’s all the rage now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's disappointing, but perhaps will be limited to a prologue setting up Mikkelsen's villain or something? Unless they're going full The Godfather Part II and will repeatedly swap back to WWII.

 

The rumor is that the movie is being shot digitally, which is a first for the franchise. It will be a shame when Mangold and Papamichael inevitably deliver something more "filmic" than Spielberg and Kaminski did with the 35mm-shot Crystal Skull.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's nice to see it dechlorinated, but the nets and Classic Softs and whatever other physical filters used when shooting the movie is what gives it that gauzy look with all the halation, so that's baked in forever. I am still looking forward to giving it a watch with a less hideous color grade, though. And it's clear that starting over from a 4K scan has yielded up more detail from the 35mm source. The trilogy upgrades are more significant, but it's clear Skull got some real benefits here.

 

Also, is this the first time in history that revisionist color grading is seen as a good thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no guarantee of a five film set, as Paramount owns the distribution rights to the first four movies in perpetuity while Disney owns them for the fifth film and whatever unholy works they make with the brand thereafter.

 

It's theoretically possible that Disney will eventually drop a big sack of money on Paramount to get those rights (they actually had to do that in the first place just to control Indy 5), but I don't see Paramount being in any hurry to sell them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh man, you're right - I forgot about the distribution rights. Which also means, no Paramount logo transition at the start of the movie. Just as much a loss as no Fox fanfare in front of the SW sequels (if those films had any importance).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paramount is still getting some kind of financial participation in Indy 5, so even though their involvement in this movie is merely clerical, I could see the mountain logo getting appended after the Disney and Lucasfilm logos for the sake of tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Paramount always owned the distribution rights to Indy... did Disney definitely buy them, too? Or just the character and likeness that Lucas owned?

 

Lucasfilm owns the IP itself, so that's what Disney inherited when it acquired the studio. Paramount's distribution rights go back to the original deal George Lucas made with Michael Eisner (then at Paramount) back in 1979. Pretty much every studio turned down Raiders when Lucas shopped it around, and a stumbling block was that they simply didn't believe that Lucas could produce the film for $20 million he claimed he could. The script read like an expensive epic, and Spielberg had a reputation for going overbudget before Raiders. Lucas and Spielberg were committed to deliver under the promised budget as part of the deliberately "down and dirty," television-like schedule they intended to shoot Raiders on, but it was probably hard to imagine on a financier's part. In the end Paramount agreed to finance the movie on the condition of major penalties if it went overbudget as well as perpetual distribution rights to the movie and any sequels.

 

That means that when Disney acquired Lucasfilm over thirty years later, they weren't even left with the rights to distribute a fifth Indy. About a year later Disney cut a deal with Paramount to secure the distribution rights to future films, with Paramount retaining the rights to the original four and still getting some sort of financial participation on what comes after. You gotta hand it to Eisner -- that deal he made has been a license to print money for Paramount for 40 years.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2021 at 12:07 AM, Udvarnoky said:

 

Lucasfilm owns the IP itself, so that's what Disney inherited when it acquired the studio. Paramount's distribution rights go back to the original deal George Lucas made with Michael Eisner (then at Paramount) back in 1979. Pretty much every studio turned down Raiders when Lucas shopped it around, and a stumbling block was that they simply didn't believe that Lucas could produce the film for $20 million he claimed he could. The script read like an expensive epic, and Spielberg had a reputation for going overbudget before Raiders. Lucas and Spielberg were committed to deliver under the promised budget as part of the deliberately "down and dirty," television-like schedule they intended to shoot Raiders on, but it was probably hard to imagine on a financier's part. In the end Paramount agreed to finance the movie on the condition of major penalties if it went overbudget as well as perpetual distribution rights to the movie and any sequels.

 

That means that when Disney acquired Lucasfilm over thirty years later, they weren't even left with the rights to distribute a fifth Indy. About a year later Disney cut a deal with Paramount to secure the distribution rights to future films, with Paramount retaining the rights to the original four and still getting some sort of financial participation on what comes after. You gotta hand it to Eisner -- that deal he made has been a license to print money for Paramount for 40 years.

 

Nice! Thanks for the quick history lesson. I didn't realise Disney had cut a deal. They bought spent $4billion and then had to pay extra for the upgrades. Crushing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

It seems like the more pessimistic reports were true and that production has been more or less suspended since Ford injured his shoulder in late June. They did proceed without him for that much-publicized Glasgow shoot, but maybe that booking would have been particularly difficult to break and they decided to go ahead and get coverage of the wide shots and stuntwork for that sequence.

 

In a way I'm relieved, because this suggests we aren't going to be subjected to some pioneering experiment in grafting Ford's performance onto a stand-in for the duration of the movie or some other CGI horror along those lines. Allegedly filming finally resumes sometime next month, and let's hope it's without further incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I presume they are only de-aging him for a flashback sequence, but that he will be playing his own age for the majority of the story that's set in 1969 or whatever. The horror scenario I had in mind was quite a bit more far ranging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, judging by the fact that ILM recently hired YouTube-DeepFaker "Shamook", I'm positive that they are now going to deep fake stuff like that, instead of going full CGI-face (like Tarkin, Leia, Luke), which in turn preserves much more of the underlying actor's performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/21/2021 at 12:10 AM, Laserschwert said:

Also, judging by the fact that ILM recently hired YouTube-DeepFaker "Shamook", I'm positive that they are now going to deep fake stuff like that, instead of going full CGI-face (like Tarkin, Leia, Luke), which in turn preserves much more of the underlying actor's performance.

 

His work was incredible compared to ILM's. They probably only hired him to stop him showing them up!

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for a female lead (obviously😉). Especially if it's an actress like Phoebe Waller-Bridge who doesn't seem to fit the mandatory Hollywood sex appeal criteria. She has something of a young Carrie Fisher or Mark Hamill somehow. Maybe it's her eyes, I don't know. Of course, Harrison will be always be Indy to all of us. Forever.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...