Someone (Lucas? Spielberg?) should explain why the trailer looks like a Wonder Woman (1st season) episode.
Really.

Really.

quote:

Originally posted by RUR:
Someone (Lucas? Spielberg?) should explain why the trailer looks like a Wonder Woman (1st season) episode.
Really.

Well, have you seen the tits on that babe?

It does look like a Tv episode.
Cheap.

And the trailer is supposed to be the GOOD bits!

Cheap is better than bankrupt, right?

I think the real trepidation-sowers are the 21st century adwrights. We expect great genre-commitment from an Indy trailer (CGI text-cards biggest no-no here, IMO; needed to be vivid, 2D pulp-illustration style; cf. J. Allen St. John).

Spielberg's said this one is his valentine to fans. I trust he means it.

"Cheap is better than bankrupt, right?"
?

Ha, hope you can find it in yourself to gracefully ignore my inexcusably poor humor.

Real point: the trailer's a strange product, weakened by the film's overbearing secrecy. I try to enjoy the visual excerpts without acknowledging its structural, editorial and aesthetic misbegottens.

quote:

Ha, hope you can find it in yourself to gracefully ignore my inexcusably poor humor.

Is that supposed to be some kind of a joke?

quote:

Originally posted by Metro Dynamics:
Ha, hope you can find it in yourself to gracefully ignore my inexcusably poor humor.

Real point: the trailer's a strange product, weakened by the film's overbearing secrecy. I try to enjoy the visual excerpts without acknowledging its structural, editorial and aesthetic misbegottens.

What is that blurry picture of?

I don't give a shit what the trailer looks like. People are really putting too much into a trailer. Trailers have very little to do with the films themselves. They are constructs of their own.

It's only a teaser trailer as well, remember that too.

It had Indiana Jones in it. In a hat.

That's all I was expecting.

The crystal skullians, enfleshed, I think. Spine of a cereal box, maybe? Direct from theraider.net.

Your trailer thoughts: well put!

It could be a still photo of Indy and all would be right with the world.

By the way, speaking of trailers -- slightly off-topic but Lucasian --

Please watch and opine.

quote:

It had Indiana Jones in it. In a hat. That's all I was expecting.

You can fool yourself maybe, but not me. You wanted the whip, too.

You know you want it.

quote:

Originally posted by Metro Dynamics:
Please watch and opine.

I dunno. The voice of the guy at the end makes me want to commit homicide, and for some reason the I II III footage (and presumably added stuff like that robot thing popping out of the snow) next to the IV V VI footage just feels wrong. It doesn't mesh, and the old stuff looks better (less glowy-shiny, and the old SFX have weight to them). Maybe it's just nostalgia.

Designer says there will be little CGI in Indy and the Crystal Skull.

http://io9.com/374266/indiana-jones-will-be-mostly-cgi+free-designer-tells-io9

quote:

Originally posted by Metro Dynamics:
By the way, speaking of trailers -- slightly off-topic but Lucasian --

Please watch and opine.

"CGI is like any other tool, it's ewither a benefit or a hazard. If it's a benefit, it's not Harrison Ford's problem."

Here is the issue with CGI: indulgence.

CGI doesn't fail becuase it's pervasive, it fails becuase it's used in place of something physical. As such, you get animators working on it rather than sculptors. Return of the Jedi and Empire Stirkes Back were all about platic heads. Mark Hamill should have gotten an Oscar for being able to keep a straight face while tlaking to plastic heads for two moives, but the heads, becuase they are made physically, becuase bad physical shit on camera reads horrible, they had to look more realistic.

CGI, on the other hand, indulges in the cartoon. Animators are loosed from the bounds of reality, they control "all that we see ans here." Who cares that the plastic head will look like a paper mache dog's ass under the light when there isn't any lighting?

What hapopens is you get a difference between a ton-ton and that apeshit silly thing Obi Wan rode in part II. The thing with the cartoon mouth, the anime scaling. It looked CGI more because it looked like it was designed for a comic book than for a film.

No doubt CGI folks often have talent, but they also have no idea what they are doing as for realism. You have animators and coders putting this shit together. Before, you had sculptors, coming out of fields like paleontology putting together creatures. Imagination was reigned in by physical constraints and by the backgrounds of the artists.

This is where the three prequels went off the rails and we all should have seen it coming. Lucas kept whining about how the original trilogy was never finished, and when he got the chance, he'd do it. What did he add? Bobba Fett macking on space hookers in a Jabba Band Palace scene where the band leader looked like it came out of Roger Rabbit.

He was crying for help then. Two years later he got even worse.

The problem with having a billion dollars is that no one tells you you're shit stinks. Lucas controlled everything about the films, he wrote them, he directed them, he oversaw the post production, he had no one to edit him, no studio to say : "Dude."

Some artists need the reigns, Hell most of them do. Unfettered talent isn't miraculous, it's just plain fetid.

There's a point at which one's vision eclipses their own ability to see the results. Lucas kept saying what he wanted, how his vision was pure pulp and he went on to describe that pulp, to him, meant bad acting and crap dialog. And still we didn't listen.

Having all the money to do whatever you want is excellent up to a point, then it just makes one irresponsible to anyone but themselves.

Perhaps that is why the Spielberg/Lucas combo worked so well before? Two giants checking the others' worst?

"Unfettered talent isn't miraculous, it's just plain fetid"

Let us remember this when the idjut publisher wants us to make changes, alas. They just might be right (wince).

(Became a string of axioms).

Limits and good design are indissoluble. I've said it many ways, before ("economy brings focus", etc). Composition is my favorite example -- it can happen only within a frame, real or imaginary. I find drama is lost when all is possible. Old world effects don't suffer contrivances nearly so indiscriminately as CG, as Uber and colin point out. To this extent the old time moviemaking was self-governing (you'll hear Lucas on his commentaries say, "I couldn't even permit myself to imagine these sequences back then." All those years ago . . .).

Misgivings aside, my favorite trailer moment: the strange conflicted expression on Hamill's face just before the final montage.

And SPEAKING OF TRAILERS!

Also, what were your thoughts on the NASA/Right Stuff-centric Star Trek teaser?

"This film is not yet rated."

Side effects may include...

I love it. Indy looks great pushing 60. Likewise, freckles from the first flick is forever immaculately gorgeous, and some hair-raising chase/stunt scenes *should* be done CGI, so the trailers can state No Stunt Personnel Were Killed or Maimed in the Making of this Film, Although Several Animators Underwent Subsequent Mountain Dew Rehab.

ANd a generation of young kids will someday look back and say, 'Sure the last Indy CGI was lame compared to today, but when I saw it, it rocked -- and it still does."

Indiana Jones!