›

Poster for the new Indiana Jones movie!!

Tester ScottTester Scott
edited January 2008 in General Chat
The new poster for the Indiana Jones movie titled Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is out. It is done by Drew Struzan who was responsible for the original movie posters.

hr_Indiana_Jones_poster.jpg

Comments

  • Guybrush ThreepwoodGuybrush Threepwood
    edited December 2007
    Are you sure that's new? I swear I've seen it before...
  • Tester ScottTester Scott
    edited December 2007
    It might be a week old. I have been a little slow on my rounds in the movie's the past couple months.
  • xChri5xxChri5x
    edited December 2007
    It's a couple weeks old.
  • Tester ScottTester Scott
    edited December 2007
    Man I am really slow. Eh whatever. I love Indiana Jones and this gives me an excuse to add to my post count. I have to have one of the lowest post counts in the office. It is embarrassing.
  • Silly BobSilly Bob
    edited December 2007
    I like it alot, it just doesn't quite feel like the old ones. It's still AWESOME though.
  • ShaggEShaggE
    edited December 2007
    I'm not a big Indy fan, but I love how the poster doesn't look like the vast majority do nowadays. It looks like an honest-to-deity 80's film poster, which makes me a very happy panda.
  • xChri5xxChri5x
    edited December 2007
    I'm sure there will be another one which will be the "main" one.
  • ShaggEShaggE
    edited December 2007
    I hope not, it was bad enough when my beloved horror films started using that cookie-cutter "photo of antagonist surrounded by photos of protagonists sorted by level of Hollywood fame" poster design.

    To do something like that to a series like this is pure movie geek heresy.
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited December 2007
    Haha. Blame the Scream poster for that.

    I'm sure we'll get a more collagey Indy poster in the coming months, but the old films had posters like that as well. They (in this case, the LucasFilm marketing department) knows what they're doing.
  • LinqueLinque
    edited December 2007
    They knows!

    The pressure making this film must be incredible. Even if it would be perfect, I'm not sure it would be good enough to fill the expectations. I really do hope the best for this flick, though I'm not sure if Indy's time of glory has passed. Will people still be interested?
  • ShaggEShaggE
    edited December 2007
    Linque wrote: »
    I really do hope the best for this flick, though I'm not sure if Indy's time of glory has passed. Will people still be interested?

    I have a feeling that no matter how good it is, it will be lambasted. It could be something as trivial as Indy's fedora being tilted too far to the left, as long as the die-hards have something to nitpick at, hoo boy will they pick those nits.
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited December 2007
    I love lambasting.
  • LinqueLinque
    edited December 2007
    When you're pushed, lambasting is as easy as breathing.

    Talking about sequels, just two months until Mr. Rambo is back. I was so astounded by the quality of Rocky Balboa that I'm really looking forward to it.
  • CroutonsCroutons
    edited January 2008
    Linque wrote: »

    Talking about sequels, just two months until Mr. Rambo is back.

    I'm sorry, but when I saw the poster for the Rambo movie surrounded by drooling fans, I had to scream RAMBO SUCKS RAMBO SUCKS RAMBO SUCKS!!! I can't stand the Rambo movies :mad:

    Indiana Jones is great though :D

    Only problem I have is, isn't Harrison Ford a little bit old to be playing him now?
    Oh well, we'll just have to wait and see how it turns out..
  • LaserschwertLaserschwert
    edited January 2008
    Croutons wrote: »
    Only problem I have is, isn't Harrison Ford a little bit old to be playing him now?

    That's a very common (and mind you, one of the stupidest) points of criticism towards the new movie. Why would he be too old? It's not like he's still playing a 35 year old Indy :rolleyes:
  • LuigiHannLuigiHann
    edited January 2008
    I don't think "isn't he a little old?" is a criticism, per se. More of a concern. He might break something, you know? :p
  • CroutonsCroutons
    edited January 2008
    Laserschwert wrote: »
    That's a very common (and mind you, one of the stupidest) points of criticism towards the new movie. Why would he be too old? It's not like he's still playing a 35 year old Indy :rolleyes:

    I know that; but I mean more in terms for the actor. I would be pissed if a cool stunt came up, and he turned into CG because the actor wasn't willing to do the scene. And I'm not saying that his age means the movie is going to be bad, in fact, I'm if anything, very glad that Harrison is still playing Indy, since he's really the only person who could play the character.
  • TelltaleToolTelltaleTool
    edited January 2008
    They have stunt doubles you know :)
  • MelMel
    edited January 2008
    tabacco wrote: »
    They have stunt doubles you know :)

    That's so 20th century. ;) :D
  • TelltaleToolTelltaleTool
    edited January 2008
    Supposedly the new Indy is all practical effects though.
  • MolokovMolokov
    edited January 2008
    I think it's *mostly* practical effects - stunts or models - as per the originals. But there's probably a bit of CG here and there where in the originals they would have done the "draw onto film cells" technique. You know, for things like making explosions bigger, or all the supernatural ghosty-stuff. That'd be CG.

    But I'm sure most of the stunt work will be practical :) It's so much cooler that way.
  • TelltaleToolTelltaleTool
    edited January 2008
    I'm hoping for the return of matte paintings also.
  • CroutonsCroutons
    edited January 2008
    tabacco wrote: »
    Supposedly the new Indy is all practical effects though.

    That is good. One of my other fears was that Lucas would give it the starwars treatment and make all the stunts and effects CG. The practical effects might also mean it won't end up like Temple of Doom; I know Temple of Doom wasn't chock full of silly effects, but it's plot was WAY too silly, and the overusage of CG in this day and age could lead to another 'Temple of Doom' style Indy movie. :( I think that 'Crystal Skull' will probably be good though.
  • ShauntronShauntron Telltale Alumni
    edited January 2008
    I wouldn't worry about Harrison Ford's ability as an action star for this film after seeing Firewall. That movie was pretty bad, but the man can still run around and throw punches. He can even climb a scaffolding better than I can probably.

    Here's to hoping they use real stuntmen as well :)
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited January 2008
    tabacco wrote: »
    I'm hoping for the return of matte paintings also.

    Marco might know.
  • MarkDarinMarkDarin Former Telltale Staff
    edited January 2008
    tabacco wrote: »
    Supposedly the new Indy is all practical effects though.

    Oh man... I read that as "...the new Indy is all PARTICLE effects..."! I was very confused over the next several responses. :o
  • UdvarnokyUdvarnoky
    edited January 2008
    Based on things I've read elsewhere, it seems some people have been using that "practical effects" quote to pretend that Indy4 will not use modern film making techniques at all and will instead be filmed with a hand-cranked camera and will have Harrison Ford thrown off cliffs and actually shot at with poisonous darts. (He's a method actor!) Molokov's probably hit the nail on the head; I think all Frank Marshall meant when he said what he did was that they would try to use stuntwork as much as possible. I'm willing to bet a dollar that we will see CGI/bluescreen to some extent.
    tabacco wrote:
    I'm hoping for the return of matte paintings also.

    You mean like, the old school way of doing them where they actually used an optical printer? That would be neat but I highly doubt it. If there are any matte paintings in Indy4 I'm sure they will be digital.
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited January 2008
    The important part was probably whether or not there was an actual painting, instead of a 3D set, or digitally augmented photo, more than whether or not the effect was achieved optically or digitally!
  • UdvarnokyUdvarnoky
    edited January 2008
    So, would it be special then for Indy 4 to have matte paintings? I was under the impression that they were still very common, and it was only the technique for producing them that's different. Or I'm lying.
  • LaserschwertLaserschwert
    edited January 2008
    Jake wrote: »
    whether or not there was an actual painting, instead of a 3D set, or digitally augmented photo

    But that's just the modern way to do matte paintings, and I'm sure if they had digital technology back then, and the possibility to incorporate photographed content, they would've done it as well. I don't see the reason for a pure painting (be it digitally or with actual paint), if it can be enhanced through photos, 3D-animation or some other technique. The important part is that they shouldn't do digital effects and matte paintings just for the sake of it (as Lucas did it SO MANY times in the prequels... Clone Troopers, anybody?), but only when budget, safety or pure logistics ask for it. And the Indy-movies have rarely shown something, that couldn't (and hadn't!) been done practically.
  • ShauntronShauntron Telltale Alumni
    edited January 2008
    I really wouldn't mind a beautiful all-digital matte, just as long as the camera doesn't impossibly weave in and out of trees just to show off how digital it really is.
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited January 2008
    There's still an aesthetic difference between a shot composited into a 3d environment and a scene composited into a painting, regardless of whether or not it was done digitally or purely optically.
  • ErwinErwin
    edited January 2008
    This thread is starting to turn into one of those 3D vs 2D arguments often seen on adventure gaming forums. :D

    --Erwin
  • JakeJake Telltale Alumni
    edited January 2008
    2D.
  • MelMel
    edited January 2008
    I'm confused. What are the matte paintings (or CGI, etc.) that you're talking about used for?
  • TelltaleToolTelltaleTool
    edited January 2008
    traditionally they were paintings on glass that were overlaid on the image to replace out part of the background with something else. A few notable examples are the end of 'raiders of the lost ark' (the warehouse of crates), or every city shot in Mary Poppins. Also used to make it look like the Monterey Bay Aquarium was near SF in Star Trek IV :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matte_painting
  • wispwisp
    edited January 2008
    ahh, the good old times..where everything that wouldn't fit into a studio was handpainted..
Sign in to comment in this discussion.