Indiana Jones 5

[kylor]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Douglas was CGI, but Russell de-aging was makeup and prosthetic

I could believe that. Giving the "older version" a shave, dye his hair and give him a new hairstyle, and apply makeup to cover small wrinkles in the skin, and change his wardrobe. Kurt doesn't look that old, it's just his grey hair that shows that.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

[Show spoiler]I'd say just let this franchise just die.

And there's some talk about replacing Ford with a new actors.

Some people are actually defending recasting iconic film characters with different actors. And even more so with the recent release of Solo. They actually think that all film characters are fair game for a new actor portraying them.

And it's fine that they feel that way. But I vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. I do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books. But for the most part, I want beloved film characters (original characters made for film and not from other sources) to remain pure and untouched by half-assed or horrible attempts to recapture lightning in a bottle.

Some roles have actors that were born to play them and there really are no substitutes. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Peter Weller as RoboCop, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger are all examples of this. And any actor that will attempt to play the character will pale in comparison. They have the charisma and personality that is unique only to them and that is what makes these characters so iconic and what brought them to life.

And don't give me the "They will make it their own" response. Make it their own means they will take the character and make it something completely alien to the character we all know and love in order to separate it from the original, potentially swap the genders, or just half-heartedly attempt to capture the same magic.

I have never seen a single remake with an iconic character or film have a lead that is anywhere near as memorable or as effective as the original for these same reasons. The track record is abysmal and that is why I don't agree with the idea of every character in every film is fair game for a re-imagining.

The rare times I have seen a remake be successful is when the character was not played by an actor that was irreplaceable or the film featured different characters altogether. And I honestly prefer the second approach. In three of the most well-received remakes of all time The Fly and The Blob, they all have one thing in common. They don't have the same characters as the originals. They have their own. And because of this their films stand on their own two feet and have created new characters that audiences loved and still remember fondly to this day.

What's the better option, continue to dig up popular characters out of the grave every ten or twenty years and try to do the impossible and find the perfect actor to play the role again, or stop doing that and put that effort into finding new characters for a new generation?

There need to be limits. Otherwise, you get A wannabee John Cena as RoboCop, and a southern friend Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. I would rather these iconic made-for-cinema (created by cinema) characters be retired on film and only brought back in books, comics, and video games then see lazy attempts by Hollywood to bring them back with new faces in "new" films just to piggyback off the success of the previous franchise.

Let these made for cinema original characters that you love die and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs.

The best way to think about non-Ford Indy movies is that they're not for us. They're for the new generation who gets to have their own Indiana Joneses and Star Wars and so on to grow up with. We'll always have ours, now they can have theirs. I liked Solo (the movie) quite a bit but I'm done with Indy after Ford is. And it's not out of anger or anything; I just (like you) don't see the point in Indiana Jones without Ford. That's his seminal role, even moreso than Han Solo IMHO.

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

The best way to think about non-Ford Indy movies is that they're not for us. They're for the new generation who gets to have their own Indiana Joneses and Star Wars and so on to grow up with. We'll always have ours, now they can have theirs. I liked Solo (the movie) quite a bit but I'm done with Indy after Ford is. And it's not out of anger or anything; I just (like you) don't see the point in Indiana Jones without Ford. That's his seminal role, even moreso than Han Solo IMHO.

This new generation needs an original fresh film not from an established franchise and has the same spirit of the Indiana Jones trilogy and not recycle past glory.

Harrison IS Indiana Jones, i will accept no substitutes.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

This new generation needs an original fresh film not from an established franchise and has the same spirit of the Indiana Jones trilogy and not recycle past glory.

Harrison IS Indiana Jones, i will accept no substitutes.

*Cough* Steven Sommers' The Mummy *Cough*

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

*Cough* Steven Soderbergh's The Mummy *Cough*

Summers you mean and the first 2 Mummies captured the spirit of Indiana Jones.

Tomb Raider reboot was a decent attempt to be the new Indiana Jones.

Now come up with a fresh new character that captures the essence of Indiana Jones Hollywood and make it like a throwback/tribute to them.

[Lord Method Man]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

*Cough* Steven Soderbergh's The Mummy *Cough*

Huh?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

*Cough* Steven Soderbergh's The Mummy *Cough*

*Sommers But a Soderbergh version would be... interesting.

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

This new generation needs an original fresh film not from an established franchise and has the same spirit of the Indiana Jones trilogy and not recycle past glory.

I agree, but people don't show up for original movies, they only show up for established IPs. It is what it is.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

*Sommers But a Soderbergh version would be... interesting.

Oh sorry, I'll fix, it was still in the Oceans discussion in my mind...

[Cremildo]

I'm not at all excited for this, but the usual rants demanding the death of a renewed franchise get on my nerves.

Is it so hard to not. watch. the. damn. thing. instead of advocating for its non-existence? Let others who are excited about it have their fun.

I guess that's how things are. It's easier to try to prevent others from enjoying themselves than to take personal responsibility and make a little sacrifice by simply refusing to watch the dreaded sequel/remake/reboot etc.

[DenOfEarth]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

I'm not at all excited for this, but the usual rants demanding the death of a renewed franchise get on my nerves.

Is it so hard to not. watch. the. damn. thing. instead of advocating for its non-existence? Let others who are excited about it have their fun.

I guess that's how things are. It's easier to try to prevent others from enjoying themselves than to take personal responsibility and make a little sacrifice by simply refusing to watch the dreaded sequel/remake/reboot etc.

So you believe in everything i said? even to let this series die with dignity and have Hollywood come up with a fresh adventure film in the tradition of Indiana Jones and be it's own thing that reviving old glory?

[Eye Candy]

Hollywood just wants to make money any way it can.


Sometimes they serve up some pretty good shit. And other times not.

[Zombo]

Despite all the usual and expected negativity, I'm really looking forward to this and hoping for an Atlantis tie-in. Why? Because I love movies damn it and I have no problem embracing change. The major franchises tend to rebooted over and over again despite popular opinion anyway.

I'd like one more outing with Harrison before this thing gets rebooted.

I love movies in general. There are certain movies that are iconic, legendary..shouldn't be remade. That being said, it's going to happen...so embrace it and get over yourself or don't watch. One of these days a reboot may actually be better than the original. It's doubtful 90% of the time, but it can happen. Especially with adventure or sci-fi films where movie magic, CGI is a huge contributing factor and advances by leaps and bounds over the years.

Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis please and thank you. I've been waiting since I was a teenager playing the PC game for that to happen.

[Johnny Blu]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

Hollywood just wants to make money any way it can.


Sometimes they serve up some pretty good shit. And other times not.

FYI, wanting to make money is not a Hollywood thing. It's called being in business.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Douglas was CGI, but Russell de-aging was makeup and prosthetic

Really?

Whoever did that job deserves a raise then.

[BJ Blazkowicz]

[thecooldud]

Originally Posted by DenOfEarth

I'd say just let this franchise just die.

And there's some talk about replacing Ford with a new actors.

Some people are actually defending recasting iconic film characters with different actors. And even more so with the recent release of Solo. They actually think that all film characters are fair game for a new actor portraying them.

And it's fine that they feel that way. But I vehemently disagree and I just don't understand. Sure. I do have exceptions, like Bond (he was a literature character) or characters from novels or comic books. But for the most part, I want beloved film characters (original characters made for film and not from other sources) to remain pure and untouched by half-assed or horrible attempts to recapture lightning in a bottle.

Some roles have actors that were born to play them and there really are no substitutes. Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones, Peter Weller as RoboCop, Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, Michael J. Fox as Marty McFly and Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger are all examples of this. And any actor that will attempt to play the character will pale in comparison. They have the charisma and personality that is unique only to them and that is what makes these characters so iconic and what brought them to life.

And don't give me the "They will make it their own" response. Make it their own means they will take the character and make it something completely alien to the character we all know and love in order to separate it from the original, potentially swap the genders, or just half-heartedly attempt to capture the same magic.

I have never seen a single remake with an iconic character or film have a lead that is anywhere near as memorable or as effective as the original for these same reasons. The track record is abysmal and that is why I don't agree with the idea of every character in every film is fair game for a re-imagining.

The rare times I have seen a remake be successful is when the character was not played by an actor that was irreplaceable or the film featured different characters altogether. And I honestly prefer the second approach. In three of the most well-received remakes of all time The Fly and The Blob, they all have one thing in common. They don't have the same characters as the originals. They have their own. And because of this their films stand on their own two feet and have created new characters that audiences loved and still remember fondly to this day.

What's the better option, continue to dig up popular characters out of the grave every ten or twenty years and try to do the impossible and find the perfect actor to play the role again, or stop doing that and put that effort into finding new characters for a new generation?

There need to be limits. Otherwise, you get A wannabee John Cena as RoboCop, and a southern friend Freddy who sounds like Sling blade. I would rather these iconic made-for-cinema (created by cinema) characters be retired on film and only brought back in books, comics, and video games then see lazy attempts by Hollywood to bring them back with new faces in "new" films just to piggyback off the success of the previous franchise.

Let these made for cinema original characters that you love die and become legends, instead of live forever and become total jokes and nothing but hollow cash grabs.

Completely agree.

[Gamma_Winstead]

If they're icing the Star Wars spin-offs, I'm shocked this is still happening. Spielberg barely seems interested, and Ford is old as hell. I'm not sure if this will end up performing all that well either. I guess we'll see huh...

[IndyMLVC]

Originally Posted by thecooldud

Completely agree.

But that's also how I feel about Star Wars.

[Star Lord]

Originally Posted by Galactus

Really?

Whoever did that job deserves a raise then.

Read somewhere that it was his old make up guy with whom he has worked his entire career.

[KcMsterpce]

Originally Posted by jayman3

Douglas was CGI, but Russell de-aging was makeup and prosthetic

No, it was digital.
They filmed Kurt Russell doing the scene(s). Then, they had a younger lookalike stand in for him and they filmed the scenes again.
After that, they digitally processed Russell's old face onto the lookalike and digitally melded/smoothed the faces until he looked like a beardless JR McCready. So it's a mix of two people AND a lot of CGI tinkering.
It was the first special effect they started working on, and it was the last one to be completed before the movie came out.
James Gunn mentions this process at-length in the commentary to GotG Vol.2 at the beginning of the movie.