|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 19, 2008 15:45:16 GMT -8
What on earth does that statement have to do with ANYTHING we're talking about, Silliness? WHAT!?!
|
|
|
Post by General Silliness on May 19, 2008 15:48:53 GMT -8
What on earth does that statement have to do with ANYTHING we're talking about, Silliness? WHAT!?! calm down i quoted the wrong comment.it was in muckles.and they call me silliness for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 19, 2008 16:03:51 GMT -8
calm down i quoted the wrong comment. I can only assume that is the reason for most of your posts being so bizarrely off-topic.
|
|
|
Post by General Silliness on May 19, 2008 16:07:20 GMT -8
calm down i quoted the wrong comment. I can only assume that is the reason for most of your posts beings so bizarrely off-topic. nope.that one sentence from monty phython describes my take on the internet."and now for something completly different...."
|
|
|
Post by Hook on May 19, 2008 16:36:03 GMT -8
I sincerely don't understand people's aversion to CGI in an Indy movie. Barring a Gungan sidekick, I have no problems with digital mattes, explosions, and models. This isn't the most realistic sequence ever filmed: So why should they do things in ways that are slower and more difficult to manage? If the art direction preserves the original look, why do you care?
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on May 19, 2008 16:46:27 GMT -8
I sincerely don't understand people's aversion to CGI in an Indy movie. Barring a Gungan sidekick, I have no problems with digital mattes, explosions, and models. This isn't the most realistic sequence ever filmed: So why should they do things in ways that are slower and more difficult to manage? If the art direction preserves the original look, why do you care? You're an idiot Hook! How could you possibly say such things? -Nate
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 19, 2008 19:20:04 GMT -8
There's nothing wrong with CGI when used sparingly and appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by Southall on May 19, 2008 22:51:18 GMT -8
There's nothing wrong with CGI when used sparingly and appropriately. What encourages me is that Spielberg himself has generally used CGI quite well, one of the few "popcorn directors" who has.
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on May 20, 2008 5:05:33 GMT -8
I am honestly more concerned about the aliens and Shia Le Beuf being groomed as a substitute Indy. But we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Southall on May 20, 2008 11:44:26 GMT -8
J'adore le boeuf!
|
|
|
Post by Hook on May 20, 2008 13:54:03 GMT -8
The alien thing has been known for over a year now. The movie is set in the fifties and Lucas wanted to make it a sci-fi B movie, in line with the trends of the decade, which sounds incredibly awesome. As for Shia Labeouf as Indy's replacement? In his own words: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IXCK1EyP4s
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on May 20, 2008 15:05:44 GMT -8
If the score is any indication Shia Le Beuf already has the lead role in Indy 4 with all of the quotes of his theme throughout the CD.
-Nate
|
|
|
Post by Hook on May 20, 2008 15:11:03 GMT -8
But who wants to see "Mutt and the [mythical artifact]"?
|
|
|
Post by muckle dabuckle on May 20, 2008 17:08:55 GMT -8
But who wants to see "Mutt and the [mythical artifact]"? George Lucas. I wouldn't mind if they made it a franchise, just don't call it Indiana Jones. If anything it would give John Williams the chance to write a new main theme for a series. Something awesome like Star Wars, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Superman, etc. -Nate
|
|
|
Post by franzridesagain on May 20, 2008 17:10:44 GMT -8
There's nothing wrong with CGI when used sparingly and appropriately. What encourages me is that Spielberg himself has generally used CGI quite well, one of the few "popcorn directors" who has. WAR OF THE WORLDS integrates special effects and live action beautifully.
|
|