comment #1

MickTravis says ...

Slow morning? Super Tuesday Fever?

We can be pretty sure aliens are in the movie, because Lucas basically took credit/blame for them in that Vanity Fair article.

Unless it's all a big fake-out, he admitted that Spielberg and Ford hated the idea but he stuck to his guns and forced it in. Yay! Despite the fact that Indy is an archaeologist and his M.O. has always been about locating Earth-centric objects.

But I think that little guy in the poster could be anything. I still think it's a happy ferret.

comment #2

115thDreamer says ...

Hey - maybe the aliens do some sort of "Cocoon"-like rejuvenation job on Indy at the start of the picture...help him make it through all of his adventures. "Man, I feel terrible...wait, what are these pods doing here?" Maybe that's why they need aliens in the picture? Just a thought.

comment #3

carla kolchak says ...

Just looks like a plain ol' canine skull to me. Mebbe Indy's aliens are from some planet around Sirius. Or from Pluto. *cough*

comment #4

Josh Massey says ...

"I am so excited to see this movie!"

And there, ladies and gentlemen, is a pitch-perfect imitation of what my 1992 self would be saying if he were here.

comment #5

JasonGeyer says ...

Weird. We posted a different pic on our website last week; didn't realize no one had seen the skulls yet. http://actionfigureinsider.com/main/?p=483

Everything will be revealed within 2 weeks anyway, when Toy Fair starts in NY and Hasbro unveils the entire toy line. Trust me, lots of spoilers to be seen.

comment #6

rr3333 says ...

How will they incorporate Indy's obsessive pot smoking into the film? I await anxiously.

comment #7

Walter Sobchak says ...

I hope there's LOTS of CGI! Sweet, sweet CGI!

comment #8

actionman says ...

I hung out with an actor who is featured in the finale of Indy 4. He refused to divulge major spoilers but he did tell me some stuff. I am not going to repeat what he said specifically, but I will say that there are aliens in the movie somewhere, and a bit from Raiders is sort of repeated during the big finale. He also told me that they were stessing non-CGI action sequences for the most part; he said that compared to some of the other productions he's worked on (and he's been on big action movies in the past), this was "old-school" and "real." Spielberg was forgetting to call "cut" at the end of scenes because he was having "too much fun."

Can't. Wait.

comment #9

christian says ...

Spielberg is the only major director who knows the exact amount of CGI to use -- and not -- and how to make it appear truly organic.

comment #10

LYT says ...

Spielberg's also the guy who gave E.T. a CGI makeover and digitally replaced guns with walkie-talkies.

comment #11

MickTravis says ...

"Spielberg is the only major director who knows the exact amount of CGI to use -- and not -- and how to make it appear truly organic."

Hate to bring up the "Z" word again, but I think "Zodiac" makes a strong case for Fincher as a leading contender for the title.

comment #12

actionman says ...

Spielberg, Fincher, Bay, and The Scotts are the guys who really know how to blend CGI with real photography.

comment #13

Josh Massey says ...

Mick beat me to it.

comment #14

christian says ...

I thought the CG in ZODIAC was quite apparent, I know many of you didn't. The blood for example.

"Spielberg's also the guy who gave E.T. a CGI makeover and digitally replaced guns with walkie-talkies."

Touche, Luke.

But in films like A.I. and WOTW, he blends the CG beautifully. I still think A.1. is one of the best spfx integrated films ever made. That teddy bear!

comment #15

actionman says ...

That teddy bear was my favorite part, though I think I need to watch A.I. again sometime.

comment #16

Edward Havens says ...

Actually, many sites took notice of the hidden face within moments of the poster being released weeks ago.

comment #17

MickTravis says ...

The CG in "Zodiac" at times isn't flawless. But I was surprised by how much is in there. For all the times where you can spot it (or at least recognize there's something off) I think there are more places where it blends surprisingly well.

Ditto on the teddy bear. He was the shit. He was, in fact, one of the only things I liked about A.I., which was to me like watching E.T. with a 105-degree fever.

comment #18

MAGGA says ...

"A.I., (was) to me like watching E.T. with a 105-degree fever."

That sounds like quite aninteresting experience. Anyway, like so many I feel that A.I is possibly the most underrated film of the decade. And the teddy bear was far from the only amazing integration of F.X in the film. An absolute masterpiece.

comment #19

MickTravis says ...

I meant the teddy bear as a character, not necessarily as an effect. I thought he was just perfect -- the voice, the movements, the warnings like "David, run" and "you'll break" are chilling.

But while "A.I." clearly has its very avid fans and God love 'em, it just never worked for me -- I'm disturbed at it and not with it. And I wish we could've seen Kubrick's version.

comment #20

christian says ...

I give Spielberg credit for not over-using the teddy bear. Frankly, if the film had been the boy and the teddy bear being chased the whole time, it would have been huge.

comment #21

BurmaShave says ...

I agree with christian wholeheartedly. I dont care if it's CGI, the scene where David is falling and the reflection appears like a tear on Joe's face is one of the most beautiful shots ever, CGI or not. Agreed about Teddy as a character as well . A.I is one of he more terrifying and heartbreaking films I've ever seen. I wasn't prepared for it, I dont think anyone was, which might explain the mixed reaction at first.

comment #22

DavidF says ...

I'll second what MAGGA said - and what everyone says about how insanely awesome Teddy was.

I'm not an AVID FAN but I still think it's a misunderstood, underappreciated film. Kubrick WANTED Spielberg to do it so, as far as I'm concerned, we have seen his version, or as close as he was ever going to do.

I'm confident Spielberg won't overdo the CGI in Indy - he has an innate sense of what each movie needs stylistically.

The ET thing seems like a red herring to me. I kinda disagree with the change but understand it (ie Would FBI guys really be pulling shotguns on kids riding away with an alien on their bicycles???).

That said, the original version still exists so he didn't REPLACE them, merely offered an alternative. No worse, IMHO, than a movie making changes to a novel. The novel ain't ruined - it's still there on the bookshelf.

comment #23

DarthCorleone says ...

I think Hollywood Elsewhere is the only place I frequent on the web that has a majority positive opinion of A.I. And not just positive - extremely positive. Just an observation...

comment #24

MAGGA says ...

Darth, you should check out Polands site or even Aintitcool. A lot of people love the movie, just as a lot of people hate it. Posters on blogs, I mean. Many major critics had major problems witht the film, but I walked out of the theatre stunned, saw it again four times the same week, went back several more times and watched it over and over on DVD. I think that that film, Munich and Minority Report and, to a lesser extent, Catch Me If You Can shows Spielberg on a roll like in the seventies/early eighties, and I am a bit dissapointed that he has regressed to Indy. But I will be there opening weekend with a tickle in my stommach anyway, as no matter what failings a Spielberg film might have there are certain things even his worst movies have (excepting Hook and 1941): The abovementioned sense of appropriate use of FX, the understanding of how to move the camera and choreograph elements withing the frame, perfect set pieces, moments of pure cinema.

comment #25

jeffmcm says ...

"A.I., (was) to me like watching E.T. with a 105-degree fever."

Sounds like a good thing to me.