Cool News
The New IJATKOTCS Theatrical Trailer Appears Online??
Merrick here...
This appears to be a second theatrical trailer, showing expansion of action we've previously seen, and a few new set pieces as well. This courtesy of the fine folks at SpoilerTV.
-- link pulled --
-
+ Expand All
-
INDY!
-
I can't wait for this!
-
Alright, 5th!
-
Was the space on AICN that much of a premium? Would it have taked too long to type?
-
That's the worst abbreviation ever. They should have changed the title just for that reason.
-
Always!
-
'Cause Merrick's a doosh. A lovable doosh, but a doosh none the less...
-
Apr 30, 2008 9:24:28 AM CDT
I thought IJATKOTCS was the actual title of some foreign movie..
by countryboy
-
er....WooHoo. That was ace. C'mon May22nd
-
C'mon. The film is done. Someone must have seen it. Screw this "Iron Man" bullshit and bring on the real films of summer.
-
So too shall Shia be.
This movie will suck balls. -
hope it won't disappoint like Iron Man did. Hopefully the Beard will deliver.
-
I'm not getting the excited bive off this one, maybe after the awesome Dark Knight one yesterday. I really can't get up much enthusiasm for IJATKOTCS(!)
-
doh! Oh, and Shia ain't no Brando, positively hate that trailer intro for his character.
-
Really didnt want to see anymore clips of this until I see it in the cinema...Bollix! Looks great, but dont want to see anymore clips so I can be surprised. Bet this will be showing with Ironman this weekend.
-
Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. I like that so much better.
-
AWESOME!!!
Can see why they;'ve been holding back -
still looks like CGI shit. Makes you wonder why they put it in the trailer at all. They can't possibly think it looks good. Everything else rocks.
-
Yes, this certainly is an Indiana Jones movie. It also seems to have a flavour of the Berg's JP flicks, particularly Lost World. UFO/alien ship confirmed! Also, Cate Blanchett just might not suck as hard as a desperate prom queen. Shia still makes the alarm bells ring though. Ford, however, looks on top form! I hope Indy doesn't end up as that old fart in the museum in Young Indy. I'd rather Indy died in this than he become that totally different character.
-
That was the shittiest quality ever
-
intentionally gave it that title to point out the ridiculousness of the abbreviation.
-
Apr 30, 2008 9:48:50 AM CDT
If that doesn't make the jizz in your scrote dance a jig
by hawaiian organ donor
I don't know what will.
-
until available in glorious quicktime. Must resist. So thirsty, trouble breathing. uhhhhhhhh
-
...are busily concocting this very moment? Nitpicking is at an all-time frenzy even as we speak.
Brace yourselves... -
How anyone can watch any of these trailers and feel negative about this movie is totally perplexing to me! This looks like its going to be the best after Raiders - easily!
-
How dare you not put "Hey Paramount Legal Dept., Please remove this from the web asap!" as the headline. I mean, fancy making us THINK for a change.
-
love Shia's Marlon brando entrance on the bike. basically this looks inspired, photography looks much darker and more interesting than the super-bland Last Crusade.
-
i agree with one of the previous posters-you can see the CGI in that clffside jeep chase looks a bag of wank, even taking into concideration the crappy quality of the vid...ah well.
-
And go watch Kes if it bothers you that much...
-
easy, CGI, Costume, age, prequel trilogy, and the title,"Paging Nodiggity spillage of crazy in aisle 4"
-
Spielberg admitted to USA Today that he'd like to make a deal with Warner Bros. that would switch Indy 4's release date with a much better film on July 18. The auteur admitted "That movie will pwn Indy's ass.......and don't forget to spell own with a 'p'."
-
This and TDK will rule the summer. Looks great, love this new footage, 22nd cant get here soon enough. I really think Indy 4's going to deliver the goods.
-
down their pants to control their excitment for this movie. But did I miss something? Everyone is acting like this film has been a long time coming? Did I miss something? Was there a screen card at the end of Indy 3 saying stay tuned for Indy 4 in theaters Summer of 08! Yeah I am excited and all, but I haven't been wondering when would Steven complete his quadrilogy, every day for the past 19 years. This feels more like Harrison Ford going up to Head Jew and being like, look for some reason I can't pick a good script if it hit me in the nuts, this ear ring must be fucking with my Brain, that and all the food I eat because my girlfriend is really just a giant insect. But I can't die leaving the world with crap like Firewall and K-19. Fucking make another Indiana Jones and let me end my career on a good note. That or they were like, well shit if Sly can do it, then we sure as fuck can? Whos up for the return of Det. Capt. John Book?
-
And Ford was looking old as hell on the cover of Usa Today a couple of days ago.
-
I could care less how he looked on USA Today. What I do care is how he looked/acted in this trailer and that last clip. What I saw was Indy, now that doesn't mean the whole movie will play out the way I hope, but I have confidence that this will satisfy.And I could have had an Indy film every 3-5 years since the last one.
-
This is great! In three weeks, Indiana Jones will return, and the only gripe I have is that this is going to be a VERRRY LONNNG three weeks. Thank the maker for IRON MAN and SPEED RACER.
-
Call me gay ("Gay!") but given the chance, I'd much rather have a beautiful, original hand painted matte painting composited into my film just because I really dig the look. Of course, I'll be the first one to admit I'll never have the chance to make that decision, and sure, The Berg's more than earned the right to do whatever the hell he wants with his films, but has CG really become that easy a cinematic shorthand, a crutch if you will, that we forget we used to make some pretty darn good flicks without it?
-
Just when I thought I'd seen a bit of everything that's in this movie, they show show that rocket sled thing in action. Niiiiiiiice!
-
That one doesn't seem to load.
-
That green MPAA screen is pretty sharp, though.
-
The sound was out of sync, the picture sucked.... but OMG this looks so awesome I think I'm gonna cry....
-
http://tinyurl.com/6pv9ds
-
sorry... but:
'I don't think he plans that far ahead...'
several nods to Raiders in that trailer.... -
Wonder who the guy in the cage is?
-
www.criticalmassreviews.blogspot.com
-
Genius.
-
...I'm definitely looking forward to the movie, but the trailers just haven't been very captivating to my mind.
-
i don't know if I can sit through this without bursting at the seams.
-
...and hate on it for the next decade, just like Phantom Menace. The trailer actually reminds me of the Episode 1 trailer. I, on the other hand, actually enjoyed Phantom Menace. And just like Phantom Menace, I will know and aknowledge that this isn't as good as the original, but still enjoyable, too me. I know I'm in a minority, but I don't care. I'm not trying to change minds.
-
Yeah, you musta missed something.
-
I'm basking in Indy nostalgia right now, and that's exactly what the trailer wants us to do. I just want to point out all the elements that are making it feel "Indyish".
1. The "Ark" theme is playing over Indy's voiceover, and his voiceover about the crystal skull is very similar to his speech about the legend of the Ark in the first movie. (I find it awesome, by the way.) 2. Indy and the RPG (as with the bazooka, or whatever, that he threatened to blow up the Ark with) 3. Indy telling shia not to touch anything (just like he told Zapito in Raiders). 4. Marion saying "I don't think he plans that far ahead , which is a reference to "I'm just making this up as I go along" from Raiders. 5. The guy behind bars reaching longingly through the bars is reminiscent of Zapito longingly reaching out for the golden idol in Raiders. 7. Russians and fights on speeding trucks equals Nazis and fights on speeding trucks. 8. Mechanical Trapped Temples, filled with skeletons (which are super cool, so I'm gonna be there, I don't care). 10. Marion (I love her, so I'm happy)
New stuff. Indy swinging like Spiderman (not so happy about that), Shia LeBeouf (though I suppose you could say he's the new Short Round, or a combo of Short Round and New Indy for upcoming movies). Rocket Sled ... I can't think of a parallel to any of the other films, unless you consider the Flying Wing that Indy didn't get to fly in Raiders, or the Biplane he did get to fly in Crusade.
I don't care, though. I'm on board. George Lucas and Spielberg can have my money. The only serious reservation, other than Shia's presence, is that I agree that the cinematography is kinda sterile and cold. In the stills of the Confrontation between Indy and the Russian Gal, I noticed that, while there's a sunset or sunrise in the background, the scene is lit as if the light wee coming from the sides of the frame. Not good as far as attention to detail and lighting is concerned (you can't see that in this trailer, though. -
I know it will. It took then 18 years to get the right script. I know Lucas can't be trusted but I think Spielberg and Ford kept him in check and made the best script they thought they could get. I have no worries about Spielberg as the director, obviously. It's just the script that concerns me.
-
Maybe the non hype is backfiring?
-
...through the bars is reminiscent of Zapito longingly reaching out for the golden idol in Raiders."
That, NoDiggity, is by far the most ludicrously far-fetched thing you have ever written, and that's saying a lot since you've posted some real whoppers in the past. This thing even beats the classic "Newt is Jones" post.
Furthermore, when did Zatipo ever "reach" for anything?
The only one who is "reaching longingly" here is you. -
This trailer delivered like Santa at Christmas! Brilliant. The only problem I have is that I kinda miss the edge of Raiders - it's lack of winking, knowing self-aware humour that Last Crusade, Temple of Doom and now Crystal Skull seem to have in spades. Oh well!
-
I've noticed a severe lack of truly sensational "trailer moments", and all the bits of dialogue they've included has been extremely lackluster ("...don't touch anything..."). I can't think of one scene in this trailer that compares even to that shot of the speedboat exploding in LAST CRUSADE as it comes toward the camera, let alone the reveal of Connery as Henry Sr. ("Junior!" BRRRRAAAAAAAPPP!!! "Don't call me Junior!"). And those two moments are from what a lot of talkbackers are saying is the weakest of the original films! And the performances seem muted, as well. It seems like they're just saying their dialogue and not injecting any kind of real irony or humor. Connery could pop out of a tank surrounded by Nazis and explosions and say "You call this archaeology?" and have the audience in stitches. I guess we're supposed to piss ourselves over "come on, genius" and "damn, I thought that was closer", but it's not working. The magic and charm seems long gone. After watching this trailer multiple times, there is simply nothing here that makes me think, "Oh my god, you could only get this film experience from Lucas/Ford/Spielberg/Indiana Jones." Maybe from an INDY computer game, but not a film.
-
Apr 30, 2008 12:38:41 PM CDT
""You call this archaeology?" and have the audience in stitches.
by docpazuzu
What a hoot. Yeah.
-
while that post was NoDiggitish, it also was not."I don't care, though. I'm on board. George Lucas and Spielberg can have my money." Just keep an open mind NoDiggity, and just succumb to the new Indy, relax, and you'll enjoy it without having to worry about any of these 'similarities' that irk you.
-
I admit that's weak, especially since I don't know the context of the new scene. But he does look Zapito, and he is reaching longingly, so it IS "reminiscent" of that scene with Zapito reaching for the Idol in Raiders. Will the actual scene have this new guy reaching longingly for the Crystal Skull, or for a pile of Mayan gold? Who knows.
-
Don't be duped by his nefarious ways! He's hiding behind the "they can have my money" ploy so that it lends believability to his other horseshit. The fact is, they had his moolah as soon as the movie was announced. Remember, Ringwearer9 saw King Kong twice - in the theater!
-
And i still feel Temple of Doom is the weakest of the three for several reasons, chiefly in one word - Capshaw.
-
... the similarities aren't irking me. They are making me feel happy. My brain is melting.
-
The question is, how many times will NoDiggity see it? Three times? Four?I can hardly await for your review NoDiggity, when you take it screen shot for screen shot telling us where he was being Indy, where he wasn't. Should be a blast.
-
Let you geek force field down...
-
Again, when did Zatipo ever "reach" for anything in Raiders?
-
The last thing I want to see is a bunch of repeated jokes from RAIDERS. Fuck that. That was one of the many reasons I hated SUPERMAN RETURNS, the over-reliance on references to the Donner films, from rehashed dialogue ("statistically speaking, flying is STILL the safest way to travel") to the Supes/Lois night flight "can you read my mind" call back. It's lazy, lazy, lazy writing, and a cheap way to get a laugh, and get the audience to transfer good will from earlier experiences. I could stomach the Ark callback in LAST CRUSADE because they were after a Christian relic and it didn't seem entirely out of place in a catacomb. But, in TEMPLE OF DOOM, they did a callback to a scene in a story that occurs later in the timeline, not earlier (the Indy-shoots-sword-guys scenes). That's the film-maker saying "fuck continuity and originality, let's just go for the laugh".
-
... but when Indy was reaching for the idol in RAIDERS, Zapito (that was his name, yes?) was watching and longingly miming getting his own hands on the idol.
-
keep the name weird and the copyright holders stay away????get it....
-
He was making "money money money" signs with his hands.
This exchange is reminiscent of our earlier exchange regarding Ash and Ripley in the med lab. -
Callbacks ARE evil. It detracts from the reality of the new film that is making those callbacks, because it makes the characters all seem like fans of Indiana Jones movies, not real characters in a real situation. Callbacks mean less room for NEW dialogue/situations. But it's summer, and that whole trailer "callbacked" to a really great movie, and for some reason I'm falling for it. As some pointed out, the Phantom Menace trailers looked pretty good too.
-
If you can't see why, you are just being a stubborn jackass.
-
...doesn't make it a retread by Spielberg.
-
Apr 30, 2008 12:55:22 PM CDT
SPOILER! short round kicks shia's ass at end of movie
by groothewarrior
-
Unless we see it in context, and he's reaching for a Crystal Skull or a pile of gold.
-
I feel Last Crusade is by far the weakest of the three for several reasons, chiefly in one word - Connery.
-
I feel Last Crusade is by far the weakest of the three for several reasons, chiefly in one word - Connery.
-
my laptop sucks
-
Forgot to mention that.
-
...he also reached longingly.
-
Is only really a "callback" if you think the first time Indy ever shot a guy with a sword was in Raiders. The first time WE ever saw Indy shoot a guy with a sword was in Raiders. The second time WE ever saw him attempt it was in Temple of Doom (regardless of the fact that Temple was a prequel). But anyone who's truly familiar with the character of Indiana Jones knows that Indy's shot MANY a swordsman in his lifetime. Just look at his face when he does it in Raiders. It's a total look of "Idiot. Bringing a sword to a gun fight." Conitinuity, schmontinuity. Seriously, are people really bitching about something as silly as a "callback"? As if any of the previous Indy flicks were loaded with them in the first place?
-
Thanks for the tip on the new trailer. I can't wait to see the movie. It looks great!
-
Apr 30, 2008 1:28:24 PM CDT
NoDiggity - If you like the prevalent callbacks in this trailer.
by mosquito march
...then you don't really even agree with me in principle. These callbacks are lazy and indefensible, when you consider that this film has been given carte blanche to do whetever it wants to do. If they spend their time and money cannibalizing scenes and lines from RAIDERS after 27 years when they can be doing something fresh and new, there's really no excuse. As far as EPISODE ONE goes, the problem wasn't a cannibalization of scenes and lines from the original trilogy - the problem was the new direction Lucas was taking really bore no resemblance to what had come before. This is largely because the anchors of the original films were Han, Luke and Leia. In the case of INDY 4, we have the same creative team (plus David Koepp...ugh) and the same two leads from RAIDERS. They have no excuse for letting Indy and Marion tread water after 27 years. They have the opportunity to let these characters create NEW iconic moments, things we could only get from THIS film. And, who knows? Maybe they have. But, the trailer is rife with references to shit we've already seen. And I find that far from comforting.
-
...he wasn't reaching. Seriously, you really need to actually rewatch these movies before making claims like that. This goes for Alien and Aliens as well.
-
You know damn well that nearly everybody who bought a ticket to TEMPLE in 1984 saw RAIDERS first. And the reason it's funny in TEMPLE is because we see Indy's easy solution from RAIDERS, in one of the most memorable movie scenes of all time, fail in the same situation. In fact, I would wager that the majority of the people who saw TEMPLE probably thought it was a sequel and not a prequel. They don't give a shit when it takes place - they laugh because they remembered what happened the last time.
-
...to other Indy movies, you're left with The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. That's not a personal dig on the show (I actually LOVED it), but one of the big complaints from some people was that it didn't feel "Indy enough."
-
Me thinks the other thread is where we belong...
-
for all your Indiana Jones-lovin comments, don't you know that ALfred Molina's character is named SATIPO not "Zapito"? I mean how am I supposed to take "Indy = Newt" arguments seriously when you obviously don't respect the original Indy movie. Secondly, that guy in the new trailer really doesn't look anything like Satipo. Can't you tell it's a "young" Abner Ravenwood reaching for something (likely related to a crystal skull?). He looks more like Alan Cumming from Circle of Friends than Satipo.
-
it hits high and low moments of action like a perfect frickin example of screenwriting. The only "slow" moments it has are there by design of the story. What, is Indy's expository speech to Eaton and Musgrove about the Ark and Staff of Rah too "boring" for you to lsten to? If all someone cares about is the chase and fight scenes, then you'll miss some good dialogue between Marion and Rene in the tent. I'm just being defensive of one of my favorite movies ever, but seriously, what parts are "slow" to you that could be cut?
-
Just having a little fun with the semantics of a callback being found in a prequel. And maybe that should be "some antics", not semantics. Either way, it's funny, and that's exactly the point.
-
On this one. I think the callbacks are, for the most part, lazy and cynical.
-
I haven't watched the trailer yet. I'll wait to see it the theater, but I've seen a couple posts complaining about the CGI in the cliff chase. All I can say is what I see on my computer never matches what I actually see on the big screen. I pay close attention to shots that look too CGI on computer and compare those shots to what I see at the theater. Generally I find that they don't look so bad on the big screen. I don't know why this is. I can't think of any clear examples right now, but I think of when I saw the Beowulf trailer on computer and thinking a lot of the shots resembled a mediocre video game cinematic, but they all looked fine on the big screen. It can be stated that CGI and film simply don't mix. If there are problems with the CGI in this movie, it will be because Spielberg still chooses to shoot on film. Arguably that's a good reason for him to not use CGI, but I'm at the point as a filmgoer where picking out CGI doesn't bother me any more than picking out blue-screening in older movies. It's a special effect, no matter how carefully crafted it is, it tends to pop out. You do the best you can with what you've got.According to the recent EW interview, Lucas prodded Spielberg to shoot with digital cameras, but Spielberg has a love for editing on film, which I completely respect. I think as long as CGI is composited to film, there will always be some discrepancy to be nit-picked. Having said all that, I personally think Lucas and Spielberg tend to know what they're doing when it comes to making movies, and the look of this film will be no worse than anything we've seen in their previous work. I can't fucking wait!
-
just because the CGI looks good, doesn't render any qualitative points for the rest of the movie (see SW Prequels or War of the Worlds) (is it my imagination, or did Winstone's CGI Pants look better this time?)
-
Anyone else think the dude strangling the brother in that Redbelt promo looks exactly like Jason Bateman?
-
In fact, I've been railing against the signs of retreading, callbacking, on these talkbacks all along. I've pointed out the still photo with Indy and Shia, where Indy has cobwebs on his hat (callback to Raiders), I've seen the still with Indy shrieking in fear at another snake, I've noted in disgust the scene in the early trailer where Indy knocks enemy military guides out of a military truck, just as he did in Raiders. I note the scary South American theme, the mechanical Temple Traps, the evil Leader of the enemy military types, the lazy use of the Warehouse from the first movie as a location for action. I note that everything that makes this trailer look good is due to point for point parallels with Raiders ... use of Raiders' Ark theme, Indy discussing the legend of the Crystal Skull in almost exactly the same way he did the Ark ... I've noted the apathetic way Ford and pretty much everyone deliver their lines ... I've been pissed off and disgruntled about it all for months. You are saying everying I've been saying.
And you are right. As am I. But it's been a long cold winter, the sun is shining, and this new, manipulative, cynical trailer has gottem past my intellect into my memory of how awesome Raiders was. And for now, I'm just enjoying it. I do note that Ford's line "You're embarassing us" just doesn't have a cool vibe to it at all, probably because it isn't calling back to anything.
One "callback" that we aren't sure will be in the movie yet, but we might as well assume is, is the line "It's not the mileage, it's the years", which Frank Darabont, the writer of a previously "rejected" script, was very proud of having put into that version of the script. It has to show up. Because retreading is what this new movie is all about. I'm just tired of the hating, and I'm just going to relax and accept it. -
As you'll note, I put a question mark next to "Zapito". I knew I had it wrong. I get a little dyslexic when I haven't had my coffee, and I haven't rewatched Raiders in quite a long time.
-
the same moments. Unlike dumb Prequel crap like "Qui Gon Jin would never join you."
-
Every single last one of them!!!!
-
I would have bet money that it was Jason Bateman. I actually went to IMDB to find out for sure.
-
You're reaching again, NoDiggity. And completely wrong about the "You're embarrassing us" line, too.
-
From Indy screenwriter David Koepp:"As much as he is a fan of Indy lore, Koepp says it’s essential to discard that point of view when tapping out further adventures. “You can’t write a fan script,” he insists. “You have to pretend that this movie exists without the other one.”
“The worst thing to do would be to have him make reference to things he said in the first movie, like to pun on lines of dialogue,” he argues. “That’s tempting, because you’ve seen the movie a hundred times and you know all the dialogue, but no human being remembers exactly what they said 25 years ago word for word, much less make reference to it. So you try to put aside the other movies and yet be in the spirit of them.”
So, if there are any blatant and annoying references to previous films in the movie, they are most likely not his fault. -
...please confirm that Paramount will attach the darn thing to "Iron Man" prints this weekend.
-
In Temple it was "You're insulting them, and you are embarrassing me." It's not something I would have recognized as a callback, but it is similar enough to count. It is another bad sign of uncreative dialogue writing, if so.
-
Though Marion's line is definitely a callback to the "I'm just making this up as I go along" line.
-
This is actually looking good to me now. Like they said above, lets hope the story is good, so far I'm not on board with the story but looks like they've captured some of the tone of the original and that's got my mouth watering.
-
http://tinyurl.com/4hmyjh
-
Some people just really don't have a clue what they're talking about.
-
can't f'n wait.
-
I can't argue qualitative points about a movie I haven't seen yet. Where in my post do I say anything about the CGI actually looking good?
-
It was the jump between cars to punch naughty russians that did it for me - for once no wire assisted-digital double -crazy jumping. Just a dude leaping between cars to punch another dude in the face
-
After seeing this trailer, there is no doubt that this is going to be the rip-snortinest flick this summer. Spielberg, Lucas and company have no doubt made another great action/adventure film. I have had no doubts about this film from the very beginning, and every scene-photo-trailer that we see is just making that even more clear. NOBODY can top these guys.
-
I just hope that when this film opens, Spielberg and his posse are jazzed enough to get another going right away. 19 years is just TOO EFFIN' LONG!
-
subject says it all
-
I've officially heard everything. Shit. That just blew my brain apart.
-
sorry, you were talking about CGI in films for most of your post, then at the end said "the look of this film will be no worse than anything we've seen in their previous work." I assumed when you said "the look" you were talking about the way the CGI effects would look in Indy IV. I'm excited for Indy, too. And AGree that SS and GL have generally done well when it comes to visual effects (if that is what you meant). I just meant that while the prequels had good effects work, it wasn't enough to make the films any better. Hopefully, this won't be the case with Indy.
-
"I'll be there opening night" about this film. But, i will be there opening week after I get married!
-
I just don't know what they guy was talking about. I wanted to give him a reasonable chance to explain himself, but seriously, WTF?!
-
Keep in mind that I'm not deluded enough to change anyone's mind and I respect your opinion... but seriously, Iron Man was beyond mediocre. All hype, no balls.
Indy IV may be terrible, who knows... But I feel that vibe, the one one you can feel from movies that got heart. A vibe I failed to notice in the whole 130 minutes of Iron Man. -
with SYNCHRONIZED audio!
http://tinyurl.com/4aja6v -
it was awesome.
-
it was awesome.
-
http://tinyurl.com/5vwudyIn FLV flash format.
-
Looks like those emailed links weren't as new as I had thought.
-
...but now I have every bit of faith in this movie.
-
tonight and it was awesome! I loved every line Indy delivered! My favorite is when he and LeBeef are in a cave reminiscent of the beginning of Raiders and Indy gives a worried look and tells LeBeef "Don't touch ANYthing" and the way he said to him "Come here genius." with that classic Indy sarcasm and smirk...even a bit reminiscent of old Han Solo. And the action was great too! Indy throw double punches a big a Russian who barely feels it reminded me of the Raiders mechanic fight and Indy jumping from one jeep to another to punch out some guys and Indy telling his sidekick to "..put your hands down you're embarrassing us." YEAH!!! INdy's back! Thank God! Iron Man was pretty great but it was still just lead-in for Indy 4 for me!
-
Iron who?
-
May 01, 2008 1:00:12 AM CDT
OOOh, you mean Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skul
by kirttrik
I got it.
-
subject says it all
-
subject says it all and more
-
Better than "Raiders"? Hell no, but as I've said before "Raiders" is one of the greatest movies ever made. Even with the crap YouTube quality you can see the detail and care that went into making this look like a classic Indy adventure. May 22 can't get here fast enough.
-
Diggers has mellowed and a new pointy-domed cretin has appeared to replace him. Re Sapito- You need to rewatch it diggers (just as you need to rewatch Alien and Aliens), you obviously haven't seen it in a long time- and you are miles off with this one. Remember how far off you were last time, this time you are even further away. and a note of warning- everyone ignore BraneRobot, he is the latest incarnation of the oft-banned but never lamented monster AnimalStructure/ Thunderballs. Just don't read his posts
-
Hey finky, we'll think of you, opening day. You'll be spiritually present in a way. This trailer is fantastic. Ford appears to nail that voice over. That's undeniably Henry Jones Jr. talking...and that somewhat goofy jump on the soldiers in the other vehicle... great stuff. 21 days to go.
-
Cool.
-
It's all cool. I only wanted to argue that CGI on a computer playback may not equate to what you see on the big screen. I gotta pick on the nit-pickers, ya know?
-
May 01, 2008 9:34:27 AM CDT
There are an inordinate amount of 'callbacks' in the trailers..
by specialbeats
..because they're trying to sell the film, and morons (the American audience) enjoy being reminded of things they've seen before. Especially when those things are 20 years old. So, to all of you geniuses who are hung up on the number of references in the latest trailer, you're either just a hater and your opinion doesn't matter anyway, or you're tremendously slow. Either way, minimize your embarrassment now and shut it already.
-
completely pointless. It's exactly the same as the old PG. All it means is that cretinous chav scum will bring their 9 year old sugar charged spawn in and ruin my day.
-
...stop using the phrase "callback". It's a poor fit for the phenomenon it's supposed to describe and wildly annoying.
Please stop.
Thank you. -
May 01, 2008 11:22:18 AM CDT
I'd never heard the term "callback" before this thread
by crazyhorse2099
Yet I used it like 5 times yesterday. The REAL definition of a callback it when an actor literally gets "called back" after an audtion to read for a part again.
I am more than willing to replace "callback" in my vernacular with a less assinine word. But until someone comes up with a better term , what do we have? "In-joke reference to a scene from a previous film in the series" doesn't actually roll off the tongue too well... -
I'll be with you all in spirit...except late in the night when I'm communing one-on-one with my new bride. Was that TMI?
-
Don't know? Then shut up. It works for the purposes of this conversation.
-
The absolute proper term would be Allude. You could use Allusion as well. Referential works. Or Cite, or even Cite-back.
-
As in referential.
-
... I actually think that's NOT a callback, or a "reference that reminds us of a line from a previous film, causing a frisson of recognition". The contexts are too dissimilar. But it still could be an unconscious reference on the writers part. "Something about Indy telling this guy he's embarrassing him seems right". Doesn't have to be on purpose or anything, and if it makes sense in a different context, and isn't just forcing a line in there, then it's fine.
-
I concur. Both infinitely better than the completely silly sounding "callback".
-
Because it's purpose it to call to mind moments from previous films.
-
.... and then try to tell people to stop using words "improperly".
-
yeah, but you aren't "calling" to mind. You are "recalling". So it should be "recallback", which sounds even dumber than "callback".
-
May 01, 2008 12:16:26 PM CDT
"They're making a'Ref' ", sounds better, than making a callback
by toadkillerdog
Ref has more flexibility, and callback already has a legit meaning in the industry for actors. No need for confusion.
-
Or somesuch ting
-
The context makes it perfectly clear that we aren't talking about actors being "called back" for roles in movies. Plenty of words have double meanings. Doc Pazuzu is an anal, bullying jerk, who has nothing to contribute except "Stop this, stop that, you are wrong, you suck."
-
because the term is already known and widely used for casting purposes, i.e when you get a "callback" for an audition. That is a "callback". Diggity, what you refer to as a "callback" is simply a reference to a previous film. Make up a new work that makes sense if yo umust, but don't pervert the use of one that already exists for a different purpose. These "callbacks" you cite are just references....and frankly, some of them aren't even that.
-
if you were to say to someone who hasn't followed this TB "hey, there were alot of callbacks in that new Indiana Jones movie" I would bet alot of cash that 9.5 out of 10 people would assume you were talking about the CASTING of the film, not things in the actual film that refer back to other Indy movies.
-
Not one person was confused. Until DocPazuzu, and his anal little "rule" about using language. If you want to insist on using the phrase "It's a call back to .." instead of "It's a callback", go right ahead. But there is not "rule" about it. A "callback" for actors is just some word that people made up to substitute for the idea of getting called to come back to read for a part that you'd already read for. It wasn't a word before that. Since we aren't talking about actors being called back for parts they've alread read, there is no way to be confused. People understand words based on the context in which they are used, and anyone who claims that they are "confused" by the word "callback" in a conversation about references to previous movies, that person is a MORON for not being able to figure out that context. Is DocPazuzu a moron? I leave that for you to decide? Do you agree with DocPazuzu ? I leave it to you whether you want to be seen as stupid as DocPazuzu. Or as anal. Or as a big jackass who likes to destroy conversations with his nastiness instead of contributing to them.
-
May 01, 2008 12:52:49 PM CDT
I don't see how "This line is a callback to that line" ...
by nodiggity
... can be confused with actors being called back. No one is going to be confused about that, because lines of dialogue, or scenes in a movie, are NOT actors. There can't be any confusion unless you are stupid enough to think that "line" and "scene" are the names of actors.
-
the term "prevmovieref"? Ah, yes. I'm a genius. Some examples of usage: This line prevmovierefs Raiders of the Lost Ark. This line prevmovierefs Last Crusade. I think it works and sounds great! Did I mention I'm completely mad? Muwahahahahaha!
-
May 01, 2008 12:58:44 PM CDT
NoDiggity, you're making this complex to make yourself "right"
by finky089
of course people in the TB aren't going to be confused: we're following the conversation. my whole point is that making up a new use for the word "callback" is unnecessary. It's a reference to something in an earlier film. If you want to call it a "callback", that's your business. I'm not tellign you to stop. I'm just telling you it's not necessary. I would, however, disagree with you on some of the thigns you see in this new Indy movie that you feel are specific "retreads" or "callbacks" to the the other Indy movies. Some are to be expected (for better or worse) because they already established a precedent for doing that as early as ToD ("no gun for the swordsman" bit.) But some of the ones you have mentioned I just don't see. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that. I'm not even going to try and change opinions that you're certainly entitled to have.
-
Only you are "shouting out" to previous film moments, or dialogue. "Calling Back" to those moments, or lines. Works for me, and I'm going to keep using it, just to annoy Pazuzu.
-
now, that's a good word we made up here on AICN. And while there will be many people who won't know what it means without any context behind it, it certainly won't confuse anyone due to an already existing meaning. ;)
-
I was actually thinking of giving you some props for the very salient points you made over at CHUD regarding their decision to cancel their version of Talkback.But I changed my mind.
-
I'll just take that as you having given me props. Thanks.
-
...we all now know where the word came from...
-
As in, NoDiggity (no doubt) believes that Indiana Jones's use of a bullwhip in INDY4 is a throwback to all three previous films.
-
Nope. I changed my mind.
-
Ah, yes...I remember when we used to sing about whether a particular film or actor/ess was Cheadly good.
http://tinyurl.com/32dba9
-
who actually used it in quotes. "callback". Meaning that it's a new use of the word to him as well. But new words and new uses of words happen all the time. That's why they update dictionaries over time to reflect changes in usage.
-
You have already confessed to thinking about it. IN YOUR MIND you had already given me props. You can't take that back. And again, thanks.
-
Good hunting. http://tinyurl.com/4vhenn
-
When people talk about something being a "Throwback" they generally mean that it has reverted to a similar style, not specifically intending to remind us of specific moments, or specific dialogue. You generally talk about films being "throwbacks" to the style of films of previous eras.
-
After your bizarrely obsessive display here today, I'm not sure how you were able to be somewhat lucid on the other website. So, I think you'll find my response a throwback to my previous one: NOPE. I CHANGED MY MIND.Please don't thank me for something that wasn't expressed outright.
-
Explain. Please.
-
Nice Gaius is totally allowed to take back his "prop giving". It doesn't matter what he thought or when he thought it. He ultimatly decided that you deserved no props. So you get none.
-
Wonder how CHUD would feel about discussing "callbacks" on their talkbacks...
-
... he shouldn't have mentioned considering giving me props. And considering it IS giving props, albeit not openly. And he ruined that by openly admitting to considering it. So I'll take that admission, and thank him for it. Thank You Nice Gaius!
-
... you are calling back a SPECIFIC actor, not asking for peope who are SIMILAR to that actor. So "call back" or "callback" refers to reminding us of specific dialogue or elements of a previous film. This is an example where I would argue that "Throwback" is confusing, since it's general usage is associated with a general STYLE not specific dialogue or elements.
-
Oh wait, wrong flick!
-
I can't decide if you're more in the habit of making shit up or pulling shit out of your ass. You are a dubious master of nonsensical arguments.
-
Thanks and you're welcome!
-
Your logic is absurd. What are you in fourth grade? CONSIDERING something and DOING something are two ENTIRELY different things. Surely you can grasp this, no?
Here's an example for you: I am CONSIDERING killing my boss this afternoon. That doesn't mean I am going to DO it. And it certainly doesn't mean that I DID it. In fact, until I actually DO kill my boss, NOTHING has actually transpired. Because I didn't DO anything. I just THOUGHT about it. Class dismissed. -
...the existing use of the word "callback"? stop before you dig yourself deeper in.
-
Or, are you clocking in for your next 18 hour troll-shift at AICN?
-
Prevmovieref is the term to use! Now let's stop all this pointless bickering and be friends. Why, there's a whole slew of great geekfilms in store for us in the coming months. Let's come together and shower the theaters in our man-goo all summer long. If people ask what happened, we'll tell them, "It was ghost. He slimed me."
-
I meant to say - "It was a ghost." Hope I didn't confuse anyone.
-
I think I hear some billy goats coming.
-
I love it!
-
You stupid, stupid person. You don't even know what you're trying to talk about, do you?
-
The revolution has begun! Who else will join me? Let me provide a good example of the usage of this fine fine term.Did you notice that line Indy said in the new IJATKOTCS trailer was a prevmovieref to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?Why yes, I did notice that line Indy said in the new IJATKOTCS trailer was a prevmovieref to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.Hmm, perhaps instead of saying Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, we should say, IJATTOD.No, I don't like that idea too much. It's silly. It might be a handy abbreviation to use in an AICN talkback though.What's AICN stand for?I don't really know, but those prevmoiverefs in the new IJATKOTCS trailer just have me gooin' in my pants.Oh, I wouldn't say they're that good.END OF EXAMPLE OF USAGE OF TERM PREVMOVIEREF.Holy shit, the things I do when I'm bored at work. Catch y'all later. About to go see early showing of Iron Man. Can't wait to see the new IJATKOTCS trailer! Haven't actually watched it yet. Discipline, gentlemen, is the key to happiness.
-
I'm goofing around with Nice Gaius. Stop taking it all so seriously
-
Try telling him that you are CONSIDERING killing him, and see if he doesn't feel a little offended, even if you don't actually do it.
-
NoDiggity truly is crazier than a shithouse rat.
What a heroic display of mental masturbation! -
... when are you EVER going to contribute anything positive? Even a positive comment about the new Indy trailer? Nothing? Zero? Zilch? Nada?
You are such a negative tool. -
May 01, 2008 4:34:33 PM CDT
NoDiggity, calm down, brah. We're all just havin' fun here
by crazyhorse2099
At your expense.
-
Because it's way more annoying than "callback".
-
...I posted a very positive reaction in the last Indy TB.
You're still a fruitcake. -
...to every other talkback where NoDiggity got keelhauled. Does that make this talkback a... haulback?
-
Dear God...
-
that was not a "callback" to anything Indy-related was it?
-
Actually, that is a callback to the quiet, father and son bonding moment Indy and Henry Jones Sr. share aboard the zeppelin.
-
Yes, which is a callback to the recent Iron Man talkback where ringwearer9 went into a frothing rage over how stupid comic fans are for not accepting their precious texts being altered in the movies.
-
spoilers ........
there are giant ants. -
...needed more proof of how nutty NoDiggity is, look at his comments regarding Gremlins and Gremlins 2 in the Gremlins talkback...
What a fucking asshat. -
What on earth happened here. Diggers you have hit new depths of pointy-headedness. The correct term is surely "reference". As in KOTCS references ROLA by having Indy rescue his hat. Why the fuck do people feel the need to make up new terms or misapply actual words (FOR THE RECORD ANYONE THAT USES "ACTION" AS A VERB SHALL HAVE THEIR GENITALS CUT OFF AND FED TO A GRABOID. SAME GOES FOR THE WORD "PROACTIVE")? reference will do fine.
-
Don't you diggers? Why don't you proactively showcase your analytical skills and action me a 300 word report vis a vis Newt=Jones?
-
I heard you finally absorbed the genius that is Deathstalker!
-
I nearly threw up laughing. Although, I struggle to think of my favourite bit, but the pigman fight has to be a contender. Either that or when he tries to shag the guard disguised as the princess (worst transformation ever filmed). I still maintain that it is the fact that it is all so fucking po-faced that makes it magnificent.
-
That's part of my reasoning as to why Diggers is in middle managemet. Probably for a governmnet organisation like the DLV.
-
...is the "manly" death-wrestle between Deathstalker and his foe, shot in soft focus.
As for his female sidekick, that's none other than the late Lana Clarkson who that bastard Phil Spector shot in the face.
A million pencils of torment await his black heart in Hell. -
...of Deathstalker is indeed what makes it so great. There is not a trace of self-irony or tongue-in-check present. The jokey feel of Deathstalker 2 is why I hate it so much. Only Monique Gabrielle's amazing (and nude) body saves that one from oblivion.
-
Fucking hell...
-
when he says to the king at the beginning that he isn't going to save the princess and then spends the rest of the movie, erm, saving the princess. Or the tattoo that keeps moving on the villain's head. And the fact that he keeps his all powerful magic amulet pinned to a wall. Or that Deathstalker has a sword that makes him invulnerable when he is holding it. So he keeps putting it down for no apparent reason. There's a great drinking game to be constructed out of it.
-
Must be back on his meds.
-
we're all complete phiistines that will clearly never understand that Gremlins is mean spirited, Indy has a milliner in his entourage and a cat is the same as a 9 year old girl.
-
http://www.darkhorizons.com/trailers.php
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 325 total posts 322 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 106 total posts 106 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 63 total posts 60 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 74 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 159 total posts 51 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 47 total posts 41 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 161 total posts 34 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 488 total posts 33 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 121 total posts 23 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 70 total posts 20 posts