quote: Martin Brooks

---

I didn't think Ep 1 and 3 were all that bad (except for some of the dialog and acting.)

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

It'll be in the 50's this time? How boring. Nothing worthwhile happened in the 50's.

---

How about INDIANA JONES AND THE RED MENACE?

"Commies, I hate those guys."

Make it real 1950's and film it in 3-D.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-14-2007, 12:19 PM:
 
Hillary! ROFL!!
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-14-2007, 12:59 PM:
 
I think they should do something with Roswell.
 

---

Posted by Hillary Charles (Member # 769) on 02-14-2007, 01:58 PM:
 
Tim, you're my greatest fan! Really my only fan, but you DO have good taste.

Mike, I like your idea about using Roswell. I would insist he is in a race with commie spies to get the alien secrets of anti-gravity and a source of unlimited energy. Of course, at the end, it's all locked away in some big warehouse supposedly being examined by--you guessed it---"top men."
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-15-2007, 03:06 PM:
 
Heh-heh. You have a good sense of humor, Hillary, and just say things that make me laugh out loud. What can I say?


 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-19-2007, 03:36 PM:
 
To say Georgy baby won't have final say on ANYTHING to do with Indy 4 is insane...I don't care if his credit is second second assistant to the guy who took out the trash...we all know who's pushing the buttons.

One can only hope it compares to the others...even T.O.D... I'm worried though with Harrison's increasing years that it could end up looking like Roger Moore's 'A View To A Kill'...20% Roger and 80% stuntman.

Steven Spielberg should set the setting on a sure course though...let's hope, eh?
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 02-24-2007, 08:43 PM:
 
Hmm...If they push it back to 1947 instead of the 50s, Roswell would work. I like that idea. Indy could be searching for American Indian artifacts or they could come up with some B.S. about the Mayans being in New Mexico and the artifacts could be alien instead. It could be "Indiana Jones and the Close Encounter of the Third Kind".

Harrison Ford is 64. The Indiana Jones character was born in 1898. That would make him 57 in 1955. Okay..I guess that's close enough. (But in '47, Indy would have been 49. I don't think Ford can convincingly play 49 anymore, so maybe the Roswell idea is out. Of course, the script has already been written anyway.) Indy's father would be about 87 in 1955, so they could even use Sean Connery again in the film if they wanted to.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-24-2007, 10:05 PM:
 

quote: Martin Brooks

---

The Indiana Jones character was born in 1898.

---

Actually, his birthdate in July 1st, 1899.

And the fact that I know that off the top of my head says all sorts of things about me that I'm not quite ready to deal with yet.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-24-2007, 11:03 PM:
 
Well at least you dont care if Greedo shot first. Oh wait, you probably do...
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-18-2007, 04:03 PM:
 
http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/ap/20070317/117417318000.html

quote:

---

Blanchett Could Be 'Indy's' Next Love

Saturday March 17 4:13 PM ET

Cate Blanchett is in negotiations to star opposite Harrison Ford in the long-awaited fourth installment of the "Indiana Jones" series, her publicist confirmed Saturday.

"She is in negotiations, yes," publicist Lisa Kasteler told The Associated Press. She did not elaborate.

Filming is scheduled to begin later this year, with Steven Spielberg on board to direct. The movie is being produced by "Star Wars" creator George Lucas' Lucasfilm Ltd.

Ford played Indiana Jones in 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark," 1984's "Temple of Doom" and 1989's "The Last Crusade."

Blanchett, who won a best supporting actress Oscar in 2004 for "The Aviator" starred in last year's "Notes on a Scandal" and "Babel."

---

 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-18-2007, 04:42 PM:
 
Well, that's it then...it'll be Cate.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-19-2007, 10:44 AM:
 
It says on the Sydney Morning Herald website that she's already signed.



Blanchett and the older hunk

From Sydney Confidential

March 19, 2007 07:31am

SHE was seduced by a school student in her last flick - and it looks like the age gap won't be much different for Cate Blanchett's next potential on-screen affair.

The sultry siren, who played high school teacher Sheba Hart in Notes on a Scandal, has just signed on to star alongside ageing Harrison Ford in an upcoming addition to the Indiana Jones series.

While the specifics of Blanchett's role are being kept under wraps - along with David Koepp's screenplay - it is believed the 36-year-old beauty will feature prominently in the flick.

However, it has been revealed Ford will definitely be reprising the title role he made famous in the '80s - though, at 64, it's unsure whether he will be more convincing in the role of intrepid archaeologist or one of his fossils more than a quarter of a century after the original hit the big screen.

Not that he is likely to be the oldest cast member on set, with Sean Connery also linked to the project - reprising his role as Indiana's father.

Steven Spielberg will direct the flick - currently known simply as Fourth Instalment of the Indiana Jones Adventures - when it starts shooting in June, with Star Wars creator George Lucas signing on to produce.

Blanchett received an Oscar nomination for her role in Notes on a Scandal, in which she had to act out love scenes with 18-year-old up-and-comer Andrew Simpson.

Her Hollywood star has been constantly on the rise since picking up the best supporting actress Oscar in 2004 for The Aviator.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-08-2007, 07:50 PM:
 
IMDb News Item

quote:

---

Lucas Still Trying To Sign Connery for Jones Movie

Movie mogul George Lucas refuses to give up on recruiting Sean Connery for the fourth Indiana Jones movie, despite the Scottish star's reluctance to sign on as the adventurer's father. Connery has been linked to the upcoming fourth Indiana Jones movie, but insists he's not that interested in reprising his role as Henry Jones from Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade. That hasn't stopped persistent Lucas, who says, "We're still trying."

In other Indiana Jones casting news, Lucas admits he was stunned when director Steven Spielberg told him he wanted to sign Cate Blanchett as Jones' love interest in the new film. He tells newspaper USA Today, "That's who my director wanted and I always bow to the wishes of my director. I approved it because she seemed like a good idea. When I met her at the Academy Awards, I told her, 'Hey, you work for me now!'"

---

 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-08-2007, 08:09 PM:
 
What about when his director wished to use the Frank Darabont script?
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-09-2007, 03:16 AM:
 
If Connery doesn't sign...will this ever get off the ground? I'm assuming Indiana's Dad would have a rather large hunk of the script...if he's not signing then that's a pretty serious re-write meaning a major delay in the production.

One assumes they have a 'Plan B' script.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-09-2007, 03:42 AM:
 
Does anybody still give a shit? Lucas and Spielberg are just intensely boring these days, both in the films they make, and in their proclamations.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-09-2007, 05:27 AM:
 
I'm pretty sure Harrison Ford does.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-09-2007, 11:13 AM:
 
I care, because this will (hopefully) be one of the better films these guys have made in decades.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-09-2007, 11:20 AM:
 
If Sean Connery won't do it, they should get Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton or Daniel Craig.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-09-2007, 11:25 AM:
 
LOL!

I care, because George Lucas is my hero!
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-09-2007, 04:06 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

If Sean Connery won't do it, they should get Roger Moore, Pierce Brosnan, Timothy Dalton or Daniel Craig.

---

Hey Mike, don't forget George Lazenby!
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-09-2007, 08:42 PM:
 
I was thinking he was dead, but Wikipedia just proved me wrong!
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-10-2007, 03:08 AM:
 
I'm sure he'll be happy to read that.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 04-13-2007, 10:51 PM:
 
Yahoo!/AP News Story

quote:

---

LaBeouf to star in new `Indiana Jones'

Fri Apr 13, 1:15 PM ET

LOS ANGELES - After months of building Internet buzz, this can finally be reported as fact: Shia LaBeouf has been cast in the upcoming "Indiana Jones" movie.

Producer George Lucas and director Steven Spielberg announced Friday that LaBeouf will appear alongside Harrison Ford in the fourth installment of the adventure franchise, scheduled for release May 22, 2008. Production is set to begin in June.

"We are excited about bringing Shia into our Indy family," Spielberg said in a statement on the "Indiana Jones" Web site. "His talent has impressed not only his audiences throughout his young career but the directors, producers and fellow actors who have worked with him in his television career and now his film career."

Paramount, a division of Viacom Inc., declined Friday to say what role LaBeouf would be playing.

The 20-year-old actor told The Associated Press in March that the persistent Internet rumors about his casting in the film were just that — rumors.

"The way that thing started, it's just wild how it snowballed," LaBeouf told the AP then. "I don't have a deal on the table, it's just a rumor. Would I do it? In a second. It'd be working for a legend and working with legends. Who wouldn't? But is it something I'm doing right now? No. I'm an out-of-work actor."

It's a busy weekend for the up-and-coming actor. He stars in "Disturbia," a high-tech, teen version of "Rear Window," which opened Friday; then he's hosting NBC's "Saturday Night Live" on Saturday.

LaBeouf also co-stars in this summer's "Transformers" movie for Spielberg's DreamWorks Pictures, and provides the voice of one of the penguins in the animated "Surf's Up." His previous films include "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints," "The Greatest Game Ever Played" and "Holes." He also won a Daytime Emmy in 2003 for the Disney Channel series "Even Stevens."
___

On the Net:

Indiana Jones:
http://www.indianajones.com/

---

quote:

---

Sean Connery Won't Be Back for 'Indy 4'
Thursday June 7 1:41 PM ET

The next "Indiana Jones" flick will not be another father-son affair. Sean Connery says he will not return to play dad to Harrison Ford's globe-trotting adventurer Indy.

Connery played Indy's father in 1989's "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," the third installment of the franchise directed by Steven Spielberg and produced by George Lucas.

"I get asked the question so often, I thought it best to make an announcement," Connery, 76, said in a statement posted Thursday on Lucasfilm's "Indiana Jones" Web site. "I thought long and hard about it, and if anything could have pulled me out of retirement it would have been an `Indiana Jones' film."

"I love working with Steven and George, and it goes without saying that it is an honor to have Harrison as my son," he said. "But in the end, retirement is just too damned much fun."

The fourth "Indiana Jones" film, not yet titled, is again directed by Spielberg and produced by Lucas. Shooting begins the week of Monday, June 18, at an undisclosed U.S. location, and the movie is due out May 22, 2008.

Lucasfilm also announced Thursday that Cate Blanchett, John Hurt and Ray Winstone will be joining the cast, which along with Ford, includes Shia LaBeouf.

Connery who played the bookish Henry Jones Sr. in "The Last Crusade" and affectionately called his son "Junior" did have some words for the 64-year-old Ford.

"I do, however, have one bit of advice for Junior: Demand that the critters be digital, the cliffs be low, and for goodness sake keep that whip by your side at all times in case you need to escape from the stunt coordinator!" Connery said. "This is a remarkable cast, and I can only say, `Break a leg, everyone.'"

Lucas and Spielberg have been working with a variety of screenwriters over the years on the long-awaited sequel. The filmmakers have kept the story under wraps, with Lucas, Spielberg and Ford saying in interviews only that it would take place sometime after World War II. The first three movies were set in the mid- to late 1930s.

Among speculation the filmmakers have yet to confirm or deny is whether Karen Allen, Indy's romantic interest in 1981's "Raiders of the Lost Ark," might return. There also have been rumors that Kate Capshaw Spielberg's wife and Indy's love interest in 1984's "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" might appear in the fourth film.

Lucas and Spielberg are maintaining tight secrecy because details on story and casting are still being worked out and because they want to save some surprises for audiences, said Spielberg spokesman Marvin Levy.

"This is the closest to the vest I've seen. Does Indy wear a vest?" Levy said. "We have more speculation about a number of people than anything I have ever encountered."

---

 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-06-2007, 03:09 PM:
 
Cameras are rolling kids!

Who'd-a thought this would finally get going?

The first day of shooting...

After the long wait and the doubts...now it's actually happening, I'm getting excited.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-07-2007, 01:21 AM:
 
First day of shotting????

People who can't spell piss me off. They should really try to learn their own language.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-30-2007, 11:41 AM:
 
Karen Allen has been announced to return as Marion Ravenwood in the new Indy film...in fact, she´s already on set.




Wonder when they´ll announce Sean Connery´s back too?
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 07-30-2007, 07:10 PM:
 
As per the earlier posts, Connery is not coming back - he's decided to stay retired. According to the reports, he won't even do a cameo. Guess he doesn't need the money.

I'm sure they'll rewrite Connery's role as Indy's father to be an "uncle" or something similar.
 

---

Posted by John Walsh (Member # 168) on 07-30-2007, 07:59 PM:
 
About damn time they put Karen Allen back in. Kate Capshaw was a waste. Sadly, it's also gonna be the first Indy film not released in 70mm.
 

---

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 08-03-2007, 08:58 AM:
 

quote: John Walsh

---

About damn time they put Karen Allen back in. Kate Capshaw was a waste. Sadly, it's also gonna be the first Indy film not released in 70mm.

---

I bet Steven Spielberg did not think so

i am looking forward to It anyway , If they come close to to first one it will be a good flick indeed
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 08-05-2007, 02:36 PM:
 

quote: John Walsh

---

Sadly, it's also gonna be the first Indy film not released in 70mm

---

Never say never!

Roll on Indy IV
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-10-2007, 08:45 PM:
 
It's got a title. Here's a clip from imdb.com:

Shia LaBeouf, who costars in the next Indiana Jones sequel, revealed the title of the movie during his appearance at Sunday night's MTV Video Awards festivities. Although telling the audience that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas had sworn him to secrecy about the title, LaBeouf remarked, "We're in Vegas, baby, so here it goes." He said that Spielberg and Lucas had decided on Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as the title. That title was one of five registered by Lucasfilm with the MPAA last month. Others included ...The Lost City of Gold, ...The City of Gods, ...The Fourth Corner of the World, and The Quest for the Covenant.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-10-2007, 11:19 PM:
 
And you know what's going to be spelled out on the marquee?

Indy 4

Even if there is enough space on the sign face to hold all the letters in one of those titles, there's only so many letters some high school kid is going to be willing to fart with. A good windy day and how those suction cup pole things work is going to inspire abbreviation pretty quick. Before too much longer, we'll all have to be fluent in high school kid text message/chat room code to decipher movie title shorthand on the marquees.

Does anyone know what kind of abbreviation will be used to display The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford on a marquee? TAOJJBTCRF?

 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-10-2007, 11:45 PM:
 
We'll put the full title of both films on our marquee. The high school kid who "farts with" our letters will have no say in the matter, because that's what I'll tell him to do.

A few years ago some tourist in town actually came to the movie because of the fact we had a long title completely spelled out on our marquee. He told me, "You have such attention to detail on the marquee, I had to check the rest of the place out." So even the dumb little things do pay off sometimes.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-11-2007, 02:53 AM:
 
'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' huh?

I guess it'll grow on me...at least it's nowhere near as 'The Phantom Menace' or 'Attack Of The Clones'.

Hey Mike, you going to change the title of the thread now?
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 09-11-2007, 03:39 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Does anyone know what kind of abbreviation will be used to display The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford on a marquee?

---

"Bob deletes Jesse"
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-11-2007, 06:03 AM:
 


OK...Now I like it.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-11-2007, 11:01 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

We'll put the full title of both films on our marquee.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

The high school kid who "farts with" our letters will have no say in the matter, because that's what I'll tell him to do.

---

Unless of course you have more important tasks for him to attend to completing instead of spending a bunch of time screwing around with a title boasting 42 letters in it. If your sign has two sides to it, double the letter count -and perhaps look forward to running out of certain characters in a usually limited "font" of changeable copy letters.

And there's the factor of motorists only being able to read so much crap on a sign as they whizz by the movie theater (which is also one reason why you don't see a lot of those kinds of signs even getting built at all at a lot of new movie theaters).

I'm very certain most movie theaters are going to be spelling out that title as "Indy 4." The customers will get it.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-11-2007, 11:30 AM:
 
I agree with you that most places will put up "Indy 4" or at maybe just "Indiana Jones."

Our sign was built in circa 1932. Originally it had two stiff wires running across each row, with wood letters that had metal clips on the back which attached to these wires.

Those letters are all gone now, and were replaced sometime before the 1960s with ones that were hand-cut (as far as I can tell) out of masonite, which we still use today. They don't have hooks or anything -- they just sit in the tracks behind the wires (most of which are still there). So, what font it is I couldn't tell you...but we have room for 22 letters on each of 3 rows. So we'll get the whole title on, plus we'll have room for the showtimes and the rating too. The letters are about 8 or 9 inches tall, I think. Our marquee kid will bang it out in about 25 minutes.

As for people whizzing by -- nobody "whizzes" here, we have a 25 MPH speed limit and a stop sign on the corner so that's not a problem.

Here's a picture from 1980 when we were getting new doors, before the neon was restored. I wonder what font the hand-cut letters are closest to?


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-11-2007, 12:15 PM:
 
Having three lines of track to display one title for one movie theater screen is certainly a lot more convenient and practical. It's rare that any multiplex has that luxury.

The letters on your marquee appear to pre-date slotted Wagner plastic letters that installed on rails. As to the style of font, it looks somewhat similar to the "Modern" style Wagner and Gemini sell in their Zip Change and Pronto changeable copy letters. Commercially sold computer fonts like FF Gothic look even closer.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-11-2007, 01:52 PM:
 
I used to work at the now-defunct drive-in here...their letters went on rails, but they had "spring" clips on the back, so there was no way to change them with a pole. You had to get up near the sign and pull them off, and hammer them on with your fist.

Here's another cool (but fuzzy) pic I dug up, featuring my old boss, Don Herndon. Check the terrible 1970s paint scheme on the theatre! Orange, green, white and yellow. Looked like a pile of sherbet.

 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-11-2007, 02:10 PM:
 
Yeah, those color schemes from the 1970's (and even the 50's and 60's) were sometimes pretty odd. However, a lot of those old signs had porcelainized paint jobs. Extremely durable. The finish could last for decades without noticeable fading. Hardly anyone these days is willing to pay the expense for that kind of longevity. But with the way brand schemes change (or even building occupants for that matter) there may not be much point.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-11-2007, 03:46 PM:
 
(Yea Mike, you were playing with those large Wagner 3-D letters at that Dr-In..true, no way a pole change with those letters..)

..have to admit though..with that old pict of the ROXY with that wild color scheme, it definitely drew attention being such bright colors and showed a definite positive, movie going "magical" attitude... none of this gloomy dark stuff which you don't want in a theatre atmosphere...like this one below:


 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 09-12-2007, 04:33 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Does anyone know what kind of abbreviation will be used to display The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford on a marquee?

---

"ASS COWARD FORD", of course.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-12-2007, 07:09 PM:
 
Good one, Sam.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-12-2007, 11:48 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Although telling the audience that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas had sworn him to secrecy about the title, LaBeouf remarked, "We're in Vegas, baby, so here it goes."

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

We'll put the full title of both films on our marquee.

---

Yeah, I don't understand why you would waste the time. Theres attention to detail, then there is this. Indy 4 or even Indiana Jones 4 would work fine for everyone. By the time the movie comes close to release everyone will know the title and everyone will know its the 4th Indiana Jones movie. Putting up the entire title is just ridiculous. Also..the Jesse James movie...well, unless there is another movie about Jesse James, why isn't "The Assassination of Jesse James" good enough? When I first saw the entire title of the this movie, I though it was stupid. Seeing the entire thing in lights would be just as stupid. We have LED, and we still won't put up the entire title...not because we can't, but because we don't have too. How many people come up to the box office and properly announce the entire title of movies like that? I can here it now...

Customer: "One for for Indiana Jones please"
Box: "Huh? We aren't showing anything called Indiana Jones"
Customer: "Wha?"
Box: "Ohhh, you must mean Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I'm sorry, for a second there, I didn't have ANY clue as to what you were talking about"


 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-13-2007, 02:26 AM:
 
I'll spell out an entire title if I have room. If we have 4 screens of the same movie it sure beats repeating the same title 4 times.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-13-2007, 10:26 AM:
 
Mike's got a single screen. Indiana Jones and the Kingdome of the Crystal Skull will no doubt have the entire cinema from week one through week four (or six?) so what else will go there?

If you've got the space...use it.

I went past Bass Hill Drive-In here this week...they have a great marquee and they're showing in the twin DI 'Ratatouille' with 'Bridge To Terabithia' and in the other screen: 'Hairspray' with 'License To Wed'

Not that anyone driving past would know this as there's nothing useful on the marquee...it doesn;t say what's on, it says:

GATES OPEN
MOVIES START

Literally. Not what's on, no times, just those two lines.

How useless is that? AND it's owned by one of the three biggest cinema chains in Australia. I wonder if the bosses know what's (not) going on out there?

Bottom line...if you've got the space for someone to read something, then use it.
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-13-2007, 10:52 AM:
 
Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean that you HAVE to. Why spell out the entire name of a very lengthy movie title when the first two words would do exactly the same thing for you. It seems like a waste of time, energy and resources.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-13-2007, 10:54 AM:
 
Fitting as much stuff as possible in available space does not always work. In Mike's case, he has three lines available. And the traffic is driving by at a slow speed. For signs that are viewed mainly from a moving vehicle, those viewing conditions are rare.

Most signs and billboards need to project their message in an instant. The design must pass "the glance test." If it takes more than a second or two for the driver to read the message the design is a failure. A movie title as long as a full blown sentence will fail the glance test along a busy street or highway.

I laugh at signs that look more like a phone book ad. Most drivers aren't explicitly meaning to read a sign they see near the road either. It's just background garbage to them. But if the message projects itself instantaneously the driver is more likely to get the message whether he wants to receive it or not. This is one reason why simply going with a good logo or brand name is all you need. McDonalds gets a lot of sales because drivers can recognize one of their pole signs at distances of up to a mile or more.

Movie theater marquees don't work well next to a street because in most cases there's just too much copy for drivers to read effectively in an instant. You're concentrating on reckless drivers speeding near you in traffic, or yakking on your mobile phone, fiddling with the radio, etc. Who's going to have time to read 16 titles on a changeable copy sign?

I like it that a lot of movie theaters are simply going to LED-based electronic variable message centers mounted near the box office. Customers are on foot then and can stand there scanning through titles and show times. Most (but not all) people usually check the Internet or newspaper listings to see if the movie they want to see is playing at that multiplex. That's all the more reason why a hulking huge changeable copy sign next to the street is pointless. It's better to go with a more simple sign advertising the theater itself.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-13-2007, 10:57 AM:
 

quote: Frank Dubrois

---

Indy 4 or even Indiana Jones 4 would work fine for everyone. By the time the movie comes close to release everyone will know the title and everyone will know its the 4th Indiana Jones movie. Putting up the entire title is just ridiculous.

---

Hate to break this to you Frank, but the bottom line and the most important reason for putting up the whole title if possible is SHOWMANSHIP. Having the whole title looks better, reads better and just is better. Not to mention respect for the title and the filmmakers.

We get our neon fixed if a tube breaks...but why? The sign is just as readable without the decorative neon. Why spend the money on decoration? That's just ridiculous.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 09-13-2007, 11:24 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-13-2007, 12:51 PM:
 
To expand on my reasoning-we have a two sided marquee that is perpendicular to the road outside the mall we're located in. To be more specific it is located at the corner of the main road and the mall's service road. Drivers entering the mall from one direction only see one side of the sign, drivers entering from the other direction only see the other side. There are only six spaces on each side (12 screen theatre). If a movie is showing on 2 screens then I will put its title on both sides, abbreviating if necessary to fit it on one line. If a movie is showing on four screens, however (as often happens during the summer) the only other option besides spelling out longer titles would be to put it up twice on each side. That just looks foolish in my opinion.

Even if I don't have to I'll spell out as much as possible. For example, 'Pirates 3' would take up 1/4 to 1/3 of the available space on one line of our marquee. Leaving all that white space looks shitty so I spelled out 'Pirates of the Caribbean 3' and with the rating it fit rather nicely. When we first opened Pirates the next line of the marquee on both sides said 'At Worlds End' along with the rating.

All that being said I don't know if I'd have room to spell out the full Indy title of the Jesse James movie. One must strike a balance .
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-13-2007, 06:17 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

a hulking huge changeable copy sign next to the street is pointless.

---

Agreed there. But I still think a movie theatre ought to have a marquee outside its building with the titles showing. A pet peeve of mine is when you have to find a parking spot and then walk half a mile (through a crowd, maybe) just to get close enough to find out IF a movie is showing in a particular building. I can see where this would be a lot more of a challenge with a many-screened cinema.
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-13-2007, 08:03 PM:
 
Changing neon or light bulbs isn't the same thing. I agree those items should be repaired when they go out, but come on.... It's just nonsense to put up the entire title of a movie that is that long.

I'm just curious...what did you do for Borat?
 

---

Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 09-13-2007, 08:17 PM:
 
Why on Earth would you care what Mike is having people "waste" their time on? You have no vested interest in his theatre, do you?

Back to the original subject. This title sounds adventuresome and fun, just like the others, but it does nothing for my want-to-see factor. I kind of thought when they used the word "Last" in the previous title, it meant the last of the series, not "Last... until we need more money almost 20 years later"
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-13-2007, 08:33 PM:
 
(Dang Mike! .. we need more of your type in this business - to really show the outside world and this "Mentality of a 16yr old generation" what "SHOWMANSHIP" is really about!)

Keep up the good work Mike, you deserve it!

-Monte
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 09-13-2007, 08:34 PM:
 
Perhaps it was meant to mean Henry Jones Snr's Last Crusade.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 09-13-2007, 08:36 PM:
 
My guess is that Mike did not play Borat at the Roxy.

In a small town like Mike's, SHOWMANSHIP is the number 1 thing. The patrons that keep coming every week don't just come because its there, they come because its all about the old time movie theater feel, the customer is KING and the Showmanship aspect.

These things are not prevalent in the big markets. But they are still huge in the small local market.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 09-13-2007, 09:01 PM:
 
...also, Mike needs to do ALL the best he can do the basic..and that is to survive - let alone being as successful as he can and keep his reputation that he has worked hard for and rightfully owned..and to keep competition out.

Granted, it's an old theatre - a theatre that most of our grandparents would have attended. It's not a theatre that 12 to 16yr old in our large cities enjoy attending. But, give Mike the credit due: he's done and still doing his best.

Plus, think of the great service that he's rendering to the small community of Forsyth, MONT. He has wholeheartly given to this small community that he has a theatre for them to attend-to be safe, confortable and to have the "magical moviegoing experience" that they all deserve. Not a theatre for the Blakesley's to own and where the community MUST serve the Blakesley's so the Blakesley's can fatten their back pockets.

Unfortunately, there are these two kinds of small theatre businesses, above mentioned, around an area that I know of, and it's amazing whom the public will feel better attending.

One really needs to work in a small venue like this to really understand what is really there. And, it's amazing how the story really unfolds and how the truth can also be told directly...and I've been there and done that, is the reason of me explaining this to all.

-Monte
 

---

Posted by Frank Dubrois (Member # 3042) on 09-13-2007, 09:09 PM:
 
So he makes more money by using the FULL title of films on the marquee? Hmm....interesting. I'm assuming there are statistics and numbers to prove this? Theres nothing wrong with showmanship, my point was that putting up the entire title of that movie, or any other, is not necessary. Showmanship has nothing to do with it. Maybe he enjoys doing that kind of thing because he feels its necessary, whatever. It isn't necessary, it's not even one of those little things that would get compliments. Its simply added time and effort that isn't needed.

quote: Chad Souder

---

Why on Earth would you care what Mike is having people "waste" their time on? You have no vested interest in his theatre, do you?

---

quote: Frank Dubrois

---

It's just nonsense to put up the entire title of a movie that is that long.

---

quote: Frank Dubrois

---

Showmanship has nothing to do with it. Maybe he enjoys doing that kind of thing because he feels its necessary, whatever. It isn't necessary, it's not even one of those little things that would get compliments.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

A few years ago some tourist in town actually came to the movie because of the fact we had a long title completely spelled out on our marquee. He told me, "You have such attention to detail on the marquee, I had to check the rest of the place out." So even the dumb little things do pay off sometimes.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

See, right there I made at least 15 bucks that I wouldn't have otherwise.

---

So let me get this straight. You know for a fact that you made that $15 for no other reason other than you spelled out the entire title on your marquee? I doubt that. But like I said, whatever. Do what you want, I don't think its necessary. I also don't think it's necessary to think I care any less about showman ship than anyone else just because I don't see the need to spell out an obnoxiously long movie title.

quote: Daryl C. W. O'Shea

---

Often I consider not running the entire movie. Some of them are so unnecessarily long that it's just silly nonsense.

---

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

Spelling out long titles with a letter pole might be a pain I suppose and perhaps more effor than it is worth

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Daryl was making a joke (and a good one at that). Try to keep up.

---

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

This discussion is taking a rather unescessary nasty turn, lets keeps it civilized here, we're all adults.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Don't flip "n's" upside down for that makes you look like a redneck that flunked kindergarten.

---

There is a Napa auto parts store across the street from the Roxy...they have 3 different No Parking signs around the store ALL of which have all the N's backwards. That kind of thing drives me nuts too.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Weigel (Member # 4208) on 02-12-2008, 12:22 PM:
 
Got word that the trailer will debut this weekend on Spiderwick (attached) and Jumper (loose).
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2008, 01:43 PM:
 
Good Morning America has been bragging they'll be first to unveil the new trailer this coming Thursday morning.

I probably won't get to see it because "GMA" will probably air it after 8:00am (when I get to work). I'll be lucky if they run the trailer in the 7:00am hour.

Unfortunately one can bet whatever lazy-ass is running master control at KSWO-TV will forget (like he/she does so very often) to switch programming back to 720p rather than leave it in shitty looking 480i NTSC. They'll let 15 or 20 minutes of the basketball game you're watching get broadcast pillar boxed and with muted NTSC color. It's likely the same treatment will happen to that Indiana Jones trailer when it is broadcast. Instead of a nice, mildly letter-boxed image filling the width of the HDTV screen, you'll get a small rectangle image in the center of the screen.

For some stupid reason, they dump out of 720p mode to run local spots even though those spots will still run properly in the HD mode pillar-boxed just like they do when changed to analog. I've even seen it because the dummy has forgot to hit the switch going the other way a few times! Why they even do that crap at all is beyond me. They still have a completely separate analog channel. Oh well.

 

---

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 02-12-2008, 04:29 PM:
 
I am sure that folks will not complain about wrong formats or masking or improper loop size at the local cinema after watching the TV for a while. The sets are stretching images to fill the screen and stations are transmitting everything in digital while converting that signal to analog for simulcast. The maddening thing that is the local news and live shots where the lip sync is shot because of this conversion. A simple time delay could fix it but the stations just don't care. In another year everything will be digital anyway so why bother.

All of this is simply the dumbing down of the public to any sort of standards or quality. If you can see it and hear it, you're good to go! Short fat faces, no lip sync, bad color are all what you are expected to accept as part of this wonderful new system.

KEN
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2008, 07:27 PM:
 
It's been awhile since I worked in TV, but I see this disregard of professional standards in broadcasting to just be sad.

Just to clarify something, I have no problem with 4:3 ratio commercials being aired pillar-boxed on a digital channel. I just prefer the digital channel to get fed digital material so the 16:9 stuff is preserved when the 16:9 national spots or 16:9 program resumes.

My reaction to this is to hold off for a while on changing my Dish Network TV package (or consider another satellite/cable provider). I've heard some complaints about some "HD" cable channels that sound a bit similar to the ones I have about our local network channel here in Lawton.

Maybe when Comedy Central goes HD, I'll consider upgrading.

BTW, Lucasfilm has confirmed Good Morning America will be airing the new Indiana Jones teaser this Thursday morning (Valentine's Day) between 8:00am-9:00am. I assume that is based on Eastern Standard Time.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-12-2008, 07:35 PM:
 
It'll be all over Youtube within minutes, so have no fear.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2008, 07:36 PM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

It'll be all over Youtube within minutes, so have no fear.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

It'll be all over Youtube within minutes, so have no fear.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Yeah and it'll probably be in the wrong aspect ratio on YouTube.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Unfortunately one can bet whatever lazy-ass is running master control at KSWO-TV will forget (like he/she does so very often) to switch programming back to 720p rather than leave it in shitty looking 480i NTSC. They'll let 15 or 20 minutes of the basketball game you're watching get broadcast pillar boxed and with muted NTSC color. It's likely the same treatment will happen to that Indiana Jones trailer when it is broadcast. Instead of a nice, mildly letter-boxed image filling the width of the HDTV screen, you'll get a small rectangle image in the center of the screen.

For some stupid reason, they dump out of 720p mode to run local spots even though those spots will still run properly in the HD mode pillar-boxed just like they do when changed to analog. I've even seen it because the dummy has forgot to hit the switch going the other way a few times! Why they even do that crap at all is beyond me. They still have a completely separate analog channel. Oh well.

---

quote: Mike Heenan

---

Well they were guilty of doing that for Temple of doom, if I recall, the teaser was just following the red line on the map, and scrolling text of the cast and crew.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I still haven't seen Rocky 6... need to watch 2-5 first

---

Strangely enough, the series actually works better if you skip those four.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-15-2008, 09:22 AM:
 
Nah, watch III...even if it's just for the Hulk Hogan scene.

As for the Indy 4 trailer...is there a single scene in it that does not have CGI??? WTF???

Mike, I remember the same blurb from SS. Back to the original. I guess Georgie is paying the bills, eh?

Anyone know if there's a plan to re-release the others before-hand? With digital available it seems more possible, doesn't it?
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-15-2008, 10:20 AM:
 
Remember...CGI is cheaper, faster...
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-15-2008, 10:26 AM:
 
So was Steve Austin...look where it got him!
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-15-2008, 10:31 AM:
 
But $ 6 million was a lot of money back in the '70s, John!

They did things properly then - proper bionic systems, not like the inferior stuff you get today
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-15-2008, 11:01 AM:
 
If they load this up with crappy CGI it'll be a crime against, uh, something, not sure what, but a crime nonetheless.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-15-2008, 11:24 AM:
 
Since it's a teaser, its possible the effects haven't been finished and tweaked yet but from what Isee on the video, it looks "meh". And did a I see a CGI Harrison Ford (it didn't really look liek a stunt double) swinging on his whip during one scene?
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-15-2008, 01:32 PM:
 
In this film, I would love it if he said: "Its the years, not the milage!" It would bring things full-circle.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 02-15-2008, 02:25 PM:
 
I think they should flip it around.

"It's not the mileage honey, it's the years!"
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-15-2008, 03:20 PM:
 
I just wish they'd managed to get through the trailer without putting "The Adventure Continues" in there. That's so hack-sounding.

quote: John Wilson

---

Anyone know if there's a plan to re-release the others before-hand? With digital available it seems more possible, doesn't it?

---

I don't know if that's a good idea. Might make Harrison look just a little TOO old in the new one!
 

---

Posted by Robert W. Jones (Member # 4228) on 02-15-2008, 07:20 PM:
 
I downloaded the trailer yesterday (720p). Yeah, looks a little CGI'ish, but looks like a lot of fun none the less. Hopefully, this will fill seats well through the end of June. And I doubt the effects have been properly rendered and tweaked at this point. If you go to the website and look at the other production videos, it look's like Speilberg shot on HD CAM and not film. Hey, the price is right.

I for one, can't wait to see it.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-15-2008, 07:57 PM:
 
I agree that 'The Adventure Continues' is a bit lame and has been used countless times.

How about: 'The Adventurer Continues'? That's a bit more like it.

Also, I hate the generic-every-trailer-you-see music at the start. Bleccchhh...
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 02-15-2008, 10:47 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Did the teaser even air at all on Good Morning America? I watched between 7:00am and 8:00am CST. Didn't see it.

---

quote: John Wilson

---

I agree that 'The Adventure Continues' is a bit lame and has been used countless times.

How about: 'The Adventurer Continues'? That's a bit more like it.

---

quote: Robert W. Jones

---

it look's like Speilberg shot on HD CAM and not film

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

There's some internet hubbub about the fact that the US version was censored.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

According to sources at Panavision, it was shot in 35mm. And in anamorphic, no less (Spielberg's first in 17 years).

---

quote: Geoff Jones

---

And if you view the trailer from the official site, watch Ray Winstone's belt buckle and pants in that scene. It looks like his crotch just finished up some sort of T-1000 shape-shifting.

---

Geoff,

I finally noticed that after a few looks. Wierd. Maybe there was a Crystal Skull there!


 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-16-2008, 07:19 PM:
 
One shot in the trailer even has an anamorphic lens flare.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-16-2008, 07:25 PM:
 
The trailer with John Williams' music intro

While not great...it's an improvement.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-18-2008, 08:59 AM:
 
The Indiana trailer arrived today here...they are with shotguns.



I have to say I really don't like the trailer...the mix is nasty (too soft to begin...too loud to end) but DAMN! Harrison really is Indiana.

Also, Marion is in one shot...almost unrecognisable it's so fast. Bad move. She's a big selling point. Hopefully they'll have a regular trailer that Spielberg himself makes...instead of whoever Paramount got to make this for not much money. Hey! It's Indiana...how about a voice-over for goodness sake?

"For nearly 3000 years, man has searched for the lost ark of the covenant..."

SPEAK, dammit!
 

---

Posted by Christos Mitsakis (Member # 143) on 02-18-2008, 11:08 AM:
 
You can watch the international version here
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 02-18-2008, 12:19 PM:
 
That's the scene where I thought Harrison Ford is really showing his age, at least in his face.
I understand he is in excellent physical shape.
 

---

Posted by Robert W. Jones (Member # 4228) on 02-18-2008, 03:58 PM:
 
I noticed a few things different in the International version:

- Deletion of the US 48 star flag during the crane shot of the military convoy
- Missing guns and packing crates as mentioned above
- End... Not a specific date in May.

Can't figure out the gun thing though.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-18-2008, 04:05 PM:
 
Saw the trailer in front of "Spiderwick Chronicles". It's kind of disappointing to see a lot of very obvious CGI. I hope that's just temporary and the final movie will have mostly real stuff blowing up for real etc. but it probably won't. I also think the trailer takes the whole Indy thing a little too seriously.
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 02-18-2008, 04:10 PM:
 
I'm blind, where is Marion shown in the trailer?

I agree, bad idea to not make her more prominent.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-18-2008, 04:19 PM:
 
I still have a glimmer of hope they snuck Connery in for a day of shooting to appear in the film, but I bet that's too much to hope for.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-19-2008, 02:50 AM:
 
Marion's in a 1/2 second shot 20 feet from the end...I know this only as that's where we put the cue.

Don't count out the Connery thing...it's more than possible.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-27-2008, 09:23 AM:
 
According to joblo.com , this thing is going to be shown exclusively in 35mm.

"Paramount is informing theaters that per Steven Spieberg, INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL will NOT be available in digital format. The studio is requesting that complexes who can't project 35mm format let them know."
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2008, 09:42 AM:
 
I don't buy that at all. Sounds like a way to stir up the "Please close the DVD window" debate again.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-27-2008, 10:23 AM:
 
What does showing the movie on film have to do with DVD? And what's not to buy? Spielberg has made it crystal clear over the years that he prefers film to digital. In the past, he's said that he will continue to shoot on film until the last lab closes. He even cuts on film! I think the last person to do that was Sergei Eisenstein. Honestly, I would've been shocked if they had released it digitally.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2008, 11:51 AM:
 
Just think of all the multiplexes that are "digital only." Do you think Paramount is going to take that kind of a financial hit?

If the movie isn't showing in some major places, the fans will start yelling that they should be able to see it RIGHT NOW and therefore the DVD should be released RIGHT NOW, thereby raising the window debate again. That's just speculation on my part but I could totally see it happening.

On top of that, this move would piss off the companies who have invested millions of dollars to convert to digital. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. Not that film companies have ever had a problem with that before.

If this was a Spielberg vanity project or something I would maybe believe it. But there are far too many other expensive people involved -- including George "I Love Digital" Lucas. So I think this is just internet buzz. Could be wrong though...it sure wouldn't be the first time!
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-27-2008, 12:05 PM:
 
Don't most of these "all digital" multiplexes have screens which are also equipped for 35mm specifically for occasions like this? The one in Chicago does. Even if they don't what are the odds of the average American not being within driving distance of a 35mm projector?

If, for the sake of argument, the studio really was trying to be that sinister, why not do the opposite, and release it exclusively in digital? Surely, that would make it harder for audiences to see than what they're doing now.

Will this open up the DVD window debate? I highly doubt it. But even if it does, and even if they're happy about it, I am absolutely 100% positive that that's not their intent.
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 02-27-2008, 12:07 PM:
 
I agree with Mike. This has to be a bad rumor. A few situations run both digital and 35mm, but most of the conversions are digital only.
Whoever wrote the article must have misunderstood.
Spielberg works with film only, yes, but his movie can easily be converted to digital for theatrical use. He should be up on that.
Besides, if Paramount insists on closing the DVD window, then the chains can resort to booking only the top few "big" movies and leave the marginal ones alone. This would result in the "marginal" dvds sitting on store shelves as most people had never heard of them...
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 02-27-2008, 12:10 PM:
 
Sure, his movies can be converted to digital, but I think he's in agreement with 99% of the people who post here that 35mm is better.

And let's face facts. He's Steven Spielberg. He can do whatever the hell he wants. Even with a movie as big as INDIANA JONES.

Is it just a rumor? Maybe. But I'm guessing it's true. What wouldn't surprise me is if they let the digital-only theaters have it in digital, but not the ones which have dual systems.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2008, 12:58 PM:
 
Update: I called our booker and asked about this. After laughing uproariously, he asked the other bookers in the office (there are 4 altogether) and they all thought it was the funniest thing they've heard all year. I could hear them chuckling in the background.

To put it in their words -- "They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. It's absolutely not true. We have heard nothing about this."
 

---

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 02-27-2008, 01:31 PM:
 
I think some (hopefully most) exhibitors that went digital were smart and kept some dual systems for those few 35mm only releases.

[ 02-29-2008, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: David Zylstra ]
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-27-2008, 03:15 PM:
 
I laugh at those who gave up 35mm so quickly. Converting to digital is one thing. Throwing away all 35mm equipment is another. Mike, your bookies may not be laughing very long. We'll see.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-27-2008, 03:43 PM:
 
But...(look at the pendulum and repeat after me!) film is...

Bulky, Archaic and Expensive

You are feeling sleepy...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2008, 05:25 PM:
 
I know the Carmike Wynnsong in Billings has 35mm capability in at least one house...but I think it's one of their smaller ones. (I guess it's possible that they left other 35mm setups in place...but they've been 100% digital since "Wild Hogs" left last summer.) Is there such a thing as a "movable" 35mm setup that could be wheeled into place?
 

---

Posted by Brad Allen (Member # 470) on 02-27-2008, 06:03 PM:
 
My booker received this very info from a Parmount Branch Manager. IE: Indy will not be available in digital.
YMMV.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2008, 06:33 PM:
 

quote: Brad Allen

---

My booker received this very info from a Parmount Branch Manager. IE: Indy will not be available in digital.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Is there such a thing as a "movable" 35mm setup that could be wheeled into place?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Well, I guess I would believe a Paramount branch manager more quickly than a website called "joblo.com."

---

Joblo.com is actually one of the better movie news websites. There's even a quote attributed to Spielberg which scrolls across the top of the front page that reads, "I love joblo.com."
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-27-2008, 07:59 PM:
 
It does look like a good site. I'm surprised it's never been mentioned here before (that I've seen, anyway).
 

---

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 02-28-2008, 02:05 AM:
 
Happy, my theatre has not converted to digital, yet.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-28-2008, 04:59 AM:
 
That's just dumb. Why not make it available to digital? The trailer's full of CGI (albeit bad pre-release stuff).

There's no way he believes the general public even sees any difference.

The future's here kids...don't be dumb, accept it or lose.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 02-28-2008, 07:35 AM:
 
Why is this dumb? Are there really enough theatres without any 35mm capability for this to be an issue? I have a hard time believing that every current release, including foreign and specialized films and reissues, is available in DLP. Heck, SMPTE doesn't even have a standard for distribution yet.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 02-28-2008, 12:55 PM:
 
I don't think it is dumb. I do think it is dumb to remove the 35mm stuff when it can share the same screen for situations just like this one. Film makers are artists. If they feel they can get a certain look by using film in the final stage of their craft then they should have the right to choose that format not be restricted by one specific format.

Spielberg has always stated about his Indiana Jones films that he wants them to have the feel of the types of movies he grew up on when he was a child. I think he feels that Digital Projection at this time does not give the true feeling of film that he is looking for. I think he may just want it known that there should be options not restrictions. Basically his way of saying you can have the DLP but keep the 35mm in place in case someone wants to use it.

I wonder if they will do an Imax release so it can have some 70MM releases. The other three films all had 5 perf 70MM releases.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-28-2008, 01:47 PM:
 
I only say it's dumb because if I forked out such a large amount of money on the 'future' of cinema...I'd darn well want the biggest movie of the year to be available in it.

I wonder what George 'Digital' Lucas thinks of it all?
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-28-2008, 02:15 PM:
 
I got confirmation from my booker that Paramount (at least as of today) will indeed NOT be making this movie available in D-Cinema format.

Spielberg has just shot up many points in my book.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2008, 03:11 PM:
 
Hooray! Post number 5000!

With that out of the way...

...I'm little surprised Paramount and Steven Spielberg are making this film-only move with the new Indiana Jones movie. I am also skeptical they'll stick to their guns on this.

Spielberg's stance regarding film-based movie production is well known. He's going to keep shooting movies on film until no one makes movie camera film anymore.

And that stance is admirable since video cameras still do not match film in terms of image quality, regardless of them being "digital."

But the distribution end of things is a little more complicated. I can see this policy working without too many snags this year. Not enough digital projection systems have been installed at this point to make too big a difference, especially in major chains like Regal, AMC, etc. But if anyone tries a similar film prints only stunt in another year or two they're going to be shooting themselves in the foot financially.

Yes, many movie theaters that have installed digital projection on all screens still have at least one or two film projectors in operation. Unfortunately, it's usually an arrangement of one unit on a big or medium sized house and maybe a 2nd projector in a small house. That's how it is with most Carmike locations.

By comparison, if the movie had a digital version available it could potentially run in every house during some midnight premiere event or something. The Carmike 8 here in Lawton had Spiderman 3 loaded and ready to play on all 8 screens and managed to fill up 4. They couldn't do that with only film prints and just 2 film projectors. And will Paramount even book 2 prints at this theater? Knowing Paramount, they'll probably book Indy 4 exclusively at the shitty 12-plex across town in Central Mall.

One other thing I want to know is this: What quality level are they rendering the CGI and digital intermediate for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull?

If the CGI and DI are rendered in the usual 2K quality level then this film only effort in distribution will be tinged with more than a bit of hypocrisy. A 35mm film print doesn't gain anything above 2K digital projection if the movie is output only in 2K resolution.

I would be more excited about this film only thing if the print making process itself was done largely in "old school" method instead of some stupid, resolution bottle-necked 2K process. If those methods were used, along with lots of old school methods in visual effects, then you would be seeing noticeably sharper image quality than what 2K digital projection could deliver -just as long as the booth equipment was good, properly maintained and practices of "film done right" were observed.

From what I've seen in the movie trailer, there's definitely a LOT of CGI taking place. Lots of digital post production is happening. They better be rendering this stuff in 4K resolution (or even higher than that) otherwise this purist, film-only distribution stunt is going to be awful silly.

quote: Mike Schindler

---

And let's face facts. He's Steven Spielberg. He can do whatever the hell he wants. Even with a movie as big as INDIANA JONES.

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Technically, Indiana Jones is George Lucas' baby.

---

Yep, and we see who won the "Shoot it digitally!" vs. "Shoot it on film!" debate between them.

This is freakin hilarious. Major Kudos to Mr. Spielberg!


 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 02-28-2008, 03:55 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

If the CGI and DI are rendered in the usual 2K quality level then this film only effort in distribution will be tinged with more than a bit of hypocrisy. A 35mm film print doesn't gain anything above 2K digital projection if the movie is output only in 2K resolution.

---

quote: Brad Allen

---

Indy will not be available in digital.

---

I find that hard to believe. On the other hand, Taranterrible did it on "Grind House"!
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-28-2008, 10:01 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Now it WOULD be cool if they could carry this a bit further and offer 5/70 prints to those that can play it.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, Taranterrible did it on "Grind House"!

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

By forcing film, they are also probably forcing the movie to ONLY play in the largest houses in the 100% digital theatress too.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

UPDATE: OK, I just talked on the phone to an Exhibitor Relations rep at Paramount and he hadn't heard a thing about this 35mm-only deal.

---

quote: Dustin Mitchell

---

Releaseing Indy 4 in 35mm only is going to change NOTHING about the current state of projection

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

My point is that most of the people there won't know how to handle 35mm properly since they're used to digital. With the turnover rate of the average movie theater, it is likely that many if not most "qualified" personnel have even run 35mm before at all.

---

Agreed, if the movie theater is having snack counter workers run the projectors upstairs then there's going to be some serious problems due to that typical high employee turnover rate. It's a bad enough idea turning loose minimum wage teenage employees on a bunch of high priced digital projection gear.

The situation is going to be much better if the theater manager and assistant managers are handling the projection chores. Of course, that situation still isn't as good as having a full time projectionist run all the shows. At least the managers are usually going to have a lot more film handling experience.
 

---

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 03-03-2008, 09:20 AM:
 
Actually the Barco allows digital keystone correction - I talked with an installer and he mentioned the keystone correction as part of his set up procedure (I beleive this goes against DCI, but I'm not governing these installs so I can't say anything).

I do believe that if IJ4 ends up being film only there will be many compromised (i.e. "disgusting") shows due to untrained staff at many digital locations that only have 2-3 35mm and a high staff turnover.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 03-03-2008, 09:26 AM:
 
What he was referring to is masking...there is no digital keystone correction in the Barco's that I know of.

Steve
 

---

Posted by David Zylstra (Member # 4230) on 03-03-2008, 09:34 AM:
 
hmmm, weird, the person specifically mentioned doing a keystone adjustment electronically on the Barco (by using the setup interface) . . . . . I'll have to follow up to see exactly what he was talking about . . . . .
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-03-2008, 10:34 AM:
 
He had to have been talking about lens shift and/or cropping. The Barco software has a cool click and drag interface for masking - which, btw, includes curving it. Note this doesn't curve the picture, just the masking.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 03-03-2008, 11:45 AM:
 
IIRC the real problem with mostly-digital multiplexes using 35mm after long digital-only stints isn't that the operators forgot how to use film -> it's more that they (we) no longer have access to qualified 35mm technicians *cough Christie*, so the machines get out of whack (shutter timing gets funky, etc) and it doesn't get fixed.

Subjectively, this is a very stupid move - $10 million to strike 6000+ prints, another quarter million to distribute them, and pissed off customers for the 99% of presentations that will suck horribly because of above stated issues, vs a few million to digitally master the thing, plus satellite bandwidth to distribute it (thanks George). Financially, it's not even a question.

And Christie CP2000s use digital masking with a zoom lens (except for poor 3d setups with too short a throw, which use a static lens to increase magnification).
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-03-2008, 12:07 PM:
 
The above isn't quite true. Any cost savings from not making film prints would be minimal, since a) the majority of screens still run film and need prints and b) the majority of screens have VPF agreements in place.

Steve--in a 3-machine booth, do you position the 35mm machines in the usual way (equally offset from the screen centerline), with the DLP to one side? Or do you use some other configuration? What about a 4-machine booth (2x35mm, 16mm, DLP)?

The only 4-machine setup in town has a small DLP mounted on the ceiling in the rear of the house and the 16mm machine off-center, but that wouldn't work with a full-size DLP unit.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-03-2008, 12:14 PM:
 

quote:

---

I got confirmation from my booker that Paramount (at least as of today) will indeed NOT be making this movie available in D-Cinema format.

---

quote:

---

An e-mail I received from NATO today said that Paramount will be distributing Indy in both digital and film.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

I don't understand how any theatre can be all-digital. As far as I can tell, only a small percentage of films have been released in digital and according to the lists I have (which admittedly might not be complete), they actually show a decrease to the number of digital films released. For 2006, I show about 65 films and for 2007, I have tracked about 50. For 2008, I only show 7 so far.

---

Martin... Your numbers are TOO LOW! Maybe your commitment and responsibilities for your real job is preventing you from being thorough in your research or perhaps you're the victim of an unreliable source(s)? There were more than seven digital releases just in February alone.

As for the "Indiana Jones" situation, I think the "announcement" and how it has played out suggests there's been a big misunderstanding. I suspect someone misinterpreted the purpose of what Paramount was seeking; that is, how many venues can run both film and digital?

Obviously, film-only venues need to be sent a film print, and digital-only venues need to be sent a digital version. I think Spielberg & Paramount's intent in having as many film prints as possible in circulation meant surveying who could run both and then encouraging/insisting those dual-format venues to book film print(s) instead of digital.

Since the movie was shot on film, cut on film and (I think) not using a digital intermediate, what excites me is the possibility of hopefully seeing a true "show print," should they strike any.

Also, anyone see the posting on the rec.arts.movies.tech newsgroup about the possibility of a 70mm print being used for the film's premiere at the Cannes Film Festival?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-03-2008, 04:57 PM:
 
If I was Disney, I'd move Narnia back a month to April. They're going to see a huge drop when Indy opens.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-03-2008, 05:30 PM:
 
The month of April represents a big opportunity to a movie studio willing to take a chance on a major movie release. Usually there's just a lot of trash product getting moved in and out of theaters quickly as possible to make way for "summer movies" arriving in May. Not much real competition during that time.

I'd say the same thing for mid August to mid September as well.

On the topic of digital intermediate and Indy 4, if they don't use a DI step in post production that will probably be fine. I just hope all of those CGI effects are rendered at a higher resolution than mere 2K. They will also have to be very careful about the control of color on those CGI effects otherwise they won't cut into the film elements reliably.

One good example of this problem can be seen in a previous Spielberg film, Jurassic Park. I've seen it on film in theaters and the glitch is even there on DVD.

Go to the night time T-Rex attack scene where it leaves its paddock and attacks the Ford Explorer to get to the stupid kids inside. Jeff Goldblum is waving a flare. When the T-Rex roars at him you see it. A big color shift. That shift marks the edit point going from the live action plate to the CGI plate where the T-Rex starts chasing after Jeff Goldblum. The shot is still amazing to watch, but that color shift is still a flaw.

In a digital intermediate work flow it is much easier to fix such problems and control color consistently throughout the duration of the movie. It's also an added convenience that the DI can serve as a master for HD-quality home video release and reduction DVD release. Unfortunately too many are rendered in mere 2K and throw away significant image detail in the process.

I think it would be pretty cool if some 5-perf 70mm prints are made of this movie. I'd be willing to drive some considerable distance to see the movie projected on a big screen in 70mm. But I think such blow-up treatment would make it even more critical that the CGI effects be rendered in 4K rather than 2K.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-03-2008, 06:16 PM:
 
In case anyone from Paramount is watching... count me in as someone who would also drive a great distance to see this movie in 70mm. And I'd bring a car load of people with me.

And for what it's worth, had it been SHOT in 70mm, I'd have driven even further.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-03-2008, 06:53 PM:
 
Didn't Spielberg have a big hand in killing 70mm by not releasing JURASSIC PARK in the format?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-03-2008, 07:02 PM:
 
No. In 1993 several movie releases had 35/70mm blow-up prints despite Jurassic Park being 35mm-only.

To add to that, Steven Spielberg invested in DTS, the only digital sound for film process compatible with both 35mm and 70mm film for commercial movie theaters. Dolby Digital and SDDS were never compatible with 70mm.

1994 saw fewer films with blow up 70mm prints (True Lies and Robert Altman's Short Cuts being among those few).

If anyone deserves blame for removing 5/70mm from commercial movie theaters, it's the movie distributors themselves. The policies of certain movie theater chains also played a part in that too. I've always been very critical of movie chains that built huge stadium seated multiplex sites featuring some theaters with gigantic sized screens -yet merely illuminated with 35mm projection. I think they should have at least installed dual gauge 35mm/70mm projectors just so the capability would be there to pressure distributors. By equipping 35mm only they gave distributors the perfect excuse for distributing 35mm only.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-03-2008, 07:28 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Steven Spielberg invested in DTS, the only digital sound for film process compatible with both 35mm and 70mm film for commercial movie theaters. Dolby Digital and SDDS were never compatible with 70mm.

---

But CDS was. And it could do 35mm as well. Maybe Indy 4 will have some CDS prints?
 

---

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 03-03-2008, 07:35 PM:
 
Gosh, I thought CDS was a dead audio format.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-03-2008, 07:44 PM:
 
When I started at AMC in 1989, our theater had two Century 35/70 projectors in our biggest houses. I believe that theater opened in 1985. The Centuries were removed sometime in the early nineties for some unknown reason. They worked great - better than the six other Christies did at the time. But for whatever reason, they were removed. In the whole time they were there, that theater only ran two 70mm movies, Innerspace and Dick Tracy. I was lucky enough to get to run Dick Tracy while I was there, but I never understood why they didn't take the opportunity to run 70mm more often.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-03-2008, 08:42 PM:
 
Cinema Digital Sound may have been too ambitious a system for 1990s film printing and CCD imager technology. 6 million bits of data per second on the print and no analog back up track.

I could understand movie distributors being stingy with booking 70mm film prints in theaters when the prints were mag striped. Those prints cost a lot more money than the typical 35mm print. But when DTS 70mm became available -right at the time the stadium seated theater multiplex building boom was going full speed- the movie distributors didn't do squat to take advantage of it. They could have produced quite a few DTS 70mm prints for large screened movie theaters for much lower cost than mag-stripe prints. As Brad has suggested, it's still possible and even practical for a big movie theater to do a special DTS 70mm show of a major event picture. Systems can be set up temporarily if need be.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-03-2008, 08:57 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

No. In 1993 several movie releases had 35/70mm blow-up prints despite Jurassic Park being 35mm-only.

---

quote: Mike Schindler

---

I know it wasn't the last 70mm release, but I always thought that releasing a movie as huge as JURASSIC PARK in 35mm only marked the beginning of the end for 70mm. Weren't 70mm fans freaking out when that happened?

---

Not really.

For one thing, Jurassic Park was filmed for 1.85:1 format. A pretty good number of 1.85:1 movies throughout the 1980s and into 1990 had 70mm blow up prints, but many fans of 70mm and widescreen were often annoyed by such blow up treatments. 70mm seemed to provide a better visual pay off for anamorphic filmed movies and certain Super35 shows (such as those directed by James Cameron).
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-03-2008, 10:24 PM:
 
Digital sound killed 70mm. The end.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-04-2008, 12:35 AM:
 
Digital sound didn't have to "kill" 70mm.

70mm was misused by many movies throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s -just to take advantage of the 6-track magnetic audio. It could have been returned to one of its original intended purposes: showing movies on huge screens in a better process than 35mm.

Anyone can say what they like about 35mm and its supposed capability of lighting up big screens in the 60' to 80' wide range. I have not seen a projector get that job done right yet. I'm not convinced it's even possible. The freaking images are dim. You don't need to be an expert projectionist to notice that problem either. But I know 70mm can get that job done right. A big opportunity has been missed.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 03-04-2008, 06:07 PM:
 
Ironically, the logic of shooting on larger formats such as 65mm is actually becoming more and more compelling with advances in digital video. Formats such as 4K are a call for higher quality origination, and for archivability and film texture, 65mm makes complete sense.

In fact it is a terrific origination platform for all current release formats - IMAX, 35mm, 2K, 4K, HDTV and Blu-ray, and facilitates limited 70mm "roadshow" prints too. Think about it

And for very little cost - back in 1992, it cost just 2.4% extra (approx.) to shoot Far and Away on 65mm (data sourced from Variety and IMDB).

Time and again, those in the know report that shooting on 65mm adds low single-figure percentage points to big budgets. Cost is simply not an issue; and FX rendering costs are also falling year on year.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 03-04-2008, 06:41 PM:
 

quote: Mike Schindler

---

Didn't Spielberg have a big hand in killing 70mm by not releasing JURASSIC PARK in the format?

---

quote: Dan Slusser; "DTS: A Ten-Year History"; Widescreen Review; February 2003

---

The only real risk I took at the time was deciding to omit any 70mm print releases.

---

quote: Dan Slusser; "DTS: A Ten-Year History"; Widescreen Review; February 2003

---

Let me start with November 1992, which was the first time I had been exposed to DTS at all. I was the Senior Vice President and General Manager of Universal Studios and I received a call from Steven Spielberg who had seen a demonstration with Terry Beard, the founder of DTS, and Robert "Buzz" Knudsen, an Academy Award-winning sound mixer who had worked with Steven. Terry and Buzz had performed the demonstration for Steven using some of the segments of Jurassic Park, and Steven was quite impressed. He felt that Jurassic Park as a movie was going to be a very predominant sound experience, as well as a visual experience. When he called he said, "I have just heard this new technology, and I know you see a lot of them every day, but take a look at this and see if it works. If it works I would really love to use it for the Jurassic Park release."

Bear in mind this was in November of 1992. Jurassic Park was scheduled for release on June 22. It ultimately got moved up to the 11th, but at this time, this was the target date. At the time when Buzz and Terry had approached Steven and did the demo, they had advised him that they could have this out on 1,500 screens between then and the release date of Jurassic Park. I thought that it might be a stretch, but would investigate further. If you remember, there were very few digital 5.1 playback systems in theatres at the time. Dolby Laboratories had started implementing it, but it was primarily geared at replacing 70mm houses. In fact, I believe had DTS not come on the scene at that point in time, digital playback may have been limited to replacing 70mm. I do not think it would have penetrated beyond that because of cost and other prohibitive factors. What was impressive and encouraging to me about DTS was that if this was a success it could be a general release format. It could be in every theatre across America and the world, not just replacing 70mm houses.

---

quote: Dan Slusser; "DTS: A Ten-Year History"; Widescreen Review; February 2003

---

We rented the Syufy Theater in Las Vegas during the ShoWest that year [1993], and ran demos for exhibitors. The release was pushed up to June 11th and 876 units were sold and installed. This was a major feat. There were only approximately 100 Dolby Digital units in existence before that. We never really looked back after that.

---

quote: Dan Slusser; "DTS: A Ten-Year History"; Widescreen Review; February 2003

---

Universal committed to releasing all future releases in the DTS format. This committment assured exhibitors that they were not just investing in the release of Jurassic Park but for future product as well.

---

 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-10-2008, 06:49 AM:
 

 

---

Posted by Anslem Rayburn (Member # 1267) on 03-10-2008, 06:32 PM:
 
The Indiana Jones posters and the Star Wars posters always remind me of old Atari game boxes.

Edited to correct spelling.

[ 03-11-2008, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Anslem Rayburn ]
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-11-2008, 04:25 AM:
 
While probably not some of Drew's best works (he's missed Cate I think) it's still miles more interesting than 99% of boring new computer imaged posters out in the main now.


 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 03-11-2008, 05:01 AM:
 
Check again John shes there
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-11-2008, 09:02 AM:
 
I think he's talking about the quality of the likeness of Cate Blanchett not quite being captured in the drawing.

Yeah, to beat a dead horse a little more, movie posters for modern day movies usually suck. They're usually just boring head shot photos of actors that are Photoshopped just a little. Nothing elaborate is done to take advantage of a 27" X 41" one sheet poster's scale. The compositions are usually made in the mindset where they can be reduced to fit on a DVD case.

We're a long way from the days where movie posters functioned more like real pieces of art, with guys like Bob Peak and Drew Struzan doing memorable work.

[ 03-12-2008, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-12-2008, 03:46 AM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I think he's talking about the quality of the likeness of Cate Blanchett not quite being captured in the drawing.

---

quote: Michael Coate

---

Martin... Your numbers are TOO LOW! Maybe your commitment and responsibilities for your real job is preventing you from being thorough in your research or perhaps you're the victim of an unreliable source(s)? There were more than seven digital releases just in February alone.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I thought there was some kind of law where she was only allowed to appear in hoity-toity artsy type films that appeal mainly to the "pretentious" crowd.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Never heard of "Pushing Tin", but it sound like ass.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Never heard of "Pushing Tin", but it sound like ass.

---

quote: Bobby

---

You get to see Angelina Jolie's bare breasts in it.

---

You get to see her bearded clam in Gia.
 

---

Posted by Robert W. Jones (Member # 4228) on 03-22-2008, 09:22 PM:
 
You get to see her bearded clam in Gia.

Mike, did you mean "Camel Toe"?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-22-2008, 09:22 PM:
 
Which version of her breasts, fake or real? I do not like fake boobs.

And judging by this image alone I would HATE the movie:



I hate both John Cusak and Billy Bob Thornton, especially when Billy Bob tries to be funny.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 03-22-2008, 09:40 PM:
 
Told ya so.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 03-22-2008, 10:15 PM:
 
It's always a good idea to make snap judgments and stick to them.
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 03-22-2008, 11:24 PM:
 
I'll watch it only to see John Cusack.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-23-2008, 01:11 AM:
 

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Which version of her breasts, fake or real? I do not like fake boobs.

---

The tits looked real to me.

Just for the record, "toy titties" are great too, but nothing beats the jiggle, bounce and sway of natural breasts. They are among the things that make life worth living. Great legs are awesome too. So is a nice round ass. Seldom do you get all of that in one package, and very often the personality attached to it is horrible. You end up having to make some trade-offs. And if you're smart, you'll give the "personality" part a lot more priority.
 

---

Posted by Sean McKinnon (Member # 612) on 03-23-2008, 10:33 AM:
 
I dunno, I got the impression that you had a dark sense of humor and I thought this movie was a good dark comedy, maybe I have no taste. Thornton doesnt try to be funny in the movie, its not that kind of a comedy if I remember correctly he plays an ATC who comes in and knocks cusak off his pedistal, and cusak has a breakdown because he almost kills like 500 people or something in an airplane collision. It is not the kind of comedy they would make now ten years later where there is nothing but fart jokes and slapstick, I thought it was funny without trying to be funny, anyways theres Jolies breats in it!
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-23-2008, 12:48 PM:
 
That notwithstanding, Angelina Jolie's face is hyper scary looking. I really don't have any desire to see her naked. If I did, a 3-second Google search could cure that.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-23-2008, 04:48 PM:
 
I liked "Pushing Tin." It had some funny lines, and the growing resentment Cusack's character had towards Thornton's was hilarious.

Unless you've been married, though, I don't think you'll get much from the movie. You won't be able to relate as well to the characters or the situations and it may come off as trivial.
 

---

Posted by Ben Wales (Member # 92) on 03-23-2008, 07:08 PM:
 
This is posted on the www.in70mm.com site

"Steven Spelberg and Lucas Film are considering playing "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" in 70mm at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival."

That would be great News if we see this happen and it would be even better if a European Openning in 70mm at the UK Empire Cinema in Leicester Square in London on their Large 56ft wide screen in full THX sound.

And yes they still have (just) one Phililps DP70 working
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 03-23-2008, 07:24 PM:
 
Boobs are fun, but going back to earlier comments in the thread, so I guess it's possible to do a movie with Cgi without going through the DI stage? Also, I dont have a font fetish like several people do on this site, but what font was used in the trailer? I thought it was rather lacking and unimpressive.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-23-2008, 07:54 PM:
 
Yes, CGI is possible to do without using a digital intermediate for the whole movie. Prior to 2000, any movie with CGI effects simply had those shots output to film cut into all the other footage processed the old analog way.

O Brother Where Art Thou was one of the first (if not the first) movie to be processed entirely with a digital intermediate. That was at the end of 2000.
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 03-23-2008, 08:02 PM:
 

quote: Mike Heenan

---

Also, I dont have a font fetish like several people do on this site, but what font was used in the trailer? I thought it was rather lacking and unimpressive.

---

Bank Gothic
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-23-2008, 08:23 PM:
 
There's nothing wrong with Bank Gothic in itself. I've used it on a good number of sign designs, but usually not as the main titling font. It's a no nonsense font with a certain flare for technical themed stuff, but without looking freaking goofy at the same time. It's perfect for something like the title work on 24.

I'll agree it seems out of place in the Indy IV trailer. At least they didn't set the type in Trajan.

Whenever Bank Gothic is used in some national print ad or title work for TV or film I chuckle a bit. Certain design snobs who publicly trash CorelDRAW are "closet" users of it, for things like the wealth of clip art and fonts like Bank Gothic.
 

---

Posted by Jennifer Pan (Member # 2035) on 03-23-2008, 08:53 PM:
 
Trajan is way overused in horror/ancient time films. It wouldn't fit whatsoever for Indy.

Trajan is the movie font
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-23-2008, 09:51 PM:
 
Wow. I'm not the only one to rant about the over-use of Trajan.

My own rant from 6 years ago: thread linky.

Something I Illustratored/Photoshopped in that thread:



I'm sure some hair-splitters will pop in say, "but they're not really using Trajan anymore; they've moved on to Trajan Pro!" At least "pro" is a true "small caps" font. I can't stand it when people artificially create a large cap/small cap effect by setting the first letter in a larger point size. It's crap.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-23-2008, 11:57 PM:
 
What font are the letters "A" and "i" in that Artificial Intelligence movie? Looks like the font was invented by Haley Joel Osment or maybe Gilbert Gottfried.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-03-2008, 01:22 PM:
 
Here's a cool lithograph from the official website:


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-03-2008, 08:12 PM:
 
Doesn't look a damned thing like Harrison Ford. It's just some skinny Japanese animation looking guy wearing a Stetson Fedora.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-04-2008, 02:47 AM:
 
Not to be too geeky, but the hat Indy wore in RAIDERS was actually made by the Herbert Johnson shop. However, Stetson does make one of the more accurate-looking Indy fedoras.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-08-2008, 06:46 PM:
 
42 days to go until the release and we still don't have anything but a teaser trailer. That's a tad odd, don't you think?

(In space terms, a 'tad' is half a million miles)
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-08-2008, 08:22 PM:
 
I read somewhere that the teaser got 200 million hits on the Indy website the first weekend it was out...they may not feel the need to cut another trailer.

Personally I'm kind of glad they haven't spilled the story across four or five different trailers. Maybe Spielberg is running the show.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2008, 08:30 PM:
 
IMHO, the clip already available is a movie trailer. It's not what I think of as a teaser. Not sure we really need any more than that. Too many movie trailers these days just spoil most of the movie.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-08-2008, 11:03 PM:
 
It used to be that a "teaser" was a trailer that didn't really have much (or any) of the completed film in it. Nowadays I don't think there's a specific difference - in fact you hardly ever see a trailer marked "teaser" anymore.

I got curious about this, so I just went to the booth and looked over our inventory of trailers. Not one of them is marked "teaser." Some of them just say "V1" or the like. The Indy one is marked "Trailer #1."
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-08-2008, 11:06 PM:
 
I rmeember the teaser for Last Crusade was pretty cool, actually showing behind the scenes footage of the film in progress. It's a shame every trailer is pretty formulaic these days.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2008, 11:11 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Nowadays I don't think there's a specific difference - in fact you hardly ever see a trailer marked "teaser" anymore.

---

I disagree. A decent number of teasers are made. The first teaser for The Dark Knight is what I consider to be a true teaser clip. The footage is just a graphic of the Batman logo crumbling apart from some explosive force in the background. Voice overs play as the logo falls apart. The teaser for Star Trek currently playing in some theaters also qualifies as a real teaser clip.

Lots of other "teasers" are merely shorter length trailers. They show a good amount of action from the movie and even spoil parts of the movie. The "teaser" for Indy IV falls into that latter category.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-09-2008, 10:56 AM:
 
I never said they're not made, I just meant the trailers don't differentiate by labeling. The first trailer we had for "Wall-E" was definitely a teaser but wasn't marked as such.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-09-2008, 12:25 PM:
 
What I've heard is the Final trailer will be on Iron Man, both being from Paramount.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-23-2008, 06:05 PM:
 
Well I'm bummed. Just found out that we 'probably' won't be able to get Indy on the break. Of course they won't say exactly why but it's got to be because we're not among the highest grossers due to our town's size, or maybe because we're a single screen and wouldn't want to hold past 3 weeks.

I wouldn't be so bummed except we've been able to get almost every other blockbuster on the break over the past 4 - 5 years and now the audience expects it.

I take comfort in the fact that now we can play Narnia on the break. Usually when something like this happens our second choice is something we wouldn't want to play at all otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Brian Guckian (Member # 1678) on 04-24-2008, 04:09 PM:
 
Could you run one of the previous films in the series to whet people's appetites, say in a matinee slot at some point, while you're waiting?

(But I guess the prints are either dumped, unwatchable or witheld by LFL...sorry if it sounds like a dumb question).
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 04-24-2008, 04:19 PM:
 
Paramount has pulled the other films in the series from availiblity right now.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 04-24-2008, 04:47 PM:
 
Does anyone know WHY the studios pull the original films from distribution shortly before the sequel comes out?

Are they worried that moviegoers will be confused and miss out on the fact that there's a new film coming?

Are they worried that the originals will draw money away from the new one?

Something else?
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 04-24-2008, 07:43 PM:
 
In my mind it would have been good to put the original "Raiders" back in the the theatres just prior to the release of Indy 4.
 

---

Posted by Scott McGuire (Member # 4508) on 04-25-2008, 12:49 AM:
 
Why not let them out to theatres with the stipulation that they play the trailer for the new movie?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-25-2008, 12:53 PM:
 
For us it'd be a train wreck to play one of the old films. People would just read as far as "Indiana Jones" on the marquee, think we were playing the new one and be pissed off. Forget that.
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 04-25-2008, 05:48 PM:
 
Mike, you would just not title it like the lame DVD conformity title:"Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark".
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 04-25-2008, 08:40 PM:
 
Good point...I'd use the real title. Then NOBODY would know what it was.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 04-25-2008, 11:12 PM:
 
Luckily, the movie itself still has the original title. It's just the video box art which adds the "Indiana Jones."
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 04-28-2008, 06:41 AM:
 
Just ran trailer 'C' (not sure what happened to 'B' but...) and it's not too bad. They've dispensed with the Children Of Dune music thank goodness, probably as an objection from John Williams I'd hope. It starts off more like the Raiders trailer (the bit where Brody is telling of the secrets of the Ark) and has much more of both Karen Allen and Cate Blanchett. The obligatory action over the theme and some humor as well.

A vast improvement on that teaser we've had to put up with so long.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-28-2008, 09:31 AM:
 
A Crystal Skull commercial ran during "Family Guy" last night (or might have been "American Dad"). The audio quality was like a really bad MP3. The Wendy's commercial that ran after Skull sounded WAY better.
 

---

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 04-28-2008, 11:43 AM:
 

quote: John Wilson

---

Just ran trailer 'C' (not sure what happened to 'B' but...)

---

quote: John Wilson

---

No-one else going to comment on the new trailer?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I'm going to remember this month the next time Paramount has a marginal movie they are begging dates for.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Anyone know how many prints there will be? Maybe Spielberg is keeping the number lower than normal.

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

quote: Brad Allen

---

Indy will not be available in digital.

---

I find that hard to believe.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

There are definitely going to be digital prints. From every article I've seen it will be available in digital only in 100% digital locations that don't have 35mm capability.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

The sound assuming it will be uncompressed will also be something to behold.

---

quote: Michael Moore

---

I figure what does it matter at this point, paramount, Spielberg, Lucasfilm, whatever... Movies are not even half of what they use to be.

---

Nobody ever appreciates what's "happening now." I was just out of high school in mid/late '70s, and during that time everyone was also saying how movies are no good anymore, all the good stories have been done, etc etc. Now the '70s is considered an era of many classic films. I expect this decade will be the same. There are a lot of good movies being made, and a lot of crapola...just like in the old days. (Go to my website and look at our old calendars for proof!)

The thing about the studios not caring about the little guy? That has actually improved. Not too many years ago, our booker would have chuckled if I wanted to play a movie on the break, because it just wasn't possible. When I first started to work at the Roxy (1975), we would play movies anywhere up to 18 MONTHS after they were released, and prints were nearly always scratched, spliced, cut-up, etc. Now, we play 12 to 15 a year on the break, and most used prints we get arrive in excellent shape. If "things" weren't the way they are now, it would be a lot worse for us.

So I'm not complaining too loud, just bummed out about the Indy 4 thing. (And things could still change by the end of this week....back to breath-holding mode.)
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-07-2008, 05:02 PM:
 
Fingers crossed for you Mike...
 

---

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 05-16-2008, 03:07 AM:
 
As an update Indy will be playing in film, but also digital. Our location, which has 3 film capable screens, will be playing 1 35mm print and I believe up to 4 digital prints. Its likely a seating capacity issue, as our 3 35mm capable screens are all mid sized auditoriums.

Paramount is apparantly quite serious about making sure the 35mm prints get played. Any theatre caught running a digital print instead of their scheduled 35mm (possible if the screen is dual 35/DLP) they will be taken off service with Paramount for six months.
 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 05-16-2008, 03:18 AM:
 
Mike, I've heard that up in your neck of the woods you may be forced to go digital earlier than planned. Basically what I heard was that many of the big theatres in your area that feed you prints 2-3 weeks after the break are going digital so there won't be many 35mm prints available. Any truth to this?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2008, 09:29 AM:
 
I haven't heard anything like that but I suppose it could be true...we're already having trouble getting Warner Bros prints because Carmike is all digital in Montana, and WB hates to transfer prints, so they'll only send a few to the state, which wind up in the larger (non-digital) towns. The result is that we hardly ever play a Warner Bros. movie unless it's on the break.

Update: We did not get Indy, so it's Narnia for us. So, take care of those prints fellas....one of them might be coming my way in a couple of weeks!
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-16-2008, 09:55 AM:
 
I'll send you ours...you're good for the freight cost though, right?
 

---

Posted by Michael Moore (Member # 3867) on 05-16-2008, 01:40 PM:
 
just got word today from my brother in-law at Carmike 14 here in Dover Delaware will be getting one Print in 35 mm and also a digital print. So they will have both in the same building. I told him that was crazy, however he thinks they are going to try to show Digital in at least 4 of the bigger screens and film in one of the smaller screens.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-16-2008, 03:22 PM:
 
I can hear it now! "Our digital grosses were five times the grosses of our film print!" or "After just one week, the film print is trashed and the digital still looks perfect...we must switch over as soon as possible!"
 

---

Posted by Michael Moore (Member # 3867) on 05-16-2008, 03:27 PM:
 
bad thing is, he does not really know how to put a film together properly, and no one else in the building does from what I understand... I offered up my services, but the manager said they do not want anyone in the booth other then employees they want in the booth.

Mike
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 05-19-2008, 07:30 AM:
 
Ever so slightly off topic....

Does anybody know why in the timeline of the "Indiana Jones" movies, they made "Temple of Doom" take place before "Raiders of the Lost Ark"?

Raiders was 1936 and then the sequel was 1935. Why not just make it 1937 as there was nothing historically significant in it (I don't think)?
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-19-2008, 08:23 AM:
 
I believe it was so they didn't have to explain the appearance of Willie Scott and the disappearance of Marion Ravenwood.
 

---

Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 05-19-2008, 09:53 AM:
 
According to the new DVD, it was also because they didn't want to deal with the Nazis again.

Also, I have a friend who insists that TEMPLE OF DOOM takes place first because it is essentially an origin story. Going into the movie, he's looking for "Fortune and Glory." Over the course of the film, he evolves to appreciate these relics for having more importance than that.

There's still some inconsistencies which don't quite work, and LAST CRUSADE and YOUNG INDIANA JONES retroactively kill this idea, but that's life.
 

---

Posted by Michael Moore (Member # 3867) on 05-19-2008, 11:43 AM:
 
I have always looked at the episodes to be random anyway with no real rhyme or reason... I don't think they are meant to be connected plot wise. Thematically the movies work well as individual episodes in Indian Jones career as an archeologist and adventurer. The character connections are always there, but the stories are not connected. Hey it works.

Mike
 

---

Posted by Mark Campbell (Member # 4411) on 05-19-2008, 12:05 PM:
 
Yes in these "worlds" of film series and television series one has to treat each film episode as its own quantum timeline and not part of a large perfect chronology or you will go insane with the rooting out inconsistencies and worse, trying to figure out how they can work.

Two simple points that nipped it in the bud for me and made me give in are in the James Bond series (prior to Casino Royale). 1. In "You only live twice" James Bond meets Blofeld face to face in his lair. In the very next film "On her majesty's secret service" Bond disguises himself with glasses and an accent enters Blofeld's lair as guest. 2. By the last Pierce Brosnan film there is no way Bond could be in his 80's and still going strong (that is if he had been the same Bond of Dr No.

Each film is its own.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-20-2008, 12:57 AM:
 
Spielberg sez there may be more Indy ahead: (from imdb.com)

If Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull turns out to be the kind of hit many industry observers expect, it's likely that a fifth Indy film will follow, the filmmakers told a news conference at the Cannes Film Festival on Sunday. Asked whether he'd make any more Indy sequels, Steven Spielberg replied, "Only if you want more of them." He added, "That's the reason why we made this Indiana Jones," explaining that no one has ever asked him to make a sequel to 1941 or AI: Artificial Intelligence. "So certainly we'll have our ear to the ground this summer and that will decide where we go from here." In an interview with FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman, George Lucas added, "I haven't even told Steven or Harrison this. But I have an idea to make Shia the lead character next time and have Harrison come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie. I can see it working out." That may be the only way Harrison Ford might return. He has previously told interviewers that Crystal Skull will be his last film as Indy.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 05-20-2008, 04:44 AM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I haven't even told Steven or Harrison this. But I have an idea to make Shia the lead character next time and have Harrison come back like Sean Connery did in the last movie. I can see it working out." That may be the only way Harrison Ford might return. He has previously told interviewers that Crystal Skull will be his last film as Indy.

---

quote:

---

In the movies, as in life, clothes define character. And with Harrison Ford's iconic archaeologist and adventurer, Indiana Jones, it's all about the hat. Having worn hats all his life — growing up on a cotton farm made them a necessity — Stephen Delk, a soft-spoken grandfather from Columbus, Mississippi, always appreciated good headgear but was too busy with his job as a custom cabinetmaker to indulge his inner hatter. Then, around 1991, a friend showed him a 10-year-old film on VHS, conceived by George Lucas and directed by Steven Spielberg, called Raiders of the Lost Ark. Delk remembers thinking, "That is the coolest hat I've ever seen." After spending $7,500 on hats that never quite matched his imagination, Delk made a fateful decision: "Heck, I could learn how to make these things."
Three years of trial and error — "Hatters don't share much," he asserts — and Delk, using arcane instruments like tollikers, brim flanges, and crown irons, had the Adventurebilt: a thirties-style brown fedora made from the finest beaver felt, with a 5 ½" straight-sided crown, dark ribbon, and a dimensionally cut brim (2 ½" sides, 2 ¾" front and back).
On his quest, Delk discovered a crucial secret: It was the block shape of the original Raiders fedora, found by costume designer Deborah Nadoolman at the Herbert Johnson hat shop in London, that made Indy's lid so distinctive. So like the old-school bespoke hatters who stretched raw felt bodies over worn wooden blocks, Delk carved out a properly shaped form by hand and got to work.
Fast forward to last year: Bernie Pollack, costume designer for the upcoming Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull — the fourth film in the series — gave him a call. Spielberg, after viewing test shots of Harrison Ford in an Adventurebilt, had made up his mind, and Delk beat out Hollywood hatmaker Baron Hats for the contract. Along with his partner Marc Kitter, he worked up 48 hats for the film. And while many of his customers are Indiana Jones fans, 80 percent of Delk's business comes from purists, those rare souls who still appreciate a handmade hat. (He insists on doing all of his stitching by hand, taking over eight hours in his backyard camper workshop to produce each one.)
Delk isn't sure yet if he will attend the premiere of Indy IV. But if he does, he'll be hatless — so as not to show up the guy on the screen.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

Asked whether he'd make any more Indy sequels, Steven Spielberg replied, "Only if you want more of them."

---

quote: Mark Campbell

---

James Bond series (prior to Casino Royale). 1. In "You only live twice" James Bond meets Blofeld face to face in his lair. In the very next film "On her majesty's secret service" Bond disguises himself with glasses and an accent enters Blofeld's lair as guest.

---

First of all the movies were released in a different order than the novels and after the first few, barely resembled the novels anyway, except for character names. Fleming's books were published in this order: Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, Moonraker, Diamonds are Forever, For Your Eyes Only (short stories), From Russia With Love, Dr. No, Goldfinger, The Spy Who Loved Me, Thunderball, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, You Only Live Twice (short stories), The Man with the Golden Gun, Octopussy (short stories).

Kingsley Amis authored one post-Fleming Bond novel, John Gardner wrote 14 + a few film novelizations and Raymond Benson wrote 6 + some short stories and film novelizations. There's a new one just released by author Sebastian Faulks.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 06-01-2008, 09:31 PM:
 
Well it's a good thing that Spielberg didn't work on any of the Jaws sequels, because they sucked worse with every chapter.

As for E.T., a sequel would have probably been something like "Elliot goes to E.T.'s planet and saves them from diaster." There was a really nice book I read as a kid called "The Wonderful Flight to the Mushroom Planet" that I always thought would make a good movie, and it had almost exactly that storyline.
 

---

Posted by Geoff Jones (Member # 3668) on 07-06-2008, 09:22 PM:
 
Re: Prints of Raiders (& ToD & LC) being pulled from distribution

The AFI Silver Theatre in Maryland is attempting to show the Indiana Jones films as part of a (pretty killer) Spielberg retrospective. Listings for the Indy films have this note: Screenings unconfirmed, check back for updates.

Raiders is scheduled for 07/25, 26, & 31. The others are in Aug.

I hope those films get back into distribution soon. It would be nice to see a GOOD Indiana Jones film on the Big Screen.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-06-2008, 10:48 PM:
 
Raiders is indeed on their current (July) calendar. Perhaps it has been confirmed.

The print of JAWS they got was indeed pristine and with a digital soundtracks.

The AFI/Silver is also showing David Lean and Warren Beatty retrospectives (as well as James Stewart)...their print of Bonnie and Clyde was exceptionally good.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 07-07-2008, 12:38 PM:
 

quote: Martin Brooks

---

Well that's B.S. because he refused to work on the sequel to Jaws and there were never sequels of Close Encounters or E.T.

---

Those films were all Spielberg, the Indy series is a joint creation with George Lucas.
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 12-01-2013, 05:41 PM:
 

It has been 1973 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-01-2013, 05:41 PM:
 
This is for John Wilson.
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-08-2013, 09:12 PM:
 
Awwwww...thank-you SO much!


 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-08-2013, 11:23 PM:
 
And in the lighter side of the news, going back and reading this thread was interesting knowing what we now know about 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Magnetic Headed Aliens'.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 12-09-2013, 03:15 PM:
 
Disney now owns the rights to distribute any future Indiana Jones movies. They can't do any worse ... right?
 

---

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 12-10-2013, 05:23 AM:
 
(Cough)Lone Ranger(cough)
 

---