• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

The Wanderer said:
I read later that Phoebe Waller-Bridge came up with this ending... well, duh, actors always want to steal the scene, or steal the whole movie. The director should have stood up for a proper ending for the protagonist.
Click to expand...
Sorry but this sounds very dubious. Where did you read that?
 
I'm not so much an expert on the lighting conditions used for the de-aging of Ford. I will confess that there were a few moments where his face had a somewhat flat, uncanny valley sort of quality (the shot where Indy emerges between rail carriages, where the lighting is mostly blue, was the most noticeable one for me).

Had I been writing the script, what I'd have added to the ending would be two things:

  1. Indy uses his whip to take out a Roman soldier who rushes Helena and Archimedes (the effort of it obviously taking a lot out of him at that point)
  2. When Indy is adamant on staying behind, he lets his pain and anger surface and says, "Mutt's gone. Marion is gone. What have I got left to go back for?" Helena is taken aback, gets emotional, tearing up, and says, "Me! Dad's been gone since I was fifteen! And that boy up there," gestures toward Teddy by the airplane, "never even knew who his father was! We need you! Indy... Please!" Indy thinks hard for a moment, looks up at Teddy, looks at Helena, then turns to Archimedes and bows his head respectfully. "It was the greatest honor of my life to meet you." He & Archimedes clasp hands briefly, exchanging a meaningful look, then Indy turns to Helena with his trademark wry smile and says, "C'mon, Wombat. Let's go home." He turns to walk back with her toward the plane, but suddenly his face twists in pain, his knees buckle, and he blacks out. Fade up on him in bed back in his apartment in 1969.
 
Re the de-aging. I started watching the movie with my kids on our 85” screen and it looked way better than I was expecting. But we only got halfway through the movie and so we resumed (on our separate little screens) on our intercontinental flight the next day. As I was getting back to the place in the movie we left off I stopped and watched some of the prologue again. And those same scenes that I thought looked great on our own screen looked terribly uncanny valley on the tiny airplane screen. One would think that the smaller screen would be less revealing of the issues. I’m not sure why it was like that, but my feeling is that the quality of the de-aging effect varies widely screen to screen. I’m curious if anyone who saw it in a good theater setting thought it looked better than at home.
 
Y'know, I struggle with that. Namely, I'm pretty darned good at suspending my sense of disbelief and going along with a movie. But I think we as audiences have become so increasingly sophisticated and used to the use of CGI and now AI technology that we're able to spot it. I wonder whether the fact that, in the back of our minds, we know it's a computer-generated image of a younger Harrison Ford that we instinctively look to identify any signs of it - in spite of ourselves. It's nobody's fault. It's just that we've gotten used to spotting this stuff, and without realizing it (or even meaning to), we do. And when we do, for that moment, it takes us out of the film. I dunno. I think we can either roll with it, or let it bother us. And that's not a criticism of anyone, by the way. That is just my observation as to how folks handle it.
 
addiesin said:
Sorry but this sounds very dubious. Where did you read that?
Click to expand...
I thought I read it on Screen Rant but I can't find it - so I must have heard it on youtube, this guy Mike Zeroh who does these kind of unhinged rants. So yeah I can't stand behind that as a proven truth!
 
For the record, I wasn’t making a complaint; I was noting how the same scenes looked drastically different in different presentations. I found that odd, particularly since you’d expect the smaller screen to be more forgiving.
 
Re the de-aging / lighting - I've still only seen it the one time, in the theater, but I did see a bit of the train sequence in a youtube video later. Just in terms of the brightness, it was way different. In the theater it was so dim it was tiring to watch, especially the part on the roof of the train. But it looks like it's not so bad on video (depending on the screen.)
In terms of the weird/uncanny appearance of Harrison's face being less noticeable on a big screen... could be. I didn't notice Henry Cavill's fake lip when I first saw Justice League (the Whedon version) in the theater, but it looked way more fake on my TV. I think having the whole image in the middle of your field of vision puts more of it in the area of your eye that has sharper vision, or at least gets subjected to more critical appraisal by your brain.
 
The Wanderer said:
I thought I read it on Screen Rant but I can't find it - so I must have heard it on youtube, this guy Mike Zeroh who does these kind of unhinged rants. So yeah I can't stand behind that as a proven truth!
Click to expand...
Ok, yeah that makes a lot more sense. I imagine a supporting actor "taking over" the plot of a 300mil film from the director would be widely reported if true.

The Wanderer said:
Re the de-aging / lighting - I've still only seen it the one time, in the theater, but I did see a bit of the train sequence in a youtube video later. Just in terms of the brightness, it was way different. In the theater it was so dim it was tiring to watch, especially the part on the roof of the train. But it looks like it's not so bad on video (depending on the screen.)
In terms of the weird/uncanny appearance of Harrison's face being less noticeable on a big screen... could be. I didn't notice Henry Cavill's fake lip when I first saw Justice League (the Whedon version) in the theater, but it looked way more fake on my TV. I think having the whole image in the middle of your field of vision puts more of it in the area of your eye that has sharper vision, or at least gets subjected to more critical appraisal by your brain.
Click to expand...
I have felt similarly with other "humans mixed with CGI" VFX. I remember the first Captain America looking incredibly realistic, but now when I watch the seams on the skinny Steve effects are much easier to spot (I think this could have been helped if Chris Evans did something different with his voice for skinny Steve, but I digress). Of course when I first saw it, it was on the big screen. And now it's on my TV. I wonder if we turned the picture upside down if it would be more difficult to spot the mistakes, utilizing that strange optical illusion thing with people not able to identify (real, human) upside down faces easily.
 
IronPhoenix said:
Y'know, I struggle with that. Namely, I'm pretty darned good at suspending my sense of disbelief and going along with a movie. But I think we as audiences have become so increasingly sophisticated and used to the use of CGI and now AI technology that we're able to spot it. I wonder whether the fact that, in the back of our minds, we know it's a computer-generated image of a younger Harrison Ford that we instinctively look to identify any signs of it - in spite of ourselves. It's nobody's fault. It's just that we've gotten used to spotting this stuff, and without realizing it (or even meaning to), we do. And when we do, for that moment, it takes us out of the film. I dunno. I think we can either roll with it, or let it bother us. And that's not a criticism of anyone, by the way. That is just my observation as to how folks handle it.
Click to expand...
I think it's exactly that. I suspect that a movie could use the de-aging technique on a completely unknown actor and fool 90% of the audience into thinking it's a real person.

For the most part I've got no issues whatsoever with digitally de-aging actors, so on the two occasions I've watched this movie (on my 65" 4K HDR TV and my mom's 40" 4K SDR TV) the effects has held up for me in both viewings. The only things that took me out of it were the aforementioned use of Ford's actual 80+ year-old voice coming out of his younger self and the wide shot of Indy jumping from one train carriage to the next, which had absolutely no weight to it and looked like a video game character.
 
MightyAttackTribble said:
I think it's exactly that. I suspect that a movie could use the de-aging technique on a completely unknown actor and fool 90% of the audience into thinking it's a real person.
Click to expand...
Reading your comment I was just thinking about the opposite, old age makeup. Or like, facial prosthetics. It's barely different from that (except the potential for uncanny valley is greater, admittedly) he term digital makeup is probably pretty accurate.
 
stevepaynter said:
Ok. so it looks like a it's just a few opening lines where Ford's voice sounds super old and the fan editor used some the lines and help from a YouTuber.....

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny Intro Revisit - Original Trilogy

Posted by kg1977 on undefined
originaltrilogy.com
Click to expand...

That's really impressive, and a clear improvement.

Buuuuuuut, I personally have another problem with that scene, which isn't technically the movie's fault. 2008's Valkyrie is one of my favorite movies, so I'm very used to seeing Thomas Kretschmann in a Wehrmacht uniform. While his uniform hasn't changed between the two movies, however, his face now isn't nearly as sharply angular as it was then, so to me, he looks just as wrong as Indy sounds! :D
 
MightyAttackTribble said:
I think it's exactly that. I suspect that a movie could use the de-aging technique on a completely unknown actor and fool 90% of the audience into thinking it's a real person.

For the most part I've got no issues whatsoever with digitally de-aging actors, so on the two occasions I've watched this movie (on my 65" 4K HDR TV and my mom's 40" 4K SDR TV) the effects has held up for me in both viewings. The only things that took me out of it were the aforementioned use of Ford's actual 80+ year-old voice coming out of his younger self and the wide shot of Indy jumping from one train carriage to the next, which had absolutely no weight to it and looked like a video game character.
Click to expand...
I know this comment is from awhile ago, but I’m just reading it now and I think you are pretty spot on with this.

In fact, Ant-Man was on tv a few weeks ago and I just randomly turned it on during one of the scenes where Michael Douglas was de-aged. I probably saw the movie one other time so I wasn’t sure what movie was on when I was flipping through the channels and thought maybe it was Wall Street or something. Not for one second did I think Michael Douglas was de-aged until about 2-3 minutes later when a reference was made that it was clearly the movie Ant-Man.

When I saw the movie in theaters I don’t remember being blown away by Michael Douglas’s de-aging, but when watching something when I wasn’t looking for it, it completely tricked me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom