231 replies to this topic

[Mr. Blofeld]

Just saw it; five and a half stars, mes amis.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Well, after much encouragement, I saw IRON MAN.

It was a fun way to pass a few hours, largely thanks to Robert Downey Jr. He was definitely the right choice for Tony Stark, and he carries the movie on his shoulders. Without him, IRON MAN would pretty much fall apart. He's the only really exceptional element of the venture, and the one that keeps the interest as the film goes on.

Essentially, IRON MAN is your typical popcorn fare, capably executed and with a good charismatic performance holding it together. IRON MAN is one of the best superhero films of the decade, sure, and the best of the MARVEL films. (Admittedly, that's not really saying much.)

What I think IRON MAN lacks is ambition. Maybe they'll take the character to some really interesting places in future installments, but here, we just have a by-the-numbers screenplay with Favreau's merely competent direction.

I give it .

And, as I brace myself for accusation that I made my mind up before I ever stepped foot in the theatre, am I alone in thinking the cobbled-together suit is much cooler than the very polished finished product?

I like the 'Mcgyver suit' but the ultimate armor is pretty awesome-that's where they hit a grand slam imo. The Fight at the end was weak but I did love seeing Ironman in action in Afghanistan...anyway, glad you saw it. I wouldn't describe it as 'by the numbers' but it is what it is: a comic book adaptation and a good one at that but with room for improvement. The summer is off to a great start.

[Harmsway]

I think they've already planted the seeds of Tony Stark's alcohol problem in this movie (it wouldn't be right to have it right off the bat in a new franchise). In the sequel, I'm hoping they will let rip with the "Demon in a Bottle" storyline and have Stark lose his fortune, give up being Iron Man (which would lead into Terrence Howard's expanded role as the 2nd Iron Man and subsequently War Machine) and finally hit rock bottom before realising that he has got something to live for.

Now that would be interesting and a worthy follow-up. I can certainly imagine them using it as a story element, but I can't imagine that they'd go for broke in that direction. It would almost certainly be undercut by a lot of the more popcorn elements - but ya never know. Maybe IRON MAN II will truly be that bold and a genre-stretching entertainment masterpiece that really brings the adult to the superhero genre as THE DARK KNIGHT seems to be doing.

It's possible that, once WATCHMEN is released, we'll see a whole new attitude towards the genre. Of course, that's assuming that it's a quality film. By all rights it should be (Alan Moore's phenomenal graphic novel is the best thing ever done with the genre, and even made it onto the list of TIME's greatest English language novels from 1923 to the present), but the project's success is dependent on how well the source material is adapted by the admittedly uncertain talents of director Zack Snyder. But if WATCHMEN is pulled off with all it's maturity and complexity (in addition to the relatively somber and mature THE DARK KNIGHT), I can see the focus of the genre entirely shifting towards something far more interesting than it is right now.

If you take the alcoholism storyline, add some real visual poetry, some better attention to characters (Paltrow, Howard, and Bridges are all given too little to do), provide a really interesting threat, and avoid the "action finale," and you would have an Iron Man film I'd wholeheartedly embrace.

And yes, the first suit does have a charm of its own.

I just loved the cobbled-together nature of it. Very makeshift, very unique, purely functional. Sure, it's not as snazzy as the later version, but it's awesome purely because it's made from so little.

With the finished suit, it was just a bit too polished for my taste. I wish they'd gone for something a little less shiny, less slick.

[dinovelvet]

When movie audiences look back on May 2008, they'll point to Iron Man and not Grandpa Jones as the movie that they should have watched on the big screen.

I hope not. Some of us still appreciate good old action/adventure films with, you know, real people doing stunts, and not endless parades of CGI fake looking robots fighting each other

[mrsbonds_ppk]

I loved it. It was fun, funny, entertaining and I do believe Iron Man has gotten tops over Spider Man on my list. At first I was like "Robert Downey Jr.?" but now I'm like "Yeaahh Robert Downey Jr." He was awesome.

I never read the comic but, I did watch the cartoon every now and then when I was little. I don't really have all the info on Iron Man but I liked this movie and I want to see it again.

[sharpshooter]

I'm seeing this tomorrow. I'm really looking forward to it after all this positive reaction.

[bond 16.05.72]

A hugely enjoyable popcorn blast with the added bonus of RDJ and Bridges on fine form as Staine. Where I expect more from DK this is an origin movie and a pretty fine one at that. RDJ is hugly charismatic as stark and was simply fantastic as the cocky egotistical rich boy type stark and also as the the changed man who realises what all hs profiteering is causing.

Not a huge fan of Paltrow normally but she is great and her chemistry with RDJ is spot on. It's nice to see Bridges in a bad guy role and while it's not complex and if you think about it too much you'll pick holes in it, it's a comic book film their not really known for reality are they and if your one for looking for them then I wouldn't bother with this. It's an intelligent take but it's entertaining not thought provoking.

Those who are knocking the Hulk trailer, which I enjoyed. The biggest problem seems to be the CGI for the Hulk not looking realistic, well the next time you see a giant green monster on the street maybe you can compare what looks realistic to the film but seeing it's a fictional character with no real comparrison, remember it's just a film so what is realistic to you anyway?

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 05 May 2008 - 02:00 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

When movie audiences look back on May 2008, they'll point to Iron Man and not Grandpa Jones as the movie that they should have watched on the big screen.

I hope not. Some of us still appreciate good old action/adventure films with, you know, real people doing stunts, and not endless parades of CGI fake looking robots fighting each other

And, you know, don't forget the real aliens, 'cause they actually exist...and, and Lucas and Spielberg even got some of 'em to sign a contract to make an appearence in, you know, 'da nuu movie 'dat's cumin' out in tree weeks...

[Dell Deaton]

According to Paul Harvey News this morning, Iron Man took in over $100,000,000 over the weekend. Officially blockbuster status, and a great start to the summer, say they.

You all have seen my grade above, but since the star system seems more the norm here, I give it:

[Loomis]

Maybe IRON MAN II will truly be that bold and a genre-stretching entertainment masterpiece that really brings the adult to the superhero genre as THE DARK KNIGHT seems to be doing.

It's possible that, once WATCHMEN is released, we'll see a whole new attitude towards the genre. Of course, that's assuming that it's a quality film. By all rights it should be (Alan Moore's phenomenal graphic novel is the best thing ever done with the genre, and even made it onto the list of TIME's greatest English language novels from 1923 to the present), but the project's success is dependent on how well the source material is adapted by the admittedly uncertain talents of director Zack Snyder. But if WATCHMEN is pulled off with all it's maturity and complexity (in addition to the relatively somber and mature THE DARK KNIGHT), I can see the focus of the genre entirely shifting towards something far more interesting than it is right now.

The comic book movie I really can't wait for is TINTIN. News on this Spielberg/Peter Jackson project seems a bit thin on the ground right now, but I have every confidence that it's going to be amazing.

Mind you, as a massive Tintin fan, I'm very bewildered as to how they're going to handle a "property" that on the face of it would be very difficult to translate to the screen, especially as a mass appeal blockbuster franchise, let alone how they're going to preserve (if indeed they are intending to do so) the distinctly non-American flavour of the Tintin books. While these books are beautifully drawn and extremely filmic in narrative, the challenge facing Spielberg and Jackson would be roughly comparable to that facing Eon if they were only just now starting to make James Bond films and with only the 1950s and 1960s Fleming novels as source material.

Still, it will, at the very least, be absolutely fascinating to see how this turns out.

[WC]

Maybe IRON MAN II will truly be that bold and a genre-stretching entertainment masterpiece that really brings the adult to the superhero genre as THE DARK KNIGHT seems to be doing.

It's possible that, once WATCHMEN is released, we'll see a whole new attitude towards the genre. Of course, that's assuming that it's a quality film. By all rights it should be (Alan Moore's phenomenal graphic novel is the best thing ever done with the genre, and even made it onto the list of TIME's greatest English language novels from 1923 to the present), but the project's success is dependent on how well the source material is adapted by the admittedly uncertain talents of director Zack Snyder. But if WATCHMEN is pulled off with all it's maturity and complexity (in addition to the relatively somber and mature THE DARK KNIGHT), I can see the focus of the genre entirely shifting towards something far more interesting than it is right now.

The comic book movie I really can't wait for is TINTIN. News on this Spielberg/Peter Jackson project seems a bit thin on the ground right now, but I have every confidence that it's going to be amazing.

Unfortunately that's going to be all motion capture, not live action. I would've loved to have seen a proper live action version in the vein of Indiana Jones.

[Loomis]

I would've loved to have seen a proper live action version in the vein of Indiana Jones.

Same here. A hellishly tall order, though, obviously, but, yeah, I too would have preferred a live action Tintin. Still, what they're planning is obviously better than nothing. In any case, bring it on!

Nothing will ever touch the work of Herg

[sharpshooter]

Indeed, I like the Tin Tin books and hope that the animation is not tin pot.

[jaguar007]

When movie audiences look back on May 2008, they'll point to Iron Man and not Grandpa Jones as the movie that they should have watched on the big screen.

I hope not. Some of us still appreciate good old action/adventure films with, you know, real people doing stunts, and not endless parades of CGI fake looking robots fighting each other

I'm sure Indy is good for at least a $150million opening weekend - I mean c'mon, who is NOT going to go see Indy 4??

[marktmurphy]

Saw it last night- great fun. The cast were superb, and not knowing much about Iron Man besides what he looked like, that's a great move.

I thought it went slightly flat in the last act from where we knew that Bridges was a bad guy, the main problem being (bizarrely) that the scenes without Iron Man in i.e. where Downey got to be onscreen, were better than the ones with him in the suit. Stark's more interesting to watch than Iron Man (although it's refreshing to see a superhero where there's no difference between the superhero and the secret identity; it's just him in a suit). The action scenes weren't bad at all, but the Stark scenes were just better.

Amazing that it's done so well- is it just good timing? It's the first of the big films this year, after all. I don't imagine it's because the audience have been dying to see Iron Man up on the big screen; I like to think that it's the amazing cast: people know quality.


Not desperate to see the Dark Knight. I'd rather watch Iron Man again, to be honest. Iron Man's missing something- it doesn't have that spark that the Spider Man films had- but it's fun and funny.

The comic book movie I really can't wait for is TINTIN. News on this Spielberg/Peter Jackson project seems a bit thin on the ground right now, but I have every confidence that it's going to be amazing.

Mind you, as a massive Tintin fan, I'm very bewildered as to how they're going to handle a "property" that on the face of it would be very difficult to translate to the screen, especially as a mass appeal blockbuster franchise, let alone how they're going to preserve (if indeed they are intending to do so) the distinctly non-American flavour of the Tintin books. While these books are beautifully drawn and extremely filmic in narrative, the challenge facing Spielberg and Jackson would be roughly comparable to that facing Eon if they were only just now starting to make James Bond films and with only the 1950s and 1960s Fleming novels as source material.

Still, it will, at the very least, be absolutely fascinating to see how this turns out.

It has a great writer- I'm hugely interested to see how that works out.

[Harmsway]

I do want to point out one thing about IRON MAN. It had an absolutely awful score. Hopefully they'll get some better music next time around, because it has been a long time since I heard a score that bad.

Amazing that it's done so well- is it just good timing? It's the first of the big films this year, after all. I don't imagine it's because the audience have been dying to see Iron Man up on the big screen; I like to think that it's the amazing cast: people know quality.

It would be a nice thought, but given my belief that people are shaky when it comes to recognizing quality, I think it's more they just saw the trailers, thought it seemed funny and entertaining, and showed up.

Anyway, MARVEL's plan to dominate the superhero film market has been announced (Yahoo! broke the news here):

April 30, 2010: IRON MAN 2
June 4, 2010: THOR
May 6, 2011: THE FIRST AVENGER: CAPTAIN AMERICA
July, 2011: THE AVENGERS

We'll see how successful THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA manage to be. It'll take a bit more to get the public really interested - they're not the most marketable figures.

Not desperate to see the Dark Knight. I'd rather watch Iron Man again, to be honest.

Yeah, but you disliked BEGINS. Hardly surprising that you'd be less than enthusiastic about its sequel, which, while holding more promise than the former film, is still an extension of the original.

It has a great writer- I'm hugely interested to see how that works out.

TINTIN will be interesting, definitely one of the most interesting comic book projects. It's on my radar. TINTIN... I like Herge's work, but I'm doubtful as to its ability to work as a film, even with Spielberg and Jackson on board.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I do want to point out one thing about IRON MAN. It had an absolutely awful score. Hopefully they'll get some better music next time around, because it has been a long time since I heard a score that bad.

Amazing that it's done so well- is it just good timing? It's the first of the big films this year, after all. I don't imagine it's because the audience have been dying to see Iron Man up on the big screen; I like to think that it's the amazing cast: people know quality.

It would be a nice thought, but given my belief that people are shaky when it comes to recognizing quality, I think it's more they just saw the trailers, thought it seemed funny and entertaining, and showed up.

Anyway, MARVEL's plan to dominate the superhero film market has been announced (Yahoo! broke the news here):

April 30, 2010: IRON MAN 2
June 4, 2010: THOR
May 6, 2011: THE FIRST AVENGER: CAPTAIN AMERICA
July, 2011: THE AVENGERS

We'll see how successful THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA manage to be. It'll take a bit more to get the public really interested - they're not the most marketable figures.

Not desperate to see the Dark Knight. I'd rather watch Iron Man again, to be honest.

Yeah, but you disliked BEGINS. Hardly surprising that you'd be less than enthusiastic about its sequel, which, while holding more promise than the former film, is still an extension of the original.

It has a great writer- I'm hugely interested to see how that works out.

TINTIN will be interesting, definitely one of the most interesting comic book projects. It's on my radar. TINTIN... I like Herge's work, but I'm doubtful as to its ability to work as a film, even with Spielberg and Jackson on board.

Captian America seems waaaaay too campy and cheeseball to be taken seriously in the 21st centry. I just don't see audiences getting excited about a star spangled banner hero which would likely alienate a world wide market.I think they should scrap it and do a Hulk style redo of Daredevil(that could have been a great series).

And Johnny Depp seems like a great choice to open a Dr Strange film if they do that instead.I'd rather see that.

[marktmurphy]

I do want to point out one thing about IRON MAN. It had an absolutely awful score. Hopefully they'll get some better music next time around, because it has been a long time since I heard a score that bad.

That's true- it was pretty bad. Why don't superhero movies have themes anymore? Spider-Man's was about the most memorable of recent years, and that's not saying a lot.
Would it have been awful to have just used the Sabbath riff? I know that's more Ted Hughes than Marvel, but y'know...

Amazing that it's done so well- is it just good timing? It's the first of the big films this year, after all. I don't imagine it's because the audience have been dying to see Iron Man up on the big screen; I like to think that it's the amazing cast: people know quality.

It would be a nice thought, but given my belief that people are shaky when it comes to recognizing quality, I think it's more they just saw the trailers, thought it seemed funny and entertaining, and showed up.

Well, yeah- that's sort of the same thing, isn't it? Trailers often show you waht a film's going to be like and who's in it, after all
I don't think it pays to underestimate people; that way culture goes into a decline. Good films get bigger audiences than bad ones as a rule; otherwise they'd be no point in trying to make good ones.

Anyway, MARVEL's plan to dominate the superhero film market has been announced (Yahoo! broke the news here):

April 30, 2010: IRON MAN 2
June 4, 2010: THOR
May 6, 2011: THE FIRST AVENGER: CAPTAIN AMERICA
July, 2011: THE AVENGERS

We'll see how successful THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA manage to be. It'll take a bit more to get the public really interested - they're not the most marketable figures.

Well, who knows? I think they've realised that they need proper talent to make these films appealing; Nolan, Downey, Norton etc. Ant Man's even got Edgar Wright, so if they find interesting ways to do them...

Not desperate to see the Dark Knight. I'd rather watch Iron Man again, to be honest.

Yeah, but you disliked BEGINS. Hardly surprising that you'd be less than enthusiastic about its sequel, which, while holding more promise than the former film, is still an extension of the original.

I didn't mind it- it was very watchable. But I'm just saying that as quite a few others have been saying the same thing after the Knight trailer being on. The fun factor and likable lead of Iron Man just make it more attractive to a lot of people, despite the character being less famous.

It has a great writer- I'm hugely interested to see how that works out.

TINTIN will be interesting, definitely one of the most interesting comic book projects. It's on my radar. TINTIN... I like Herge's work, but I'm doubtful as to its ability to work as a film, even with Spielberg and Jackson on board.

Moffat (the writer)'s TV stuff is great and keeps winning awards- very interested to see how a film works out for him.

[WC]

I do want to point out one thing about IRON MAN. It had an absolutely awful score. Hopefully they'll get some better music next time around, because it has been a long time since I heard a score that bad.

Amazing that it's done so well- is it just good timing? It's the first of the big films this year, after all. I don't imagine it's because the audience have been dying to see Iron Man up on the big screen; I like to think that it's the amazing cast: people know quality.

It would be a nice thought, but given my belief that people are shaky when it comes to recognizing quality, I think it's more they just saw the trailers, thought it seemed funny and entertaining, and showed up.

Anyway, MARVEL's plan to dominate the superhero film market has been announced (Yahoo! broke the news here):

April 30, 2010: IRON MAN 2
June 4, 2010: THOR
May 6, 2011: THE FIRST AVENGER: CAPTAIN AMERICA
July, 2011: THE AVENGERS

We'll see how successful THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA manage to be. It'll take a bit more to get the public really interested - they're not the most marketable figures.

Not desperate to see the Dark Knight. I'd rather watch Iron Man again, to be honest.

Yeah, but you disliked BEGINS. Hardly surprising that you'd be less than enthusiastic about its sequel, which, while holding more promise than the former film, is still an extension of the original.

It has a great writer- I'm hugely interested to see how that works out.

TINTIN will be interesting, definitely one of the most interesting comic book projects. It's on my radar. TINTIN... I like Herge's work, but I'm doubtful as to its ability to work as a film, even with Spielberg and Jackson on board.

Captian America seems waaaaay too campy and cheeseball to be taken seriously in the 21st centry. I just don't see audiences getting excited about a star spangled banner hero which would likely alienate a world wide market.I think they should scrap it and do a Hulk style redo of Daredevil(that could have been a great series).

I don't think Captain America would seem campy at all. The recent comics of him and even action figures show a much more gritty version of the costume. Besides, if it is originally set in WWII (and later shifted to the present perhaps at the end of the movie) it would suit an Indiana Jones style adventure very well.

[Harmsway]

Good films get bigger audiences than bad ones as a rule

It should play out that way theoretically, but I've lost faith in such a rule. I look at the list of the really big hits from recent years, and a lot of them strike me as awful. The PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEANs, SPIDER-MANs, NARNIA, STAR WARS prequels, TRANSFORMERS... bleccch. Don't get me wrong, there are some really good hits too (CASINO ROYALE, RATATOUILLE, etc.), but there hardly seems to be much validity to "If the masses see it and like it, it must be good" idea.

otherwise they'd be no point in trying to make good ones.

Goodness is worthwhile for its own sake.

[MarcAngeDraco]

Good films get bigger audiences than bad ones as a rule

A quick glance over the all time box office lists revealed a lot of crap (at least what's crap in my opinon) so I'd have to disagree with that statement...

I'm not sure there's much (if any) correlation between the quality of a film and it's financial success anymore.

[George Lazenby]

I'll probaly see Iron Man Later this week.

[marktmurphy]

but there hardly seems to be much validity to "If the masses see it and like it, it must be good" idea.

I didn't say there was; I said that if a film is good then people are more likely to watch it. Two different statements.

otherwise they'd be no point in trying to make good ones.

Goodness is worthwhile for its own sake.

To massive corporations? Did you learn nothing from Tony Stark's dilemma?

[dinovelvet]

When movie audiences look back on May 2008, they'll point to Iron Man and not Grandpa Jones as the movie that they should have watched on the big screen.

I hope not. Some of us still appreciate good old action/adventure films with, you know, real people doing stunts, and not endless parades of CGI fake looking robots fighting each other

And, you know, don't forget the real aliens, 'cause they actually exist...and, and Lucas and Spielberg even got some of 'em to sign a contract to make an appearence in, you know, 'da nuu movie 'dat's cumin' out in tree weeks...

That's pretty silly, dude. No-one's holding up Indiana Jones as an example of gritty realism here. And you appear to have had a stroke as you were writing that last sentence The difference is that its the kind of movie that puts stunts and "real" action first, and CGI second, and its what I prefer to watch. I just can't relate to, or get engaged in any scene where its just two CGI thingys fighting each other. They might as well just save the money and put in a title card that says "CGI Good Iron Man fights CGI Bad Iron Man, and wins. We now return you to the portion of the film that involves actual actors". The rest of Iron Man might be amazing and fantastic, and judging by the critical response, it probably is, but the unconvincing videogame style action means I'll pass on it, because that kind of thing just doesn't do it for me.
Look at it this way - if CGI movies continue to outperform the "real" action movies, you know it'll creep into Bond sooner or later, and we can all expect Craig to be fighting a CGI cyborg by the time Bond 24 comes around

[HildebrandRarity]

Ya. We don't want Bond infiltrated with CGI. CR, after all, ONLY had 130-plus effects sequences to enhance the reality elements.

I was just rattling your cage there, dinovelvet. Indy will have its share of CGI. Aliens, my friend. Aliens.

[Tarl_Cabot]

When movie audiences look back on May 2008, they'll point to Iron Man and not Grandpa Jones as the movie that they should have watched on the big screen.

I hope not. Some of us still appreciate good old action/adventure films with, you know, real people doing stunts, and not endless parades of CGI fake looking robots fighting each other

And, you know, don't forget the real aliens, 'cause they actually exist...and, and Lucas and Spielberg even got some of 'em to sign a contract to make an appearence in, you know, 'da nuu movie 'dat's cumin' out in tree weeks...

That's pretty silly, dude. No-one's holding up Indiana Jones as an example of gritty realism here. And you appear to have had a stroke as you were writing that last sentence The difference is that its the kind of movie that puts stunts and "real" action first, and CGI second, and its what I prefer to watch. I just can't relate to, or get engaged in any scene where its just two CGI thingys fighting each other. They might as well just save the money and put in a title card that says "CGI Good Iron Man fights CGI Bad Iron Man, and wins. We now return you to the portion of the film that involves actual actors". The rest of Iron Man might be amazing and fantastic, and judging by the critical response, it probably is, but the unconvincing videogame style action means I'll pass on it, because that kind of thing just doesn't do it for me.
Look at it this way - if CGI movies continue to outperform the "real" action movies, you know it'll creep into Bond sooner or later, and we can all expect Craig to be fighting a CGI cyborg by the time Bond 24 comes around

He's already done that(DAD, Graves).

[WC]

When movie audiences look back on May 2008, they'll point to Iron Man and not Grandpa Jones as the movie that they should have watched on the big screen.

I hope not. Some of us still appreciate good old action/adventure films with, you know, real people doing stunts, and not endless parades of CGI fake looking robots fighting each other

And, you know, don't forget the real aliens, 'cause they actually exist...and, and Lucas and Spielberg even got some of 'em to sign a contract to make an appearence in, you know, 'da nuu movie 'dat's cumin' out in tree weeks...

That's pretty silly, dude. No-one's holding up Indiana Jones as an example of gritty realism here. And you appear to have had a stroke as you were writing that last sentence The difference is that its the kind of movie that puts stunts and "real" action first, and CGI second, and its what I prefer to watch. I just can't relate to, or get engaged in any scene where its just two CGI thingys fighting each other. They might as well just save the money and put in a title card that says "CGI Good Iron Man fights CGI Bad Iron Man, and wins. We now return you to the portion of the film that involves actual actors". The rest of Iron Man might be amazing and fantastic, and judging by the critical response, it probably is, but the unconvincing videogame style action means I'll pass on it, because that kind of thing just doesn't do it for me.
Look at it this way - if CGI movies continue to outperform the "real" action movies, you know it'll creep into Bond sooner or later, and we can all expect Craig to be fighting a CGI cyborg by the time Bond 24 comes around

I'm taking it that you haven't actually watched the movie? It's not pure CGI, either in the final fight scene or the rest of the movie where Iron Man appears. For the most part, practical effects were used with CGI utlised only to enhance and compliment the action. Jon Favreau chose to do things the old fashioned way where possible. Actual suits were made for both Iron Man and Iron Monger, and there was a team of "puppeteers" or operators who were used for the Iron Monger armour at various times. You can see also from the behind the scenes filming clips that the actual actors (or at least stuntmen) in the armoured suits stood in for the fight scenes. When the Audi was tossed and Iron Man caught it, the car was actually hoisted up with a crane with someone in the Iron Man suit standing there as if he had caught it. Even in the scenes where it is pure CGI, these look pretty realistic compared to other computer generated films and definitely not video-game like.

[Harmsway]

Indy will have it's share of CGI. Aliens, my friend. Aliens.

Spoiler

They might not be used in the way you think. Indy will have its share of CGI (clear enough from the trailers, and there's plenty more effects-heavy sequences in the film). That said, from what I've gathered the aliens (more appropriately described as inter-dimensional beings) aren't really going to be the CGI-heavy stuff.

And let's stop parading the aliens bit around... some folks don't want to know.

[Loomis]

TINTIN will be interesting, definitely one of the most interesting comic book projects. It's on my radar. TINTIN... I like Herge's work, but I'm doubtful as to its ability to work as a film, even with Spielberg and Jackson on board.

You like Tintin? Glad to hear it, although I seem to recall your saying at one point that you didn't. Anyway, not to grill you on this - pleased to know you're onboard.

[zencat]

Excellent flick.