Club Obi Wan

Bjones wrote:

sebas wrote:


However, it's worth mentioning that the general consensus is that rest of the gear looks great "as is," especially the fedora. Funny how, in this area, no one is urging catuion to wait for the film in order to give a final verdict.


I thought this was what I tried to say above:

bjones wrote:
Give it a fair shot, wait till the movie comes out and you see it in motion; a still doesn't tell the whole story.

Humm, not sure I get your point here. What I meant by the above is:

1. Regarding the rest of the gear, we don't need the film to be impressed. The photos suffice.
2. However, regarding only the jacket we are being told to "wait and see" and that the photos don't suffice.
3. This doesn't make sense.

I'm sticking to my guns. If the jacket looks bad in these photos, chances are, it'll look bad on film. Like I said, the Raiders jacket looks great both in photos and on film: Stands to reason that it also works the other way around.

St. Dumas wrote:I find it odd that the new production hadn't made costume continuity from the three previous films a priority. There are quite a few notable differences in the KOTCS costume photos from those of the first three movies in the "look" of the jacket, the holster colour, wearing the bag strap under the jacket -- even to an attentive filmgoer's eye when comparing photos. Sure, costume differences are the production's prerogative, but they chose to make those items were more or less consistent with each other in the first three. Why the change now? It seems unnecessary.


S.D.

Unnecessary? Like wearing the exact same clothes close to 20 years after you last wore 'em?

Cassidy wrote:Unnecessary? Like wearing the exact same clothes close to 20 years after you last wore 'em?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But that's kind of my point. Even though the productions in the first three films could have altered Indy's costume in significant ways each time out, they chose not to. Yet the fourth time around, the gear looks brand new. I just wonder why the change now. I think the big difference in the look is the costume distressing (yet there's a remote possibility that it has something to do with the story).

At the end of the day, the vast majority of filmgoers won't notice any difference.

SD

I can live with the new jacket.

After all, Tony Nowak had another famous movie where his jacket style REALLY departed from the previous 2 movies. And not in a positive way, in my opinion I am counting my blessings that the Indy 4 jacket was not so radical.

I also realize that Nowak was just following directions - and maybe even had some minor input, but it could have been much worse.

Panama Tom wrote:

Quote:
Fedora wrote:
I always wondered why Indy would wear a not so tough jacket anyways on adventures. I mean, leather was worn as protection from stuff, ya know?

I gotta go with Steve on this one – as much as we all go on about the drape of the Raiders jacket, in the real world Indy would wear a leather jacket for protection from the elements and injury – he wouldn’t give a flying flip about drape. As much as I love my lamb Wested, I don’t see it holding up in the real world to the type of stresses that a real Indy would subject it to…

I suscribe to other school of thought here. What's important is how it looks on the screen. Period. What's happening in the real world is heresay, because it isn't the real world, it's a movie. It's like saying white ABS plastic wouldn't provide sufficient protection for Imperial Stormtroopers in the real world. Who cares? Sure, they could have made some metal armor from god-knows-what alloy, etc, but plastic is what looked good on screen.

The lambskin drapping and the flapping around is what gave the Raiders jacket its personality and what made it so iconic. It's the jacket that started it all. It wasn't broken, but they went ahead and fixed it anyway.

A couple of theories I have about why the jacket is so new is firstly, it could be that Indy has not been on an adventure in some time and also you have to remember that has Indy has lived not only through the Depression, but through WWII etc. From what I understand, money was very scarce after WWII so it could be that Indy much like the rest of his generation took more care of their clothes.

Just my $2 or my £2 in England.

_ wrote:That raises a good point, and something I've always felt about IJ... I would have almost preferred him to be more of a Bond or even MacGuyver. Yes - the jacket, hat and maybe gun, but the rest really should change over time. Shirt, shoes, pants - that stuff changes.

In fact, I preferred the parts of LC where he was running around in the suit to a great degree BECAUSE he was more realistic. "Wait, Elsa - I have to get my costume on before I have an adventure..." Silly, I know - but I prefer SOME realism...

I always wished that they would but him in the off black/grayish shirt that he sometimes wore in the comic book. I thought it looked cool. He’s like Albert Einstein wearing the same 7 versions of the same suit.

Coulda been worse, eh?



_, based on your research of the jacket distressing process used in all 4 films, how does water alter the properties of lambskin versus cowhide. Does cowhide retain more water than the lamb?

Quote:
in the real world Indy would


- but even if that were true it's not the point, it's about the gear looking right on screen

BINGO! Everyone needs to keep reminding themselves that the costume is not made to be practical as some of us would like our jackets to be. This is a movie and what matters most is how it looks up on the screen, not what hide is best for whatever environment. It's all FICTIONAL!

agent5 wrote:

Quote:
in the real world Indy would


- but even if that were true it's not the point, it's about the gear looking right on screen

BINGO! Everyone needs to keep reminding themselves that the costume is not made to be practical as some of us would like our jackets to be. This is a movie and what matters most is how it looks up on the screen, not what hide is best for whatever environment. It's all FICTIONAL!

Come now, 5, YOU of all people need to relax that stand, especially after reading your exchange with Adam today.

Some folks don't CARE about it being all fictional'. They want to enjoy the knowing whether or not the gear can perform in real world practice. Don't rain on their parade!

You do your thing, let them do theirs!

Regards! Michaelson

I agree on the costume/real world arguement that costumes just need to look good. When you think about it, the Raiders jacket was thin. Why was this a good thing? Because it didn't give the actors or stuntmen heat stroke in the jungle/desert. Why might this have been a good thing for Indy himself? because it wouldn't give INDY heat stroke in the desert/jungle. Yea, the jacket went through some stuff that it couldn't really survive, but could a cowhide jacket have survived the truck pull? It's doubtful.

He also had to walk on broken glass. I'll pass, thank you .....

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson, I feel like I'm picking on you man, but please don't take it that way..just friendly banter.. anyway you wrote :[quote] Some folks don't CARE about it being all fictional'. They want to enjoy the knowing whether or not the gear can perform in real world practice. Don't rain on their parade! [/quote]

But I must point out that the topic of this thread is regarding THE jacket that ended up in THE movie, and it doesn't matter if it's strong. That should be for the customer of the repro jacket to decide when placing his order - like always. But if it doesn't look or move correctly on screen it lacks something and perhaps fails to capture the imagination like the originals from Raiders did.

Doug C

Sorry, I must respectfully disagree.

The point stated was, and you included it in my quote, SOME folks don't care. That's all I said.

Fedora stated he didn't, and was mildly taken to task for it. I still feel if he doesn't care, it's his call, as it is anyone else who feels the same way.

I support his part of the hobby as much as I support agent5's need to pursue the nitty gritty details of the Raiders 'costume' pieces.

Regards! Michaelson

I just want to say, from these pics, I don't like this jacket or the gun/holster. All the reasons have been discussed above.

Here's the comic book version. Sometimes he had a yellow shirt as well. I know the gray probably had more to do with printing practices than anything. I myself like to believe that it was done for aesthetic reasons because at times they did give him the tan shirt. Cheers

Michaelson wrote:

Some folks don't CARE about it being all fictional'. They want to enjoy the knowing whether or not the gear can perform in real world practice.

Sure. But the purpose of this thread is to specifically discuss the film (thus fictional) jacket. For those folks who don't care about it being all fictional or want to know whether the gear can perform in the real world, they can debate that in another thread to their heart's content, right?

Interesting, Rundquist... Dunno, like the grey, but it's a too bit dark for me.

sebas wrote:Michaelson wrote:

Some folks don't CARE about it being all fictional'. They want to enjoy the knowing whether or not the gear can perform in real world practice.

Sure. But the purpose of this thread is to specifically discuss the film (thus fictional) jacket. For those folks who don't care about it being all fictional or want to know whether the gear can perform in the real world, they can debate that in another thread to their heart's content, right?

But one of the side issues (being discussed in this thread) is that the new gear was derived more for the real world rather than the previous gear. Ford & his costumer wanted a more substantial jacket. Things like the bag working better on the outside and so forth are being discussed. Cheers

I can see both arguments. But if I'm going to wear an adventurer type jacket, I want it to be strong.

Consider this. A human body couldn't take half the beating Indy gets. The real world Indy would have to be made of titanium. Thus a well-made lambskin jacket is more likely to survive than a person....

Cheers

I love the jacket, but I've never been into picking at every single detail. I think the gear looks great. I lile larger epaulets on the shirt but he had small ones in the LC. I'm impressed and would buy an Indy 4 jacket in a heartbeat. (as long as it's under $250)

Andrew

In my opinion, this jacket


is not even close to the same as this one:


I dig the look of the jacket in the second pic. It looks well worn, rather than a predistressed hide jacket fresh off the hanger.

Ron

The difference between those two jackets is crazy. It could just be the lighting and the way he's standing though.

agent5 wrote:I think alot of the talk about what type of hide was used is sort of silly. It's not the hide that matters as to whats on film, but how it looks. Who cares if it's cow or that they used lamb on the other films as long as it looks good. I think the new jacket 'looks' as if it were taken from Wilsons leather from some shopping mall in the mid-eighties. Throw on some stone washed jeans, some white Nikes, grow a mullet and it's 1988 all over again. If you ask most people (non-gearheads) they'd say all of his jackets were cowhide. Nobody but us die-hards really know and in the end it doesn't matter so long as it looks right.

I'm just hoping it will look better on screen and that these high-rez pics are just throwing us off.

I totally agree with you agent 5. If I want a jacket that looks like Indy's I'm going for the lambskin hands down. If I want a leather jacket that can stand up to real world adventures and abuse I'm going for cow or most likely goat.

Here's food for thought:



Can it be? Can Ford's rising waistline in his older years actually for once be giving Indiana Jones period accurate pants?

Something everyone seems to be forgetting about the older movies is that... yes, they were set in the 30's-40's. But that does not mean they were FILMED then. The costumers were not perfect, and neither were the costumes. Indy's pants were NOT period accurate in waistline for the original trilogy... It just wouldn't look good on screen... People would be falling out of their seats wondering what the heck Han Solo was doing running around in his grandfather's pants if that was the case!

Anyway, one interesting thing to note in the above picture is that the jacket doesn't seem to be longer. Judging from those shots, it looks like they carried over his jacket's length, and are NOT making the jacket longer than it was before. What the costumers for this film might be doing though, is to give Ford a higher rise pants, or that might just be the effects of old age.

So what I guess I'm trying to say is that Ford's pants in the original trilogy fell where most folks wore theirs in the 70's-80's. That is to say: Ford had his rise probably 3-4 inches above the bottom of his leather jacket. Not 1-2". And now, with this new 'waistline', Ford's pants are 4-5" above his jacket, making it look like a car coat.

It wasn't the length of the jacket that changed. It was his pants. Nice pants.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's my take on the matter anyway.

I always figured that Indy's pants naturally drifted down to where they were throughout the movie. I've been watching old movies since I was a kid and it just seemed logical that all the running around and adventuring would bring them to a more natural waistline. I assumed that's why the pants were natural fit and bunched up at the ankles. They could have been worn higher, and these ones may be worn lower in the movie. We won't know until we see it. Everybody's been saying what great shape Ford is in, but he does look a bit heavier. The pants may be pulled up to a normal waistline in that publicity shot, but they'll drift down after a little while to below whatever paunch he may be hiding.

This is just my opinion, but that jacket looks obviously pre-distressed compared to weathered by wearing through extreme and dangerous circumstances .

Agent5 wrote

Why wouldn't they just copy a jacket from the archives that was used in one of the earlier films instead of a fanmade copy of one of them? Was there something in particular about the Keppler jacket that they liked over the actual jackets used in the movies?

Can't you see why? Because the Lee Keppler jacket was better than the Raiders film used jacket, because it was made by flightsuits, rather than Peter who made the Raider jacket.

I'm joking of course.

I wouldn't know better than the powers that be, but I guess that the Raiders hero jacket is not in the pocession of Lucas as it is thought to be.
My guess is it is lost.

I think that the average guy would be able to distinguish a 'not looking good on him' jacket that he wears now, from a 'looking good' jacket that he was wearing 25 years ago. (He wore it continuously for months-filming took months.

Now, if I were Lucas and I had the original jacket in my 'closet', if I ever saw Ford and Bernie walking out of the wardrobe with any jacket looking less cool than the original, I would simply make a copy of the one I kept in the 'closet'.

Then I would fire Bernie.

I don't see why/how Lucas/Spielberg/Ford don't see that this jacket is much inferior than the original and they listen to Bernie who is trying to pass his own distinguished look.

The bloody pants look the same. Why?
Why can't the jacket look the same too?
OK, for the new bag strap and strap buckle, those are details, but the jacket and the hat should the same. (Hat looks great, different but great)

I think we should all blame _ *joke* for the jacket, because although he has contacts with those guys didn't arrange that Ford tries on a Wested or a Flightsuits, not to mention a Todd's.

Captain Ron Solo wrote:In my opinion, this jacket


is not even close to the same as this one:


Ron

Well, neither is the lighting, angle, etc. Just look at Ford in those 2. HE doesn't even look the same. He looks barely a few years older than LC on the outside one, and much more like today in the cave.

I like the idea of yet a different jacket. It opens up more choices for those who want an SA Indy jacket. Want durable, real-life standards, here it is. Want a costume that looks like a Raiders'? Great, they make those, too.

I personally hope that if there is an Indy V, that he goes with an off-the-rack, US Wings Antique Lamb

If the movie is as good as Ford and others involved are saying, then the jacket, hat and pants aren't gonna matter too much to me. But, to comment, it seems that what we may be getting is a very well made Cooper/Disney jacket. If so, fine with me. 20 years have passed so one would think that a new jacket would have been obtained over that time period - and the style would be different. Like I said, if the film is a classic, then these discussions are moot....at least to me.

junior

Arca wrote :

I personally hope that if there is an Indy V, that he goes with an off-the-rack, US Wings Antique Lamb

Now, that's EXACTLY what they should have done! It would have been so much easier and cheaper..because the cut is the same as what I'm seeing in the promo shot, it also has the LC collar/stand combo that they seem to favor now too and the Antique Lamb is thick and super tough. Not to mention that it's beautiful texture would have looked amazing on screen instead of dull and flat, like what we're getting.

Junior wrote:

Like I said, if the film is a classic, then these discussions are moot....

I agree and doubt it even will have to be a classic. We'll love the movie for the shear fact that Ford is on screen again as Indy. We'll probably find little to criticize once it's out.

Doug C

_ wrote:

But, again - what kind of freak would really wear a fur felt fedora and a leather jacket in the tropical rainforests?

Hmm… good point.
Over Thanksgiving I got to see a bunch of jungle trek pictures of my Dad and Grandfather – both real life Indy types – and not a leather jacket of fur hat in any of them.
Excuse me while I pick up the pieces of my blown apart, “real world Indy” argument…

Well, also consider the possibility that if Ford IS going to make this his last Indy film, maybe he wanted a jacket made worth taking home after his part in the production was completed........

Regards! Michaelson

Sigh.... I'll be right back.....

Seriously, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he had an example of a jacket from every Indy film, and probably wanted one from this film too. As you pointed out, he chose an unknown example from the Lucas warehouse, and would just want something inhand by whom ever got the contract.

No stones being thrown at anyone. It was just worded that could be read two different ways. I was referencing just grabbing a jacket from a rack and wearing it too...

Regards! Michaelson

Hummm.

Well, I guess I can't outrun them in the old Plymouth, so I'll just sit here, drink another cup of coffee and await my fate....

Regards! Michaelson

_ - this is soo typical of you, I swear. Why do you feel the need to demonize Wested constantly?

Doug C

I'll take the hit on this one, Doug.

It was the way I did word my post above, as it appeared I was saying the jacket Ford MIGHT take away would be 'WORTH' the effort. Not my intent, but man, after re-reading my post, it could sure have been read that way.


MY bad!

Regards! Michaelson

Wait now, I never read anything into what Michaelson wrote, I never even thought about Wested until you (_) started diggin' on them. And I thought "well, here we go again.." and I know you ment it as a joke, you always do right? but it's a recurring theme that I don't think you even realize it. Your prejudice shows through.

Doug C

It’s just a joke. Also, as Peter has always far outsold everyone else, he always has the last laugh. He’ll always be the guy that made the original (regardless of whether he invented the jacket or not). He’s untouchable. It was a good joke. Cheers

Runquist wrote :

He’s untouchable.

?? that's a crazy comment too

and btw, _'s joke was indeed witty, I'll give him that.

Anyone notice how Ford doesn't feel out the shoulder area of this CS jacket? This is an area where a better (well thinner, more flexable) leather would have made a difference, atleast that's what I see in the promo shot..not so much in the outside shot of Indy carrying the bags. (to try and bring this thread back on track)

Doug C

I just meant that he’s secured his place in history. He can do no wrong. I’ve used this analogy before. Paul McCartney releases a crummy album every year. Does it diminish his place in history? Not really. He was a Beatle. My apologies to those that like Paul’s recent work. Cheers

Jeez - you all realize that all this commotion is just over 3 still pics? Wait till the movie comes out - this place is going to be a madhouse!
Oops, too late...

Come now, Tom....by then everyone will have either killed each other off, gone mad, or wandered off into the desert.....

Regards! Michaelson

or wandered off into the desert.....

Now That was funny

...visions of Pirates of the Carribean 3?

Regards! Michaelson

Wasn't there something about the collar being "specially made" for this film?? If that's the case then they failed miserably IMO.
It (the collar) looks awful and the whole idea about making a film costume tough enough for real adventures is a misunderstanding, the look of the jacket is more important. Imagine Batman's costume in a bulletproof version
This jacket just doesn't look the part, it has zero personalty
The pic of HF in the street is the best pic of the jacket but still it's not an Indy jacket.
Sorry guys.
Kim

Come now, Tom....by then everyone will have either killed each other off, gone mad, or wandered off into the desert.....

"We're only one step away..."

"That's usually when the ground falls out from underneath your feet."