The jungle is not real...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/26/film.indyeffects.ap/art.jones.early.ap.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/26/film.indyeffects.ap/index.html&h=219&w=292&sz=18&hl=en&start=1&usg=__uHeiDvTxlYxgaQDIdQluMR4FWeE=&tbnid=zfT_tjLgrv-vXM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=115&prev=/images%3Fq%3DIndiana%2BJones%252BJungle%252BCGI%26 gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

The jungle is real. There are a few animated elements to cover the real road they were driving on and to close it in with foliage.

The cliff with the river below was added.

But they were in a real jungle.

At the ILM offices, Helman and his team meshed the Hawaiian footage with the Brazilian and Argentinian imagery, adding huge swathes of flora using a new digital-effects technique. The result is a fictitious jungle, one with its own look, layout and laws of physics, that only exists inside the computers at ILM.

The principle actors were in the jungle. The composite imagery was about 90% real jungle with some CGI animated foliage added to cover the road and to be shot up by guns.

Almost all of the imagery was real, but in some cases (like with the cliff) it was composite shots taken of real jungle to create new geography.


^ Real imagery, not computer generated imagery. Not animation.

The result is a fictitious jungle, one with its own look, layout and laws of physics, that only exists inside the computers at ILM.

Because of course they Grail Temple and the "invisible" bridge was real too. :D

There are plenty of photos where the jungle is obviously there, all they've done is added parts to it because they'd have difficulty filming between millions of hard, spikey branches. So I think it is a bit unfair to complain they added somethig to the jungle.
If anything should be moaned at, it should be the Mutt swinging scene, where the ENTIRE scene is CGI (and looks totally awful).

Yes but this was only done in a small number of shots to cover the fact that the road was straight.

Doug

For the second time;

You mean like the fictitious ship & ocean?


Or the fictitious cliff?


Or the fictitious lava pit?


Or the fictitious dirigible?


Or the fictitious background?


Or the fictitious mine?


Or the fictitious tank?


Or the fictitious cliff?


Or the fictitious cliff and river?


Or the fictitious warehouse?




Yeah, I thought that’s what you meant - again.

Ooohhh....how I llllove that shot.

Please though, folks, consider that this thread's topic is Skull's cinematography. There is already a thread dedicated to the question of what in the movie is actually cg and how that's playing into the film's quality.

Not in quantity it's not. Too much in KOTCS.

Sorry but I hated the cinematography on the film.

@FILMKRUSC
That's it!!! :-)

All change doesn't have to be good or healthier to accept. I have no problem with a "new look." Just have it be a "right look" which it wasn't.

My rose tinted goggles didn't get annoyed with the lens flares in the original films as they didn't come across as forced or overdone.

@stonetriple
Once again:

No, I mean a real jungle like at the beginning of "Raiders".
I mean a real Temple (Petra) like in "Crusade"... and so on... so on... :)

What about a real Pankot Palace, or a real Temple of Doom?

Oh wait.

@James
What about a real Desert like in "Crusade"?
Like Filmkrusc said: This movie failed because there is too much in KOTCS.
That's one of the many reasons why most people think that Skull is the worst of the Indy movies. :)

The point still stands. KOTCS is essentially a modern-day version of how they approached TOD: Some location work, but primarily shooting on giant soundstages.

The jungle at the start of Raiders was real. The Jungle in Crystal Skull is, the only thing is, they needed a clearing to film the truck chase segments within, so they used effects to make the clearing look more cluttered. That is all they did essentially, though, some parts (the tazan bit) are deffo not real. Only the outside of the temple in Petra was real, the inside was all made up. In reality the inside is almost non existant and very narrow.

The main issue I have with KOTCS, is the OTT "stunts" are too much in one film. A huge explosion - survived in a fridge, 4 deathly drops in a row. Maybe each in seperate movies, but not in one movie.

Hmmmmm the REALLY went to Hawaii and REALLY shot in a REAL jungle. Granted it was on a different island from the one used in Raiders, but real none the less.

Doug

Raiders: REAL Jungle

Skull: REAL Jungle filmed BUT: At the ILM offices, Helman and his team meshed the Hawaiian footage with the Brazilian and Argentinian imagery, ADDING huge swathes of flora using a new digital-effects technique. The result is a fictitious jungle, one with its own look, layout and laws of physics, that only exists inside the computers at ILM.

Why do you just keep repeating yourself???

You know, I love those jungle scenes in Raiders. Very evocative, really sets the scene. Seeing Indy belting through the undergrowth outrunning the Hovitos I was nearly standing on my seat about to yell out to Indy to run faster. I was 13 at the time of course. But the jungle scenes in KotCS didn't get me going as much. Is it that I've aged, is there a qualitative difference between the two movies? Perhaps both, but more of the latter I think.

I'm not sure how you'd demonstrate that the jungle scenes in Raiders are more qualitative... the camera movement is a little slower in the Raiders intro, which perhaps allows for the surroundings to be observed with more rigor... but there is nothing that is empirically more qualitative. That’s not to say it isn’t better… but I think that’s more a result of the growing mood and mystery surrounding a bunch of guys cutting their way through the jungle (without any dialogue).

Darth Vile, perhaps you are right. In fact, I'm not sure if it is necessary to compare both movies. Just because they both had jungle scenes doesn't mean we have to compare them, does it? But some of us feel a comparison is warranted because of a feeling that there is a significant difference. Just a feeling, mind you. For me, it's the want of seeing something like Raiders again. Raiders is my stumbling block. I am finding it hard to get over. It just hit the nail on the head so perfectly.

Don't get me wrong... I think it's interesting to compare and contrast the movies/specific scenes etc... It’s just that I was questioning whether there is a qualitative difference between how the jungle is used in Raiders, and how it's used in KOTCS. Or perhaps it's that we imbue Raiders with qualities that are not necessarily there, simply because it's arguably the best/most definitive Indy movie???