If technology was what it is today what would ROTLA be like?

Darth Vile

New member
Henry W Jones said:
I would like to think a young George and Steven would only use CGI when necessary but ...... Technology = Safety, Technology = Easy. The snakes would probably be done with CGI. The truck scene would probably look like the truck scene in KOTCS and that = fake looking. As we have seen with Star Wars Lucas can't stop adding digital crap to the movies and with CGI Lucas goes overboard as to what is believable that he puts in his films now. Problem with answering this question is it is hard to tell of Lucas puts monkeys swinging from vines with the hero because he's lost his sense of reality over the years or because its easily possible to do. But since he has added a bit of stuff to the SW trilogy that could have been done when originally shot, (Vaders noooo and Greedo shooting first) tells me his views on movie making have changed. Once again I would like think that they would make the same movie but CGI is very seductive so its a tough call. PS Stoo, I appropriate the thread. This time you were being helpful. Thanks

I really don’t agree with your equation of “Technology = Safety. Technology = Easy”. I would never say that the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies were safe or easy based on the use of technology. They were all big lavish effects movie (even Raiders – although it doesn’t particularly look like one now). You couldn’t do the Ark reveal, mine cart chase or rope bridge sequence without lots of effects (both then and now). So what’s the answer? To never have the imagination to realise those sequences at all - just because they can’t be achieved practically? It’s really about how technology and effects are applied, and how they are used to drive the story/sequence. Lucas and Spielberg are, and have always been, great exponents of technology. They have embraced it fully and equally over the years.

I don’t particularly like the Mutt fencing and vine swinging scenes (in fact I don’t like them at all). However… 1) I’m not sure whether they were Lucas’s idea or Spielberg’s (Spielberg was the director after all, and already discussed, he doesn’t hold back from using CGI in his movies). 2) I think there was some obligation on Spielberg’s/Lucas’s part to make the action sequences feel a bit ‘modern’, just as they were ‘modern’ in the originals. Personally speaking, I think the application of 21st century technology is not an issue; it’s just that they applied it (in this instance) to the wrong thing. I think the whole jungle sequence (which is largely practical) would be much better if they just cut/stripped back the fencing and vine sequence. In that sense, you could argue it’s more an editing issue… The following sequence… ‘Ants!’ is a great example of effects servicing the sequence and the CGI being proportionate to the concept (IMHO). All effects sequences are prone to be hit and miss (look at the originals).

Re. Lucas’ sense of reality. I certainly don’t think he’s lost it (or no more than any other rich and influential movie maker); it’s more to do with the fact that he has the power to make those changes 20/30 years after the event. Most filmmakers don’t have that power. One could argue that Lucas is obsessed with the changes… but I’d argue he’s much more savvy than that. I don’t doubt he wants to make the movie as perfect as he imagines them in his own mind, but more that that… Star Wars is an industry… it’s almost like its own genre now (like Disney). Lucas seems to have a great skill at keeping the Star Wars movies, and other Star Wars products, relevant. Making changes, updating to new formats is just part of that process. What are toy stores full of? Star Wars or Indiana Jones merchandise? It’s all part of keeping the iconography alive… it’s all part of Star Wars not just as a movie, but as popular culture. :D


Montana Smith said:
Would they have put the mine cart chase into the film?
Very good point Montana. The mine cart chase, is probably more dependant on the technology/effects than any other big sequence in any Indy movie. I don’t, and never have, like the actual realisation of the mine cart sequence in TOD. The effects are decidedly dodgy in many places (and they were in the 80’s). However, from a movie making perspective, one could argue that it’s still a brilliantly brave and imaginative concept… and as such it’s a valid and credible effort at making a cinematic chase sequence stand out/original – and I’d have to agree with that. :)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
I really don?t agree with your equation of ?Technology = Safety. Technology = Easy?. I would never say that the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies were safe or easy based on the use of technology. They were all big lavish effects movie (even Raiders ? although it doesn?t particularly look like one now). You couldn?t do the Ark reveal, mine cart chase or rope bridge sequence without lots of effects (both then and now). So what?s the answer? To never have the imagination to realise those sequences at all - just because they can?t be achieved practically? It?s really about how technology and effects are applied, and how they are used to drive the story/sequence. Lucas and Spielberg are, and have always been, great exponents of technology. They have embraced it fully and equally over the years.

I'm with you, Darth. Technology can be employed to make something look the best it possibly can. Such as a digital palace with movement and flickering lights in place of a static matte painting.

Sometimes there's no alternative to faking something, so it might as well be made the most realistic fake possible.

However, with something as exciting as the truck chase, there's no need to fake it, because it can be done for real with stunt drivers.

Darth Vile said:
Very good point Montana. The mine cart chase, is probably more dependant on the technology/effects than any other big sequence in any Indy movie. I don?t, and never have, like the actual realisation of the mine cart sequence in TOD. The effects are decidedly dodgy in many places (and they were in the 80?s). However, from a movie making perspective, one could argue that it?s still a brilliantly brave and imaginative concept? and as such it?s a valid and credible effort at making a cinematic chase sequence stand out/original ? and I?d have to agree with that. :)

In 1981 the scene may not have even been that good. I had no luck finding the pictures of the abandoned mine carts from Raiders, to see how far they got with the idea before ditching it.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
I'm with you, Darth. Technology can be employed to make something look the best it possibly can. Such as a digital palace with movement and flickering lights in place of a static matte painting.

Sometimes there's no alternative to faking something, so it might as well be made the most realistic fake possible.

However, with something as exciting as the truck chase, there's no need to fake it, because it can be done for real with stunt drivers.

Agreed - when it comes to a fight ontop of a truck/jeep/car/tank, it will always look more realistic the less special effects are used. In the case of the jungle sequence from KOTCS, if filmed in the 80's, I think they would have tried to do the fencing sequence (between Mutt and Spalko) on location (as they did with the truck and tank in Raiders/TLC) i.e. there would be no call for blue/green screen work. If they were trying to replicate something similar to the mine cart chase or plane fight from TLC, sure - then somthing of that scope clearly has to be achieved via CGI...

So for me the issue with the jungle scene is not so much the technology, but how its applied i.e. in bits that don't really require it to be an exciting action scene (I like the cliff edge stuff though).
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Henry W Jones said:
PS Stoo, I appropriate the thread. This time you were being helpful. Thanks

Then don't participate. There are tons of other threads speculating "what if's" for movies already made. I see tons of threads that I think are stupid around here but instead of making rude remarks on them, I move on. What interest me might not interest you and vice versa.
You're welcome, Henry W. Even though this topic is silly, I participate because Special Effects happen to be a pet subject of mine.:cool:
Mickiana said:
Stoo, do you mean, "What would Raiders be like if it was made with tomorrow's technology?"? I am so attached to the Raiders I know, I cannot imagine a computerised version being more likeable (by me). I tend to think that the nature of Raiders and Indiana Jones in general should preclude CGing. I want the stunt-driven, puppety, matte backdrop blah, blah, blah, but only because I am attached to it. CG is too slick and sharp and lazy and I don't like the look of it, at least not for Indiana Jones. My argument has plenty of holes in it, I know, and there are always exceptions to every argument, so there it is.
Yes, Mickey, that is what I meant and I largely agree with you, however, the industry has forever changed. Finn mentioned the removal of the Tunisian TV antennas for "Raiders". This could have been achieved much more easily & cost-effectively via computer (but like he said, it wouldn't make for a good, behind-the-scenes story).

By the way, 1 of the original 3 movies has a CG shot in it!:eek:
Darth Vile said:
I would never say that the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies were safe or easy based on the use of technology. They were all big lavish effects movie (even Raiders ? although it doesn?t particularly look like one now).
Another thing you should never say, Darth, is that "Raiders" is in the category of a 'big lavish effects movie', even for 1981. Less than 4.5% of its screen-time* contains optical effects and several of the shots last only a few seconds long. The remaining 95.5% of the film was all shot 'in camera'.

*I've done a breakdown of the shots so the percentage isn't some random number.:D
 

Darth Vile

New member
Stoo said:
Another thing you should never say, Darth, is that "Raiders" is in the category of a 'big lavish effects movie', even for 1981. Less than 4.5% of its screen-time* contains optical effects and several of the shots last only a few seconds long. The remaining 95.5% of the film was all shot 'in camera'.

*I've done a breakdown of the shots so the percentage isn't some random number.:D

Stoo - I think you're making the assumption that when I say "effects" I'm talking blue screen, compositing and CGI. But that doesn't tell the entire story... Raiders has its fair share of effects sequences... be it in the rotting corpses of archaeologists, giant boulders, collapsing South American temples, fun in the the Well of Souls, and the power of the Ark sequences. Even it's matte paintings were bloody good.

In comparison to movies being made now, of course Raiders effects look small. But lets view it within context of the time it was made. In 1981, Raiders was big, bold and glossy. Not many movies could match its effects and action sequences (even though there were many about - they did't quite have the production budget/values of Raiders)... and the effects (both visual/practical) played a significant part (for me anyhow) in allowing Raiders to transcend the action/adventure genre and inhabit the realms of fantasy too. This is, IMHO, one of the fundamental reasons why Indiana Jones is so compelling... So whilst I'd agree, yeah it uses optical effects sparingly, that doesn't equate to the use of effects overall.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
Stoo - I think you're making the assumption that when I say "effects" I'm talking blue screen, compositing and CGI. But that doesn't tell the entire story... Raiders has its fair share of effects sequences... be it in the rotting corpses of archaeologists, giant boulders, collapsing South American temples, fun in the the Well of Souls, and the power of the Ark sequences. Even it's matte paintings were bloody good.
Darth, twist it any way you wish, however...

You DID say "based on the use of technology" in reply to Henry W, who was also talking about the same thing. In the same paragraph, you also spoke about Lucas & Speilberg being embracers of said technology.

-Matte paintings were included in my (less than) 4.5% calculation. Each painting was combined with other elements.
-The ENTIRE Ark opening sequence was also included in my (less than) 4.5% percentage. Don't know why you think I didn't take this into account.

As for your other examples:
-The rolling boulder = 14 secs.
-Collapsing Chachapoyan altar room = (less than) 8 secs.
-Forrestal's turning head was a dummy - puppeteered by hand. Technology? (3 secs.)
-What non-optical, technological effects were used inside the Well of the Souls? (Stagehands dropping fake rocks onto a set?):confused:
Darth Vile said:
In comparison to movies being made now, of course Raiders effects look small. But lets view it within context of the time it was made. In 1981, Raiders was big, bold and glossy. Not many movies could match its effects and action sequences (even though there were many about - they did't quite have the production budget/values of Raiders)... and the effects (both visual/practical) played a significant part (for me anyhow) in allowing Raiders to transcend the action/adventure genre and inhabit the realms of fantasy too. This is, IMHO, one of the fundamental reasons why Indiana Jones is so compelling...
Darth, I *was* speaking about 1981 (perhaps you missed that bit). The QUALITY of the effects in "Raiders" bears no relation to their QUANTITY and, by it's very definition, the word "lavish" means abundant & excessive...an overwhelming amount. "Raiders" doesn't have an abundant amount of effects compared to its contemporaries (nor its predecessors).
Darth Vile said:
So whilst I'd agree, yeah it uses optical effects sparingly, that doesn't equate to the use of effects overall.
The other (dubious) effects you mention total 25 secs of screentime. With these, you can attempt to raise the ante from 4.2% to a whopping 4.6% of the film! (WOW! What a big difference! 0.4 extra!:rolleyes:) None of your (dubious) examples elevate "Raiders" to the status of a 'big LAVISH effects movie'...and certainly aren't in the same league as "Doom", "Crusade" and the orignal "Star Wars" trilogy.:rolleyes:
 

Darth Vile

New member
Stoo said:
Darth, twist it any way you wish, however...

You DID say "based on the use of technology" in reply to Henry W, who was also talking about the same thing. In the same paragraph, you also spoke about Lucas & Speilberg being embracers of said technology.

-Matte paintings were included in my (less than) 4.5% calculation. Each painting was combined with other elements.
-The ENTIRE Ark opening sequence was also included in my (less than) 4.5% percentage. Don't know why you think I didn't take this into account.

As for your other examples:
-The rolling boulder = 14 secs.
-Collapsing Chachapoyan altar room = (less than) 8 secs.
-Forrestal's turning head was a dummy - puppeteered by hand. Technology? (3 secs.)
-What non-optical, technological effects were used inside the Well of the Souls? (Stagehands dropping fake rocks onto a set?):confused:
Darth, I *was* speaking about 1981 (perhaps you missed that bit). The QUALITY of the effects in "Raiders" bears no relation to their QUANTITY and, by it's very definition, the word "lavish" means abundant & excessive...an overwhelming amount. "Raiders" doesn't have an abundant amount of effects compared to its contemporaries (nor its predecessors).
The other (dubious) effects you mention total 25 secs of screentime. With these, you can attempt to raise the ante from 4.2% to a whopping 4.6% of the film! (WOW! What a big difference! 0.4 extra!:rolleyes:) None of your (dubious) examples elevate "Raiders" to the status of a 'big LAVISH effects movie'...and certainly aren't in the same league as "Doom", "Crusade" and the orignal "Star Wars" trilogy.:rolleyes:

F*ck me. You are aware that Raiders actually won awards for special/ visual effects and sound right??? I think you need to reflect on what the 'industry' refers to as being an "effect" - because that's the basis of the response i.e. most filmmakers, with the technology at their fingertips, wouldn't now necessarily construct/rig up expensive sets designed to topple/collapse (e.g. the well of the Souls) if it could be done post production for a quarter of the cost. Which is the whole f**king point. :rolleyes:

Secondly, The OP was asking if Spielberg/Lucas had 21st century technology, when making Raiders, what would the movie be like? Several posters are suggesting that they believe Spielberg/Lucas would still want the movie to be largely grounded in reality - ergo minimum CGI (a valid argument). However, I'm suggesting that because Raiders was an effects movie (it employed over circa 70 people to produce sound effects, visual effects, special effects), that if Lucas/Spielberg did have todays technology, they would have fully embraced it to 1) heighten the hyper reality and 2) to bring production costs down. The result? Raiders, I'm sure, would have been a lot more fantastical in comparison to what we got in 81.

If you don't think Raiders can be acknowledged as an effects movie (after sitting through the movie with your stop watch???), good for you... but I know many people who worked on the movie (and won awards) who think the effects are very much a key part of the movies success.
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
F*ck me. You are aware that Raiders actually won awards for special/ visual effects and sound right??? I think you need to reflect on what the 'industry' refers to as being an "effect"
Of course I'm aware of its awards (I even watched the live broadcast of the Oscars on TV) and am more familiar with the industry than you may think. The quality of the effects garnered the wins, not the amount of them. At the dawn of the '80s, designing sets in "Raiders" to topple/collapse & puppeteering Forrestal's head weren't done with new technology or innovation so it's unlikely that these 'effects' were what impressed voters (in both the visual effects and production design categories).
Darth Vile said:
Raiders, I'm sure, would have been a lot more fantastical in comparison to what we got in 81.
This could be true but we'll never know for sure. As Montana suggested, CG could have allowed for larger scenic shots and serviced the tangle of snakes a great deal.
Darth Vile said:
If you don't think Raiders can be acknowledged as an effects movie (after sitting through the movie with your stop watch???), good for you... but I know many people who worked on the movie (and won awards) who think the effects are very much a key part of the movies success.
Whoa, Darth, I never said that "Raiders" isn't an 'effects movie'! It IS but not a 'lavish' one (even in 1981) which is how you described it - a 'big lavish effects movie'. No matter how excellent & well received they were, the optical & mechanical effects are few in number. Lavish = Excessive. That, quite simply, is my point.:p

P.S. For the percentages, I used the DVD time counter while jumping to each FX scene. Didn't take very long.
P.P.S. You know many people who worked on "Raiders"? That's cool.:)
 

Darth Vile

New member
Stoo said:
Of course I'm aware of its awards (I even watched the live broadcast of the Oscars on TV) and am more familiar with the industry than you may think. The quality of the effects garnered the wins, not the amount of them. At the dawn of the '80s, designing sets in "Raiders" to topple/collapse & puppeteering Forrestal's head weren't done with new technology or innovation so it's unlikely that these 'effects' were what impressed voters (in both the visual effects and production design categories).
Stoo – I don’t think it’s about volume of effects… it’s more to do with the amount of time, effort and expense put in to achieve them, and of course there impact on screen. As mentioned, Raiders had a big effects team – Spielberg/Lucas clearly wanted the effects, be they sound, visual or special to look good and help realise their vision. As far as technology is concerned… Yes – they were embracing the contemporary technologies of the day to achieve the effects required. Therefore, it’s not a stretch to think that if CGI had been about when Raiders was made, they would have used CGI.

Stoo said:
This could be true but we'll never know for sure. As Montana suggested, CG could have allowed for larger scenic shots and serviced the tangle of snakes a great deal.
It’s an assumption on my part, but one based on Spielberg/Lucas’ 'previous' – which is that they like their effects, and they like to make movies that require effects; and that if CGI had been around for Raiders, we’d more than likely have had a lot less practical effects.

Stoo said:
Whoa, Darth, I never said that "Raiders" isn't an 'effects movie'! It IS but not a 'lavish' one (even in 1981) which is how you described it - a 'big lavish effects movie'. No matter how excellent & well received they were, the optical & mechanical effects are few in number. Lavish = Excessive. That, quite simply, is my point.:p
Semantics I think Stoo - you may have misunderstood my wording (I could have worded it better). When I say “big lavish effects movie” I don’t mean that the effects were excessive, too much or unnecessary… I mean that the movie was a relatively expensive movie to make (was it circa $20m?) and a sizeable amount of monies were spent achieving the effects… and that its production values are evident on screen i.e. it looks and feels like a big budget Hollywood movie.

Stoo said:
P.P.S. You know many people who worked on "Raiders"? That's cool.:)
Nothing to write a book about, and unfortunately not Spielberg or Lucas. ;)
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Henry W Jones said:
So I was thinking..... When the filming of Raiders of the Lost Ark began, if technology had been where it is today, would Raiders of the Lost Ark be the gritty, stunt spectacular it was and is or.... would it be CGI'ed to death and look and feel like KOTCS?
I think if you look at the origins of the movie and the fact it was inspired by the old fashioned serials then I'd like to think that they still would of gone down the more gritty and realistic approach anyway

However they would probably have made use of the cgi for some of the scenes, specifically the opening of the ark, the well of souls snakes. They could also have been tempted to use it on the establishing shots of Cairo, or the jungle, or the Tanis dig, or the backgrounds of the desert chase scene more detailed and larger too. I'm thinking similar to those we saw in The Mummy.

I often think that because cgi is available that the temptation to use it is too easy, when in the case of a film like Raiders you could ask the question is it really necessary? There could be the temptation to take it that little bit further so it stands out like a sore thumb.

As it stands now I think although the effects at the time were cutting edge, but a lot of the effects in Raiders I find to be unobtrusive. Yet if you look at the following 3 movies I find there are scenes where some of the effects were to the detriment of the scene, like the mine car chase, the fight hanging from the broken rope bridge, the boat explosions in Venice, the plane chase from the Zeppelin, the monkey swinging, the trip down the river....... I can understand they were only using what technology was available at the time, and its great that they were pushing the movies to show their vision on screen, but of all the films I think Raiders benefits the most from its more understated use of effects, (arguably apart from the face metling of course).
 

Darth Vile

New member
AndyLGR said:
I think if you look at the origins of the movie and the fact it was inspired by the old fashioned serials then I'd like to think that they still would of gone down the more gritty and realistic approach anyway

However they would probably have made use of the cgi for some of the scenes, specifically the opening of the ark, the well of souls snakes. They could also have been tempted to use it on the establishing shots of Cairo, or the jungle, or the Tanis dig, or the backgrounds of the desert chase scene more detailed and larger too. I'm thinking similar to those we saw in The Mummy.

I often think that because cgi is available that the temptation to use it is too easy, when in the case of a film like Raiders you could ask the question is it really necessary? There could be the temptation to take it that little bit further so it stands out like a sore thumb.

As it stands now I think although the effects at the time were cutting edge, but a lot of the effects in Raiders I find to be unobtrusive. Yet if you look at the following 3 movies I find there are scenes where some of the effects were to the detriment of the scene, like the mine car chase, the fight hanging from the broken rope bridge, the boat explosions in Venice, the plane chase from the Zeppelin, the monkey swinging, the trip down the river....... I can understand they were only using what technology was available at the time, and its great that they were pushing the movies to show their vision on screen, but of all the films I think Raiders benefits the most from its more understated use of effects, (arguably apart from the face metling of course).

Yep - I would agree with what you state Andy. Raiders is probably the most timeless Indy movie because of its economy in scale (by comparison to what the bigger budgets to follow allowed). The other movies may have been more imaginative in scope (as far as set pieces/scale is concerned), but the technology used can result in a movie looking dated (5/10 years after release).

The only thing I'm not sure about is your first point - as I think the premise of Raiders was very much about taking an old style/concept and making it appeal to modern audiences. I think the Raiders concept was already tried and tested with what Lucas did in 77 (Star Wars), and once that was successful, he was applying the formula to a slightly different genre. I'm not sure if they ever set out with a mantra of making Raiders a "gritty" or "realistic" movie... rather they just wanted to replicate the movies/serials they'd seen in their youth and make them fit for audiences of the 1980's.

I was very much a kid of Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Raiders appealed to me in exactly the same way as Star Wars did (even though different genres) and in a way that the James Bond movies (or similar) of the time couldn't. Primarily because Raiders has the same heart and underlying principals/concepts as Star Wars (although I obviously couldn't understand/articulate that at the time).
 
Last edited:

AndyLGR

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Yep - I would agree with what you state Andy. Raiders is probably the most timeless Indy movie because of its economy in scale (by comparison to what the bigger budgets to follow allowed). The other movies may have been more imaginative in scope (as far as set pieces/scale is concerned), but the technology used can result in a movie looking dated (5/10 years after release).
My point exactly Raiders doesnt need CGI to convey huge scope and scale that film makers often use today especially in establishing shots and backgrounds. Raiders already conveys that in bundles for me with seemingly minimal or no effects in some shots. Thats the beauty of the film for me. It seems so effortlessly simple.

Darth Vile said:
The only thing I'm not sure about is your first point - as I think the premise of Raiders was very much about taking an old style/concept and making it appeal to modern audiences. I think the Raiders concept was already tried and tested with what Lucas did in 77 (Star Wars), and once that was successful, he was applying the formula to a slightly different genre. I'm not sure if they ever set out with a mantra of making Raiders a "gritty" or "realistic" movie... rather they just wanted to replicate the movies/serials they'd seen in their youth and make them fit for audiences of the 1980's.
I think what I was trying to say was that in their effort to re-capture the spirit of those Saturday matinee serials they also managed to successfully capture something that was a bit more dirty and less polished than maybe the previous movies Lucas and Spielberg had made. And yes to take that matinee serial concept and push it to the audiences of the time, right now I cant think of anything close in style to Raiders that was released in a relatively close time frame before it. I'm sure someone can though.

At the time of me watching Raiders when I was 10 in the early 80's I had never really seen anything like it on film, yes I'd seen the Zorro serials on TV, but I never made the link between that style of film/tv making. So they must of succeeded in their goal because Raiders was something new and exciting for me.

Now looking at it I see that Raiders was old but new if you get what I mean.
 
Last edited:

Darth Vile

New member
AndyLGR said:
And yes to take that matinee serial concept and push it to the audiences of the time, right now I cant think of anything close in style to Raiders that was released in a relatively close time frame before it. I'm sure someone can though.

At the time of me watching Raiders when I was 10 in the early 80's I had never really seen anything like it on film, yes I'd seen the Zorro serials on TV, but I never made the link between that style of film/tv making. So they must of succeeded in their goal because Raiders was something new and exciting for me.

Now looking at it I see that Raiders was old but new if you get what I mean.

Yes indeed. We're obviously of a similar generation and the staple diet of holiday television was old Flash Gordon, Zorro, King of the Rocket Men etc. So when Star Wars, Raiders came out... I think they seemed somewhat familiar to me (at a subconscious level I think). Either way, 2 seminal movies of my childhood (probably the 2 most important movies to me). :)
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Yes indeed. We're obviously of a similar generation and the staple diet of holiday television was old Flash Gordon, Zorro, King of the Rocket Men etc. So when Star Wars, Raiders came out... I think they seemed somewhat familiar to me (at a subconscious level I think). Either way, 2 seminal movies of my childhood (probably the 2 most important movies to me). :)
Same here, but why I connected with Raiders I cant place, maybe it is just the quality, maybe the familiarity of it too. But the stuff that I can vividly remember as a child watching were the old b&w serials, Raiders, Star Wars and the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies. I think that Raiders and Star Wars have shaped the films I like and my tastes in cinema and still cant be surpassed for me.
 

Darth Vile

New member
AndyLGR said:
Same here, but why I connected with Raiders I cant place, maybe it is just the quality, maybe the familiarity of it too. But the stuff that I can vividly remember as a child watching were the old b&w serials, Raiders, Star Wars and the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies. I think that Raiders and Star Wars have shaped the films I like and my tastes in cinema and still cant be surpassed for me.

Yep - same for me. Loved those old Basil Rathbone movies... :D
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Yep - same for me. Loved those old Basil Rathbone movies... :D

What are you, like eighty? :p

Just joking!

There's something intriguing about some of the old films and serials, if not only for the period detail you get from them.

If Lucas and Spielberg were inspired to do ROTLA today, having recently created the Indy character, I would imagine that it was because they'd been inspired by the old pulps. Rather than overpower that inspiration with the latest technology, they would, I'm pretty sure, rather go back to basics where possible to replicate the originals.

Yet, having established that source material in the first movie, in time they would find themselves dealing with a character who's more in the public conscience than his pulp heritage. And in that way we would see more elaborate cliffhangers, more spectacular scenes, and CGI would be employed in a greater number of instances. Four movies down the road (sometime in 2038!) the latest movie would be as CGI heavy as KOTCS.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
What are you, like eighty? :p

Just joking!

There's something intriguing about some of the old films and serials, if not only for the period detail you get from them.

If Lucas and Spielberg were inspired to do ROTLA today, having recently created the Indy character, I would imagine that it was because they'd been inspired by the old pulps. Rather than overpower that inspiration with the latest technology, they would, I'm pretty sure, rather go back to basics where possible to replicate the originals.

Yet, having established that source material in the first movie, in time they would find themselves dealing with a character who's more in the public conscience than his pulp heritage. And in that way we would see more elaborate cliffhangers, more spectacular scenes, and CGI would be employed in a greater number of instances. Four movies down the road (sometime in 2038!) the latest movie would be as CGI heavy as KOTCS.

Yeah but remember if Lucas/Spielberg had the time/money they probably would have tried to get the mine cart chase into Raiders. So Raiders less effects heavy approach (when compared to TOD/TLC) is probably bourn out of circumstance/economics rather than anything else. And as mentioned, Star Wars was heavily influenced by the Republic serials/Flash Gordon etc., but Lucas quickly ruled out the notion that the effects would be achieved 'old school' e.g. a model on a piece of string.

Re. Basil Rathbone... not quite that old... but old enough to remember when they were the staple diet of BBC2 school holiday television (along with repeats of old Star Trek, Flash Gordon etc.). ;)
 

AndyLGR

Active member
If you think about Raiders and how many shots could be improved (or ruined) by adding CGI I can?t think of too many. I think its definitely when they upped the scale of the set pieces and effects in the later films that the constraints of the technology at the time show badly, and that?s true of many other movies from the 80?s too, even though they were pioneering movie effects and steadily improving them all the time. So really I think CGI could of greatly improved some of the scenes in TOD and TLC, but not necessarily Raiders, because it doesn?t have that scale of set piece in terms of needing an outlandish concept or different setting that would require much CGI enhancement. But that doesn?t diminish it any way, in fact it has the opposite effect and makes it better for me. The biggest set pieces (opening temple scenes, market place fight, flying wing fight, desert chase, well of the souls) are all accomplished using old style techniques with virtually everything being there in the studio or on the location. But I don?t look at those scenes and think, wow imagine what they could of done using CGI if it was made now. That?s the charm of the film too, and that?s something that was a problem for me with KOTCS with the use of some not so great CGI that was used in the action scenes. It wouldn?t have been so bad had it been used to enhance the location backgrounds, but not when CGI was a huge part of the action itself.

I?m sure though that in years to come though when they remake Raiders, I?m convinced someone will, that they use CGI in a big way in the movie, to expand the locations and to get Indy doing more outlandish things in action scenes.

Darth Vile said:
Re. Basil Rathbone... not quite that old... but old enough to remember when they were the staple diet of BBC2 school holiday television (along with repeats of old Star Trek, Flash Gordon etc.). ;)
We were watching the same stuff :D
 

Darth Vile

New member
AndyLGR said:
If you think about Raiders and how many shots could be improved (or ruined) by adding CGI I can?t think of too many. I think its definitely when they upped the scale of the set pieces and effects in the later films that the constraints of the technology at the time show badly, and that?s true of many other movies from the 80?s too, even though they were pioneering movie effects and steadily improving them all the time. So really I think CGI could of greatly improved some of the scenes in TOD and TLC, but not necessarily Raiders, because it doesn?t have that scale of set piece in terms of needing an outlandish concept or different setting that would require much CGI enhancement. But that doesn?t diminish it any way, in fact it has the opposite effect and makes it better for me. The biggest set pieces (opening temple scenes, market place fight, flying wing fight, desert chase, well of the souls) are all accomplished using old style techniques with virtually everything being there in the studio or on the location. But I don?t look at those scenes and think, wow imagine what they could of done using CGI if it was made now. That?s the charm of the film too, and that?s something that was a problem for me with KOTCS with the use of some not so great CGI that was used in the action scenes. It wouldn?t have been so bad had it been used to enhance the location backgrounds, but not when CGI was a huge part of the action itself.

I?m sure though that in years to come though when they remake Raiders, I?m convinced someone will, that they use CGI in a big way in the movie, to expand the locations and to get Indy doing more outlandish things in action scenes.
Agreed - I'm actually very pro CGI (although not in the case of monkey and vine swings), but other than some digital matte enhancements to widen the geography e.g. Cairo, I can't actually think of anything I'd want to see changed in Raiders. As you say, its major set pieces are very tight and self contained (one of the core reasons they work well).
 
Top