YES!!!! Frank Marshall says "No CGI".......

P

phillipmscott

Guest
*BE ADVISED - POTENTIAL MINOR SPOILERS*

I don't think Marshall is being strictly truthful on the "no CGI" statement, and here's why...

- I don't think we'll see any fully CG characters, but the Indy films have dabbled with CG before (Luftwaffe plane in TLC, and Donovans demise). I'm sure the Ark opening scene in RotLA would have utilised it had the technology existed.

- *POSSIBLE SPOILER* - Spoiler images have shown actors suspended via a wire rig during chase scenes. These will need to be removed from shot, and some element of digital tinkering is the logical way to do so.

- CG mattes are now the conventional (and financially responsible) means of extending physical sets. It's hard to believe that any potential "fantasy" (temple, catacomb) environments would be built in full.

Just my 2 cents...
 
Zorg

Zorg

New member
Yeah. Marshall probably means they won't be using digital stunts or stuff like that. Or no massive digital armies (wouldn't happen in an Indy film anyway). And that's cool. There's CGI and there's CGI. The spectrum is wide. CGI can be used without the "in your face" effect.

But absolutely no CGI these days in a big-budget studio summer movie is just not gonna happen. Wire removal and other "invisible" stuff is a sure thing.
 
Finn

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
How I understood this "no CGI" thing is "no blue/green screen". That pretty much sums it up. It's true that you can't make an action movie today with nil computerized FX.
 
J

Jawad M

Member
i am glad to hear that too.. one of the biggest mistakes Spielberg made was to add CGI E.T. in the 20th Anniversary Edition. That killed the entire experience for me. Frankly, fx looks nice if they are used wisely...perfect example Jurassic Park where both animatronics and fx were used

Thank god Indy doesn't need any


Jawad
 
O

oki9Sedo

New member
Finn said:
How I understood this "no CGI" thing is "no blue/green screen". That pretty much sums it up. It's true that you can't make an action movie today with nil computerized FX.
Click to expand...

So if they do something like an aerial dogfight like in Last Crusade, are they going to revert to matte paintings?
 
Finn

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
oki9Sedo said:
So if they do something like an aerial dogfight like in Last Crusade, are they going to revert to matte paintings?
Click to expand...
Hmm. Let's say that "nothing that can't be handled with conventional sets", then.
 
Attila the Professor

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
oki9Sedo said:
So if they do something like an aerial dogfight like in Last Crusade, are they going to revert to matte paintings?
Click to expand...

Well, that wasn't CGI in the strictest sense anyhow, but blue/green screen used for the insertion of real-life scenery footage, not a computer-generated countryside.
 
O

oki9Sedo

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Well, that wasn't CGI in the strictest sense anyhow, but blue/green screen used for the insertion of real-life scenery footage, not a computer-generated countryside.
Click to expand...

Thats what I mean: if there was a similar sequence in the new film, would they do it the same way?
 
The Professor

The Professor

Member
The trilogy used lots of visual effects. I think they're going to try to use minimal CG, but it will be there. There are things that are so much easier with CG than with optical effects. Compositing the old way would be silly. And have no doubt, they will use bluescreen. CG just won't be a driving force for the movie, and as much as possible is going to be shot.
 
Attila the Professor

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
oki9Sedo said:
Thats what I mean: if there was a similar sequence in the new film, would they do it the same way?
Click to expand...

Possibly. My point is, that wasn't a matte painting. It was actual footage, and I would presume that apart from any fantastical elements, the easiest way to have something like background scenery behind vehicles replaced via blue screen would be to have it be actual footage rather than computer generated imagery.
 
H

H_Donovan

New member
Finn said:
How I understood this "no CGI" thing is "no blue/green screen". That pretty much sums it up. It's true that you can't make an action movie today with nil computerized FX.
Click to expand...

That's how I took it as well. That's good, because thats what the Star Wars prequels needed...
 
O

oki9Sedo

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Possibly. My point is, that wasn't a matte painting. It was actual footage, and I would presume that apart from any fantastical elements, the easiest way to have something like background scenery behind vehicles replaced via blue screen would be to have it be actual footage rather than computer generated imagery.
Click to expand...

Oh I understand, sorry my mistake. There'd be nothing wrong with doing that, or digitially removing wires etc. As long as there's no overt CG I don't have a problem.
 
Attila the Professor

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Indy1986 said:
Hey guys could tell me what the difference between CG and CGI is
and tell me what CGI is short for
thanks
Click to expand...

CGI is an acronym for "computer generated imagery." CG means either "computer graphics" or "computer generated."
 
Vendetta08

Vendetta08

New member
Yeah, this definitely means keeping it to a minimum, there will ofcourse be CGI but nothing big like digital stunt character is certainly good news.

I highly doubt they would do the "Donovan" Crusade effect this day and age, it looks way too cheesy.
 
kongisking

kongisking

Active member
oki9Sedo said:
Oh I understand, sorry my mistake. There'd be nothing wrong with doing that, or digitially removing wires etc. As long as there's no overt CG I don't have a problem.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like the Star Wars Prequels. I swear, when it came to CGI, those movies looked more like they were directed by Stephen Sommers (no offense to Stephen) instead of Lucas. Not only was the CG over the top, but all those computer effects make it impossible to think they belonged to the same movie series. The technical and visual difference between the 2 trilogys are both obvious and annoying.

But thank GOD that there hopefully will not be any green screen/CG doubles or bloated, overdone, far-too-obvious computer effects in Indy 4! Thank the Maker!!!

P.S. My comments up there were not personal or completely truthfull. I actually am a fan of CGI and green-screen in movies, but when it is overdone to the point that the movie is basically a video-game with 13% real footage (Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow is a rare exception; great movie!) and you can tell the doubles are CG, that's where I draw the line.
 
E

Echo22

New member
You'll have the occassional mine car chase in Temple or airplane tunnel in Last Crusade blue screen effects (which will look a bit better with today's technology) And you may have the big climactic "supernatural" scene at the end. But it sounds to me like they're not planning a Lord of the Rings or Pirates of the Caribbean CG bonanza - which is very comforting. My guess is that they are planning to put this 4th chapter alongside the original three and keep them somewhat consistent. There big goal seems to be doing something that hasn't been done or recycled before. And if they can manage to come up with a wildly successful action adventure sequel with a great story, great characters, incredible stuntwork and wonderous effects using "old school" filmmaking and have it blow away the competition - They will have achieved that goal. Quality over Quantity, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top