-Jones-
Member
Dr.Sartorius said:I know you used blacked out text but why don't you save the spoilers for the spoiler section?
He asked, I answered. Simple as that, and I used 'spoiler' tag. I hope everyone knows what 'spoiler' tag is :>.
Dr.Sartorius said:I know you used blacked out text but why don't you save the spoilers for the spoiler section?
-Jones- said:He asked, I answered. Simple as that, and I used 'spoiler' tag. I hope everyone knows what 'spoiler' tag is :>.
Dr.Sartorius said:Blacked out text is hard not to highlight....
No Ticket said:That waterfall scene looked pretty bad ass. To anyone who thinks a new scene looks fake with all it's cgi computer trickery... try to imagine how they would've done it in 1989 or 1990 and just be at peace with what you have here.
Don't let the inevitable use of CGI (since it is the primary movie magic tool here in 2008) spoil your experience of a new Indiana Jones. Expect it, expect to see more of it than you thought.
But try to stay focused on the STORY.
GlasgowChivas said:Part of me cringed when I saw them all going over the waterfall - but then i remembered the life raft from TOD and my faith was restored
eroc said:I think they only used about 250 CGI shots, compared to the thousands employed by Star Wars or Spiderman That's a very small amount, my friend.
Dr Jones said:I think so far the CGI touches haven't been awful, they've added to that B-Movie feel in small ways and not taken over the shot or scene they are in.
It'll be a rollercoaster ride, and I'm all for the CGI touches, it's in every movie out there, so I can't expect Indy not to use any aid.
marky_77 said:the going over the waterfall looked bad and ott, and i have seen enough cgi already in the trailers to know they have used too much. it won't have the raiders feel, and looks too polished and modern day filming for me.
how good was the truck sequence in raiders. that was real, cgi today would spoil it as film makers have got lazy.