10 Reasons why CGI is lame

The most striking thing about watching the Indy films again is seeing how great they are and one quality is simple.....NO CGI!!!!


1. Stunt work, the truck chase, nothing like seeing the real thing
2. the Well of the Souls, if it were done today, it would be all computer-generated snakes, fake looking like "the Mummy"
3. the city in Tunisia that was made to look like 1930s Cairo, today it would be all CGI
4. The opening Paramount Mountain transfer, again it would be a CGI mountain today
5. The "Temple" bug scene
6. The "Crusade" rats
7. The "Temple" bridge scene,
8.The "Temple of Doom" itself, it was a great set with exceptional craftsmanship, again if it were done now, it would be exaggerated and ultimately look fake, like the pieces in Tomb Raider and that awful Mummy series
9. The giant boulder in Raiders, do you think Hollywood execs would actually take the time to build a giant boulder today and have the star do a dangerous stunt running from it?
10. The intro scene in Raiders, it looks great because it's shot believeably and works up in suspense, today it would be all overkill


All done without CGI!!! CGI is sterile!! If they do another Indy, no CGI!!

Blofeld said:

\If they do another Indy, no CGI!!

Click to expand...

CGI can be done well like in Jurassic Park, but I refused to see the Hulk because it looks so stupid. I think there will be some CGI work done in Indy 4 and Lucas will make sure of that unfortunately.

good for you, cause the hulk sucked...

...but ive heard that theyre gonna be careful to make the show have that "b-movie" feel like the first three.

I don't no what CGI is but I know that if it was in the Hulk and in the Mummy than it better not be in Indy 4!

What is CGI?

CGI=Computer Generated Imagery

Movies made with computers.

Gotta go with Renderking on that one, you gotta factor Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park and the like in with the Hulks and Mummies of the modern silver screen. Just don't overdo it. I think CGI would have made the tank-over-the-cliff scene and the melting-Belloq look much better, but it would have ruined most other parts (the rest of the Ark scene, the aforementioned Well of Souls, etc.).

Just my thoughts.

Cheers,

The Old Bum

Depending on the grandiosity of the final film, I think we could use a little CGI.

If Indy finds a Lost City somewhere in the Himalaya's or deep in some cavern -- I think CG is the only way to go. That would look sweet, I'd love to see a realistic rendition of the graden of eden or shangri-la!!

OMG CG sucks

OMG, I'm so glad there are lots of people who agree.
CG effects mostly suck.
Compare Star Wars Eps 4-6 with Eps 1-3.
Lucas has gone insane and thinks CG is the best thing ever and has now ruined the once great star wars series,[mod: edited language]
I have faith in those who make Indy and I'm sure the fourth film will be mostly CGI free.

[Edited by Aaron H on 10-31-2003 at 11:40 am]

Just like anything else, CGI has it's good points and bad points. I do agree that some film makers put far too much faith in it.

A perfect example; compare the millions of live insects in TOD with the scarab attacks in The Mummy. TOD looks real, Mummy looks painfully fake.

Sometimes practical effects don't works so well either. Some of the CG backgrounds in the new Star Wars prequels look great. Some of the matte paintings in the Indiana Jones movies (Pankot palace, the jeep falling off the cliff in the Raiders truck chase) look terrible.

If you're going to use CG you need to know when to stop. Sometimes an old fashioned practical effect looks far more realistic. (Imagine Indy running away from some big CG boulder in Raiders. Urgh.)

Indy007 said:

Blofeld said:

\If they do another Indy, no CGI!!

Click to expand...

CGI can be done well like in Jurassic Park, but I refused to see the Hulk because it looks so stupid. I think there will be some CGI work done in Indy 4 and Lucas will make sure of that unfortunately.

Click to expand...

The CGI in Jurassic Park was pretty good, but it's important to note that for the most memorable dinosaur, the Tyrannosaurus Rex, they used a gigantic animatronic-thingy... it certainly would have been cheaper to do a CGI T-Rex instead of using a massive state-or-the-art robot, but they knew that even with their fairly good CGI, it would look terrible. The raptors, on the other hand, were CGI but looked great anyway. I'm hoping Indy 4 will be like this... wise decisions of when and when not to use CGI, and top-quality CGI if it's used at all.

Just a minute there. The T-Rex WAS CGI. Only the leg that slushed down in the mud in front of Alan Grant and the girl was animatronic.

Watch the T-Rex chew through the tire, or push the car around. Looks real to me.

It's difficult to debate the merits of using CGI in an Indy IV without an example of how it should be used. CGI has its good and its bads. But its Goods are Really Very Good. It's bads are limiting.

So:

Backgrounds - yes
Characters - no
vehicles - yes
stunts - no

thegreatimposter said:

Just a minute there. The T-Rex WAS CGI. Only the leg that slushed down in the mud in front of Alan Grant and the girl was animatronic.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I remember reading an article about Jurassic Park a little after it came out... one of the actors (I think it was one of the kids) talked about how they had a malfunction one day and the T-Rex's head crashed down next to them and one of its teeth popped out. So maybe some of it was CGI, but more than the leg was real, at least.

I don't mind if CGI is used to touch-up something, but CGI should never be used in place of something that can, in real life, be fabricated.