Is KotCS too Fake?

Cole · Sep 10, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
Yeah,the CGI was a mixed bag, and just didn't look right more so than not. The "lens flares" might have solved some problems but they just looked bad.

The scenery at the top of the Temple before the retracting staircase opens looks crappy too, especially as Mac complained how stupid things were...

Because the effects in the first 3 are so much more convincing right?

Udvarnoky · Sep 10, 2009

But the special effects in the previous movies were used because they were simulating things that couldn't have existed otherwise. There were more than a few instances in Indy4 where effects were used to replicate scenery that couldn't be captured because Spielberg only wanted to shoot in the US, or for purely the sake of gags. Whatever you think about the prairie dogs, the fact that they are CGI is quite indicative of the kind of throwaway idea you don't have to think twice about because it can just be assigned to a computer. Same with the plants hitting Mutt in the balls - regardless of whether or not it's a funny gag (it's not), it's predicated on the knowledge that you can just do whatever the hell you want with CGI now, not because it's necessary or worthy of a special effect. They did it because they could.

In the other movies, special effects had to be reserved for demons, impossible falls from cliffs, rapidly-aging Nazis...things that couldn't possibly have been done without the help of ILM. If Spielberg had had his heart set on a shot of prairie dog emerging from a dirt mound in Raiders of the Lost Ark, he would either have had to 1) Find one hell of an animal trainer, or 2) Scrap the idea and move on, because shooting days were disappearing. For those movies, there wasn't the money or time available to make a fluff gag like that worthwhile. If an idea was expensive or extravagant, it was reserved for the big stuff.

Yes, you need CGI to replicate a nuclear detonation and aliens, but what of every single South American backdrop in the movie? True, Temple of Doom had a number of matte shots when the heroes were traveling across India, but there was also still bountiful honest-to-George location footage in there. No such claim could be made for Indy4. Indiana Jones doesn't travel any further than the next backlot or soundstage because Spielberg didn't want to bring principal photography beyond his home country (which ironically proved more expensive, according to Lucas). When the heroes are riding along the river in the duck, the actors are not on a river (even before the waterfalls), they're in a stage tank against plates. I bet Spielberg, Ford, and Capshaw wish they had that luxury when it came time to film the water rapids sequence in 1984. I think most of us are thankful that they didn't.

Rocket Surgeon · Sep 10, 2009

Cole said:
Because the effects in the first 3 are so much more convincing right?

The matte paintings in Raiders...The Warehouse and the San Francisco Seaplane were...MUCH MORE convincing.

The only weak spot in Raiders was the jeep going off the cliff. It was the only "effect" that took you out of the film.

Crystal Skull made breaking the immersion in the story a bad habit.

Deal with it.

Udvarnoky · Sep 10, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
The only weak spot in Raiders was the jeep going off the cliff. It was the only "effect" that took you out of the film.

I gotta tell you, the incredibly fake matte cliff in Raiders never bothered me in the slightest - in fact, I think I actually enjoyed it partially because of the camp factor. I think it's especially unoffensive because it comes at the height of an action sequence far too riveting to ruin, late into a movie that had thus far been so good that it earned the right to a shot like that.

Indy4 isn't interested in earning the goodwill that makes even the most blatant of CGI tolerable to an audience member interested in enjoying the ride. The movie gives us a fully computer generated animal in its opening shot. And if they'd bothered to throw a Russian off the equally fake-looking CGI cliff during the jungle chase rather than just having it exist, you wouldn't have heard me complaining.

Rocket Surgeon · Sep 10, 2009

Udvarnoky said:
I gotta tell you, the incredibly fake matte cliff in Raiders never bothered me in the slightest - in fact...

I used it only as an example of how minescule Raiders "bumps in the road" were.It didn't ruin any thing but it did take me out of the experience and I remember thinking it would have been better if they had just left it out entirely...

Temples effects were a sloppy step backwards as were Last Crusades.Crystal Skull swapped hatchet cut composites for vaseline smeared lenses. It was like watching Barbara Walters interview some vain old hag...

Cole · Sep 10, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
The matte paintings in Raiders...The Warehouse and the San Francisco Seaplane were...MUCH MORE convincing.

The only weak spot in Raiders was the jeep going off the cliff. It was the only "effect" that took you out of the film.

Crystal Skull made breaking the immersion in the story a bad habit.

Deal with it.

Sure thing, hypocrite.

Cole · Sep 10, 2009

Udvarnoky said:
But the special effects in the previous movies were used because they were simulating things that couldn't have existed otherwise. There were more than a few instances in Indy4 where effects were used to replicate scenery that couldn't be captured because Spielberg only wanted to shoot in the US, or for purely the sake of gags. Whatever you think about the prairie dogs, the fact that they are CGI is quite indicative of the kind of throwaway idea you don't have to think twice about because it can just be assigned to a computer. Same with the plants hitting Mutt in the balls - regardless of whether or not it's a funny gag (it's not), it's predicated on the knowledge that you can just do whatever the hell you want with CGI now, not because it's necessary or worthy of a special effect. They did it because they could.

In the other movies, special effects had to be reserved for demons, impossible falls from cliffs, rapidly-aging Nazis...things that couldn't possibly have been done without the help of ILM. If Spielberg had had his heart set on a shot of prairie dog emerging from a dirt mound in Raiders of the Lost Ark, he would either have had to 1) Find one hell of an animal trainer, or 2) Scrap the idea and move on, because shooting days were disappearing. For those movies, there wasn't the money or time available to make a fluff gag like that worthwhile. If an idea was expensive or extravagant, it was reserved for the big stuff.

Yes, you need CGI to replicate a nuclear detonation and aliens, but what of every single South American backdrop in the movie? True, Temple of Doom had a number of matte shots when the heroes were traveling across India, but there was also still bountiful honest-to-George location footage in there. No such claim could be made for Indy4. Indiana Jones doesn't travel any further than the next backlot or soundstage because Spielberg didn't want to bring principal photography beyond his home country (which ironically proved more expensive, according to Lucas). When the heroes are riding along the river in the duck, the actors are not on a river (even before the waterfalls), they're in a stage tank against plates. I bet Spielberg, Ford, and Capshaw wish they had that luxury when it came time to film the water rapids sequence in 1984. I think most of us are thankful that they didn't.

I don't think they did the prairie dog "just because they could." I think it was an idea that Spielberg genuinely liked.

There's no way you could've done that scene without digital effects. They would've had to have scrapped it.

Could they have filmed on the waterfalls? Mmm, probably? There still would've been digital effects in the background, to make the "face" in the rock side for example. All I know is what I see on the screen.........and it's extremely convincing. If you're really gonna be pissed about that, it seems very pessimistic to me.

Cole · Sep 10, 2009

Udvarnoky said:
I gotta tell you, the incredibly fake matte cliff in Raiders never bothered me in the slightest - in fact, I think I actually enjoyed it partially because of the camp factor. I think it's especially unoffensive because it comes at the height of an action sequence far too riveting to ruin, late into a movie that had thus far been so good that it earned the right to a shot like that.

Indy4 isn't interested in earning the goodwill that makes even the most blatant of CGI tolerable to an audience member interested in enjoying the ride. The movie gives us a fully computer generated animal in its opening shot. And if they'd bothered to throw a Russian off the equally fake-looking CGI cliff during the jungle chase rather than just having it exist, you wouldn't have heard me complaining.

To acknowledge the "camp" of the effects in 'Raiders' and to judge "Crystal Skull" so extremely harshly is completely hypocritical. I don't think there's any other way of putting it.

If seeing the first part of the film simply as a CGI animal is the extent to which you see it..........you are one shallow, cynical viewer.

Rocket Surgeon · Sep 10, 2009

You're better and cheaper then a night of watching stand up

Cole said:
Sure thing, hypocrite.

Finally, you speak of something you actually KNOW about! Well, more like spit! But now I'm curious to understand how your kerosene soaked brain struck on hypocrite?

While you mull that over, here's a short selection of some of your more shining moments: You should take this on tour!

You make me laugh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
... I just think that's indeed how shallow the criticism is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
No, you're right. You know more than Spielberg...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Spielberg may have been SLIGHTLY more conscientious of making a "family movie".........but these are pretty much all family movies.
If it wasn't "edgey" enough for you, then it wasn't for you, and that's where we differ.......why can't you accept that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
...but when you start to get on to little tiny intricate details of the technicalities in filmmaking - as if you know more than Steven Spielberg himself - then you start coming off as being extremely egotistical, pompous, and most of all, laughably ignorant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cole
Eh. It's like the opinion of like 10 teenagers with attitudes.......whateve.

...what else is there to say?

...fool.

Cole · Sep 10, 2009

*yawn*

I'll be looking forward to your responses Udvarnoky.

Attila the Professor · Sep 10, 2009

Cole said:
*yawn*

I'll be looking forward to your responses Udvarnoky.

I'm not sure why should you expect them, since there's no real reason to engage with someone who starts throwing "hypocrite" around - it's a sure-fire way to either turn a discussion into a debate or to shut it down entirely.

The point, though, is that there are things that might have happened in the prior films that did not happen because they did not have the capabilities - and we are better for it. If they had more money when making Raiders, one expects the mine car chase finale would likely be intact. Never mind that it would throw in an action sequence where it would be out of place.

I have no doubt that Spielberg - the fellow who thinks a hero with a whip should spend his time getting pants to fall down - liked the prairie dog, but that's ultimately not a good reason to include it, especially since they apparently felt it could not be done with a real animal, or that was not worth putting in the effort to see if it could. A similar thing could be said of the lack of any real location shooting.

Darth Vile · Sep 11, 2009

Yep - I never really liked the advent of sound and colour too, let alone computer generated imagery

Seriously though… Indiana Jones movies have always had a fair share of special/visual effects. It’s part of what they are. Sure, Raiders may have employed less visual effects due to technology/budget constraints, but if that fact makes the movie better, then surely it’s only better by default?

I expect my Indy movies to be packed with effects. Of course, the more practical effects the better e.g. exploding trucks etc…but, as I’ve mentioned in other threads, I’d sooner have more effects shots not less.

This really boils down to personal preference and interpretation. I know that many will prefer location footage in order to feel some sense of reality e.g. Tunisia standing in for Egypt. But I’d actually prefer backlot with CGI pyramidic vistas, and IMHO, KOTCS achieved a better sense (albeit "movie reality") of South America than Raiders did Egypt.

As far as KOTCS is concerned, I don’t particularly like the cutesy gopher shots (or the monkeys)… but I think it’s the idea and not the CGI that is a little weak. KOTCS, on the whole, employs its effects well… be it Doom Town, Ants or the Akator finale … but it was a movie that was always going to have to employ some modicum of new effect techniques (as well as the traditional ones).

AlivePoet · Sep 11, 2009

Attila the Professor said:
I have no doubt that Spielberg - the fellow who thinks a hero with a whip should spend his time getting pants to fall down - liked the prairie dog, but that's ultimately not a good reason to include it, especially since they apparently felt it could not be done with a real animal, or that was not worth putting in the effort to see if it could. A similar thing could be said of the lack of any real location shooting.

I agree with that last bit in particular. I remember the headline announcement of Indy 4 that stated, beginning in June 2007, Indy 4 will begin shooting domestically "and around the world." For me, that was the most exciting bit in the announcement, and so it was equally the biggest disappointment when I found out that they would not stay true to their word nor to the traditional shooting practice of the previous three films. Get away with it? If by "getting away" without shooting globally one means they will still cash in at the box office, sure. But they're letting the fans down--there's almost nothing the fans don't/won't know about the production process, in time.

And actually, that's a big reason that it didn't feel like an Indiana Jones movie to me, completely--it skimped out on the larger-than-life global scale that all the others retain. Big budget? So what? It's a small film, made possible by small geographical photography.

Lambonius · Sep 11, 2009

Darth Vile said:
Yep - I never really liked the advent of sound and colour too, let alone computer generated imagery

Seriously though? Indiana Jones movies have always had a fair share of special/visual effects. It?s part of what they are. Sure, Raiders may have employed less visual effects due to technology/budget constraints, but if that fact makes the movie better, then surely it?s only better by default?

I expect my Indy movies to be packed with effects. Of course, the more practical effects the better e.g. exploding trucks etc?but, as I?ve mentioned in other threads, I?d sooner have more effects shots not less.

This really boils down to personal preference and interpretation. I know that many will prefer location footage in order to feel some sense of reality e.g. Tunisia standing in for Egypt. But I?d actually prefer backlot with CGI pyramidic vistas, and IMHO, KOTCS achieved a better sense (albeit "movie reality") of South America than Raiders did Egypt.

As far as KOTCS is concerned, I don?t particularly like the cutesy gopher shots (or the monkeys)? but I think it?s the idea and not the CGI that is a little weak. KOTCS, on the whole, employs its effects well? be it Doom Town, Ants or the Akator finale ? but it was a movie that was always going to have to employ some modicum of new effect techniques (as well as the traditional ones).

I don't think people like Attila are necessarily arguing that KOTCS shouldn't have used CGI at all to achieve certain effects--certainly it is understandable and preferable to use CGI for scenes like the ones you mentioned (Doom Town, Ants, and the Akator finale.) The point of argument here is whether or not the really BAD ideas in KOTCS that were made possible through over-the-top usage of CGI (like the gophers and the monkey swinging) would have happened if it weren't so relatively EASY nowadays to do. Effects shots are so commonplace nowadays in big screen blockbusters that directors can pretty much indulge wherever they want to with relative ease. Therefore, bad ideas that would have been thrown out due to impracticality in the old days end up making the final film today, expressly because the effects required to pull off said ideas are relatively easy and inexpensive to produce. It's really sad, and says far more about Spielberg and Lucas' own terrible taste in humor than anything else. :gun:

Darth Vile · Sep 11, 2009

Lambonius said:
I don't think people like Attila are necessarily arguing that KOTCS shouldn't have used CGI at all to achieve certain effects--certainly it is understandable and preferable to use CGI for scenes like the ones you mentioned (Doom Town, Ants, and the Akator finale.) The point of argument here is whether or not the really BAD ideas in KOTCS that were made possible through over-the-top usage of CGI (like the gophers and the monkey swinging) would have happened if it weren't so relatively EASY nowadays to do. Effects shots are so commonplace nowadays in big screen blockbusters that directors can pretty much indulge wherever they want to with relative ease. Therefore, bad ideas that would have been thrown out due to impracticality in the old days end up making the final film today, expressly because the effects required to pull off said ideas are relatively easy and inexpensive to produce. It's really sad, and says far more about Spielberg and Lucas' own terrible taste in humor than anything else.

The "overuse of effects" is an argument that could be used at any given time for a movie that employs special/visual effects (both past present and future). If you increase the amount of effect shots, you will probably increase the amount of both good and bad shots within the movie. One could argue that if Spielberg/Lucas had not included the mine cart chase (TOD), we wouldn't have had all those dodgy back projection and miniature effects that stand out like a sore thumb. Does it mean they should have rejected the concept back in TOD pre production? Was the rubber snake/rhino really required for the TLC prologue? Did those few seconds undermine everything else in the movie???

I'm not really trying to defend inclusions such as the gopher shots (because I don't like them too)... I just think it's relative and broadly in keeping with what went before.

HJJNR · Sep 11, 2009

Lets be honest, the use of digital effects in Indy are simply down to evolution of techniques. If you look at the first 3 movies there are dozens of effects flaws and issues but hey, they had to make do with what they had at that time. The art and skill of movie effects have changed and thanks to movies like Jurassic Park and Lord of The Rings the bar has been set.

Lets say for the sake of argument that they had used the same styles and techniques for KOTCS that they had used in the previous 3 we would all be pissing and moaning "Why didn't they use digital effects?". At the end of the day I bet everyone bought the DVD even the haters and every time its on TV we will all watch it. I didn't have any issues with the effects, they were clean and well integrated and as for the gopher things, the effect was good... the idea pointless!

The one and only thing that made KOTCS fake (IMO) was the alien finale, not the effect but the mere point that it was there... it could have had such an awesome ending but hey... it's done!

If they remade Jason and the Argonauts, would they still use Ray Harryhausens techniques for the skeletons? Nope!

Rocket Surgeon · Sep 11, 2009

HJJNR said:
Lets be honest, the use of digital effects in Indy are simply down to evolution of techniques. If you look at the first 3 movies there are dozens of effects flaws and issues but hey, they had to make do with what they had at that time.

Raiders was first and foremost a stunt movie, NOT primarily an effects movie. Old time camera tricks and clever stunts. I don't see the kinds of effects flaws in Raiders as I do in the others, that jar me from the movie experience and make me realize I'm in a theater, (barring my earlier example).

The matte paintings and composite work in Raiders was flawless...from the Raven exterior to the Warehouse...the artistry and execution still holds up today.

In comparison, the subsequesnt films had too many "head shaking moments".

HJJNR said:
Lets say for the sake of argument that they had used the same styles and techniques for KOTCS that they had used in the previous 3 we would all be pissing and moaning "Why didn't they use digital effects?". At the end of the day I bet everyone bought the DVD even the haters and every time its on TV we will all watch it. I didn't have any issues with the effects, they were clean and well integrated and as for the gopher things, the effect was good... the idea pointless!

I have no problem whatsoever employing CGI, I've seen great CGI work, and Crystal Skull has some...but my complaints remain. One of the themes we're struggling to is the judicious use of CGI another is something Spielberg said himself in the original documentary...indugence. Obviously we're getting a first hand view of Spielberg's fallability, that, as it was stated before,and again and again, not all of his ideas are brilliant, stellar, ground breaking, or inspired.

HJJNR said:
The one and only thing that made KOTCS fake (IMO) was the alien finale, not the effect but the mere point that it was there... it could have had such an awesome ending but hey... it's done!

I agree with your earlier comment about the ending, what we got was spoon-fed baby food. Nothing was left to the imagination. It's no wonder why so many people are spitting up. (Ox's "...as a point of..." lines are still cringe worthy and sad.)

HJJNR said:
If they remade Jason and the Argonauts, would they still use Ray Harryhausens techniques for the skeletons? Nope!

Cheers!No reason not to use CGI,but to over indulge...

HJJNR · Sep 11, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
Raiders was first and foremost a stunt movie, NOT primarily an effects movie. Old time camera tricks and clever stunts. I don't see the kinds of effects flaws in Raiders as I do in the others, that jar me from the movie experience and make me realize I'm in a theater, (barring my earlier example).

The matte paintings and composite work in Raiders was flawless...from the Raven exterior to the Warehouse...the artistry and execution still holds up today.

In comparison, the subsequesnt films had too many "head shaking moments".

I have no problem whatsoever employing CGI, I've seen great CGI work, and Crystal Skull has some...but my complaints remain. One of the themes we're struggling to is the judicious use of CGI another is something Spielberg said himself in the original documentary...indugence. Obviously we're getting a first hand view of Spielberg's fallability, that, as it was stated before,and again and again, not all of his ideas are brilliant, stellar, ground breaking, or inspired.

I agree with your earlier comment about the ending, what we got was spoon-fed baby food. Nothing was left to the imagination. It's no wonder why so many people are spitting up. (Ox's "...as a point of..." lines are still cringe worthy and sad.)

Cheers!No reason not to use CGI,but to over indulge...

I know you and I got off on the wrong foot but I thnk we are almost on the same page, in the sense that we view things objectively and not JUST as Indy fans. Sometimes we need to step back and take a look at things with an open mind. I'm all for CGI if its done right and in my opinion Skull had some amazing work. The Matte paintings in original 3 are stunning (from an artists point of view). I think if we had to sum up Skull, I would simply say; "They tried too hard". But that is just my opinion! :whip:

Rocket Surgeon · Sep 11, 2009

HJJNR said:
I know you and I got off on the wrong foot but I thnk we are almost on the same page, in the sense that we view things objectively and not JUST as Indy fans.

We did?!?What ever it was I've long since forgotten it!

HJJNR said:
Sometimes we need to step back and take a look at things with an open mind. I'm all for CGI if its done right and in my opinion Skull had some amazing work. The Matte paintings in original 3 are stunning (from an artists point of view). I think if we had to sum up Skull, I would simply say; "They tried too hard". But that is just my opinion!

I get a kick out of people writing, "that's just your opinion" or some variation on the theme! However you learn, (sometimes the hard way) that these boards are teeming with so many different people with internet connections...from kids, to old farts, many with chips on their shoulders and SO MANY with egos, agendas, psychosis and skewed views! One argument going on now really epitomizes the generation gap,and only with regards to dancing around a subject.

RE: Crystal Skull, I think over indulgence says it all...

HJJNR · Sep 11, 2009

Rocket Surgeon said:
We did?!?What ever it was I've long since forgotten it!

I get a kick out of people writing, "that's just your opinion" or some variation on the theme! However you learn, (sometimes the hard way) that these boards are teeming with so many different people with internet connections...from kids, to old farts, many with chips on their shoulders and SO MANY with egos, agendas, psychosis and skewed views! One argument going on now really epitomizes the generation gap,and only with regards to dancing around a subject.

RE: Crystal Skull, I think over indulgence says it all...

Agreed! I think when (IF) we get an Indy 5, all of the things we love about Indy will be in there and I honestly believe that they do regret the inter-dimensional beings (ALIENS! they were ALIENS) angle and that it was way off track for Indy.

OH and the other thing that made my stomach churn was...
OX: "Into the space between spaces" Spoon feeding the babies is SPOT ON my friend.

Is KotCS too Fake?

New member

Well-known member

Guest

Well-known member

Guest

New member

New member

New member

Guest

New member

Moderator

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Guest

New member

Guest

New member