CGI in KotCS [Pre-release discussion]

With all the whining about too much "CGI" in this movie - I figured someone needed to set the record straight.

From what we have seen so far- the use of CGI is minimal, elegant and beautifully excecuted. There is simply no argument here.

It's one thing to voice valid criticisms and opinions, but many of the complaints I have read so far are based in illogic.

I hope there is more CGI - it looks fabulous.

CGI or not, Indy's back and he kick's ass! that's what counts!

This post belongs in the main thread.

barranca said:

This post belongs in the main thread.

Click to expand...

Isn't this the main Indiana Jones 4 thread?

If not - sorry folks - mods, feel free to move my post.

I believe any and everything relating to the trailer is supposed to be discussed in "The Official Trailer Thread."

And I agree, I think what CGI there is seen in the trailer looks great. Chiliana said it best.

Hmm. The CGI is a hot potato, so perhaps it's better off in its own thread.

I think this one dodges the closure with a minor title edit.

Finn said:

Hmm. The CGI is a hot potato, so perhaps it's better off in its own thread.

I think this one dodges the closure with a minor title edit.

Click to expand...

Thanks finn!

There's more CGI than I expected.

oki9Sedo said:

There's more CGI than I expected.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I knew there would be a little (I mean come on we're in 2008) but I'm not complaining.

oki9Sedo said:

There's more CGI than I expected.

Click to expand...

Explain that? This is not aimed at just you but everyone who says that. I don't see much CGI in the trailer.

How about breaking down the scenes in the trailer and defining what is CGI or not. Best guess of course.

Avilos said:

Explain that? This is not aimed at just you but everyone who says that. I don't see much CGI in the trailer.

How about breaking down the scenes in the trailer and defining what is CGI or not. Best guess of course.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I will reserve judgement entirely until I see the film.

I think alot of the CG shots were trailer specific, including the 'exploding crates' scene.

Whether there's a lot of it or not, I think people are picking on the fact it just looks different to the other films and are on blaming it on CGI. It's hard to describe, but for me it's the smoothness of it all, it feels almost cartoonish as someone said.

A different look is of course inevitable, but people should be allowed to discuss it and criticise it if they want. It is quite a departure from the feel of the other three. And it's not as if the board has been free from negativity up until this point My two cents anyway.

If they'd had cgi back in the 80's they'd have used it.
If its limited to Matt work, (that allows them to move the camera), set extensions using 'real' elements, and effects work that gives the film more scope and realism, replacing what would have been done using models, then good, all of that I approve of.
If its been used to beef up the stunt work in the various set pieces, then I aint gonna be a happy bunny! Beacause we were promised better by Spielberg.
Even when I originally watched the movies in Theatre in the 80's the effects were 'visible', effects always are even now WITH cgi. We may not ever loose that. It may be a shame if we did, they require an audience to 'suspend its disbelief' and take that leap of imagination, and thats what 'Film' is all about, at its best.
CGI requires that same leap, its just a different medium.
It seems suited to inanimate elements like backgrounds, sets, machinery etc. Not to creatures or personallities, I've always felt Stop motion, animatronics or make up best for that.
I hope they've combined all these techniques on KOTCS.
What I have always enjoyed about the Indiana Jones Movies is that they are the expression of the love of filmaking and its various disciplines by the filmakers
Just be thankful that Mr Lucas hasn't gone back to the original movies and fiddled with them, as Spielberg has too. (yet!)

The CGI in the trailer looked amazing! Which is great because we've seen several Indy video games like Infernal Machine and Emperor's Tomb which look very realistic and obviously the effects are computerized. I think in some cases, the Indy movies often could have benefited from the scale that CGI can provide.

If someone says there's too much CGI in Crystal Skull then they have to say there's too much model work in Temple of Doom or too much blue screen in Last Crusade. That's how these types of movies are made. If CGI didn't exist today, Crystal Skull would have just as much, if not more, model work, blue screen and matte paintings as the original films.

Lon said:

If someone says there's too much CGI in Crystal Skull then they have to say there's too much model work in Temple of Doom or too much blue screen in Last Crusade. That's how these types of movies are made. If CGI didn't exist today, Crystal Skull would have just as much, if not more, model work, blue screen and matte paintings as the original films.

Click to expand...

Excellent point! Well said...

The film is certainly more polished looking because they aren't using the same film techniques as they did back then. Film sock, lenses are different from the 80's as well. In general it just the more polished look that has probably thrown a lot of people off.

The franchise has always been grounded in practical effect but when needed, it always utilizes the latest technology in ILM's special effects. It only makes sense that they apply models and computer effects with what can't practically be filmed. The only thing that throws people off is that the best effects between Raiders and The Last Crusade wasn't as earth shattering as the progress made between then and now. Even the Last Crusade utilized the morphing effect with Donovan's death, that was a revolutionary marvel of the time.

If it was in Lucas' hands, i would be a bit worried, but this is Spielberg.