If technology was what it is today what would ROTLA be like?

Henry W Jones

New member
So I was thinking..... When the filming of Raiders of the Lost Ark began, if technology had been where it is today, would Raiders of the Lost Ark be the gritty, stunt spectacular it was and is or.... would it be CGI'ed to death and look and feel like KOTCS?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Henry W Jones said:
So I was thinking..... When the filming of Raiders of the Lost Ark began, if technology had been where it is today, would Raiders of the Lost Ark be the gritty, stunt spectacular it was and is or.... would it be CGI'ed to death and look and feel like KOTCS?

Not if they'd gone the route of Batman Begins, where Nolan was determined to do as much stuntwork as possible by practical means. He only resorted to CGI where it was absolutely unavoidable for the story or for safety. He did the same for The Dark Knight, including flipping the articulated truck in Chicago's business district, and blowing up the condemnded 'hospital' for real. Admittedly he had to CGI the windows back into the building, but that was only because they'd been removed without his knowledge.

He said he used four IMAX cameras, and there were only four in existence in the world at that time, to achieve the best detail possible on film. That's one bit of modern technology that ROTLA would have benefitted from.

So, I think it's down to directoral choice. Not every director wants to fake it with CGI.
 

Darth Vile

New member
In short - it would probably look and feel a lot different. Raiders, although not a cheap movie, had quite a tight budget and if it were made today, would probably require quite a bit of CGI to meet the production requirements e.g. virtual sets etc. etc. It would probably look much more like KOTCS than it would the original Raiders. That of course doesn't mean in has to be as light in tone...

As far as Montana's reference to Batman Begins and TDK is concerned. I think it's like comparing apples and oranges. BB's & TDK's strengths (IMHO) are based around mood, dialogue and character. The set pieces are largely secondary to the more important stuff contained elsewhere (which is fair enough). Indiana Jones is very much about the big sets, huge set pieces and well constructed/conceived action sequences.

I thought the truck flip in TDK was great, but it was (for me anyway) just 30 seconds in an otherwise boring, uninspired and very predictable chase sequence. Again - not a problem for me as TDK's strengths lie elsewhere. And if you look at the biggest set piece of BB (the monorail bit) it's largely CGI too. I personally thought the action/set pieces in KOTCS - the warehouse, Doom Town, the jungle etc. etc. were infinitely more imaginative and exciting. Saying that, neither the action in TDK or KOTCS comes close to the truck chase, the rope bridge or tank chase from the previous Indy movies. So I don't think it's as black and white as one technology over the other (although I think we'd all agree that the more live action the better), but it's more about what's driving the action on screen... and does it serve a purpose.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
In short - it would probably look and feel a lot different. Raiders, although not a cheap movie, had quite a tight budget and if it were made today, would probably require quite a bit of CGI to meet the production requirements e.g. virtual sets etc. etc. It would probably look much more like KOTCS than it would the original Raiders. That of course doesn't mean in has to be as light in tone...

As far as Montana's reference to Batman Begins and TDK is concerned. I think it's like comparing apples and oranges. BB's & TDK's strengths (IMHO) are based around mood, dialogue and character. The set pieces are largely secondary to the more important stuff contained elsewhere (which is fair enough). Indiana Jones is very much about the big sets, huge set pieces and well constructed/conceived action sequences.

I thought the truck flip in TDK was great, but it was (for me anyway) just 30 seconds in an otherwise boring, uninspired and very predictable chase sequence. Again - not a problem for me as TDK's strengths lie elsewhere. And if you look at the biggest set piece of BB (the monorail bit) it's largely CGI too. I personally thought the action/set pieces in KOTCS - the warehouse, Doom Town, the jungle etc. etc. were infinitely more imaginative and exciting. Saying that, neither the action in TDK or KOTCS comes close to the truck chase, the rope bridge or tank chase from the previous Indy movies. So I don't think it's as black and white as one technology over the other (although I think we'd all agree that the more live action the better), but it's more about what's driving the action on screen... and does it serve a purpose.

But essentially the route taken by KOTCS and BB/TDK was the same: they all used real locations and practical sets where possible. (Gotham was one of the biggest indoor sets ever created, inside the airship hangar at Cardington).

The story of ROTLA was written according to the budget, whereas KOTCS and the others had a larger budget, and a broader vision which could only be accomplished with CGI.

But, as you wrote, this question does hinge on budget. We might have been lucky that the limitations of the day prohibited ideas such as the three waterfalls or the monkey attack appearing in ROTLA.

CGI is a seductive tool, making anything dangerously possible. As a director I think Spielberg would still do as much as he could by practical means.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
But essentially the route taken by KOTCS and BB/TDK was the same: they all used real locations and practical sets where possible. (Gotham was one of the biggest indoor sets ever created, inside the airship hangar at Cardington).

The story of ROTLA was written according to the budget, whereas KOTCS and the others had a larger budget, and a broader vision which could only be accomplished with CGI.

But, as you wrote, this question does hinge on budget. We might have been lucky that the limitations of the day prohibited ideas such as the three waterfalls or the monkey attack appearing in ROTLA.

CGI is a seductive tool, making anything dangerously possible. As a director I think Spielberg would still do as much as he could by practical means.

I agree - I think the likes of Spielberg, Nolan, JJ Abrams et al would like to retain some semblance of reality in their movies. However, on your last point... I'm not sure I see much evidence to suggest that Spielberg would spurn modern convention and favour practical means as a matter of course e.g. Tintin, AI, Minority Report, War of the Worlds (even Saving Private Ryan) to name a few where he's fully embraced the technology at hand rather than explore 'analogue' alternatives.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
However, on your last point... I'm not sure I see much evidence to suggest that Spielberg would spurn modern convention and favour practical means as a matter of course e.g. Tintin, AI, Minority Report, War of the Worlds (even Saving Private Ryan) to name a few where he's fully embraced the technology at hand rather than explore 'analogue' alternatives.

This is where I see the storyline issue. Some films have a storyline that dictate the use of CGI, or in the case of Tintin it was decided to go the animated route.

For the original Indiana trilogy matte paintings stood in for CGI, in order to create scenes that would otherwise be impossible or cost-prohibitive. Today CGI could be utilized to create a more realistic scene. That could have enhanced ROTLA, regardless of the original artistry.

As I mentioned earlier IMAX cameras would have captured more detail, and any camera intruding on a scene for a better picture (when multilpe cameras are being used) could be edited out digitally. There's no doubt that modern technology can enhance a movie, by making more options possible. It's just a matter of trusting the director on which options are best left alone.
 

Darth Vile

New member
Montana Smith said:
This is where I see the storyline issue. Some films have a storyline that dictate the use of CGI, or in the case of Tintin it was decided to go the animated route.

For the original Indiana trilogy matte paintings stood in for CGI, in order to create scenes that would otherwise be impossible or cost-prohibitive. Today CGI could be utilized to create a more realistic scene. That could have enhanced ROTLA, regardless of the original artistry.

As I mentioned earlier IMAX cameras would have captured more detail, and any camera intruding on a scene for a better picture (when multilpe cameras are being used) could be edited out digitally. There's no doubt that modern technology can enhance a movie, by making more options possible. It's just a matter of trusting the director on which options are best left alone.

Yes indeed... agreed - one would expect most directors to take a 'common sense' route. There would be little point in making Schindler's List an all out CGI fest and War of the Worlds a set bound practical effects movie. Ultimately I think the point I'm making is that Indiana Jones, by its nature, is 'fantastical'... and if the originals didn't exist and were made today (by the same people) they would probably be huge CGI laden movies. I'd like to think they'd still have the 'heart' the originals had... but I think they'd be pushing the visual effects boundaries nonetheless. :D
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Darth Vile said:
Ultimately I think the point I'm making is that Indiana Jones, by its nature, is 'fantastical'... and if the originals didn't exist and were made today (by the same people) they would probably be huge CGI laden movies. I'd like to think they'd still have the 'heart' the originals had... but I think they'd be pushing the visual effects boundaries nonetheless. :D

Yes, I could imagine the originals being much bigger films given the opportunity of modern technology. Bigger, that is, in terms of scenery and period reference.

Presuming that ROTLA would still be inspired by a love of the pulp serials, I would imagine it would retain a lot of stuntwork and practical effects - which help to give the originals their 'heart'.

I could also imagine Spielberg resorting to digital snakes as a means of boosting the number in the Well of Souls. I doubt he would even consider using 2000 live snakes on set today, and then ordering another 4500 from Denmark when he decided he hadn't got enough.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
For the original Indiana trilogy matte paintings stood in for CGI, in order to create scenes that would otherwise be impossible or cost-prohibitive. Today CGI could be utilized to create a more realistic scene. That could have enhanced ROTLA, regardless of the original artistry.
This.

There's really no need to scorn modern technology if it can be used to make a scene look either better or similar to more practical means. There is a reason to scorn it if it's used as a shortcut or the easy way out and it shows up looking disrepant to the 'live' bits you see on the screen. Whatever digital touches they've given to the four Indiana Jones movies so far fall (at least in my opinion) strictly into the former category.

What might suffer however, is the amount of juicy anecdotes from behind the scenes. Had they had modern CGI technology available back when they were shooting Raiders, I doubt they'd for example sent the crew on an antenna hunt over the rooftops of a Tunisian town.

Montana Smith said:
I could also imagine Spielberg resorting to digital snakes as a means of boosting the number in the Well of Souls. I doubt he would even consider using 2000 live snakes on set today, and then ordering another 4500 from Denmark when he decided he hadn't got enough.
This is in the same vein as well.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Henry W Jones said:
So I was thinking..... When the filming of Raiders of the Lost Ark began, if technology had been where it is today, would Raiders of the Lost Ark be the gritty, stunt spectacular it was and is or.... would it be CGI'ed to death and look and feel like KOTCS?
You pose the question, Henry W, but don't offer an opinion of your own. What do you think?:confused:

Compared to the other 3 Indy films, "Raiders" has only a small handful of special effects. I'd like to think it would be the same film with only a small handful of CG shots, used in the same scenes. (Although, maybe the monkey would be CG for the 'Heil Hitler' salute and date-eating.)

Here's a similar dicussion: Raiders of today? (And, please, don't call me a pr*ck again for giving a link to another thread.:p)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
What might suffer however, is the amount of juicy anecdotes from behind the scenes. Had they had modern CGI technology available back when they were shooting Raiders, I doubt they'd for example sent the crew on an antenna hunt over the rooftops of a Tunisian town.

I like that notion, Finn. It ties into the spontaneity and the unexpected that happens when you do something for real, rather than program it from a storyboard.

Striving to overcome a problem using practical methods also brings with it the kudos of success for the creator, and the genuine excitement for the viewer of watching something real. A car chase undertaken at high speeds through a real location has a greater sense of danger and daring than one composed on a computer.
 
Henry W Jones said:
So I was thinking..... When the filming of Raiders of the Lost Ark began, if technology had been where it is today, would Raiders of the Lost Ark be the gritty, stunt spectacular it was and is or.... would it be CGI'ed to death and look and feel like KOTCS?
As was hinted or bluntly saud before it would have meant they would just have indulged every stupid fantasy and it would have been as hokey as "the franchise" has become.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
That's a bit harsh, Stoo. As a hypothetical (as useful or useless as that may be), the implication of the thread topic, at least to me, is that due to a number of various forces, historical timeliness being one, we are very lucky to have had a movie like Raiders come into being. It had a great vision behind it, great talent too, enthusiasm and restrictions - budget and then current level of technology - that combined to make a movie that we loved then and still do. Because of its timeliness it has sort of attained a type of timelessness.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Yes, Mickiana, it's a silly/stupid fantasy because the movie has already been made.;)

How about this: If technology was what it will be tomorrow what would ROTLA be like?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
How about this: If technology was what it will be tomorrow what would ROTLA be like?

It would be like getting all sweaty and dirty trying to keep up with the super-duper virtual reality 3D live-action happening all around you, with the ever present danger that your refrigerator won't be as robust as the last one. :whip:
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Stoo, do you mean, "What would Raiders be like if it was made with tomorrow's technology?"? I am so attached to the Raiders I know, I cannot imagine a computerised version being more likeable (by me). I tend to think that the nature of Raiders and Indiana Jones in general should preclude CGing. I want the stunt-driven, puppety, matte backdrop blah, blah, blah, but only because I am attached to it. CG is too slick and sharp and lazy and I don't like the look of it, at least not for Indiana Jones. My argument has plenty of holes in it, I know, and there are always exceptions to every argument, so there it is.
 

Henry W Jones

New member
Stoo said:
You pose the question, Henry W, but don't offer an opinion of your own. What do you think?:confused:

Compared to the other 3 Indy films, "Raiders" has only a small handful of special effects. I'd like to think it would be the same film with only a small handful of CG shots, used in the same scenes. (Although, maybe the monkey would be CG for the 'Heil Hitler' salute and date-eating.)

Here's a similar dicussion: Raiders of today? (And, please, don't call me a pr*ck again for giving a link to another thread.:p)

I would like to think a young George and Steven would only use CGI when necessary but ...... Technology = Safety, Technology = Easy. The snakes would probably be done with CGI. The truck scene would probably look like the truck scene in KOTCS and that = fake looking. As we have seen with Star Wars Lucas can't stop adding digital crap to the movies and with CGI Lucas goes overboard as to what is believable that he puts in his films now. Problem with answering this question is it is hard to tell of Lucas puts monkeys swinging from vines with the hero because he's lost his sense of reality over the years or because its easily possible to do. But since he has added a bit of stuff to the SW trilogy that could have been done when originally shot, (Vaders noooo and Greedo shooting first) tells me his views on movie making have changed. Once again I would like think that they would make the same movie but CGI is very seductive so its a tough call. PS Stoo, I appropriate the thread. This time you were being helpful. Thanks

Stoo said:
That's exactly what this thread is. A stupid fantasy. it's a silly/stupid fantasy because the movie has already been made.

Then don't participate. There are tons of other threads speculating "what if's" for movies already made. I see tons of threads that I think are stupid around here but instead of making rude remarks on them, I move on. What interest me might not interest you and vice versa.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Would they have put the mine cart chase into the film?

And in place of the mine cart chase missing from TOD, would they have put the great egg scene in instead?
 
Top