Raiders: The Final Shot

The matte paintings from Star Wars are excellent such as the Cloud City ones. Star Wars: Classic Matte Paintings

What's a "matte painting"?

A good basic definition/explanation of the use of matte can be found here.

I guess unless anyone knows otherwise, we will declare the Raiders 'Warehouse' matte painting the all-time onscreen champion then.

It seems no-one is aware of any other that is more 'successful' in terms of screen time...

Mark Alldridge said:

I guess unless anyone knows otherwise, we will declare the Raiders 'Warehouse' matte painting the all-time onscreen champion then.

Click to expand...

After I see Raiders on the big screen then I might share your sentiment.

Mark Alldridge said:

I guess unless anyone knows otherwise, we will declare the Raiders 'Warehouse' matte painting the all-time onscreen champion then.

It seems no-one is aware of any other that is more 'successful' in terms of screen time...

Click to expand...

Well, I've thought about this and I think you may be right.
To my knowledge, the only other challenger is the final shot
from the original "Planet of the Apes", however that only
clocks in at 25-30 seconds whereas the warehouse shot
is 35-45 (even though a significant portion is still-frame).

In the gigantic book "Industrial Light & Magic: The Art of Special Effects"
from 1986 by Thomas G. Smith, there is a 3-page foldout of the warehouse
matte that goes well & beyond what is seen in the movie. This painting
is great. Mike Pangrazio is/was a matte master and I love his work.

Well thanks for your input Stoo! - that was what I was looking for really...some other possible contenders to onscreen time.

Great that you mentioned Planet of the Apes, I'd forgotton about that one - another film with a superb ending, made possible by a terrific matte painting.

I too have that book you mentioned, ('Industrial Light & Magic: The Art of Special Effects'). I bought it in London back in 1986 when it came out and it truly is an awesome volume.
The triple fold-out print of the Raiders warehouse matte painting contained within it is fantastic. What is great to see are the actual brush strokes and touches that Mike Pangrazio did. When viewed close up, it all looks a bit rough and ready; but when you pull back from it, the effect is stunning. What a talent.

I can only assume that nowadays, traditional matte paintings are a dying art-form in film??

Mark Alldridge said:

The triple fold-out print of the Raiders warehouse matte painting contained within it is fantastic. What is great to see are the actual brush strokes and touches that Mike Pangrazio did. When viewed close up, it all looks a bit rough and ready; but when you pull back from it, the effect is stunning. What a talent.

I can only assume that nowadays, traditional matte paintings are a dying art-form in film??

Click to expand...

You can definitely say that again. It's all digital now, I'm afraid.
I don't suspect we'll see any glass, matte shots in "Indy 4".

As for the "rough" look, most paintings, sets, props, costumes, etc.
are usually rough unless it's for a close-up. I'm sure you know all
that but I agree, it still never ceases to fascinate.

Off topic, here, but some of my Pangrazio faves have always been
his snowscapes from "The Empire Strikes Back". Impeccable!

Is there anywhere online to check out that Raiders matte?

Matte Painting Link

There is a pretty good image of the painting in the link below.

I can only assume that the painting shown is a print (copy) of the original, but you can still clearly see the brush work and also the space that was left blank in the centre. This is where the live action footage of the man pushing the crate was projected.


http://www.hollywoodhardware.de/items/raiders-matte.html

It's a shame that they couldn't use CGI back then.

On the contrary! In the grand scheme of things, (and in my opinion) it is precisely the lack of CGI inherent in the Indiana Jones Trilogy that really helps to make it stand the test of time so well.

So much of the use of CGI - even today, looks poor. And even the best, still does not look convincingly real (yet).

I think a really good case in point is to compare the original Star Wars trilogy with the recent three prequels.
The original 3 films had virtually NO use of CGI in them, whereas the recent prequels seem to treat real sets and real actors as if they were a special effect!

Like the Indiana Jones films, those original 3 Star Wars films contain so much more warmth, more depth, more grit, more dirt, more emotion. - and personally, I find that it makes for a much more emersive experience.

After sitting through hours and hours of relentless CGI, I just feel a bit numb. There is so much going on, on-screen and none of it is real. It's hard to relate to.

One final example I'd like to make is the disastrous decision to 'redo' the original Star Wars trilogy. For example, using CGI to introduce Jabba the Hut into Star Wars. After just a couple of years it already looked terribly out of date! - and what's more, it doesn't visually match the rest of the 1970's film that surrounds it.

This is why if the rumours are true about Indy 4, it will be a great thing I think - as Spielberg/Lucas have said that they intend to shoot the film 'traditionally' building sets and using stuntmen etc. I for one am very pleased about that and I think it will make for a better, more visceral film.

Mark Alldridge said:

One final example I'd like to make is the disastrous decision to 'redo' the original Star Wars trilogy. For example, using CGI to introduce Jabba the Hut into Star Wars. After just a couple of years it already looked terribly out of date! - and what's more, it doesn't visually match the rest of the 1970's film that surrounds it.

Click to expand...

I agree the Jabba the Hut sequence is cringe worthy. CGI has improved a lot since 1997.

Oh yeah, the CG of Jabba was horrible. It stunned me how he didn't even look lik the real Jabba (from the rest of the three movies).

Yes, I think for me it's just that CGI ages so BADLY.

If you look at good model work and blue-screen work (say, Return of the Jedi), it still stands up very well today.

Also, if you have film which has very few optical effects (like 'The Exorcist' for example), it ages so much better than a film with lots of flimsy, shaky optical shots.

In this next Indy film, I want lots of plaster of paris statues, lots of locational shooting outdoors; I want dust, dirt and grime. I want real actors getting their hands dirty! If I see a fireball, I want it to be a real one, if Indy swings across a chasm, I want a stuntman to actually do it!

Hey, Mark, thanks for tuning back in! I agree with all you have said.

One thing I've always admired is that there is a shot in "Doom" during
the climax which contains some early *computer assisted* animation.
Harrison's legs had been cut off during bluescreen shots from above
while he was climbing the bridge against the cliffside (and the Thuggee
are falling...)

Indy's cut-off, scrambling legs were animated traditionally and then
fit to match with the aid of a computer.

Hello Stoo, good to be back! - Yes I know the shot you mean. That was a complex shot if I remember rightly. I think they had to put that shot about seven times through the printer to composite all the elements. (I remember seeing a very old documentary about the making of T.O.D).

It is just after the bridge rips apart and they hit the cliff face isn't it?
His white legs had to be hand animated because they were masked by another element of the shot. Very clever.

I'll tell you another thought I have too (why not eh?!) - I really do think that when filmmakers have to confront various problems during production (something which is constant in a film shoot), I feel that if they have to solve them using practical means, it forces you to think outside the box a little bit; to be a bit more creative, - to come up with ideas that you might not otherwise have thought of, and I think this can make for a better sequence.

I am comparing this to solving everything digitally. I perhaps feel that doing this does not 'push' people creatively in quite the same way. What do you think?