What do you think about CGI in indy 4

I

intergamer

New member
Personally, I think there should be no CGI at all, and a minimum of special effects - its not a sci fi movie, first of all, and it would ruin the mood. Its got to be real - we need to see Indy's face. 5 seconds of CGI would ruin it for me. Even filtering that is too modern (relative to the somewhat pastel, faded filtering of the originals) might bug me.
 
I

intergamer

New member
i mean

I mean completely CGI Indy, or completely CGI scene. Small touch ups don't hurt, I realize that (computer was probably used in crusades)
 
Kumba

Kumba

Guest
There should be no CGI at all! They need to stick with the original Indy feel! Remember how Donovan's face morphed into the skull? They didn't use computer graphics, but they made different stages of the head for the morph, and then they filmed them for a few seconds, and then they used a computer to morph them together, but NO CGI was used. And CGI looks so unrealistic, ESPECIALLY in the new star wars films, which I think are crap. Remember the AT-ATs in Empire? They looked real, and that's what we like, realism. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head was the CGI in Pirates of the Carribean, a great movie btw, where CGI was ok to be used. But with an Indy film, the stunts should look real, and as I recall, Harrison likes doing his own stunts!
 
A

Adventurer

New member
That may be CGI in the broadest sense. Donovan Grail scene was a complete digital composite. The results of this got incorporated into Terminator 2 ,IIRC.

And CGI looks so unrealistic, ESPECIALLY in the new star wars films, which I think are crap.
Click to expand...
That´s a bit superficial. Ok. Sometimes, it looked ugly. But that was because they were hopelessly overused, or should i say abused? Also, a reason why they look so weird is, that the pepole involved probably had a time pressure on their hands which was near inhuman. Maybe with more time...
The keyword is invisible. Anyone seen "Panic Room"? There were CGI sequeces which are completely invisible, although sometimes you stare directly at them. The darkness may help a little, thought.

So if they get it right, CGI all the way. But, i´m more afraid of Lucas' 24p and Janusz Kaminski´s stlye . Oh, the horror. I hope they´ll add digital grain (NOT bleach bypass).
 
Kumba

Kumba

Guest
Adventurer said:
That may be CGI in the broadest sense. Donovan Grail scene was a complete digital composite. The results of this got incorporated into Terminator 2 ,IIRC.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about?! I read this book that showed how they made the aging donovan effect and they DIDN'T use digital effects! They used a computer, but there was no artwork done whatsoever. Get your facts straight.
 
A

Adventurer

New member
Ok, that´s a thing of definition. If you say CGI = Solely Computer Generated Imagery, your´re right. But what you call then imagery generated with the help of a computer? CAD? Would be a bit misleading. And that wasn´t an optical composite, it was digital, even thought no artwork was created with a comp. Ok, the T2 comment was misleading. With that, i meant the morph effect. Calm down.
 
F

FAN

New member
NO CGI! Everybody liked the Indiana Jones Trilogy how they were made in the 80's. No CGI, NOT EVER. OR VE VILL BOYCOTT THEY FILM, STORM HOLLYVOOD, AND SEND THEY MAKER'S TO THEY CONCENRATION CAMP'S! FAN and JC
 
Kumba

Kumba

Guest
Alright, somebody nab FAN and give him the BLUE PILLS! And like I was trying to explain to Adventurer, yes, they used a computer to do the morphing effect, but the f/x people built the Donovan heads. Here's what you should do: go to the library, and rent this book that talks about the making of Star Wars and Indiana Jones. i don't remember what it's called, but somebody in this forum once posted a pic of the front cover of the book. The front cover has a pic of the second Death Star, and Indy's whip and fedora. GOT IT?!
 
T

torao

Moderator Emeritus
just btw: the part with the concentration camp is not funny FAN!

. i agree with most of you...the less cgi as possible
but i think that steven will only use cgi if it really helps to tell the story because his past films didn`t seem to be that over cgi`d as star wars. let´s just hope that steven will keep the control and won`t let lucas decide on stuff like this..;)
 
F

FAN

New member
YOU CAN NOT STOP ME! BRA,HA,HA,HA! SOON I WILL TAKE OVER ALL OF THE INDIANA JONES WOLRD! WHEN THE TIMER COUNT'S DOWN TO 1, I WILL BE GIVEN SPECIAL INDIANA JONES POWER'S TO TAKE OVER THE RAVEN BOARD FROM THEM MOD'S!

By the way Kumba I have never heard of that book, ( of course I'm not in to digital technology ). But I don't wan't them to use a lot, they should make it like they did in the 80's with very little technology. FAN and JC
 
F

FAN

New member
torao, lighten up! I probably know more about concentration camps then anyone who did not live through WWWII or has a docterite in it. FAN and JC
 
bob

bob

New member
I think that this thread should be renamed 'The madness of FAN' just re reading it, unbelievable stuff
 
I

intergamer

New member
well

Well, now that I think about it, I think minor CGI might actually be good. Like in episode two, in the scene where anakin and obiwan are in an elevator, the back of the elevator is really fancy and its CGI, but you don't even notice. This would add to it..

hmm, i'm having second thoughts...now that it comes to it, even such subtle enhancements might detract from the film - because the film was cool because it was a throwback to the really old, very simple adventure/western sitcoms, and the huge simplicity, and even the relatively unmodern camera filtering made it good. so, if they want to be in a desert, they should go to a desert with real sand, not a soundstage

but they might be able to make the sand more "real" with CGI

lol, I'm battling with myself over this: thats why its a tough question to say where to draw the line on CGI use
 
R

Randy_Flagg

Well-known member
They will probably need at least some CGI in Indy 4 if they still intend to have his sidekick be a talking horse. Of course, they managed to do the talking-horse thingy years ago without CGI, so who knows?
 
Attila the Professor

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Randy_Flagg said:
They will probably need at least some CGI in Indy 4 if they still intend to have his sidekick be a talking horse. Of course, they managed to do the talking-horse thingy years ago without CGI, so who knows?
Click to expand...

Ren teaching you sarcasm, or is this some ridiculously obscure rumor I haven't heard about yet?
 
Attila the Professor

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Renderking Fisk said:
Who, me? Teach Sarcasm? I?m not the professor; I?m the Dean of Sarcasm.

My second biggest wish is that the script would call for something really AWESOME such as an underground city in ?Mystery of the Mayans? or ?Secret of the Aztecs? or ?Code of the Incas? that would require excelent CGI.

We have plenty of talking horses, it?s called Congress.
Click to expand...

Dean? Okay, I can accept that.

That could be interesting...might not have great appeal to moviegoers, but that doesn't really concern me.

A Senator as a sidekick? If it's anyone but Jefferson Smith, I'm going to stay away.
 
Ben Friend of Indy

Ben Friend of Indy

New member
Hmmm... maybe we should write a new book about this post: "From the Madness of FAN to Donkey Butt Cheeks: What do you think about CGI in indy 4" :p

Seriously, the only reason they should use CGI is if A) as has been mentioned, there is some huge, grand city or something that requires awesome CGI work or B) if it is used to help, and I repeat *help* the final villain sequence. I still want to see the old-fashioned stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top