CG Effects

[IndyBuff]

Films like Jurassic Park and The Lord of the Rings have held up so well because they used CGI only when absolutely necessary. Now it's used for everything, making films looks cheap and unrealistic in many cases. It's a tool have should be used sparingly, something that only a handful of filmmakers (like Christopher Nolan) seem to understand.

 

[Dr.Jonesy]

CGI works best when its used to enhance and supplement what's already there.

I think it really falters when it's used to create nearly everything surrounding an actor.

 

[Damon]

I think it really falters when it's used to create nearly everything surrounding an actor.

Only if you see it. For example, I for one thought that the scenes on the boat were shot on... well, a boat on the ocean, or at least in a tank. As it turned out, it was almost all CGI. It didn't falter. Someone really knew how to light the scenes there and how to move objects.

I think what makes Jurassic Park stand the test of time is actually not so much the CGI itself, but the physics and the way everthing was lit. The animals and their muscles moved in a realistic way, because the animators studied this stuff. Nowadays, most studios don't have time for that due to the time crunch, their animators aren't concerned with physically realistic movements, which is why plenty things seems so bouncy and fake.

 

[FordFan]

Films like Jurassic Park and The Lord of the Rings have held up so well because they used CGI only when absolutely necessary. Now it's used for everything, making films looks cheap and unrealistic in many cases. It's a tool have should be used sparingly, something that only a handful of filmmakers (like Christopher Nolan) seem to understand.

They both are a masterclass in building suspense and using practical effects instead of full-blown CGI. That's why the Jurassic Park sequels are awful, IMO. They reveal the dinosaurs quickly and just have ILM do all the work.

 

[fedoraboy]

I think the ILM showreel is actually the least surprising in terms of what it reveals to be digitally created. I don't think there was much doubt the time fissure and 214 BC Sicilian town were CGI. The shots at Bamburgh are real just with some added detail. We visit Northumberland fairly regularly and I know Bamburgh well, so it was clear to me the sets had been extended digitally, but it's done pretty seamlessly, and a lot of what we see on screen is actually there.

 

[emtiem]

I think what makes Jurassic Park stand the test of time is actually not so much the CGI itself, but the physics and the way everthing was lit. The animals and their muscles moved in a realistic way, because the animators studied this stuff. Nowadays, most studios don't have time for that due to the time crunch, their animators aren't concerned with physically realistic movements, which is why plenty things seems so bouncy and fake.

Which is something I think the Syracuse ending of DoD suffers from: not because there's anything wrong with the physics of the objects in the scene, but often the camera we're viewing the plane flying through the scene from swoops around dramatically and at huge speed in the way no real camera can: so you're already reading the whole thing as fake before you've even taken a close look at anything in the scene.

 

[Spiked]

The ship scene at the beginning of TLC always seemed fake to me, the way the ship blows up and sinks and a life preserver happens to float past Indy. It seems so obviously filmed in a tank. Coulda used some CGI there.

 

[Dr.Jonesy]

The ship scene at the beginning of TLC always seemed fake to me, the way the ship blows up and sinks and a life preserver happens to float past Indy. It seems so obviously filmed in a tank. Coulda used some CGI there.

Crusade's effects don't hold up, to me - at all. The other two originals still look good to me.

But Crusade with the ship set, water tank you mentioned, to the fake bookcase behind Indy, the bad bluescreen during the plane chase - the film just feels the most cheap of the originals.

 

[Spiked]

Crusade's effects don't hold up, to me - at all. The other two originals still look good to me.

But Crusade with the ship set, water tank you mentioned, to the fake bookcase behind Indy, the bad bluescreen during the plane chase - the film just feels the most cheap of the originals.

Yep, though the grail trials sequence holds up and the camouflaged stone bridge is still very cool -- I was blown away in the theater when I first saw that.

 

[Dr.Jonesy]

Came across this online somewhere. Not sure where it's from though. Concept art, I assume?

 

[Randy_Flagg]

Came across this online somewhere. Not sure where it's from though. Concept art, I assume?

I still get a kick out of seeing a reference to my home neighborhood (Pelham Bay Park) and the train that I take to work every day (the 6 train), and the station that I use every day (59th Street), and my alma mater (Hunter College) all in an Indiana Jones movie.

 

[British Raider]

Came across this online somewhere. Not sure where it's from though. Concept art, I assume?

Its from the New Yorker