CGI in KotCS [Pre-release discussion]

[God'sRadio]

This is typical, some idiot suggests something bad that they have no basis for, then everyone starts worrying its true and before you know it there's a pandemic.

eg. "Shia Le Boeuf might take over from Indy!", "The shadow on the car is digital!", "The aliens probably look like little green men!" etc

As the "idiot" who suggested it, I feel I should point out that the list I provided was not just of possible CGI effects but also of possible digital "sweetenings" of the images. And if you don't believe Spielberg does that, then you haven't been paying attention. Or you can't read I suppose.

Oh, and I'd bet that if the film is a hit, Shia will appear in a further movie

 

[Falco09]

Don't you guys know, the entire film was done with blue screen? Sure they went to Hawaii, but they stayed in-doors all day on a studio soundstage with blue-screen.

All the backgrounds in the sets... the warehouse, the jungles, everything is just CGI or blue-screen work... they never even went outside. Why bother? They all wanted to stay in the air conditioning.

Harrison was also very out of shape, I mean he IS 65. They had to use CGI to make him seem thinner and more muscular. They took a couple years off his face in every frame of every shot. This is why it took so long to get the trailer out. And in some shots they gave him a shadow because well, there just wasn't one in filming and gosh-dammit they needed one for the shot. Big deal?

Also, I hear that George Lucas just felt the movie looked to real so he had an effect put over every shot to make it seem even more fake.

And Spielberg is just a liar when he is saying they did this old-school and used CGI only when absolutely necessary.



*wonders if anyone will realize he is kidding..*

I know you're kidding but I actually I think theres about at least half as much blue screeen work here as you're joking at. I think the warehouse scene is augmented with blue screen as well as shots of the temple.

 

[No Ticket]

I know you're kidding but I actually I think theres about at least half as much blue screeen work here as you're joking at. I think the warehouse scene is augmented with blue screen as well as shots of the temple.

Well yeaaaahhh. The ending shot where Willie and short round are running back to the village at the end of TOD... is actually a matte painting. Pankot Palace is a painting too.. where Indy approaches the steps/bridge/path leading to it. ... as is the exterior shot with Shortround. The only real shot is that exterior where they greet Indy. The rest is sets.

... The mountainside they come out of at the end isn't real... and the side of it is "extended" by another painting to make it seem even more vast looking.

I think you gotta understand that regardless, what they are doing is not different from the old Indy films. It's that now they don't do it all optically. They do it digitally.

 

[WillKill4Food]

Pankot Palace is a painting too.. where Indy approaches the steps/bridge/path leading to it. ... as is the exterior shot with Shortround. The only real shot is that exterior where they greet Indy. The rest is sets.

They couldn't get India's permission to film in India as long as they used the maharajah, so they used the painting. I agree with No Ticket, as I ususally do, because any time there is something that has to have, for lack of a better phrase, optical illusions, they always used matte paintings or the like. Now, it is far easier to create backgrounds digitally, so they do it that way. But, I hope that there is little CGI in the films, because it does give the series the serial feeling. Scenes that couldn't be achieved otherwise(similar to the Ark Ghosts in Raiders) don't bother me, but a buttload of digital effects would.

 

[Matinee Idyll]

They couldn't get India's permission to film in India as long as they used the maharajah, so they used the painting. I agree with No Ticket, as I ususally do, because any time there is something that has to have, for lack of a better phrase, optical illusions, they always used matte paintings or the like. Now, it is far easier to create backgrounds digitally, so they do it that way.

Of course, but now with filmmakers fixation on showing off their CGI - it wouldn't just be a static shot of the Palace in the background, instead the camera would zoom through the air and fly around the computer model from every direction, making sure we the viewers saw just what amazing things they can do with computers nowadays!

Less is more sometimes, y'know? Old style matte paintings didn't draw unnecessary attention to themselves, as CGI tends to.

 

[xVendetta17x]

They still use matte, but it's rare
I think a large part of the Temple of Akator was actually built
ANd if there are CGI backgrounds or structures, Speilberg won't go crazy and pan and tilt in and around the buildings

 

[No Ticket]

Of course, but now with filmmakers fixation on showing off their CGI - it wouldn't just be a static shot of the Palace in the background, instead the camera would zoom through the air and fly around the computer model from every direction, making sure we the viewers saw just what amazing things they can do with computers nowadays!

Less is more sometimes, y'know? Old style matte paintings didn't draw unnecessary attention to themselves, as CGI tends to.

Yeah... but Spielberg's style has never really changed. He has always filmed movies old-school because he himself is old-school. There was nothing in the trailer to make you think they were going to do that.

 

[AHegele]

Of course, but now with filmmakers fixation on showing off their CGI - it wouldn't just be a static shot of the Palace in the background, instead the camera would zoom through the air and fly around the computer model from every direction, making sure we the viewers saw just what amazing things they can do with computers nowadays!

Less is more sometimes, y'know? Old style matte paintings didn't draw unnecessary attention to themselves, as CGI tends to.

I agree. Thats one aspect I hate with Peter Jackson films. Whenever there is a transition needed and they show a huge city or forrest, he can never just show it. He has to swing around it up, down and through the bum-bum to get across that it is all an elaborate model with CG work. He directs with intention of flare, not with intention of pace.

 

[No Ticket]

I agree. Thats one aspect I hate with Peter Jackson films. Whenever there is a transition needed and they show a huge city or forrest, he can never just show it. He has to swing around it up, down and through the bum-bum to get across that it is all an elaborate model with CG work. He directs with intention of flare, not with intention of pace.

I hate when filmmakers do something like... show you how the inside of something works via CG for no reason. Like panning inside the barrel of a gun or something to watch the insides move and the bullet fire off in slow-mo at the victim or something.

Dumb. It might have been cool 10 years ago... but overdoing that kind of stuff takes the uniqueness out of it. We've had to watch shots like that far too long without enough of the old way of doing things.

... but that's beside the point. It's not necessarily a bad thing to do. But in the context of an Indiana Jones film it is. And I'm pretty sure Spielberg knows this.

 

[xVendetta17x]

I hate when filmmakers do something like... show you how the inside of something works via CG for no reason. Like panning inside the barrel of a gun or something to watch the insides move and the bullet fire off in slow-mo at the victim or something.

Dumb. It might have been cool 10 years ago... but overdoing that kind of stuff takes the uniqueness out of it. We've had to watch shots like that far too long without enough of the old way of doing things.

... but that's beside the point. It's not necessarily a bad thing to do. But in the context of an Indiana Jones film it is. And I'm pretty sure Spielberg knows this.

*cough*michaelbay*cough*

 

[No Ticket]

*cough*michaelbay*cough*

Yeah well, say what you will... he can still make good movies from time to time. I LIKED Transformers!

 

[xVendetta17x]

Yeah well, say what you will... he can still make good movies from time to time. I LIKED Transformers!

I loved Transformers
But that's about as much Michael Bay as I can swallow
I'd like to think it's because Steven was involved
He is a stickler for those cheesey camera moves
Like the 360 Pan and the "X-Ray"

 

[No Ticket]

I loved Transformers
But that's about as much Michael Bay as I can swallow
I'd like to think it's because Steven was involved
He is a stickler for those cheesey camera moves
Like the 360 Pan and the "X-Ray"

"I" Liked The Island too. And The Rock. Heh.

And I can't think of anything else. Pearl Harbor was pretty bad.

 

[Rob67]

"I" Liked The Island too. And The Rock. Heh.

And I can't think of anything else. Pearl Harbor was pretty bad.

Pearl Harbor WAS baaaad....but, don't forget the worst...BAD BOYS I & II.

Jesus, Mike, enough with the panaramic shots of Will Smith!!!


I really don't see what the big deal is with CG...I mean, who cares if the film is good? No one really cared about the Rings trilogy's extensive CG because they were good films! If the Star Wars prequals were half decent movies, no one would care about the CG. They just stunk, CG or no CG. All the freaking CG or live action in the world wouldn't have improved the dialouge or delivery in those films...

It's just a technique...period.

 

[Rob67]

When you compare a very top of the line phonograph to a top CD player (I mean VERY top, like $200,000) the sound quality is indistinguishable. Expert audiophiles cannot tell which is the CD and which is phono.

I wonder if it's the same way with film vs. HD? I bet at this point, film would probably still beat digital in the above scenario. Because CDs definitely have a higher sampling frequency than records, but as has been pointed out, film has much greater resolution than HD.

Very true...but very few people can afford such equipment which almost makes that argument moot. For what it is worth, most people can't tell the difference between 720P HD and 480P progressive scan DVD pictures. The viewing equipment definitely plays a big part and our $2000, uncalibrated TV's are just not going to provide a good comparison.

I did see SW Ep. III on a digital projector in the theater and I must say that I was blown away by the clarity vs. film. Don't know what to make of it other then possibly the digital projector was much better then the standard film projectors I have seen for it's respective medium.