The CGI thread

[Major West]

In the movie Star Wars, I wouldn't expect Indiana Jones to pop up flying a ship. Yes, you can. In Indiana Jones I would not expect Chewbacca to walk in to the Holy Grail chamber and drink from a grail. Just because a movie uses unrealism in them doesn't mean every aspect of what equals unrealistic has a place within it.

I woudn't expect James Bond to turn up in an Indiana Jones film either, but we're not talking about those things. You can't use that straw man.

Some aspects are more Indiana Jones than others. A plain outlandish stunt like thr fridge/plane drop are pushing it, but you laugh. Supernatural elements such as what is at the end of the movies, yeah, thats in check, that is what Indy is about.

Indy is about pulp adventure serials. Full stop.

 

[James]

I wouldn't mind a large snake encountered, but within limits of large. Nothing too huge. For example, the size of a Whale.

I think we're more in agreement here than anything else. There are degrees to which Indy could encounter just about anything, and they seem to always find the right balance for the films.

Btw, when I refer to a giant snake, I'm thinking along the lines of Conan the Barbarian. (The scene where James Earl Jones transformed into a giant python.)

 

[Benraianajones]

I woudn't expect James Bond to turn up in an Indiana Jones film either, but we're not talking about those things. You can't use that straw man.




Indy is about pulp adventure serials. Full stop.

But both charaters are unreal action heroes, so they can be shoved in to the same franchise...no?? Nope.

Indiana Jones movies always had a border/limits , and it could easily go too far. Luckily none of the movies do, as of yet.

I don't care if Indy has pulp with in it and is based on it, it doesn't mean every single aspect of pulp needs to be tossed in to it, because then you end up with a mess. Food tastes nice - it doesn't mean I'd shove it all in one meal. I don't expect to see all pulp staples tossed in to the franchise for the sake, because "its pulp and can have it in".

 

[Darth Vile]

As James rightly states... I think, “We are on the same page”… It’s really all about our perception of the character and the perception of the franchise in general. The reality can be somewhat different.

If Raiders had been originally made as a homage to the 1950’s B movies, involving an archaeologist/academic who fights UFO’s/invaders from Mars, werewolves and zombies… I still think it would have been a colossal hit - as it’s still a great concept. However, the character of Indiana Jones is so entrenched in popular culture, that it becomes difficult to expand/evolve the concept beyond where it currently is.

So whilst part of me thinks, ‘Lucas/Spielberg - Do something crazy/radical with Indiana Jones’, the other part of me thinks, ‘If you’ve got a crazy/radical idea, do it with a fresh character. Create a new franchise for a new audience’. I think that’s perhaps what they had in mind with Mutt i.e. an opportunity to go in a different direction (if warranted).

 

[emtiem]

But, generally Indiana Jones will always be about Indy and his enemy team having some form of race to a goal, that is the main structure of the franchise.

I don't know- even that's a bit of a tight straight jacket to put on the thing. I think Indy is a strong enough character and style to push out from just being in Raiders every time. Certain styles of setting have to be in Indy (obviously you've got to have a few ruins in there from time to time), but otherwise I don't think there are any constraints and I'd be happy to see him doing new things. Certainly I don't want to see Indy V if it's all about him racing yet another foreign army to some Temple somewhere only for the bad guys to be destroyed by the very thing they're seeking- we've done that plot and there's plenty more that Indy can be in and still remain true to his roots in pulp and adventure. And if that means a few more fantastical elements over the course of the story then I don't mind- we've already seen that he lives in a fantasy world; why should those elements only be seen in the last scene of the film? I'm not talking Mummy-scale stuff like armies of the undead as that is so OTT as to almost turn the audience off- it's just a cartoon essentially. But a giant snake and the like... yeah, sure. He's supposed to be experiencing extreme stuff.

 

[nitzsche]

You gotta put Indy in the Bermuda Triangle now that it has been established in the series that there is travel between dimensions. You could connect the Bermuda Triangle to Atlantis somehow.

They need to bring more of the occult and magic into the series like they did with Temple of Doom.

You also have to get Indy out of the jungle and desert and up into the mountains or out on the ice somewhere.

 

[Benraianajones]

I don't know- even that's a bit of a tight straight jacket to put on the thing. I think Indy is a strong enough character and style to push out from just being in Raiders every time. Certain styles of setting have to be in Indy (obviously you've got to have a few ruins in there from time to time), but otherwise I don't think there are any constraints and I'd be happy to see him doing new things. Certainly I don't want to see Indy V if it's all about him racing yet another foreign army to some Temple somewhere only for the bad guys to be destroyed by the very thing they're seeking- we've done that plot and there's plenty more that Indy can be in and still remain true to his roots in pulp and adventure.

But TLC and KOTCS are not really anything like Raiders and they have the same concept - Indy fighting over the Macguffin/racing to it, the exception being TOD - it varies it - but it still the same thing - without it being "Raiders" again. Indiana Jones is about him doing this - "race" against evil in general. Then at the end, the evil is destroyed by what they desired. As KOTCS showed, it can still be fresh whislt following the Indy forumla, TOD showed it can deviate slightly - and still be Indiana Jones, but take it too far - it is no longer Indiana Jones.

Just because he doesn't encounter dragons, get sucked in to other dimensions, get chased by ghost infested suits of walking armour and giant snakes that eat him, doesn't mean it is "Raiders" all over again and boring (again KOTCS showed that). Changing the aspect of Indy too much = equal a different franchise. Again, that is why the video games and comics exist, so they can do more extreme things without altering the movies too much and taking them in too much of an extreme direction. Yes, Indy is "pulp" but it doesn't mean every aspect of it has to be used on the franchise, or has to be taken to its extreme. Indiana Jones, amongst the pulp references has its own identity, and altering the general structure (race against good/evil) of the Indy movies = a mish mash of pulp for the sake of it being pulp, and not actually Indiana Jones on its own merits.

Again, KOTCS and TOD showed, Indy can deviate slightly (the difference with TOD being the enemys have stolen the stone already, though still hunting for the others) and follow the general same concept - a race against enemies like KOTCS does -and work - it had an alien at the end, but made sense. But it is a movie franchise, which, if pushed slightly too far, can be ruined, and lose its charm and what it essentialy is as a franchise. So, I don't want Indy being eaten by giant snakes for the sake, because they are also pulp, I don't want him meeting robots for the sake, because they are pulp, nor UFOs shooting one another because they are pulp (which was going to happen and was dropped, thankfully!).

I don't mind seeing a portal being made in KOTCS, but to have Indy go in to one in a movie, would be too much. Don't forget, Indy is about mystery as well, and we don't need everything to be revealed.

 

[emtiem]

But TLC and KOTCS are not really anything like Raiders and they have the same concept - Indy fighting over the Macguffin/racing to it, the exception being TOD - it varies it - but it still the same thing - without it being "Raiders" again. Indiana Jones is about him doing this - "race" against evil in general. Then at the end, the evil is destroyed by what they desired. As KOTCS showed, it can still be fresh whislt following the Indy forumla, TOD showed it can deviate slightly - and still be Indiana Jones, but take it too far - it is no longer Indiana Jones.

I dunno- KOTCS is a bit too similar to Raiders towards the end for me. It's the army chase/villain destroyed by the prize thing... I'd like something a little different.
Are you saying that TOD took it too far and wasn't Indy anymore?

Just because he doesn't encounter dragons, get sucked in to other dimensions, get chased by ghost infested suits of walking armour and giant snakes that eat him, doesn't mean it is "Raiders" all over again and boring (again KOTCS showed that). Changing the aspect of Indy too much = equal a different franchise. Again, that is why the video games and comics exist, so they can do more extreme things without altering the movies too much and taking them in too much of an extreme direction. Yes, Indy is "pulp" but it doesn't mean every aspect of it has to be used on the franchise, or has to be taken to its extreme. Indiana Jones, amongst the pulp references has its own identity, and altering the general structure (race against good/evil) of the Indy movies = a mish mash of pulp for the sake of it being pulp, and not actually Indiana Jones on its own merits.

I'm not saying a fantastical route is the only way to mix it up, but I really don't see why it doesn't fit. Indy could do it (and already does) in a way James Bond can't- and even he met Baron Samedi.

I don't mind seeing a portal being made in KOTCS, but to have Indy go in to one in a movie, would be too much. Don't forget, Indy is about mystery as well, and we don't need everything to be revealed.

I dunno; you can have only so many movies of him not quite getting there- mixing it up a bit by having him get there... I mean you can't have him meeting God because you destroy the mystery and make the truth more mundane (sometimes the imagination is more potent) but I think you can have him getting closer. We saw the alien in KOTCS, which is a step towards this- I wasn't initially sure about that but in retrospect I don't see why it can't be in that vein. I don't want any new Indy movies to be exactly the same as the old ones; I like it when producers play with a genre a little: Batman was fantastical and is now down to Earth; Bond has veered all over the place from camp fantasy fun to gritty black and white fight scenes... I really don't see Indy meeting a giant snake as that much of a deviation from that which he has already encountered.

 

[Benraianajones]

I dunno- KOTCS is a bit too similar to Raiders towards the end for me. It's the army chase/villain destroyed by the prize thing... I'd like something a little different.
Are you saying that TOD took it too far and wasn't Indy anymore?



We saw the alien in KOTCS, which is a step towards this- I wasn't initially sure about that but in retrospect I don't see why it can't be in that vein. I don't want any new Indy movies to be exactly the same as the old ones; I like it when producers play with a genre a little:

But the villan being destroyed by the prize IS an important part of Indiana Jones. It even happens in TOD, just not quite as apparent - Mola Ram grab the burning Sankara Stone, and so lets go of the ladder and plummets to his death. If you want movies were that doesn't happen, then, not to sound pushy, but you go to other movies, because that is what an important part of Indy is about. Villans losing their life for the object they desire. It isn't repeating Raiders - it is just a staple and what IJ is about, it isn't a coincidence Belloq, Irina, Donvoan (and even Dr.Uberman in FOA) all exclaim their prize is beautiful. I was worried before KOTCS was released they'd drop this aspect, and was relieved they didn't. In fact, in Raiders they didn't race to a finale other than the item in the middle of the movie. Sankara had no real race, apart from the escape,in Raiders they raced to the very end to take something, and in KOTCS they race to return something. All variants. A new Indy film with no race - fine, but they at least need the enemy to die during a confrontation at the end - at the "hands" of the object.

No, I don't think TOD took it too far, it stayed in-line, although stucture and movie differs to others - it is quite honestly - the same, it just seems differently structured.

And, Indy can be played with, but we don't need to see blndingly obvious things or change the franchise in to another. You saw something different in KOTCS with the aliens. Indy works best with an element of mystery - why do you think even people that dislike KOTCS generally admit the warehouse scene is good? Because, when Irina and the Russians are after the crate everything is hush-hush - your mind wonders, its creepy, the metal on the floor gets dragged towards the crate, the lights bend, the wood creaks.

Again, people don't especially mind the crystal alien skeletons - and some thought it was too far letting us see a live alien and spacecraft, whislt I can see why they did for the movie, it does kind of ruin the mystery of it - what did these aliens actually look like, did they fly in a saucer in actual fact? That is why it doesn't need to be in that vein, we don't need to see things blindly in our face. FOA did the whole alien entities influecing humans in Atlantis, we saw evidence of their existance, and an eerieness was there. If you see things like God, the alien homeland in another dimension -the mystery - lost, the imagination doesn't get much to play with, and an eerie-feeling is lost.

I enjoyed Infernal Machine, and don't mind him meeting Marduk in a video game, but the movies work better story telling wise, and can convey feelings better than games can, hence why we don't need things to be totally revealed. I don't mind the aliens, or the spacecraft to be honest, but it can't be denied that without seeing them, it'd be more eerie. The crystal skeletons would have been much more indtimidating approaching Irina as the background was all distorted around them. Indy works well when we see artifacts left behind or remains, as opposed to the creator of them.

I don't get how it can be said all Indy movies are the same, when each one is different as it is, even if they follow the same concept - which is Indiana Jones. Take away the core of it - then it isn't Indy anymore.

As for the snake - I wouldn't mind if he met some freak of nature large snake, but one that eats him up and spits him out? I wouldn't like to see. Still, if he met a large snake, it'd seem very "The mummy" to me, though not a movie ruiner (unless it eats him).

 

[WillKill4Food]

I find it hard to believe that anyone (who enjoys the previous three movies) has an issue with the warehouse scene... be it the action or visual effects...

No, my problem was with the CGI, not the scene itself (which is by far my favorite part of the movie).

 

[tambourineman]

No, my problem was with the CGI, not the scene itself (which is by far my favorite part of the movie).

But what CGI? What specific examples of CGI do you have a problem with in the warehouse? They filmed pretty much everything in that scene for real. The things that you would think have been done with CGI, and in another movie would have been, were real. Things like the bit where Indy drives the truck through the crates and blows away the soldiers standing on the other side, and the head on collision, those (as we see in the making-of doco) were all filmed for real using real stuntmen and traditional effects. The only real CGI work in the warehouse scene was the digital removal of cables and things like that.

 

[agentsands77]

But the villan being destroyed by the prize IS an important part of Indiana Jones.

Only insofar as that's how it was done in the original three. Sure, all the villains are, to some extent, done in by their arrogance, and that is reflected in their attitude towards the relics. Spalko was a villain modeled in that tradition.

But it is possible that an Indy film could be done where the villains had a different relationship to the relic (whether they were different kinds of people, or whether the relic was of a very different sort from what we've seen before) that wouldn't result in their death via that means. It would be interesting to try and play with that.

 

[The Man]

For those who didn't buy the DVD, Empire have a sneak-featurette regarding the CG ant-attack...

http://www.empireonline.com/video/indy-4-dvd-exclusive-clip/

 

[WillKill4Food]

But what CGI? What specific examples of CGI do you have a problem with in the warehouse?

When they zoomed out from the entrance of the warehouse, that was CGI.
Parts of the warehouse were real, and (thank God...er, Lucas) the stunts were real.
But, when they first zoomed out to show the vast expanse of the warehouse they used CGI.
Now, that isn't to say that I had a problem with them using CGI. I like CGI when it's used properly. But, it was too obvious, and that still irks me when I watch it.

 

[caats]

that CGI in warehouse stopped bothering me when i realized it's the equivalent to the matte paintings in Raiders. that's just the tech.

 

[Laserschwert]

that CGI in warehouse stopped bothering me when i realized it's the equivalent to the matte paintings in Raiders. that's just the tech.

The only warehouse-shot that bothered me was the opening with the camera pulling back. They did a mediocre job of integrating the real actors into that, so that they slip and slide on the ground. They really SHOULD have used the equivalent of Raiders' matte-painting: a digital matte-painting (in 2D) and just zoom out, instead of a camera move. To me it even would've been anough to just use the real shot (as seen in the visual effects doc) and cut to a view from behind the actors into the warehouse. Why does there always have to be a crane shot?

 

[Darth Vile]

The only warehouse-shot that bothered me was the opening with the camera pulling back. They did a mediocre job of integrating the real actors into that, so that they slip and slide on the ground. They really SHOULD have used the equivalent of Raiders' matte-painting: a digital matte-painting (in 2D) and just zoom out, instead of a camera move. To me it even would've been anough to just use the real shot (as seen in the visual effects doc) and cut to a view from behind the actors into the warehouse. Why does there always have to be a crane shot?

I actually thought that pull back reveal shot was beautifully done?.

 

[Agent Z]

Actors were slipping and sliding?

 

[indyclone25]

slip sliding away ---- slip sliding away --- you know the closer to your destination , your, slip sliding away ( i hope that is the words to that song LOL)

 

[Zoetrope]

The only warehouse-shot that bothered me was the opening with the camera pulling back. They did a mediocre job of integrating the real actors into that, so that they slip and slide on the ground. They really SHOULD have used the equivalent of Raiders' matte-painting: a digital matte-painting (in 2D) and just zoom out, instead of a camera move. To me it even would've been anough to just use the real shot (as seen in the visual effects doc) and cut to a view from behind the actors into the warehouse. Why does there always have to be a crane shot?

Well, elaborate crane shots are certainly part of the visual language of the Indy series. The elegant establishing crane shot was a standard in many films during the so-called Golden Age of Hollywood. Besides, the reveal is much more glamorous, dynamic and dramatic that way, I think.