Frank Marshall "No CGI in Indy 4"....... YES!!!!!!!!!

Discussion in 'Lucasfilm Ltd. In-Depth Discussion' started by bluesaber70, Jul 5, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    What part of that was CGI? It always just looked like stop-action to me...
  2. LordSilvertouch Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2003
    star 4
    Not to mention all the in-plane scenes in Crusade, and the bit where the fighter jet flies into the tunnel. And lots of bluescreen work, such as the ports on the blimp.
  3. Darth_Sidious- Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 14, 2005
    star 2
    The claymation stop-motion whatever it was, looked terrible in Crusade. May have looked like the greatest thing ever made back in the 80s, but watch it on DVD now, and it looks ultra cheesy.
  4. HanSolo29 Manager Emeritus + Official Star Wars Artist

    Member Since:
    Apr 13, 2001
    star 6
    I don't know, that doesn't bother me so much. If anything, it helps make the film what it is. It may be cheesy looking, but it's also fun. The Indy films weren't meant to be taken all that seriously to begin with. The image of a man aging rapidly until he ultimately crumbles into a skeleton is proof enough of that. They were just fun, action flicks that the audience could really get into.

    With that being said, I applaud Spielberg and crew on their stance of no CGI. To me, it sounds as if they are really serious about making this film the best it can be and aren't worried about wowing the crowd with insane special effects. They are keeping the Indy films true to their roots.
  5. Obi-Chron Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 11, 2003
    star 4
    The 'roller coaster ride' inside the mine in 'Temple of Doom' was ultra-cheesy 'clay-mation' work, IMO -- little figures that bounced around like Gumby inside the miniature coal car models during the 'big picture' takes. Lots of fun, though, the first time I saw it on the big screen!
  6. Gobi-1 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 22, 2002
    star 5
    Personally I think the mine car chase holds up extremely well.
  7. Obi-Chron Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 11, 2003
    star 4
    It worked in its time.
  8. NZPoe Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 21, 2001
    star 4
    The Donovan-aging/melting sequences was a series of rod puppets and stop-motion with morphs used to transition from one to the other. You can see how they did this in the documentary on the history of "The Morph" on the WILLOW DVD.

    I've always spotted it as a CGI before I knew it was one though - the transformation pulls out a few "tricks" that are nearly impossible to achieve with stop-motion back in those days (and still probably is).
  9. malducin Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 4
    Regarding the original article, either Marshall was misunderstood/misquoted (no suprise considering how the entertainment press is) or he doesn't know what he's talking about. Does anyone really belive that Spielberg doen't know how to effectively use VFX (CG or not)?
  10. skyy38 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Aug 26, 2003
    star 2
    Does "No CGI" mean that we get "real" matte paintings instead of the digital stuff?
  11. Gobi-1 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 22, 2002
    star 5
    Don't know but I'm betting all the matte paintings will be digital despite the "No CGI" comment.
  12. malducin Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 4
    Does "No CGI" mean that we get "real" matte paintings instead of the digital stuff?


    What do you mean real? You mean physical ones, done on glass? Of course not why would anyone. No one does really does "real" matte paintings anymore, probably more cumbersome, expensive, time consuming and less realistic that modern practices.

    Don't know but I'm betting all the matte paintings will be digital despite the "No CGI" comment.


    Of course. There are no more traditional matte paintings done in the major film industry. At ILM the dept. has been renamed the Digimatte Dept. and they have been doing digital matte painting for over a decade. They have embraced digital technology for quite some time. Funny thing is, The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles was a testbed for doing digital matte paintings.

    Besides many of the original matte painters at ILM, like Paul Huston and Yusei Uesugi who worked on the original Indy films, are still at ILM. It's the artist, not the media. They just have better and more powerful tools now.
  13. JohnWesleyDowney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 27, 2004
    star 5


    Besides many of the original matte painters at ILM, like Paul Huston and Yusei Uesugi who worked on the original Indy films, are still at ILM. It's the artist, not the media. They just have better and more powerful tools now.

    You're so right Malducin, it's always up to the artist's individual talent, not their tools.
    As to the overall movie, I think Spielberg will keep his eye on the ball and see to it that the technique used for any particular shot is the one that makes the shot work the best and be the most convincing onscreen, whether it's an old school technique or the latest digital effect.
  14. starwarsagent Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Jul 4, 2004
    star 5
    they can't make a movie without special effects..how do you think they made that scene with indy running from the giant rock? I mean come on, this is getting ridiculous..temple of doom had lots of bluescreen and miniatures..I have no problem with that..people are getting stupid.
  15. HanSolo29 Manager Emeritus + Official Star Wars Artist

    Member Since:
    Apr 13, 2001
    star 6
    Of course they can't. The use of special effects isn't the issue here but rather, the absence(or limited use) of CGI effects in the upcoming Indy film. There is a difference between the use of models/miniatures and computer-generated imagery.
  16. Tatooine_Ghost Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2006
    star 4
    It still will be fun to watch Indy 4.
  17. malducin Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 4
    There is a difference between the use of models/miniatures and computer-generated imagery.


    Meaning what? That miniature are better that CGI? Most modern films combine miniatures with CGI, there are almost few "pure" model shots (The Aviator and Constantine come to mind). Bad CG is the same as bad miniatures. It's just that bad CG is a bit more prevalent since there are so many more providers (especially garage type outfits) that can produce acceptable CG. The entry barrier is lower. But it's not always their fault, schedules are getting shorter and budgets are tighter. Besides as if the studio and Spielberg are going to let this project be done on the cheap and with no care for quality. Seems as if people think that just because it's CG, Indy will have a budget for FX of a few pennies done at a garage studio by 2 guys with no experience.
  18. HanSolo29 Manager Emeritus + Official Star Wars Artist

    Member Since:
    Apr 13, 2001
    star 6
    That's not what I was saying at all. I was just pointing out that there is a difference between the two. Nothing more, nothing less. Although, I can see how you could interpret it otherwise.

    I do appreciate the explanation you provided, though.
  19. iEatChildren666 Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 1, 2007
    CGI,NEEDStobeInIndy4.

    ItsWhatMadeThePrequelsGood!
  20. Grand_Moff_Jawa Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2001
    star 5
    The imagined world of Star Wars is a far more appropriate place to use CGI than the real world of Indiana Jones. If CGI is used in Indy 4, it should be relegated to clean up and background stuff. No main characters doing back flips or all digital characters, even if it's something as simple as a spider monkey on Indy's shoulder. Or bugs. Or tarantulas. You get my point.
  21. Chancellor_Ewok Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2004
    star 6
    I agree. Indy 4 will have CGI work to some extent, although it most likely won't have stuff like Jar Jar.
  22. Vortigern99 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 12, 2000
    star 5
    In Spielberg's Munich, which is essentially an R-rated action-adventure movie, there's a ton of CGI used throughout to depict the horrific assassinations, gunfire, explosions, etc. ... and it's all invisible as CGI or VFX at all. I have no problem with any amount of CG used in the new Indy movie, which has always prided itself on employing state-of-the-art FX.
  23. marcus_brody_sir Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2007
    It was. It took months of meticulous sculpting. props to the people at ILM whose legitimate jobs are now obsoleted by CGI effects artists whose work looks like a dated video game when
    five years pass. not to say they aren't talented, i just don't think CGI belongs in film...
    if marshall's promise is true, i'm really relieved. this was one of the things i was worried about most. glad that at least the look will translate to the other films if one wished to watch them all.
    now, all i have to worry about is the plot...
  24. malducin Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2001
    star 4
    Although, I can see how you could interpret it otherwise.


    Ahh sorry. Yeah it was a bit confusing the way you phrased it but I see your point.

    It was. It took months of meticulous sculpting. props to the people at ILM whose legitimate jobs are now obsoleted by CGI effects artists whose work looks like a dated video game when five years pass.


    It was a series of sculpts animated via a go motion rig, so that the movements of each puppet would match. Morphing was used to blend the action and accomplish the transform. And it was state of the art back then. And what if it doesn't look as polished as some stuff nowadays. I shuder to think what people think about Harryhausen movies. Or for that measure the original Star Wars movies (with their ton of stopmo, especially the imperial walkers).

    Besides their work is not obsoleted. Either they transitioned to the digital era (lots of stopmo artists learned CG, for example the Tippett crew in Jurassic Park and afterwards) or are still part of it, though not in such large numbers (and most of them are now at Kerner Optical).

    i just don't think CGI belongs in film


    CG is just a tool. That's just like saying computers shouldn't be used in film editing, sound mixing and editing, color correction, storyboarding, etc.
  25. marcus_brody_sir Jedi Padawan

    Member Since:
    Sep 12, 2007
    okay, i would have agreed that it was just a tool at one point. in movies like jurassic park, it was just used for quick shots when they couldn't get a puppet to jump or something like that. but now CGI is too prevalent in film and i would really rather not see it ever again.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.