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

What part of that was CGI? It always just looked like stop-action to me...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

 

Personally I think the mine car chase holds up extremely well.

 

It worked in its time.

 

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).

 

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)?

 

Does "No CGI" mean that we get "real" matte paintings instead of the digital stuff?

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

It still will be fun to watch Indy 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.

 

CGI,NEEDStobeInIndy4.

ItsWhatMadeThePrequelsGood!

 

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.

 

I agree. Indy 4 will have CGI work to some extent, although it most likely won't have stuff like Jar Jar.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.