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

Umm, in Jurassic Park CGI was used for significantly more than "quick shots when they couldn't get a puppet to jump." In fact, I think I can reasonably claim that there are more CGI dinosaur effects in JP than there are practical ones.

 

but now CGI is too prevalent in film and i would really rather not see it ever again.

Not likely gonna happen. I shot a demo trailer for a feature film I want to make, and there were a few minor things that went wrong in the shooting and the editor and I were using standard editing/effects software that any "high end" commercial production house would have.

I was able to correct lots of things. I had one kid actor whose eyes didn't match the eye color of the guy playing him at an older age, so we digitally corrected the eye color to match. I added handprints and writing on walls that were needed for the story, because the people that owned the house we shot in obviously didn't want us painting or messing up the walls of their home. All kinds of little things that were essential to making the thing look professional were handled digitally. Most of the people I showed the trailer to have had no idea where about 80% of the digital work was...it just looked normal.

So what's my point? If some dinky little production like mine, with no budget to speak of, can use CGI to make all kinds of things possible and improve the project, then someone who has millions of dollars to spend on enhancing their movie with a top notch effects company like ILM isn't going to not do it just to say, "we didn't use any CGI in our movie." CGI is here to stay. It's pervasive and used in everything from commercials, to music videos, to TV and feature films. And half the time, people don't even realize it.

 

but now CGI is too prevalent in film and i would really rather not see it ever again.

Hehe that's just like your original post, like saying computer editing is too prevalent so we should go back to cutting negatives with razors ;-). But ...

okay, i would have agreed that it was just a tool at one point.

It was a tool, it is a tool and it'll continue to be a tool. And as such it can be used correctly or misused, it depends on who wields it. It would be like saying NLE editing is responsible for the bad MTV type editing prevalent today (Michael Bay are you hearing ;-) so we should go back. The problem lies with the decision makers, not with the tool, when used correctly enhances the production.

The problem with CGI is that it has become so "cheap" that there is a lot of "bad" CG out there and this is compounded by the compressed schedules and minimal budgets given to VFX. But just as well there are productions where CG has been used to great effect (pun intended) in their VFX (usually the bake-off films are great examples). Yeah you might get 10 cheapo horror and teen comedies films with lousy VFX every year, but you still get a few films every year (not only big blockbusters but even smaller dramatic films) with great use of CG. And a lot of CG is used for cleanup work as well, not traditional VFX (removing boom mikes, tags, etc.). I do agree that there is an overuse of cheaper CG sometimes, but that's not the fault of the tool.

Besides CG has enabled VFX that would be impossible or not so great with previous techniques. Would people want to go back stroboscopic stop motion, for non-human creatures, matte lines, etc.?

Umm, in Jurassic Park CGI was used for significantly more than "quick shots when they couldn't get a puppet to jump." In fact, I think I can reasonably claim that there are more CGI dinosaur effects in JP than there are practical ones.

Hmmm, I think there was more puppet work in JP, but there were something like 10 min. of CG work on it, more than originally anticipated. And yes it was used for more than just quick cuts. Almost all the brachiosaur (except a few head inserts) and all the gallimimus shots are CG, and about half the T-Rex and raptor shots are CG (the other being the Winston work). It was also used in other stuff like the lake with dinos (just after we first see the brachisaur) because they couldn't complete the shot with the the shot footage.

 

anyone seen Zodiac? Superb use of CG to make a 1970's San Francisco look right. THAT sort of use surely must be a good thing?

 

anyone seen Zodiac? Superb use of CG to make a 1970's San Francisco look right. THAT sort of use surely must be a good thing?

Yeah that right. If you go to Digital Domain's website there is a section of behind the scenes work, which includes Zodiac and Flag of Our Fathers. I was surprised about the amount of work on Zodiac when I picked up Cinefex.

Lots of movies have minor digital work nowadays, mostly cleanup and minor enhancements (say replacing skies) so it has become a standard tool.

Funny thing is that the Young Indy TV series was used as a sort of testbed for digital technologies. There was ton of work for creating set extensions and environments to give the series a grander feel which would have been impossible via more traditional means on a TV budget and schedule.

 

I wonder what people's reaction is now, seeing that the trailer showed quite a bit of digital work

 

Yeah, I know. I don't really care though. As long as it is used only when necessary (which I think Spielberg will do), then CG is fine.

 

Going by the trailer, the US release will have extensive CG 'censorship' and the international release will be fine...

 

CGI?

Only one thing to say - matte painting......

 

CGI?

Only one thing to say - matte painting...... what 80% of old Indy and OT Star Wars films sets were "embellished " with....

 

Meh. Didn't even really notice it in the trailer because I was paying attention to other things. What we saw in the trailer that was CG was undoubtedly unfinished anyway.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I keep watching the trailer trying to spot obvious CG. I believe that the shot of the DC-10 (or type) plane flying off into the sunset is CG? Am I right?

 

I didn't notice the CGI in the trailer, whatever was there, because - and I know this is an old fashioned, quaint idea, I was actually looking for the "entertainment value."

 

I never noticed the claymation in temple of doom or last crusade. It worked for the films, at least for me anyway. Of course, I saw them when they came out. The claymation in raiders with the melting faces was kind of cheesy but that's how films were made back then.

I think by no CGI they mean no CGI on the Star Wars scale.

 

I get Entertainment Weekly every week(duh) and Spielberg mentioned that the FX will be "70 percent real and 30 percent digital". Ya, so probably mostly matte paintings, moving backgrounds, cleanup, but also probably a few booby traps or maybe even critters. Thats what he said though, do with it what you will. I personally like digital effects when it looks cool, and am not bothered but amazed at the effects work in the prequels(what someone said earlier is correct, Episode I had more miniatures than the whole classic trilogy combined, oh and just because theres blue screen or green screen does NOT mean that the background will be entirely digital. Its usually made of of a bunch of different elements-miniatures, real locations, and of coarse, digital effects.)

I know KOTCS will be awesome like all the other ones and I know the effects will amaze us, but we all know why we're coming back, it's Indiana Jones people...Indiana Jones.



PS.

The Temple of Doom is my favorite one!

 

Here, here.

And I hate unnecessary CG. If you can build something, BUILD IT! The fact is, filmmakers want to be able to do things you can't actually film, so there's gonna be a bit of that. Fine. As long as it's not undue or badly done. Hopefully it won't be.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

Probably, it's difficult to see because the image is fading to a new shot.

But there was quite a bit of CG in the trailer, most of the shots from inside the warehouse, the truck chase in the jungle with the cliff on the side, I believe the wheel towards the windshield, the temple pillars rising, the exterior of the temple and Indy against the stormy sky (by CG I mean the broader concept, including compositing elements).

 

The exterior of the temple? Ya I've heard this brought up many times. Um..they built that whole exterior set, and Lucas and Spielberg I'm sure have enough power to come up with a few hundred extras and make them run down some steps after Harrison Ford. I dont think its CG at all. In fact, upon further viewing, I dont know how people think it looks CG. Maybe its the number of epics coming out nowadays that now when we see a larger crowd than usual, we assume its a digital shot. Meh.

 

Yeah the temple is part of a huge set, but surrounding jungle is some sort of digimatte or CG set extension of some sort from what I can tell. Not all the stuff in the trailer is 3D CG as most people refer to it on this thread, but many shots seem to be comps of different elements (many of them real). It's difficult to tell from the crappy web trailer, I would rather see it again in the cinemas or have a better HD version to study it.

 

The trailer probably doesn't have finished CG shots either.

 

Just a little FYI... the melting heads are not claymation (meaning stop-motion), but wax (and other materials) maquettes that melted in real time rather than frame-by-frame.

 

"I was about to say that."

 

What CGI there was in the trailer was not overwhelming to the shots. Not like Star Wars CGI was anyways.

 

Most trailers do not have the finished shots in them, especially the teaser trailers.

 

Action-Adventure? Have you seen that movie. None of the murdering and bombing are meant to be adventerous. Its an incredibly serious film that happens to include people being shot and exploded. It was not a "fun" ride for me, but very enjoyable and outstanding.