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

I think the problem is that you have to keep your mind in it for this new movie. If you don't it becomes not fun.

I don't think that's a problem when I'm watching FICTIONAL FANTASY ENTERTAINMENT. I am not going into the theatre expecting a realistic documentary on archaeology. I want to suspend my disbelief and forget about my problems and be transported somewhere else.

 

**** ILM and Lucas. I know it was ultimately Spielberg's decision, but I am incredibly angry at those tools for talking him out of making the movie the way he was RIGHT to want. I enjoyed the movie, but not NEARLY as much as if the visuals had a sense of tactile reality.

 

Did anybody read that article. Spielberg couldn't trash a REAL jungle (especially in Hawaii) environmentalists and conservationists (such as Harrison Ford himself) wouldn't stand for it. Now they could have made a fake jungle on the backlot somewhere but it may have come down to a financial reasons. It may have been cheaper to film on dirt roads in Hawaii (so you at least get real life trucks in a real life jungle) then lay in more foliage shot in the Amazon to fill in the gaps and make it more dense. Was it 100% convincing? No, but at least I know why they did it.

 

The only time I felt things weren't entirely believable was the climax of the movie, and even then I thought it was excusable.

I mean sure you knew some of those shots couldn't be done practically, but I thought they looked real enough.

 

Exactly, Gobi.

The jungle chase sequence is pretty much the only sequence that the CG isn't highly convincing and considering how complicated an action scene it was, I can understand it.

The rest of the film looked solid. I especially love the ending reveal. That was a pretty great, visual effect moment.

 

I had no problem with the jungle. The thing that I thought was a bit much was the over-use of animals... CG Gophers, Ants, Snakes, and even Monkeys. They took me out of the film a little.

 

It's hilarious. As if Raiders, Temple of Doom and Last Crusade don't all have effects that look / looked bad. The stone bridge reveal shot in LC has always looked bad, since 1989. The obviously sped up wax melting faces in Raiders have always looked bad. As with so many things, the expectation is totally ridiculous and unattainable that new effects technologies must somehow be absolutely perfect without anything remotely off looking whatsoever.

 

My complaint isn't that the CG doesn't look real, its that sometimes it not convincing. All the original films have dated FX in them, but I was still convinced that what was happening was really happening. The Tarzan scene comes off totally phoney not because it doesn't look real but because it doesn't feel real, it was something about the manner in which it was shot; even though it boils down to Spielberg and the choices he made, ultmately CGI is the culprit because if there was no CGI they would never have shot the scene like that and had to do it through real stunts and it would have been more believable.

 

[[talking him out of making the movie the way he was RIGHT to want.]]

This is based on what exactly? In February of '07, we read the outline, and there it was: atomic blast. Fridge. Spaceship. Swirling debris. Mountain collapse.

And then that "no CG" quote came out, even though hundreds upon hundreds of vfx shots had been allocated. This thing was full of CG before it ever got off the page. I just can't fathom why anyone would even think of trying to say otherwise.

ph

 

Hey Pablo tell me if I'm misinterpreting your statement but it sounds like you were not pleased by the amount of CGI in the new movie and Marshall's comment that said otherwise.

 

I would say that I'm disappointed quantity became a lightning rod issue by being misrepresented early on. I had no problem with the amount of CG, rather the direction of the shots that incorporated them. But hey, that's just one guy's opinion.

ph

 

Let me quote you malducin:
"On the other hand the 2 VFX Supervisors for Indy 4, Pablo Helman and Marshall Krasser, come from a compositing background and have had their share of invisible type of work. That should tell people something."

So why can it be that some of the compositing, mainly in the jungle chase sequence is really looking fake. I mean, that is obviously not ILM standard.

In every show there are of course some shots which look not as good or realistic as the rest (kraken sequence for example in Pirates 2: Dead man's chest).

But on Indy, although this film has not that many vfx-shots, there are more bad shots compared to the total number of shots, than in other ILM-films in the last few years.
How can that be?

Whas the post-pro-time too short? Or do they got in trouble because of their other May-releases Iron Man and Speedracer?

Kaero