Do you think Indy 4 will use a lot of cgi like the new SW movies? I think they could create some pretty cool enviornments with cgi. I'm pretty excited.

 

No. Spielberg isnt as stupid as Lucas. Indy will be on location shots just like the other 3 movies.

 

That's actually a great question.

But since Indiana Jones movies are more "earthbound" (so far!) there will probably be less of a need for it.

I guess it depends on what the story ends up being.




Rick McCallum loves you!

 

Oh yeah.

Maybe not as much as SW since it isn't Sci Fi but there will be CGI.

Think about all of the stuff in the last ones that would of been CGI had it been around.

Plus depending on where it takes place they may have to do a lot of green screen work.

 

<<Indy will be on location shots just like the other 3 movies.>>

You really need to go back and watch the films.

Not only was there an enormous amount of soundstage work done, but also the use of miniatures, matte paintings to augment the location shooting.

I'm certain for the most part, the CGI work that WILL be done in the new INDY film will be invisible simply because a lot of it will be used to recreate things that ACTUALLY EXIST.

This is one of the things that some people REALLY have a problem with, when it comes to CGI in fantasy and science fiction. Because the technique is used to create things that don't and can't exist, the mind aoutomatically screams: "Effect!".

Look at the work done in "Pearl Harbor". Those effects had an automatic advantage in that they were recreating Earth-bound objects and situations.

Some people just have a problem "suspending disbelief", IMHO. Their ability to lose themselves in the magic onscreen has been diminished by their lack of a sense of wonder.

CGI is here to stay, and it's only going to get better. Get used to it.

-Otis

 

Minority Report, A.I., E.T. SE, etc.

Spielberg has no problem with CGI.

I had an interesting thought last night. Steve is against shooting digitally. George, though, is very for it. I'm sure they will end up using film, though, because they're obviously won't be quite as much CGI as Star Wars. I can just picture them arguing about it.

 

I thought I heard a quote in the past where Spielberg mentioned how he wanted the Indy films to look like they were made in the 30's yet still be modern enough for today's audiences. I think if Spielberg does use CGI it'll be more a long the lines of the CGI in Saving Private Ryan than things like Minority Report or AI, which are films set in the future.

 

I don't know, but Lucas is a total idiot...
he almost ruined me on star wars, episode 1 in my opinion was a total waste... there is such a thing as too much CGI, and I can't even stand to talk about it, it makes me so angry, AOTC was okay, but I think lucas was getting ideas from a 7 year old, I mean look at jar jar, was ep. 1 a disney kiddie movie or what??? VERDICT: lucas is an idiot

SUGGESTION: let spielburg have his way with indy4 because he is a good director, just keep jerry bruckheimer the hell away, and don't mention the freaking holocaust (im sick of it)

 

Spielberg isnt as stupid as Lucas.

...but Lucas is a total idiot.

I ask you people this one, very simple question:

Why are you here?

 

what are you suggesting plo?
yeah, lucas is alowing people to use the SW universe to make fan films, and as yet there is no WW2 movie forum, and no hollywood big wig is going to copywright WW2 or real life for that matter, out from underneath us, Lucas did open up SW for fanfilms, but he made sure no one can make money from it (but him) and the people running TF.net
as far as the prequel trilogy goes...
its like watching a cartoon world with real people in it... the only real location is tatooine

by the way, did anyone else think the pod races were boring and a waste. star wars is about a revolution, and old fashioned chivalry, not nascar of the future... SHEESH

 

what are you suggesting plo?

I am suggesting that if you hate Lucas so much, maybe you shouldn't spend so much time talking about the films made by the "idiot".

Lucas did open up SW for fanfilms

No, he made made SW for himself and for people to enjoy themselves. Not for people to make "The Phantom Edit".

the only real location is tatooine

Nothing in SW is "real". But if you mean actually shot on location, so were some of the scenes on Naboo.


Sometimes I just don't understand human behavior.

 

i dout there would be too many effects if so, they'll be simple, maybe cloning people in a crowd or background elements. If there are we wont notice them since unlike star wars we can relate to seeing it or feeling it in "our galaxy". The effects were great in EP.II but you can tell because there is nothing like any of the effects you really noticed, that problem doesn't go with indy

 

by the way plo, argueing on the internet is like playing in the special olympics...
Even if you win, you're still a retard

 

Indy is Lucas's creation. If he wants it to be all CGI and it to be filmed on DIGITAL, he will have it that way. In a way, Spielberg and Ford are working for him.

 

by the way plo, argueing on the internet is like playing in the special olympics...
Even if you win, you're still a retard

I love flaming!

(BTW, Poo cat poops!)

 

Thanks, warsloth. I'll remember that.

 

The Indy moves take place on earth and thus they don't need all of the CGI that Star Wars does.

 

Yes, Luke_Clone, you described it perfectly in one sentence.

 

PloKloon1138

Thank you PloKloon1138. Lucas is working in an entirely different universe with Star Wars and thus he needs CGI for sets/vehicles/creatures/etc.

I'm sure that Indy will employ some CGI in terms of FX during action sequences... for example if the Indy script calls for a Stuka Dive Bomber (man the ones in Corelli were good! ) the plane would have to be done in CGI.

But, as Indy is taking place in the real world most of the sets already exist.

 

im sick of CGI, there are still stukas, im sure.. if not they can build them... I remember they used to race ww2 planes like mustangs, emmils (bf109's), and zeros... they were all vintage.. and they are the most awesome aircraft in existance... nothing beats a real engine chugging away at 4-5 hundred miles an hour... and building real props, will always be superior to CGI. even if you can't tell the difference

 

"im sick of CGI, there are still stukas, im sure.. if not they can build them"

Actually, there are no flyable Stukas left and if you've ever seen "Battle of Britain" (1980) you will see that the Stukas in that film are all models/cockpits constructed for filming against a blue screen.

However, I do agree that a real plane is better than a CGI plane. Compare BoB to the sequence in Pearl Harbor. There is not a single real Heinkel-111 in Pearl Harbor while in BoB they have perhaps a dozen or so Spanish planes based on the Heinkel Design. Whenever, possible for WW2 films the director should use real vintage plans... for American fighters this isn't such a big deal as there are so many in existence but for German and Japanese aircraft there are very few of these warbirds still in flyable condition let alone sitting in museums. Heck I think most if not all "real" Japenese planes in Pearl Harbor were mocked up old American planes.

Well that's the end of my rant.

 

>>>im sick of CGI<<<

Then I would suggest not watching films like Minority Report, Spider-Man, The Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Titanic.

They will be a total waste of your time. Especially given the fact that even these movies rely on CGI fairly heavily.
After TPM was released, even Titanic was the 2nd biggest CGI film ever made. TPM was #1, but Titanic was #2 with about 500 effetcs shots. Not to mention these other more recent ones that have probably out done even that number that Titanic had.

Oh yeah, don't bother going to see Episode III either. And besides its director is an "idiot".