CGI and Indiana Jones

[Lurker 5]

Here's a debate we don't have enough here.

This is from today's IMDB

Indiana Jones producer Frank Marshall is determined to shun the current trends in movie making - insisting the upcoming fourth installment of the hit franchise will avoid using computer effects. Frank is adamant the sequel to the hit Harrison Ford adventure franchise will retain the tradition of its classic forerunners by utilizing real stunt work instead of high-tech graphics, giving it the feel of a B-movie. He says, "We didn't have computer effects in those days, we couldn't easily erase things and I think one of the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers lazy. You become more creative when you have to hide ramps with a tree rather than erase it later as you can today. In Raiders Of The Lost Ark, that's a real ball rolling behind him so Harrison really is in some danger running in front of that; these are real situations and that adds to the excitement and the creative energy on the set. When you start getting into computers you get fantastical situations like in The Matrix or movies like that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-movie feel. We want to make Indiana Jones 4 like we made the first three."

Neil

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

...will retain the tradition of its classic forerunners by utilizing real stunt work instead of high-tech graphics

I want to see how they do it when the stunt man stands in for Mr. Ford for the scene where he opens the Centrum Silver bottle.

... we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action.

And depends.

Hector - in his Hook post (no. 1991)

[A24 4,323]

Now all we need is a good script from a good story.

----------------

Alex Cremers

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

They should use CGI when they need it and other techniques when they work better. Was that invisible bridge in Crusade CGI? If it wasn't, at least it looked like rather poor CGI.

Marian - who thinks CGI is both overused and underrated.

[Lurker 5]

Was that invisible bridge in Crusade CGI? If it wasn't, at least it looked like rather poor CGI.

No, it was not.

However the shot where Donovan rapidly ages was an historic shot in terms of computer effects. I'll have to look up why, because I can't remember right now.

Neil

[IrishCal24 0]

Spielberg seems to disagree with Mr Marshall. Coming Soon! posted the following quote from Premiere magazine:

Spielberg: I love that these movies were all shot the old-fashioned way. Digital hadn't been invented, so all the stunts were just like the kind you used to see in the silents to the early talkies. They were made in the tradition of old Hollywood.

I think the fourth film [which Frank Darabont is now scripting, for a possible June '04 start] is going to include some digital stunts, because I don't want to put anybody in jeopardy. Also, some of the things that are truly spectacular to watch will be done digitally, in order to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak.

There are also quotes from Lucas, Ford, and Kennedy at the link as well.

[Trumpeteer 302]

...will retain the tradition of its classic forerunners by utilizing real stunt work instead of high-tech graphics

I want to see how they do it when the stunt man stands in for Mr. Ford for the scene where he opens the Centrum Silver bottle.

LOL LOL

Thanks. I needed that.

[King Mark 3,624]

...will retain the tradition of its classic forerunners by utilizing real stunt work instead of high-tech graphics

I want to see how they do it when the stunt man stands in for Mr. Ford for the scene where he opens the Centrum Silver bottle.

LOL LOL

Thanks. I needed that.

indeed LOL

K.M.

[ymenard 54]

The Last Crusaded was filled with early digital matte work. ILM started to experiment with digital matte compositing and digital

rotoscoping back around then, and used it for The Last Crusade. The process of shots went through computerised work, so instead of using an optical

printer they used digital compositing for travelling mattes.

That's why the SFX seem to be "worse" then the previous two (blimp stuff, the plane, etc...). The year was 1989, and ILM was just starting to merge into the tools they would use in the 90's

[King Mark 3,624]

Aren't the Spirits coming out of the Ark in Raiders early CGI too?

K.M.

[Lurker 5]

Aren't the Spirits coming out of the Ark in Raiders early CGI too?

No, not at all.

Neil

[Yoda Longbottom 0]

I don't (want to) think Spielberg's vision so much contradicts Mr. Marshall's. I get the feeling neither of the two wants to take it down the Matrix way. I imagine they won't need to add abundance of waterfalls and gorges into the scenery where they normally don't exist, which they of course easily could. Nevertheless, after AI and MR, Spielberg might have become fond of CGI more than before. We'll have to wait to see.

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

Aren't the Spirits coming out of the Ark in Raiders early CGI too?

If I'm not mistaken, the first two movies to incorporate CGI were Tron and Wrath of Khan. Now I don't know the exact production dates, but the IMDb lists Raiders for 1981 and the other two for 1982, so my best guess is those were later.

BTW, Khan also is the origin of the particle engine, or so I've read.

Marian - who thinks Tron's use of CGI is far better than Khan's.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Wrath of Khan had CGI?

- Marc, who was unaware.

[Hale-Bopp 0]

Aren't the Spirits coming out of the Ark in Raiders early CGI too?

K.M.

Weren't those created with some form of traditional animation cells being placed on top of the actual film prints? I forget. Makes me wonder where one can go online and research how these films effects were created.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Go here.

(One of the ghost puppets.)

- Marc

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

Wrath of Khan had CGI?

That Genesis simulation animation, with the planet and the canyons and the fire. From what I've read they invented the particle system technique to do the fire. I don't think there's any CGI in the movie that's combined with really filmed stuff.

[Lurker 5]

Wrath of Khan had CGI?

That Genesis simulation animation, with the planet and the canyons and the fire. From what I've read they invented the particle system technique to do the fire. I don't think there's any CGI in the movie that's combined with really filmed stuff.

That is all correct. There is also an error in that scene, as the camera seems to fly through a mountain. Still for 1982, it's very well done.

Neil - who just got the music used for the Genesis Project

[hitman20 0]

I think it all depends on the story line. It may call for it it's titled Indiana Jones and the Emperors Tomb (like the video game). I think the there will be small amounts of CGI (not as much as Star Wars), but only in choice scenes, especially if there trying to give it that B-movie feel. (According to the quote at the top)

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

There is also an error in that scene, as the camera seems to fly through a mountain.  Still for 1982, it's very well done.

Yeah, according to the IMDb, they had a random number generator creating the terrain and only noticed the error when they were rendering the frames close to the mountain. At that point, it was too late to re-render the entire animation, so they made that little Canyon appear out of nothing.

Marian - who just remembered that Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark does have CGI.

Triology Plays Ennio Morricone

[Hale-Bopp 0]

Go here.

(One of the ghost puppets.)

- Marc

Cool!

heh, puppetry is awesome.

the way these effects guys reinvent their art for each new film they work on never ceases to amaze me. I remember as kid being scared out of my pants when I first saw the faces melting at the end. what a freaky moment.

[Melange 446]

Neil - who just got the music used for the Genesis Project

Melange - Who just got very interested indeed

[ymenard 54]

There's an "expanded" Wrath of Khan available, but it's just a Surround-hacked version.

[Lurker 5]

You are correct, ymenard, but my recording of The Genesis Project is not a DVD rip.

Neil

[King Mark 3,624]

Cool.now I know how they made the Raiders ghosts...and those cloud effects which were popular at the time.I figure they used the same techniques in Poltergeist(which also has similar ghosts and clouds)

K.M.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Wrath of Khan had CGI?

That Genesis simulation animation, with the planet and the canyons and the fire. From what I've read they invented the particle system technique to do the fire. I don't think there's any CGI in the movie that's combined with really filmed stuff.

Oh right, yeah, of course. I was thinking of a live action/CGI combination, but there's this bit, yeah. Now I remember. BTW, how did they do that animation of the Death Star trench in Star Wars? Did they do that with a computer too, or did they do it another way.

- Marc

John Williams - Zam the Assassin and The Chase Through Coruscant from Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

I don't think there's any CGI in the first two SW movies (is there any in the third, actually?) - except in the SE's of course. But I do believe I've heard somewhere that they used computers to position the cameras or the models in the model sequences. I could easily be wrong though.

You are correct, ymenard, but my recording of The Genesis Project is not a DVD rip.

Stop being so mysterious!

Marian - getting interested.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The computers in Star Wars were used for match moving. Because those battle shots were comprised of various seperately shot elements, the camera movements had to be duplicated exactly. Of course, the technique is pretty common today, but back then, it was a really big thing.

- Marc, who'd still like to know how the Death Star Trench and Endor Briefing simulations were done.

James Newton Howard - They're All Gone from Dinosaur

[JoeinAR 1,949]

there was no CGI in ROTJ

Young Sherlock Holmes is the film that featured the then new CGI stuff.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

there was no CGI in ROTJ

But then how DID they do it?

- Marc, who's getting more eager to know this by the minute.

James Newton Howard - Neera Rescues the Orphans from Dinosaur

[Lurker 5]

there was no CGI in ROTJ

Except for the rebel briefing, where there is a computer animated Endor and a computer animated Death Star.

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

yeah, if you include that, then you must include the effect of Luke and Han battling the Tie Fighters. But as CGI is generally thought of, I consider that a video effect. Symantics I guess.

[TIEfighter 0]

well i think i could be helpful in this thread.

*Star Wars contained the first use of the Motion control camera. Movements of the camera were being saved into a Computer and could be redone over and over again without any differences from the first shot.

*Star Trek: Wrath of Khan was the first film to use a completely computergenerated sequence, the genesis sequence.

*Yeah, the Endor hologram is CGI, but I´m not sure if the Death Star 1 plan in ANH was also.

*Also ILM made breakthroughs with the first digital character ("stained glass man" in Sherlock Holmes), invented the first programm to morph images (Willow), the first use of CG human skin (death becomes her), and the first photorealistic, "living and breating" creatures (Jurassic Park) and so on.

[DU Lou 1]

When did the Last Starfighter come out?? before or after Khan??

[Lurker 5]

When did the Last Starfighter come out?? before or after Khan??

1984, 2 years after Trek II.

Neil

[Justin 2]

TIEFighter you forgot the groundbreaking CG work for James Cameron's 2 films The Abyss and Terminator 2. Steven Spielberg says without those films Jurrasic Park would have never been like it was.

Justin

[ymenard 54]

The Death Star plans in ANH weren't CGI if you ever wondered. They were X/Y/Z coordinates (all single points), written and coded by somebody for each frame of the animation. The dish is placed directly on the equator, because the first plans for the Death Star were like that, Lucas changed afterwards and it would be too long to program the whole thing again

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

Cool. Thanks.

- Marc

John Williams - Destruction Of Krypton from Superman: The Movie

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

There is also an error in that scene, as the camera seems to fly through a mountain.  Still for 1982, it's very well done.

Yeah, according to the IMDb, they had a random number generator creating the terrain and only noticed the error when they were rendering the frames close to the mountain. At that point, it was too late to re-render the entire animation, so they made that little Canyon appear out of nothing.

Marian - who just remembered that Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark does have CGI. 8O

Triology Plays Ennio Morricone

Are they really calling Raiders "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark"? :?

8O Stravinsky The Firebird (Suite, 1919)

New York Philharmonic

Leonard Bernstein

[Lurker 5]

Are they really calling Raiders "Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark"?   :?  

Only on the packaging, not in the film proper.

Neil

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

But it will have (or rather not have) a digitally removed reflection of a snake in a glass pane....so it has CGI, kinda.

Marian -

[King Mark 3,624]

But it will have (or rather not have) a digitally removed reflection of a snake in a glass panel...

Marian -

The reflection is still there in the preview I think.

K.M.

[Lurker 5]

But it will have (or rather not have) a digitally removed reflection of a snake in a glass pane....so it has CGI, kinda.

As far as I know this is just a rumor, unless you know of some sort of verification.

Neil

[Luke Skywalker 1,791]

the trailer few months ago had it (painfully)

Really i dont see why you would like to see the errors in those movies. They are not changing them like in the SW SE...

[Lurker 5]

Luke it's very simple. I want the films as they were presented on opening day.

Neil

[King Mark 3,624]

But still,even if they don't remove such "errors" as the snake refletion,it's still a digitally restored print,which means all of the celluloid film artifacts will be digitally removed(including the ones from the best original prints)...isn't that still CG tinketing?And how about restoring faded colors,doesn't that count?

And by just changing the sound mix to DTS 5.1,it's already not the same version as presented in 1981...

K.M.

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

We´ll just have to wait and see (and hear).

[Luke Skywalker 1,791]

Luke it's very simple.  I want the films as they were presented on opening day.

Neil

Simple but hard to understand by me. I see that as remastering, and i dont think remastering is any bad at all.

You are seeing the same photograms but cleaned up (if you count that as cleaning)

Luke who thinks errors (specially those) are not things to be proud of in movies.

[UCFKevin 0]

Ditto.

I don't need anything precisely as it was, I don't see the point of that. If it looks better and FIXES an obvious mistake, all the better I say.

[King Mark 3,624]

Yes,some of us agree there is a huge difference between removing an unwanted reflection or a matt line that made the shot look like crap vs. adding a CGI creature that wasn't there before.

K.M.