Valentinice
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Valentinice
-
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you people would have demanded a real gopher in Caddyshack.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with that gopher.
It's a freaking PUPPET!!! You're having a heart attack over a CGI gopher, but a PUPPET is ok!?
Ah well...
Of course the films are in different genres and made in completely different time periods. I'm willing to overlook flaws in special effects and puppetry because Caddyshack is made with such a wink to the audience, anyway. You could argue that Indy IV is made with a wink and a smile, too. But Indiana Jones certainly has a more serious pedigree. It should be grounded in some reality.
I know you might be joking, but never-the-less - Caddyshack and Indy are two different films.
Alas I disagree. Obviously our perspectives are different and we represent two different generations.Fair enough.
My only point is that it was a deliberate decision to use CG for the gopher, when it could have just as easily been practical. I think I'm mostly disappointed in Speilberg for apparently caving to the pressure from Lucas to embrace this "new" generation.
If there indeed are two generations, I hope that the digital one can learn to use CG in ways they can tell the story better, rather than distract with the unresolved problems of the technology. I like CG so much better when someone has to point it out to me, since I thought it was real. Unfortunately, that with that gopher, it was not the case
-
And so what if Spielberg shoots on digital? Technology moves forward.
Just because it's newer, doesn't make it better. Spielberg's reasons for shooting and editing on film are well documented and they make perfect sense for him. There are pros and cons on either side, but that is not what we are discussing.
I think Spielberg missed out on a very nostalgic and throw back film by putting a lot of cgi in Indy 4. However that is a special case because he is trying to harken back to specific era of filmmaking. Both story wise and how its made.At last, we agree
As a filmmaker you are faced with many logistical issues, why do a company move to a forest when you could film in a studio. A studio with controlled lighting and elements. Of course for aesthetics a forest is the right choice.For a filmmaker of Spielberg's stature, these issues are incidental. You said it yourself, he could build a gopher out of money if he wanted to.
But I think you all are over simplifying the decision, it isn't merely a "philosophy" of filmmaking anymore. Back in the 90s you could say that. Not now when cgi has come so far and pretty much anything can be done. Not every cgi gopher isn't a choice based on laziness or filmmaking philosophy directing a film isn't that black and white.Of course not every use of CGI is out of laziness. And the entire production of any film isn't black and white. I'm merely stating that the use of it in Indiana Jones IV was not out of budgetary or scheduling constraints. And you can't say that CGI has reached it's "peak". That's what they said in the 90's. That's what they will say in 2020. Hell, that's what they'll say next year when AVATAR comes out...
The decision to put so much CGI in this film, when it could have so easily been done practically, is very telling about how far Speilberg and Lucas have strayed from their "Last" crusade.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you people would have demanded a real gopher in Caddyshack.Hey, there's nothing wrong with that gopher.
-
Jaws was made in 1975 ToD in 1984. The option of making photo realistic animals in post was not an option. It is NOW
Although the option does exist, it was clearly not implemented in the opening of Indy IV.
Okay, not to get into any sort of prolonged argument, but if you're telling me that Steven Spielberg on a film that cost over 180 million dollars didn't have the time or money to have a real gopher, but could easily pay for a CG one, then I guess we have differing opinions on the film business.Spielberg could have created gophers out of hundred dollar bills. To him expense is not an option.
My point exactly. You earlier suggested that the CG gopher was made due to budgetary and time constraints. If I misinterpreted your earlier post, then I apologize.
I agree with you that CGI allows the impossible to be done. A real gopher, while often-complicated as you pointed out, is not impossible. It would have been absolutely possible to use practical, old-fashioned effects on this film. What we have here is a different philosophy of filmmaking. One that I'm not too fond of.I just think its very unfair to call them styles of filmmaking. It would be the equivalent of complaining that too many films use color now a days and forget the beauty and the surrealism of black and white negative 35mm. Chaplin didn't have that option when he was making films it wasn't a stylistic choice it was limitation on technology.
Orson Welles once said: "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations". In 1999, when George Lucas was able to shoot his prequels, with no limitations, financially, creatively, or otherwise, they were (by many accounts) empty, hollow, crappy-looking exercises. In 1977, when he had to struggle to make a great film, on a tight budget, within a studio system, he achieved greatness. There are many factors at work besides what I laid out, but I can't help but wonder if that is what Orson Welles meant.
So to label it a "philosophy" is what I disagree with. I completely agree that the stunts in Raider's felt more real and organic than any stunt say in Transformers - a huge cgi cluster f*)k- but don't blame Spielberg for making CGI monkeys and warehouses, he can he has the technology. We should complain that the damn compositors and animators did a terrible job.Let me clarify: The existence of CGI is not a filmmaking philosophy. The decision to USE CGI as opposed another special effect style IS a filmmaking philosophy.
When Spielberg decides to use inferior CGI, he is responsible for the results. The same way George Lucas famously wasted almost half his budget on the original '77 Star Wars by throwing out months worth of special effects work because they were "unsatisfactory" and re-doing them at the last minute. (Someone please correct me if I have the specifics of this anecdote wrong).
As has been pointed out several times now, to use a real gopher and composite it into the shot would have been seamless, easy, and cost-effective. The decision to use CGI instead represents a filmmaking philosophy that disappoints me - as a long time fan of Steven Spielberg - the champion of old-school filmmaking, who many times has commented that he'll be "the last film maker on earth" to shoot a film digitally or edit on a computer.
-
So you would use a real gopher right. Okay so you would audition and cast the gopher, file all paper work for the handler and his rate. Get the insurance for the animal and the set. For what? Two seconds of film time. I am in no way condoning cgi vs real. Real is always better, it looks better and the audience can feel it. But there is no way you can convince me that if I handed today's technology into the hands of Ridley Scott, Spielberg, David Lean and James Cameron when they were making their huge special effects features that they wouldn't thank me and use it like its being used today. CGI allows for the impossible to be done, and for filmmaker who often think of the impossible it is often a blessing.
Okay, not to get into any sort of prolonged argument, but if you're telling me that Steven Spielberg on a film that cost over 180 million dollars didn't have the time or money to have a real gopher, but could easily pay for a CG one, then I guess we have differing opinions on the film business.
And I have no interest in debating whether or not Lawrence of Arabia would be better if it had a digital train explosion and an army of computer generated Turks.
I agree with you that CGI allows the impossible to be done. A real gopher, while often-complicated as you pointed out, is not impossible. It would have been absolutely possible to use practical, old-fashioned effects on this film. What we have here is a different philosophy of filmmaking. One that I'm not too fond of.
STEVEN SPIELBERG and GEORGE LUCAS made the movie. I don't know, it occurs to me that using real gophers for a few shots wouldn't have been a problem. On Jaws, I think Spielberg had a couple shoot some real shark footage and he used it in the film when it attacks the cage and thrashes around. There were real crocs in Temple. Could have just done the same here, for gophers, monkeys etc. Combining the elements in post would theoretically have been easy and they wouldn't have appeared blatantly CGI. It would have made that little difference.Exactly. Thank you.
-
One final point: The film opens with a particularly bad CGI gopher popping it's head out of a hole. The Spielberg who directed Raiders famously filled the well of souls with thousands of REAL snakes (in addition to some rubber ones of course), but the 2008 Spielberg couldn't find ONE real gopher? Instead he allowed George and his special effects wizards to make a fake one. You tell me that THAT is progress? Imagine if George had access to this technology back in '81. Indy would wade through a swamp of CG snakes, and they'd probably belch and fart - since we all know that that kind of stuff is funny.
Steven should have stepped up and gotten a real gopher. It's a metaphor for the whole production.
*Sigh*
Perhaps its because you misunderstand the logistics of filmmaking or maybe you are just idealistic. This whole real effects vs cgi argument really annoys me.
Here is the shot: Logo of Paramount dissolve to close up same image of dirt hill. Hill crumbles out pops a tiny gopher, sound of a car fades in. Just in time the gopher runs out of the way of a car filled with teenagers who destroy the gopher's hill and almost flattens him or her.
Valentince how would you do that shot.
I've worked with visual effects guys who easily pull off this effect by comping two shots together (one of the truck driving over the hill - and one of the gopher scurrying away). The effect is often seamless and used pretty frequently in movies - especially when people need to be hit by cars or busses.
And being idealistic isn't always a bad thing.
-
Maybe it's just nostalgia, but the effects work on the original trilogy felt so much more organic. With the exception of a couple awful blue screen shots in Last Crusade and maybe a shot or two of the mine cart chase, it all worked very well. Because they didn't build in in a computer. They built in in a workshop. Out of real materials. And it somehow all worked.
I'm not asking for something perfect, but the overall crapiness and over-abundance of CG made Indy IV unbearable.
One final point: The film opens with a particularly bad CGI gopher popping it's head out of a hole. The Spielberg who directed Raiders famously filled the well of souls with thousands of REAL snakes (in addition to some rubber ones of course), but the 2008 Spielberg couldn't find ONE real gopher? Instead he allowed George and his special effects wizards to make a fake one. You tell me that THAT is progress? Imagine if George had access to this technology back in '81. Indy would wade through a swamp of CG snakes, and they'd probably belch and fart - since we all know that that kind of stuff is funny.
Steven should have stepped up and gotten a real gopher. It's a metaphor for the whole production.
-
I'd rather the return of one of Indy's sidekicks that we liked from the past movies, like Sallah or Short Round. "Mac" was unlikeable and annoying. His character was basically a male retread of Elsa from The Last Crusade, mixed with that guy from The Mummy (including the catalyst for his death and the hero trying to help him in his final moments). As a matter of fact, the same thing happens with Elsa in TLC regardless of Mummy! What were they thinking...
That was the essense of my point. The addition of Mac got in the way of the already boring and over-plotted story.
As for the Middle East part - yes, I suppose you're right Stefan. But I could easily forgive the "geographical inaccuracy" of having Sallah help him. That would actually be the least of my issues with the film.
-
I think it was a prequel-level disaster.
It's hard to believe that a movie that George Lucas has been trying to trick (er, convince) Steven and Harrison into doing for 20 years could turn out so bad. Especially after:
The endless re-writes by accomplished filmmakers and academy award winning screenwriters that ultimately proved futile.
The promises from Frank Marshall that it would return to "Practical" special effects without relying on crappy CGI.
The fresh and dynamic performance from an aging, and apparently permanently hungover, Harrison Ford.
The "clever" plot twists that added absolutely nothing to the story.
The understandable, absence of Sean Connery.
The completely baffling absence of John Rhys-Davies (!).
The annoying presence of (under-used) Ray Winstone.
The "cute" and "funny" CGI gophers and CGI monkeys.
Yes, it's such a mystery to me how this film could have turned out so terrible...
On the plus side, I think Shia (real one - not monkey-swinging CG Shia) tried his hardest.
And John Williams gave us a good score (but not the "great" or "classic" scores like the original trilogy).
-
Agreed, King. For virtually my entire score-collecting life I've longed for more music from "Temple" and "Crusade". Now that we have them (in great quality, despite some pitch issues and mostly complete, despite some more-than-questionable omissions) I am very surprised that there's a general apathy towards them. Let's not forget that there are some great moments on these CDs that have never even been heard before!
I can only hope that people appreciate these flawed, but excellent score releases and treasure them like we did with the 4 CD Star Wars Anthology - a nice appetizer for the 6 CDs released in 1997 for the Special Edition. If people are more grateful for what we have - maybe we'll get 2 CD releases for the Indy Trilogy in 2012?
-
Sorry to resurrect this thread - but I was looking for some sort of analysis of Michael Giacchino's themes from the medal of honor series (anyone know if such a thing exists?).
Anyway, I noticed that Erik mentioned some unreleased music from Frontline and possibly underground. Does anyone know if this this music is available on any of the PC games? Is it rip-able on PS2 in any way? Or what it is? I'm very interested in his MoH scores and the existence of this music has me itching to hear it!
-
I know I'm in the minority, but I chose Star Wars
As a little boy, so many years ago, my imagination was captured when I first watched Star Wars on my Uncle's Laserdisc player.
John Williams' Main Titles were forever burned into my mind when they exploded onto the 27'' screen. I've never forgotten how powerful that music is.
-
oooh, tough one. Han and The Princess by a nose.
-
I always suspected that this particular Indy fanfare would come where it is in the track, between the Belly of the Steel Beast fragment and the rest of the On the Tank track. Wouldn't it suit the image of Indy coming through the dust and putting a rock in the barrel?
Yes. I agree. My theory is that that moment is where the chase originally began. There's no clean ending to the first half of "belly of the steel beast" - at least not until we find the sheet music. So I suspect that william designed it to segue directly into the first part of "on the tank" (right after the unused fanfare) - like it does in the film.
The only big question mark for me, is why did Williams compose such a lengthy cue as the first part of "Belly". There's nothing in the script to indicate that there's any portion of the chase that was cut to justify the extra time - unless JW composed it just for his own satisfaction, and for the album.
-
Corrected.
-
Jason,
Where was the opening fanfare of "On The Tank" to be used if the theory that it originally opened that tank chase is wrong, as you and I have been discussing here: http://www.indianajonesmusic.com/2008/11/i...usade-1989.html
In my own mind, "On The Tank" began the scene shortly before Indy jammed the rock into the turret with the Raiders fanfare. Spielberg had a variety of notes, including "Can we start the music earlier?", "Can there be music for when Indy shoots the three Nazis?" and "Where's the Nazi theme for when Vogel rises up?". When Williams went back to rescore these events, he ended up writing a larger opening cue, knowing that it would be cut down in editing.
Now that I think about it, I bet the "Nazi" and "Raiders" fanfares for "Death of Kazim" were recorded then as well. And maybe the alternate section(s) of "Birds of Charlamagne".
Of course these are all a series of assumptions on my part. Perhaps something in the sheet music can clear it up.
-
Who hasn't heard the love theme from Superman!? It's required listening for any JW aficionado!
In fact, I'm starting to think that perhaps Neil is right, and I should change my vote...
-
Had to vote for "Slave Children".
It breaks my heart, since the love theme from Superman is so gorgeous, but The Slave Children is one of his best.
-
Better late than never:
Imperial March from The Empire Strikes Back
Raider's March from Raiders of The Lost Ark
The Grail Theme from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Flying Theme from E.T.
Avner's Theme from Munich
Main Theme from Star Wars
The Father's Theme from Catch Me If You Can
Nazi Theme from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Hymn To The Fallen from Saving Private Ryan
Hedwig's theme from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
-
Hi Everyone!
I'm not a liar - as is my reputation on FSM - and I hope to find out more details soon.
I want to get to the bottom of this just as much as you guys.
-
phbart, the "Sword Trick" reference to "Basket Game" is intentional - a nod to filmscore and Indy fans. Although, as mentioned many places elswhere, Temple takes place before Raiders so the joke may play different if viewed chronologically.
I never noticed the difference in "Slalom". Jason LeBlanc can probably shed some light on it. Could the violins simply be mixed higher in the film or could these be the infamous "Sweetners" recorded separately for the cue?
-
This may be too big of a favor to ask, but would anyone be able to make MIDI files of a few of the bigger cues that we have (Short Round helps, On The Tank) as well as some of the small ones (The revised ending fanfare for "birds of Charlemagne" etc.)?
I'd love to listen to even some of the well known cues from this fresh perspective. Hearing how the cues were intended to open and close, being able to take out certain instruments. Play around with it.
I'm already enjoying "Tribute To Vernon" so much - I can't imagine how great it would be to see how some of the other cues are laid out. At the same time, I know it would be a HUGE undertaking - but like I mentioned in a previous post - it would be a historic moment in John Williams and Film Score history!
-
"Desert Chase" is made up of three separate cues, correct? "Indy In Pursuit", "Truck Chase", and "Indy's Feats".
Is it possible that the pitch changes within the track occur when it changes from cue to cue?
-
So for those of you with the sheet music and access to some high quality sample libraries, can you transcribe the notes into a music program like Digital Performer and create mock-up versions of these unreleased cues? Theoretically it should work, right? It sounds like Colin is already thinking about it.
It would be a lot of hard work, but you'd put your stamp on Indiana Jones music history and the the rest of us fans will forever be grateful...
-
I still don't understand how "Desert Chase" can be so short. Even shorter than the OST??
Yeah, this is more evidence that the shorter track is not a typo. It matters not, however, since most of us will be using the DCC version anyway.
Perhaps the "extra short" version can exist on my complete playlist as a sort of novelty - depending on how terrible it will inevitably be.
Happy New Year
in General Discussion
Posted
Happy New Year everyone - if 2008 brought us Superman and Indy, what untold treasures will 2009 bring?