Jump to content

CGI and Indiana Jones


Lurker

Recommended Posts

I tell you, if the reflection is no longer on the forthcoming DVD release when I view it, it will ruin the ENTIRE movie! I will take the DVD out of the player, and jump on it over and over! It will fracture into several pieces!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I tell you, if the reflection is no longer on the forthcoming DVD release when I view it, it will ruin the ENTIRE movie!  I will take the DVD out of the player, and jump on it over and over!  It will fracture into several pieces!

I don't like the removal of the reflection either, but at least they didn't enhance or CGI the special effects of the film. Considering what they could do, they are pretty much leaving the films alone.

Jeff - having visions of the Cairo swordsman firing first...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly, the snake reflection removal rumor has long been put to rest. The early reports that LFL was going to remove flubs in the film were due to an unclear report about the retouching of the old prints. By removing artefacts, they meant stuff like scratches, spots, and lines that were on the print.

- Marc, who thinks removing flubs digitally is okay, as long as it is done BEFORE theatrical release (not after 22 years! :wave: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, i think the bunker is far of the projector dish .They enter the bunker, pass a long tunnel and set the explosives bellow the dish where the main control room is. The secret entrance as C3PO says is at the other end of the hill... and you cannot see any part of the projector in the battle near the bunker. And it is a very big building

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
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

Did this actually happen, or did they end up bowing to modern expectations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they are using some CGI, about 100 shots or something. I highlydoubt they are usng real footage of the ants and enlarge it, expect CGI ants.

I expected them to use vintage effects (matte paintings and all) but at least its far from the 2000+ CGI shots of a prequel movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100 CGI shots is really small amount by Today's standards. And CGI does have its uses, it's not like they should avoid at all costs. There are situations when it is more than justifiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Steven Spielberg's history with CGI is any indication, we should have no worried with this film. I'm sure there will be CGI, as the trailer has shown, but I don't think it will be in bad taste. Spielberg is as old-fashioned as it gets when it comes to film technology. He's only been interested in using special effects for the purpose of storytelling.

Ted

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not worried about the SFX content either. I've seen enough 'making of' documentaries to know that even the most character oriented drama can have all kinds of visual effects work - sky replacement, removing modern features etc.

And Merkel is right - 100 shots is a really small amount. In fact, if you put those 100 together it'd probably last no more than 3 or 4 minutes. In a 2 hour film, that's nothing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: I find it ironical that i am the only one 'complaining' that the movie uses CGI

I know they are few SFX shots for a film nowadays, thats reasuring :)

I remembered the source, it was Spielberg in the Empire magazine. He said 'a couple of hundred' effects shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.