Spielberg about filming Indy IV: not digital

[PetePan 163]

This is what Steven Spielberg says according to spielbergfilms.com:

"My friend George Lucas is trying to get me to do Indy 4 digitally. But I don't want to shoot digitally. There's a mystery, a magic and a chemistry in film. Digital isn't chemistry. It's unfailing technology."

To shoot INDIANA JONES 4 digitally, or with any of Lucas' new, underdeveloped trickery would be an injustice. The new STAR WARS films have such a false reality visually to them that would absolutely make the INDIANA JONES films look terrible. Indy needs that tangible quality that film stock produces, it doesn't need cheap looking bluescreen shots on digital, grainless stock. For sake of semblance between the four Indy films (and the fourth one's relation may already feel tenuous), it's important that the next film is shot on film. I hope and pray that Spielberg has enough clout over Lucasfilm (since CGeorge owns the Indy properties) to be able to shoot in the format he chooses as a director and won't back down.

I hope Lucas understands steven and keeps him on the job. CGI is not always better!

[Morn 8]

Spielberg knows best, look at his record with CGI As good as TPM and AOTC are though, it's kind of over the top for anything but sci fi.

[Justin 2]

You tell 'im Stevie!!

Justin

[Lurker 5]

Last night, Bravo re-ran the Inside the Actor's Studio interview with Steven Spielberg. It's from 1999 or 2000, but he insisted that he also edits on film and not digitally. Let's hope he sticks to his guns and keeps Indy IV in the world of film.

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Pete, don't get all freaky.

Steven Spielberg is the only one who will direct Indiana Jones and the fill in the blank.

Just because he chooses to shoot it his way is no reason to think Lucas wouldn't use him. Lucas know that Steven is a better director than him, and he gives him complete reigns.

[UCFKevin 0]

I completely agree with him. Digital works for SW, but not Indy. It would look too fake, too sterile.

[EvanED 1]

Star Wars filming was made MUCH easier by the digicams they had. Look at the problems they had with the original series while filming (and TPM): film melting in Tunisia (they had to keep it in air-conditioning until just before it was used), cameras jamming (especially in Norway(?) for the Hoth scenes), etc. Then you have the thing that practically every scene has a visual effect in it, so it would all need to be scanned into the computer anyway, and you have the perfect reason to use digital movie cameras.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Well Spielberg can dissagree with Lucas in Digital filming, but that are his words? I find it insulting and not intended to convince a VERY close friend.

Luke, who thinks that Spielberg shouldn't sound like that....

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Luke, only the first line is Spielberg talking, the last paragraph is someone else, perhaps Steve Awalt. Spielberg does not insult Lucas

Another reason to film versus digitize is Indy takes place here on good old earth. Film captures this world in a less flat presentation, that gives it a realness that digital still lacks. And film allows photographic effects that digital doesn't adapt as well too, ie extreme soft focus.

Steve will get his way.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Luke, only the first line is Spielberg talking, the last paragraph is someone else, perhaps Steve Awalt.  Spielberg does not insult Lucas

Thanks for clearing t to me 8O.

Well then, i don't like that Steve Awalt

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Anyways do you think they'll make a new trilogy?

I hope, because if not the 4th film will be 'appart' and alone

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Thanks for clearing t to me 8O.  

Well then, i don't like that Steve Awalt  

You should he runs the terrific site Spielbergfilms.com, and is a regular poster here. you might want to take that back. And he is correct. Lucas needs to leave Spielberg alone on this as it will be his film not Lucas'

Remember all 3 Indy films say "a Steven Spielberg Film"

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree with joe, offcourse Lucas did a fine job producing them, but they are Spielberg films.

I suppose there is not much chance that Douglas Slocombe will do the camerawork?

I mean, he IS 90 years old, and Spielberg seems very happy with the work of Janusz Kaminski, and why shouldn't he?

Stefancos- who does think Slocombe gave the indy films a beautiful, gritty look.

[Morn 8]

Star Wars filming was made MUCH easier by the digicams they had. Look at the problems they had with the original series while filming (and TPM): film melting in Tunisia (they had to keep it in air-conditioning until just before it was used), cameras jamming (especially in Norway(?) for the Hoth scenes), etc. Then you have the thing that practically every scene has a visual effect in it, so it would all need to be scanned into the computer anyway, and you have the perfect reason to use digital movie cameras.

Yes, Star Wars fx and camera work is fine how it is. But this is indy, it's not as fx heavy so I doubt they really need to do the whole thing digitally.

[Guest]

The SFX could stand to be beefed up, though. The matte work with the jeep running off the matte-cliff in Raiders was obvious. So was Mola Ram falling down the side of the cliff in Temple of Doom and anything externally-involving the zeppelin.

I think Spielberg would be more proud than intelligent to not take advantage of ILM's near-perfected compositing real actors with unreal backgrounds. For instance, I thought the main drawback during Coruscant was a lack of a breeze on the balcony of Padme's apartment and in the speeder while it was flying. Other than that, all the buildings looked believable and blended well with the lighting on the set. However, I wouldn't want to see too much of that. Only sparing usage, as with the other 3.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Thanks for clearing t to me 8O.  

Well then, i don't like that Steve Awalt  

You should he runs the terrific site Spielbergfilms.com

Remember all 3 Indy films say "a Steven Spielberg Film"

Well, if he is a Lucas detractor, i do not like him.

Anyways, the Indy movies are Lucas-Spielberg collaborations as much as Spielberg-movies are Williams-Spielberg collaborations.

COLLABORATIONS between friends

[Lurker 5]

The SFX could stand to be beefed up, though. The matte work with the jeep running off the matte-cliff in Raiders was obvious.

I'm going to disagree with that. I'm not blind to the film because it's my favorite, but the shot in question looks fine. Spectacular even. Digital could not help it in anyway. The 2 shots of the jeep going over the edge are perfect effects. They are short enough that we don't get grasp that they are effects (this is only apparent with repeated viewings), and they look so good that for the time that they are on screen, we believe it's real.

Neil

[Steven Awalt 0]

Ouch. Can anyone lend me a tissue? :cry: My heart dropped when I read someone doesn't like me and even gave me a devil face. I've never even met Luke Skywalker (although I worshiped him as a child) . I read the posts out of order and didn't know what I did now!

Luke, the second part is my rambling from my site, and please, don't "hate" me for my opinion. I actually have a lot of respect for Lucas in some ways still (although I don't always show it). I've just been upset about some things he's said in media lately (at fan and critics expense--the people who made his bank account what it is) and his tactics trying to push digital technology down everyone's throats (namely, NATO). Anyway, my words are just personal opinon, nothing to upset anyone. 8O . I offer an olive branch of kindness (a real honest to God prop, not a CG one that doesn't mesh with digitally created backgrounds) to hope noone curses me with any more devil heads.

Whoops. More jabs at George's CG. Sorry.

[EvanED 1]

The SFX could stand to be beefed up, though. The matte work with the jeep running off the matte-cliff in Raiders was obvious. So was Mola Ram falling down the side of the cliff in Temple of Doom and anything externally-involving the zeppelin.  

I think Spielberg would be more proud than intelligent to not take advantage of ILM's near-perfected compositing real actors with unreal backgrounds. For instance, I thought the main drawback during Coruscant was a lack of a breeze on the balcony of Padme's apartment and in the speeder while it was flying. Other than that, all the buildings looked believable and blended well with the lighting on the set. However, I wouldn't want to see too much of that. Only sparing usage, as with the other 3.

But that doesn't mean they have to shoot it digitally. I'm sure IM will have plenty to do.

Anyways, the Indy movies are Lucas-Spielberg collaborations as much as Spielberg-movies are Williams-Spielberg collaborations.

Does Williams tell Spielberg how to film his shots? No, because he's the composer. If Williams doesn't like a particular shot, he'll work with it anyway in the same way I hope Lucas works with Spielberg's decision to film it with 35mm.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Ouch.  Can anyone lend me a tissue? :cry:  My heart dropped when I read someone doesn't like me and even gave me a devil face.  I've never even met Luke Skywalker (although I worshiped him as a child) .  I read the posts out of order and didn't know what I did now!

Luke, the second part is my rambling from my site, and please, don't "hate" me for my opinion.  I actually have a lot of respect for Lucas in some ways still (although I don't always show it).  I've just been upset about some things he's said in media lately (at fan and critics expense--the people who made his bank account what it is) and his tactics trying to push digital technology down everyone's throats (namely, NATO).  Anyway, my words are just personal opinon, nothing to upset anyone.   .  I offer an olive branch of kindness (a real honest to God prop, not a CG one that doesn't mesh with digitally created backgrounds) to hope noone curses me with any more devil heads.

Whoops.  More jabs at George's CG.  Sorry.  

:oops: :cry: Sorry, i do not hate you... I just thought you were one of those Lucas critisizers. Sorry, next time i'll close my mouth.

Anyways i was upset from the start because i misunderstanded, and thought it was Spielberg who said that...

Sorry, Really.

[Steven Awalt 0]

It's ok, Luke, I was only kidding more than anything. I was worried I upset someone bad at first (I actually do care that my site, while very opinionated, informs and entertains first). But never "close your mouth". I think fans should always tell the artists they respect (and fellow fans) what they think. As long as no one hates each other

[PetePan 163]

And i'm sorry that I quoted a little too much. The last sentences were indeed not from Spielberg. Sorry for the confusion

PetePan

watching South Korea losing....

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

As long as no one hates each other

Hey, i never stated i HATED you, only disliked...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

watching South Korea losing....    

Boy, you were wrong, werent you.

Stefancos- who saw them win.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

If you had to choose between analogue effects and digital effects, wouldn't you rather choose a warm matte painting in favor of a cold digital projection?

I would, even though it depends on the situation of course.

PS: Congrats to South Corea...they deserved it since they kept on fighting to the death to succeed.

[Morn 8]

Both can look very fake or very real, doesn't really matter in my opinion.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

Both can look very fake or very real, doesn't really matter in my opinion.

That was what I was trying to say you see...if you had to choose between two do-able effects, but both the analogue and the digital effects would look fake no matter what you did...what would you choose.

I would choose the analogue effects anytime...cause a matte painting, though fake, is much more a piece of art then a computerized landscape. It simply is more pleasant to look at. I'm not saying it's not art at all, it just doesn't come close to a welldrawn painting. I mean, everyone knows this right. A computerised landscape can look cool, eerie, yes even beautiful, but still not to be compared when it would have been painted. I guess in paintings you still have more control with brushes then through computer hardware. I guess it's a bit like driving. You have more control over a bike or motorcycle or perhaps at least feel the transport better, then when you drive a truck or train.

Also, a fake puppet still looks like it belongs to the picture cause it was obviously shot in it, whereas a fake CGI character stands out and looks like it is not part of the scene at all. Yoda in TESB and ROTJ was a puppet yes, but it was totally integrated into the scene, eye contact was there, the colors and atmosphere of the surroundings were cast on the puppet, there was true (physical) interaction, et cetera et cetera. BTW, I wouldn't want to call this analogue effect a fake effect...it worked well enough for that.

With a digital puppet that still doesn't look quite real, you are constantly reminded of the computer, with every single thing it does, you see it doesn't belong there. No eye contact, no true placement in the 3D environment, et cetera et cetera. Yoda in AOTC looks quite awfull when they strolled through a corridor...Yoda looked like a sticker; he didn't merge with the interior. That kind of a fake effect is much more erroneus than a fake puppet who's only problem is a jittery walk and an barely movable mouth. That could all be explained if you want to...perhaps he has arthritis or something, but a clearly noticable CGI projection simply can't be explained within the context of that world...it simply is inconsistant and defies natural laws.

This all doesn't mean that in the end the digital effects will win, but right now they should stick what looks most real I think, at least untill the digital effects have improved greatly. BTW, during AOTC Yoda in action looked good...so I'm not saying it's not possible. Just that sometimes they make very big mistakes when it comes to using effects, and simply are too desperate to try out the new goodies and by that throw away too quickly what they have and perfected over the years.

[Morn 8]

I don't know about that, some of the matt paintings in Indy 3 look as bad and as out of place as the worst CGI.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I agree with that prick.

Stefancos-

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

I wish to thank Steffie for his (crotch)support.