PDA

View Full Version : Indiana Jones 4 to use minimal or no CG?


aaron111
07-08-2007, 04:33 PM
According to this interview with producer Frank Marshall they are keeping it old school with Indy 4.
http://tinyurl.com/yntxlx

"Marshall and Spielberg wanted to shoot the fourth "Indiana Jones" movie in the same style as the first three.

"Steven is very aware of the process and we're not cheating with CG (computer graphics) at all," Marshall said. "It keeps the B movie feel."


I'm guessing this means no CG stunt doubles etc and doesn't refer to digital compositing... personally I think it's a good move, and as much as I love animation and big effects I wish more movies had a bit more of an old fashioned touch these days. CG ends up being used wrong - it becomes a crutch far too often.

plejboy
07-08-2007, 05:29 PM
word!
Maybe there will be some money over for the script then. super! :)

BookMansBlues
07-08-2007, 05:33 PM
My guess it's because Indyfilms were great with out all the over the top CG, why ruin the formula?

gdavisiv
07-08-2007, 05:34 PM
word!
Maybe there will be some money over for the script then. super! :)

Ha.. so true

:wise:

P_T
07-08-2007, 06:28 PM
Still... I think there were plenty of indy moments where a good CG effects would enhance it nicely. Temple of Doom - the bridge scene with the crocs or the lightning arcs from the Ark. I don't know why they want to keep the B movie feel, weren't the fx from the first trilogy high end quality for the time?

JoseLuis3D
07-08-2007, 06:45 PM
mmmm it's good to avoid a cg indy doing stunt work,but I think cg environments are absolutely necessary for an Indiana jones movie.

Apoclypse
07-08-2007, 06:51 PM
mmmm it's good to avoid a cg indy doing stunt work,but I think cg environments are absolutely necessary for an Indiana jones movie.

Why's that? They never needed it before, ehy should they start now? Every movie out there doesn't need CG. They'll most likey do some Blue Screening her and there but other than that there is no point in doing it. Wouldn't it be cool if Speilberg decided to do the movie as old school as possible and used chemical instead of digital compositing? That would be great!

P_T
07-08-2007, 07:07 PM
Using CG for the sake of CG is not a wise decision but I think so is NOT using CG for the sake of not using CG. There are plenty of movies where the CG is unnoticeable but really added to the experience, like The Last Samurai or Blood Diamond for example.

Boone
07-08-2007, 07:13 PM
This is good news, as I do feel that CG can be over-used in todays cinema. But of course we dont mind the odd CG animation here and there - for example, take the mine cart go-motion sequence in Temple of Doom. It was animation but for quite a few years I never would have guessed until I watched a recent VFX documentory.:eek:

This is going to be so awesome I can smell it!:bounce:

Apoclypse
07-08-2007, 07:19 PM
This is good news, as I do feel that CG can be over-used in todays cinema. But of course we dont mind the odd CG animation here and there - for example, take the mine cart go-motion sequence in Temple of Doom. It was animation but for quite a few years I never would have guessed until I watched a recent VFX documentory.:eek:

This is going to be so awesome I can smell it!:bounce:

How does it smell?

BookMansBlues
07-08-2007, 07:29 PM
Thinking back there really want a whole lot of bad effects in those movies, mostly all I can remeber is that the movies only suffured from not having modern compositing techniques. but remeber those movies where done quite awhile ago, before Jurrasic Park.

aaron111
07-08-2007, 07:31 PM
Just think of how much that crypt scene in Raiders would have sucked if they used CG snakes instead of the real thing. Or the scene when Indy is fighting the Nazi on the truck - you could tell they sped of the film when he was being dragged, but still it was a real guy, and that just made it so much more intense. On the other hand look how dated that scene is when all the guys melt to death when the Ark is opened. I'm sure they'll do whatever they need to do to make everything look good. I'm just glad to know we aren't going to be seeing a CG Indy swinging around like Spiderman.

Boone
07-08-2007, 07:55 PM
Re: Apocalypse.

Would you like a whiff?:twisted:

bobzilla
07-08-2007, 08:30 PM
Well, they used handpainted mattes in the old ones. I would guess they would use digital mattes in the new one.

Possibly less CG in the action sequences. That would be a nice relief from the VanHelsing/Spiderman action mess.

BookMansBlues
07-08-2007, 08:52 PM
Well, they used handpainted mattes in the old ones. I would guess they would use digital mattes in the new one.

Possibly less CG in the action sequences. That would be a nice relief from the VanHelsing/Spiderman action mess.

Thats how I feel about it.

Nimue
07-08-2007, 09:08 PM
I love cg in most movies and i think it can really add to a movie also. but then again I also miss the old movies with just fx and stunts. Same with puppets, i still dont think you get the same feel with cg as you do with puppets.

JoseLuis3D
07-08-2007, 09:20 PM
It's all about telling the story.If the story needs cg,why not use it?
Just imagine indy is looking for atlantis. How would you do atlantis without cg?
The previous movies told the stories they could tell acording to the technology thay had.
Now indy can be everywhere he wants to be,without restrictions.
I'm not talking about a blue screen movie,like star wars.I'm just saying that if the story needs some cg,bring it on when necessary.

MrWilde
07-08-2007, 09:35 PM
"Steven is very aware of the process and we're not cheating with CG (computer graphics) at all," Marshall said. "It keeps the B movie feel."


That quote makes me suspicious. Indiana Jones movies were many things, but they certainly were never B movies, nor did they feel like them. I hope they don't go the "let's make an intentional B movie" route, because that would suck immensely.

vfx fan
07-08-2007, 09:43 PM
IMDb says that Pablo Helman is the ILM supervisor, so I'm sure there will be something.

I like the way Robert Rodriguez does it -- makes a B-movie with lots of CGI.

ndat
07-08-2007, 09:58 PM
I really don't care how they do it, I just want it to turn out good.

eek
07-09-2007, 03:19 AM
Well there will definately be a grading, wireremoval digi-mattes and digital set dressing/removal. Even things like in Raiders when Indy falls into the snake pit, looks up and sees a python - for that they had a sheet of glass between him and the python - so lots of digital clean up/ reflection removal/ bleed etc. Even little enhancements: flocks of bird, rain, sun rays etc etc. Hidden effects.

Garibaldi
07-09-2007, 06:24 AM
"Steven is very aware of the process and we're not cheating with CG (computer graphics) at all," Marshall said. "It keeps the B movie feel."


That quote makes me suspicious. Indiana Jones movies were many things, but they certainly were never B movies, nor did they feel like them. I hope they don't go the "let's make an intentional B movie" route, because that would suck immensely.

He said B-movie FEEL, not that they were B-Movies. And sure they did, they were very much in the genre of the old campy adventure flicks. They wouldn't have been as much fun if they weren't.

malducin
07-09-2007, 07:13 AM
Why is this even news. Marshall said the same thing over a year ago in one of the aborted attempts to start the movie (maybe aropund the time of the Darabont script). It's unnecessary for him to mention that. Does he believe a director like Spielberg doesn't know how to use VFX (CG or not).

Plus who cares how are they done (CG or classic) as long as they're used right. The previous 3 films had quite a bit of vfx, plus the first 2 won Oscars for VFX, and the third had some pioneering CG work.

This is much ado about nothing.

Pyke
07-09-2007, 08:13 AM
If CG effects were available when the Indy movies were made, they probably would have used them.
They used everything at their disposal to make those movies, from Stop Motion animation, miniatures, shooting in water tanks, speeding up or slowing down film, actual locations, matte paintings...
With the 'B movie feel', when George Lucas and Steven Spielberg first spoke about Indy, the original intention was to make a movie that was shot like a TV series...I think the exact words were 'quick and dirty'. It was also done to keep the budget under $20 000 000.

I hope that they keep it like that.

Ed Bittner
07-09-2007, 10:29 AM
CG= story dependant.

E.

bry
07-09-2007, 04:13 PM
I'm glad to hear they're not intending to make just another VFX blockbuster and are trying to be faithful to the original films, that's amazing news.
Most blockbusters nowadays use VFX just because they can, most times they even use it as the main selling point, no time spent on improving scripts anymore. I really hope that's not the case with the new Indy as the saga is part of so many people's childhood memories and I wouldn't want to have that ruined.

Being limited in terms of what one can/could do is not necessarily a bad thing, it makes directors think outside the box and come up with original and creative alternatives to tell the story.

I'm sure there's still going to be a lot of CG and digital compositing in the film (there's just no pipelines at effects companies to do it otherwise anymore, and it would be stupid to do so) but that's the case even with most non-fx films nowadays anyway.

b.

megatronskeletor
07-09-2007, 06:16 PM
Why's that? They never needed it before, ehy should they start now? Every movie out there doesn't need CG. They'll most likey do some Blue Screening her and there but other than that there is no point in doing it. Wouldn't it be cool if Speilberg decided to do the movie as old school as possible and used chemical instead of digital compositing? That would be great!


Somebody is having a case of fond childhood memories.
In no way is optical compositing superior to digital compositing.

There is absolutely no way that any producer on a $100+ million dollar movie would hand over their pristine negatives to have them optically composited adding generation loss, matte lines, and severely limiting the number of layers possible.

I think there is a difference between poorly directed and poorly executed effects. Most of the time effects work from most vendors is executed well. If the production chooses to have shots where someone is swinging around over 1000 frames or beating up 1000 CG agent smiths in one cut with a big spliney camera move, there isnt much that good execution can do about that.

Someone like Steven Spielberg has good restraint with this kind of stuff and will surely cut around fx work like he would cut around anything else. The CG badness happens when directors dont cut as they would normally, or they linger far too long on a big fake setup. Probably dont have to worry about that here.

But yeah... optical compositing is not going to happen, sorry.

Apoclypse
07-09-2007, 09:35 PM
Somebody is having a case of fond childhood memories.
In no way is optical compositing superior to digital compositing.

There is absolutely no way that any producer on a $100+ million dollar movie would hand over their pristine negatives to have them optically composited adding generation loss, matte lines, and severely limiting the number of layers possible.

I think there is a difference between poorly directed and poorly executed effects. Most of the time effects work from most vendors is executed well. If the production chooses to have shots where someone is swinging around over 1000 frames or beating up 1000 CG agent smiths in one cut with a big spliney camera move, there isnt much that good execution can do about that.

Someone like Steven Spielberg has good restraint with this kind of stuff and will surely cut around fx work like he would cut around anything else. The CG badness happens when directors dont cut as they would normally, or they linger far too long on a big fake setup. Probably dont have to worry about that here.

But yeah... optical compositing is not going to happen, sorry.

Never said it was superior, I just it would be cool to do since it hasn't been done in quite some time. I'm one of those back to basics type of people. If I'm making lasagna I'm making the pasta and sauce from scratch, I would make the cheese too, but I don't have a cow. I think taking everything old school just to see if it can still be done would be cool, I didn't say it would be practical. Some of these things are art forms that have been lost to the digital age and rightly so, but the skills should be passed on nonetheless.

BillSpradlin
07-10-2007, 12:12 AM
Never said it was superior, I just it would be cool to do since it hasn't been done in quite some time. I'm one of those back to basics type of people. If I'm making lasagna I'm making the pasta and sauce from scratch, I would make the cheese too, but I don't have a cow. I think taking everything old school just to see if it can still be done would be cool, I didn't say it would be practical. Some of these things are art forms that have been lost to the digital age and rightly so, but the skills should be passed on nonetheless.

Optical compositing isn't really an art form, it's more of a test of how much patience you have. Nothing like layering together a shot for 12+ hours only to have one of the guide pins pop out and ruin your entire comp so that you have to start over from scratch. I truly pitty anyone who had to deal with that.

frogspasm
07-10-2007, 12:53 AM
I think the exact words were 'quick and dirty'. It was also done to keep the budget under $20 000 000.

Which would almost cover Harrison Ford's salary.

Kanga
07-10-2007, 02:57 AM
Cheating with CG? I love that one. Man,... did they think it was real before the computer came along?

opus13
07-10-2007, 03:47 AM
word!
Maybe there will be some money over for the script then. super! :)

you would think they already would have a good story going in to the project.. not needing an idea later on :/

aaron111
07-10-2007, 07:19 AM
Cheating with CG? I love that one. Man,... did they think it was real before the computer came along?

Yes actually, a lot of stuff that was once done practically and probably looks better practically is now "cheated with CG" more often than not. With Indy I'm convinced they are talking mostly about stunts.

All I can say is, if George Lucas was directing I think we would have a lot to worry about. No offense to any of the talented people at ILM - but it seems far too easy to get overly ambitious with the script and overly ambitious with the big set pieces these days and lose sight of the characters and story.

Kanga
07-10-2007, 10:03 AM
Yes actually, a lot of stuff that was once done practically and probably looks better practically is now "cheated with CG" .....
Yeah I know what they are getting at. The quote just stuck me as funny cause it comes from a business that is for the most part smoke and mirrors. I always though cheating was taking the easy way out. Not something that takes so much work.

Cheerio Chris

Tlock
07-10-2007, 07:52 PM
Indy was a pet project the Speilberg and Lucas want to make as a through back to the old days of adventure movies. Even the map is a through back, which is something that is important to them and i respect that. That being said i think a little CG here and there would definitely help make more impact on some parts, but that should be reserve for the rare justified moments. Otherwise i agree, i can watch indy over and over again and i don't need all the effects to make a great movie, a great story does that.

I assume the story should be good cause none of them wanted to do Indy movie unless the story was great and is also part of the reason why we haven't seen anything for a while. Indy 4 will make money no matter what, so it's not (just) for the money.

MrPositive
07-17-2007, 05:53 AM
Wow alot of CG hate on a CG forum. CG rarely makes a movie poor, the script, dialogue, poor pacing, and bad acting make a movie low quality almost every time. Unfortunately, the CG is an easy scapegoat for a movie's ills. I'd say that 99% of the CG backdrops and environments created now are unrecognizable and add immensely to the depth of the shot. The only thing people can have beef with is the digital double human characters, which still aren't perfect yet. I think Peter Jackson does it the best, by choosing whatever effect works perfectly for each respective shot: mattes, miniatures, composites, CG etc. Other than that, if CG makes the vision of the director's work better, then go for it.

zareh
08-14-2007, 08:23 AM
According to this interview with producer Frank Marshall they are keeping it old school with Indy 4.
http://tinyurl.com/yntxlx



I'm guessing this means no CG stunt doubles etc and doesn't refer to digital compositing... personally I think it's a good move, and as much as I love animation and big effects I wish more movies had a bit more of an old fashioned touch these days. CG ends up being used wrong - it becomes a crutch far too often.

sure, that's what they say now, mark my words, there will be plenty of CG. Lucas can't help himself changing things after principal photography is done.
Regards,
Zareh

CGTalk Moderation
08-14-2007, 08:23 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.