Producer Says 'Indy 4' Will Not Rely on CGI
09-09-03, 10:59 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Producer Says 'Indy 4' Will Not Rely on CGI
From IMDB.com
Regardless, CGI or no CGI, I'm still very sceptical about how good this will be...
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."
09-09-03, 11:12 PM
#2
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Good grief. I'm all for a character driven action film that doesn't rely exclusively on special effects, but to throw away the tool of CGI out of some warped sense of movie making elitism is just silly.
09-10-03, 12:00 AM
#5
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I don't mind CGI when it's done well, and I think Spielberg has proved he's one of the few who knows what the FX house is doing.
95% of the time, though, CGI looks terrible, or not terrible but still obvious.
I'm pleased at Marshall's plan DAMN I'M FUNNY THAT WAS A HISTORY JOKE. B-movie feel though? Ah... that's not the feeling I ever got. How many Corman movies do YOU know that had underground caves stafed with hundreds of thugees?
95% of the time, though, CGI looks terrible, or not terrible but still obvious.
I'm pleased at Marshall's plan DAMN I'M FUNNY THAT WAS A HISTORY JOKE. B-movie feel though? Ah... that's not the feeling I ever got. How many Corman movies do YOU know that had underground caves stafed with hundreds of thugees?
09-10-03, 07:57 AM
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: TX
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What really bothers me about that news clipping is that a movie without CGI is considered, at least by this producer, as a "B-movie". Worse still, he implies that the first 3 movies should now be considered as such. Eek.
09-10-03, 10:28 AM
#8
Hip hip! Hooray! After seeing CGI in new Star Wars films, I hope things remain consistant with Indy like Marshell says in that article.
That was what Lucas/Speilberg/Marshell were going for in the Indiana Jones movies. The excitment and situations from the adventure serials. He dosen't mean B-movie in a negative way. There is lots of things to love about them. CGI or no CGI isn't dictating what is a B-movie and what isn't.
Originally posted by angryyoungman
What really bothers me about that news clipping is that a movie without CGI is considered, at least by this producer, as a "B-movie". Worse still, he implies that the first 3 movies should now be considered as such. Eek.
What really bothers me about that news clipping is that a movie without CGI is considered, at least by this producer, as a "B-movie". Worse still, he implies that the first 3 movies should now be considered as such. Eek.
09-10-03, 12:02 PM
#9
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't the first three movies use blue screen effects, though? The point is that the first three Indiana Jones movies used the best special effects available at the time (when necessary). Why wouldn't they want to use the best available this time? I think Mr. Marshall's been watching too many of George Lucas' films instead of those that use computer effects properly.
09-10-03, 03:31 PM
#11
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 4,551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great news. While I have no doubt CG effects will be used, at least we know they'll be used sparingly and only when necessary. Honestly I have no concerns about the effects work because Spielberg is just the best at using them, digital or not. I'm more concerned at whether Harrison Ford is up to playing the part. Let's hope.
09-10-03, 04:38 PM
#12
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
I think Mr. Marshall's been watching too many of George Lucas' films instead of those that use computer effects properly.
But Indiana Jones is not the type of film that needs a lot of CGI in the first place. So it's not like Marshall is going out on a limb. Everything in an Indy movie can be replicated by landscapes and sets. Not so with something like Star Wars, the Matrix, or LOTR. Huge Difference. Then again, maybe they needed to use it in Temple of Doom with all of that godawful bluescreen optical compositing during the water sequence.
09-10-03, 04:49 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is doesn't mean much. They will have to use computer effects in many cases. The public demands more effects shots per film than in the Indy days, and much of the infrastructure for creating 80s style effects no longer exists. And no matter how you slice it, practical effects will end up costing much more than CGI for many things.
And computers are just plain superior at many tasks. Does it really make sense to use optical compositing, for example, when it's slower and more expensive than digital compositing, *and* produces inferior output? (Though I fully expect some effects curmudgeon to interject and say, "Back in the 80s our composite shots were dim and grainy, and dagnabit, that's the way we liked it!")
So what this really translates to is, "We don't plan to use computer effects, except of course for the cases where we will use computer effects."
And computers are just plain superior at many tasks. Does it really make sense to use optical compositing, for example, when it's slower and more expensive than digital compositing, *and* produces inferior output? (Though I fully expect some effects curmudgeon to interject and say, "Back in the 80s our composite shots were dim and grainy, and dagnabit, that's the way we liked it!")
So what this really translates to is, "We don't plan to use computer effects, except of course for the cases where we will use computer effects."
09-10-03, 06:13 PM
#14
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: NYC * See da name? Go get me some coffee...
Posts: 4,665
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lucas: We can just make a CGI world for Inday.
Spielberg: ANd why don't we throw in some clone troopers too, right? No Lucas this isn't about the CGI!
Spielberg: ANd why don't we throw in some clone troopers too, right? No Lucas this isn't about the CGI!
09-10-03, 10:08 PM
#15
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
First off. Great news on the no or very little CGI use for the film! I'm sick of CGI & Marshall was right about everything he said. From people being lazier today,to it just not looking right at all.
The FX in the prequals are terrible! They look like cartoons,than actual 3-D alien beings & landscapes. It has a very superficial feel to it all. That I did not find any of the FX 'amazing'..& did not give a damn about ANY of the charecters because of both the bad writting & bad extensive overuse of cartoony CGI.
View the non-SE versions of the original trilogy & you will see superior FX work in at least you do care about the charecters,you don't mind the FX work,since the story is good & entertaining. It also has a certain nostalgic charm to it all,that the CGIed up SE's of the trilogy lack.
Ummm what was that about Star Wars? See above about the original versions of the trilogy
I thought the FX in Temple of Doom were great despite being obvious! That again adds to the charm of the film. Had they looked pristine & cartoonish with CGI. That would take me out of the film as it would be even more unbelievably fake & shallow.
I have not seen the Lord of the Rings films yet. In that case. Yeah,seems like CGI has to be used with what they are going for. Oh wait,ever see Legend(1985)?. So Rings may have been possible with no CGI as well.
The Matrix since it takes place in a virtual world. Ok,CGI can be used. Yet still it's rather boring. You know it's not real. You know the 'agents' don't really die & thus the hyper-stylized nature of the action sequences & martial arts seems boring. Since you are never drawn into the film,the charecters or the setpieces. It's all superficial in the extreme. I was bored to death with the first film. None of the FX wowed me,as they looked CGI & I was never drawn into the film. This is a great example along with the new SWs trilogy of whats wrong with CGI today.
So if they don't use CGI in the new Indy or very little. I'm happy,though will the film turn out good or not remains to be seen?
Afterall it's been so many years. Spielberg is not the same great director he once was. So the 'charm' the original films have may be lost today. Yet we'll see.
Originally posted by Terrell
Uh, since when is their a definition of proper use? The FX in the prequels are phenomenal and nominated for Oscar and VES awards. End of ****ing story.
Uh, since when is their a definition of proper use? The FX in the prequels are phenomenal and nominated for Oscar and VES awards. End of ****ing story.
The FX in the prequals are terrible! They look like cartoons,than actual 3-D alien beings & landscapes. It has a very superficial feel to it all. That I did not find any of the FX 'amazing'..& did not give a damn about ANY of the charecters because of both the bad writting & bad extensive overuse of cartoony CGI.
View the non-SE versions of the original trilogy & you will see superior FX work in at least you do care about the charecters,you don't mind the FX work,since the story is good & entertaining. It also has a certain nostalgic charm to it all,that the CGIed up SE's of the trilogy lack.
But Indiana Jones is not the type of film that needs a lot of CGI in the first place. So it's not like Marshall is going out on a limb. Everything in an Indy movie can be replicated by landscapes and sets. Not so with something like Star Wars, the Matrix, or LOTR. Huge Difference. Then again, maybe they needed to use it in Temple of Doom with all of that godawful bluescreen optical compositing during the water sequence.
I thought the FX in Temple of Doom were great despite being obvious! That again adds to the charm of the film. Had they looked pristine & cartoonish with CGI. That would take me out of the film as it would be even more unbelievably fake & shallow.
I have not seen the Lord of the Rings films yet. In that case. Yeah,seems like CGI has to be used with what they are going for. Oh wait,ever see Legend(1985)?. So Rings may have been possible with no CGI as well.
The Matrix since it takes place in a virtual world. Ok,CGI can be used. Yet still it's rather boring. You know it's not real. You know the 'agents' don't really die & thus the hyper-stylized nature of the action sequences & martial arts seems boring. Since you are never drawn into the film,the charecters or the setpieces. It's all superficial in the extreme. I was bored to death with the first film. None of the FX wowed me,as they looked CGI & I was never drawn into the film. This is a great example along with the new SWs trilogy of whats wrong with CGI today.
So if they don't use CGI in the new Indy or very little. I'm happy,though will the film turn out good or not remains to be seen?
Afterall it's been so many years. Spielberg is not the same great director he once was. So the 'charm' the original films have may be lost today. Yet we'll see.
09-11-03, 02:38 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A good article on stuntwork in the digital age:
http://www.modbee.com/24hour/technol...-6959827c.html
It includes this funny little story:
"During a recent interview with "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno, actor Will Smith touted how "real" the stunts were in "Bad Boys II," including an action sequence in which he races a silver Ferrari across a traffic-packed bridge. The film's villains, who have stolen a semi filled with automobiles, begin flinging the cars onto the road.
"In this age of computer-generated images," Smith said proudly, director "Michael Bay went old-school and he shot the stunts for real."
That came as a shock to the staff at Sony Pictures Imageworks, the visual effects powerhouse in Culver City that handled more than 100 digital effects shots for the movie, including the bridge chase scene."
http://www.modbee.com/24hour/technol...-6959827c.html
It includes this funny little story:
"During a recent interview with "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno, actor Will Smith touted how "real" the stunts were in "Bad Boys II," including an action sequence in which he races a silver Ferrari across a traffic-packed bridge. The film's villains, who have stolen a semi filled with automobiles, begin flinging the cars onto the road.
"In this age of computer-generated images," Smith said proudly, director "Michael Bay went old-school and he shot the stunts for real."
That came as a shock to the staff at Sony Pictures Imageworks, the visual effects powerhouse in Culver City that handled more than 100 digital effects shots for the movie, including the bridge chase scene."
09-11-03, 07:01 PM
#18
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Most of the highway scene in Matrix Reloaded was non-CGI and it looked great!
Indiana Jones 4 could use a CGI Harrison Ford, IMO. The dude's way to old for movies like this.
Indiana Jones 4 could use a CGI Harrison Ford, IMO. The dude's way to old for movies like this.
09-11-03, 09:19 PM
#20
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,259
Received 1,793 Likes
on
1,121 Posts
so we get to see fake looking mechanical stuff instead of CGI fake looking stuff 
cool!
cool!
09-12-03, 12:34 PM
#21
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally posted by SeanValen
Harrison Ford has commented, Indy 4, wil take his age into account, he won't be trying to look younger, but more embracing his age.
Harrison Ford has commented, Indy 4, wil take his age into account, he won't be trying to look younger, but more embracing his age.
09-12-03, 01:02 PM
#22
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Somewhere Hot Scoville Units: 9,999,999 Zodiac Sign: Capricorn
Posts: 12,259
Received 811 Likes
on
316 Posts
Thank god they're going this route. Don't want bad CGI claiming another series ...just look what it did to Die Another Day.
