Indy IV (beware... spoiler pics)

[Brian Sheridan]

What he said--CGI should be an enhancement, never the entire effect unless it's otherwise impossible. (Example: JP dinosaurs, certain period aircraft in some war movies like the F-100 airstrike in We Were Soldiers)

Besides, nothing makes a good-looking "BOOM!" like real explosives...

The great thing about CASINO ROYALE was the lack of CGI after the horrible CGI effects in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

 

[Diamondback]

Time and place, and contexting, I'd argue. CGI worked in Transformers and JP, doesn't except as an "effect enhancer" with Bond, has gone both ways at different times in Star Wars.

(I'm really hoping that someday they'll redo The Great Raid as a "Director's Cut", with that Lockheed Hudson being digitally replaced with a mission-correct P-61 Black Widow...)

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I saw the trailer. The only thing that worries me is the way they're handling special effects. The car ride near the cliff edge and the explosion knocking away two (?) soldiers looked decidedly fake to me. Hasn't ILM learned a thing or two since Revenge of the Sith? [huh] IS CGI COMPLETELY RUINING MOVIES AS WE KNOW IT???

Sorry.

When Spielberg set out to do this film, he said he was going to use the special effects that they used on Raiders, which were pretty much what they had had for the previous twenty years or so (with some notable exceptions).

The idea was for this film to look like a low budget serial, so the backgrounds and all else are supposed to be matte backgrounds.

It's sort of like criticizing "The Good German" for being in Black and White.

 

[Feraud]

The trailer looks very good.
I am looking forward to seeing the movie.

 

[Jovan]

When Spielberg set out to do this film, he said he was going to use the special effects that they used on Raiders, which were pretty much what they had had for the previous twenty years or so (with some notable exceptions).

The idea was for this film to look like a low budget serial, so the backgrounds and all else are supposed to be matte backgrounds.

It's sort of like criticizing "The Good German" for being in Black and White.

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm criticising it BECAUSE it is not holding true to that.

 

[kiltie]

CGI

fftopic: D-Back: I don't know much about "mission correct", but I do know that the P-61 is one of, if not THE, most asthetically attractive aircraft of the age. I've always loved this plane, P-40 in almost any variation, and the F-4. Anything you got on the exploits of the P-61 would be appreciated, as Flying Tigers and Black Sheep stuff is abundant, but not so much on the Black Widow.

Back to bidness - Terminator 2 ( or, if you were one of the three people who saw it in theaters, The Abyss ) was a Revelation. Then Jurassic Park. You looked up there and said, "Holy Poop!" Then CGI was... ho hum ...the norm in little advancing increments until The Matrix. You looked up there and said, "Holy Poop!" Then CGI was... ho hum ....the norm in little advancing increments until The Phantom Menace. You looked up there and said, "This sucks hairy Hobbit feet!" Ya'll have said what's to be said, but here's what I feel is the why. Ironically, the perfect statement about the thing comes from Jeff Goldblum in JP: "You got so wrapped up in the idea that you COULD do a thing that you never stopped to ask yourself if you SHOULD", or words to that effect. Built in fanbase aside, other CG heavy movies that succeded, like the LOTR series, did so because of a compelling story. The CG seems to want to distract you from the fact that it's holding together a pretty flimsy story. Unfortunately, like flying ( see how I used recall to my opening statement - handy, huh? ), no one is impressed by it any more. If I want that kind of spectacle, I'll go to the monster truck show - and I ain't goin' to the monster truck show.
I'm not the kind of guy who says that everything old is good cuz it's old ( read:"vintage"), but todays box office extravaganzas will certainly make you pine for something visually more simple. It's taxing to look up and have to process a zillion moving parts on the screen. I think sometimes the director thinks you're going to get bored if you're not under constant occular assault. MTV has assured anyone with half a brain that it's highly likely to be true - two second shot, cut, half second shot, cut, boobs, cut, half second shot, cut...Somebody give me a a wide angle shot of camels crossing the desert for a full minute! My kingdom for a five minute tracking shot in a Mexican border town...
I sure hope the Indy flick produces on the story and some sweet a$$ in front of the camera action, otherwise I'll have to spend the summer watching Jackie Chan movies.

 

[Diamondback]

Kiltie, the actual "diversion" aircraft in the real Great Raid mission was a P-61, probably chosen for its potential supporting firepower, which is part of the reason I like it--you do not argue with a quad-.50 and a quad of 20mm cannons unless you wanna do a shrapnel-laced Swiss-cheese impression... And there is no substitute for always-stylish basic black... especially when you're going for the kind of sinister look that was another of the Black Widow's weapons. (Last two kills of WWII were taken by '61s, without a shot fired by either!)

Start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-61_Black_Widow
http://www.military.cz/usa/air/war/fighter/p61/p61_docum.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Scorton
http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p61_9.html
This last link is probably to the best site around on air, Baugher's second on my personal "trusted air historians" list only to Col. Walter Boyne himself.

Back on target, CGI works when it's the right tool for the job, but sucks like a jet engine when used purely for the sake of "just another impressive CGI visual".

 

[Hemingway Jones]

What does that have to do with what I said? I'm criticising it BECAUSE it is not holding true to that.

Things that you criticized for looking "fake" were intended to look that way.

But take it easy there, Pal. It's a friendly conversation.

 

[thunderw21]

Back on target, CGI works when it's the right tool for the job, but sucks like a jet engine when used purely for the sake of "just another impressive CGI visual".

Agreed. I had some problems with the CGI in "The Aviator". Not that it was overdone (models were largely used except for 'impossible' shots) but the CGI effects just were not convincing. As a pilot (and I'm sure you don't have to be one to hold this opinion) I was in awe at the film shots of the real flying models while the CGI planes looked and flew like pigs. The computer techs obviously did not know what a coordinated turn is or how planes fly. And while the movie was not centered around realistic flying scenes, I think it took the viewer out of the movie.

One problem is that CGI is used too much, another is that it is done poorly. My problem with many movies, including The Aviator, is not that it is overdone but that it is done poorly. Either the CGI is too detailed or it moves and performs unrealisticly.

Hopefully this new Indy movie does not fall into this pitfall. The trailer looks promising but I'm still a bit worried.

 

[Jovan]

Things that you criticized for looking "fake" were intended to look that way.

But take it easy there, Pal. It's a friendly conversation.

I'm quite sure they weren't. Working within a low budget is more of an art form than purposely making things look fake. Nothing in the last few films looked very fake, with the exception of the melting face scene.

 

[kiltie]

Diamondback

Thanks so much for the info on the P-61. Now I gotta spend another hour chasing down the links!

BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM...

 

[Diamondback]

Quite welcome, sir. Incidentally, replace that "9" in the Baugher link with numbers from 1 to 11 and you'll get a bunch more data, too.

Wouldn't a surplus '61 be the perfect ride for an Indy heavy, though, segueing back to the thread?

 

[MK]

.

If you guys are still interested in Indy VI.....

I was lucky to get to work on the film last year. I can't talk about it until the movie is released....but these are some of the sets I got to work on:

Enjoy!

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I'm quite sure they weren't. Working within a low budget is more of an art form than purposely making things look fake. Nothing in the last few films looked very fake, with the exception of the melting face scene.

Read up on Spielberg's comments on the film and it's art direction.

 

[thunderw21]

If you guys are still interested in Indy VI.....

I was lucky to get to work on the film last year. I can't talk about it until the movie is released....but these are some of the sets I got to work on:

http://www.lostark.net/stuff/ij4_trailer/Image67.jpg

http://www.lostark.net/stuff/ij4_trailer/Image88.jpg

http://www.lostark.net/stuff/ij4_trailer/Image89.jpg

Enjoy!

Cool MK! It would be such an experience to get to work on an Indy movie. Glad you got the chance.

 

[RBH]

If you guys are still interested in Indy VI.....

I was lucky to get to work on the film last year. I can't talk about it until the movie is released....but these are some of the sets I got to work on:

Enjoy!

SWEET!!!!:eusa_clap

 

[jake_fink]

If you guys are still interested in Indy VI.....

I was lucky to get to work on the film last year. I can't talk about it until the movie is released....but these are some of the sets I got to work on:

Enjoy!

You're two ahead of Spielberg.

 

[MK]

.

I never was any good at Roman numerals.

 

[Edward]

I was wary of this projct when it was first mooted, but over time I've become more and more excited. I'm scared of it being another Phantom Menace same as a lot of folks, but unlike that execrable excuse for a film everything I see of this one looks great.

 

[Josephine]

Guns removed from American version of the Indy IV trailer