Thursday, July 05, 2007

No CG For Indiana Jones At All?

In an interview with the New Haven Register, Frank Marshall seems to confirm that there's no CG work in Indiana Jones IV at all:

Steven is very aware of the process and we're not cheating with CG at all. It keeps the B movie feel.

What? Will this mean there's not even going to be any compositing done by computer? If so, that's a terrible idea. A computer composited image is much, much better than anything done optically. Well - certainly if you compare the best CG composite and the best optical composite.

I'm hoping this is a quote taken out of context and Marshall was referring to a specific sequence in the film. Not using the best available techniques as part of a stylistic conceit, certainly on a film that seeks to appeal to a wide audience and not alienate anybody, is the cinematic equivalent of cutting off your own nose to spite your face - and while I agree that practical effects might be the best available technique, I draw the line at compositing the images, as I said.


Anonymous said...

I guarentee you he's talking about effects only. Most people (as in, people who aren't film buffs) think of computer use in film production only in terms of CGI.

Anonymous said...

He is not relying on CG. Period.

Personally I applaud Spielberg for this decision. He is showing some restraint from making this installment seem out of line with the other three.

You can argue this all you want but the effects at the time WERE state of the art. And the effects personal on those films have been consulted for this film.

Also, how can avoiding CG alienate an audience? That is ludicrous. CG has become a crutch for filmmakers who have yet to learn how to weave a concise story.

The Indiana Jones films were designed to resemble Saturday morning serials not some God forsaken, overwrought CG Emmerich epic.

You can have your CG and the over reliance that overwhelms directors who use and always abuse it. I'll take great opticals, matte paintings, and etc.

ILM revolutionized those processes long before CG entered the picture.

Anonymous said...

Maybe he means at New Haven, in regards to changing the setting to the 1950s.

I can't imagine that they would do effects that compare to the opening of the ark in Raiders optically today. Besides it would be difficult to find many technicians to do that anymore, they may charge more to make it happen optically.

Anonymous said...

This does get me a little concerned over how seriously Spielberg and Lucas take this film. 'B Movie feel?'
I don't recall feeling that Raiders was a B movie. Maybe inspired by B movies as Kill Bill was inspired by B movies, but turned into an A movie.

To some extent, I think George Lucas thought Star Wars was a B movie, which partially explains why the prequels turned out how they did, other than him being bad with characters, dialogue, and actors.

I hope they aren't attacking the Indy film like so many of the directors today: "Bad film making is part of the style of the film." That method has become so unfashionable.

Indiana Jim said...

The idea that Kill Bill was an A movie at all is ridiculous, but I digress....

Doing it the old-fashioned way with stuntmen and REALITY is much better than computers and blue-screen, especially with Indy which is really a period adventure piece.

I agree with anonymous... um... well... anyway, I'm in CGI OVERLOAD and I could use a little break!

Brendon said...

In any meaningful sense of the term, there's no such thing as A and B movies anymore. We don't have the distribution habits of old any longer.

Kill Bill was an A movie every bit as much as any other film released singularly ever has been.

It was also considerably better than any Indiana Jones film.

Anonymous said...

Why is this a question of debate? CGI is just a tool, just like music or editing...
I don't care if a matte painting has been done with Photoshop or real paint as long as it looks good...

Anonymous said...

by "no cg" I'm betting they mean no 3d animation. just think of how bad Raiders could have been with a CG cobra instead of a real one. I'm sure there will be digital compositing and the usual matte paintings - just no 3d stunt doubles or 3d cars flying off cliffs - thank god!