Comments on: Indiana Jones 4: Production Designer Says Film is Mostly CGI-Free

By: Indiana Jones y el Reino de la Calavera de Cristal, con pocos efectos digitales | eternosecundario.com

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 15:08:14 +0000

[...] respecto a la cantidad de efectos creados por ordenador que llevarÃa la cinta. Sin embargo, segÃºn Peter de SlashFilm, durante la producciÃ³n, Spielberg estimaba que la cantidad de dichos efectos digitales serÃa en [...]

By: Israel Groveman

Israel Groveman — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 20:29:36 +0000

Comeon guys, there was plenty of model use, glass paintings, fake backdrops, and more in the original films… this is all pointless. I’d like to see how subtle CGI use could make an Indy film even better.

By: Â¿CuÃ¡nto tiempo engaÃ±a un efecto especial? by COOKIEFACE - Blog de diseÃ±o y diseÃ±o de blogs. Curiosidades, Servicios de diseÃ±o web, diseÃ±o de blogs, plantillas, diseÃ±o de newsletter, edicion de video, fotografia

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:58:54 +0000

[...] Weta Workshop, ILM, FX Argentina, La nueva Indiana Jones casi sin CGI (en inglÃ©s) Comparte este post [...]

By: Laura

Laura — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:26:49 +0000

It will be a breath of fresh air that at least Indy IV will not be a CGi cartoon unlike what we can expect from most films coming out this year and during the summer.

Those Spiderman movies were good during the live action parts. But the Spidey parts sucked monkeyballs. I mean, Spiderman looked too cartoonish even in the most recent film. And it wasn’t the colors of his spidey suit that made him look that way, it was the rendering of the human body and it’s movements. So fake looking.

By: Zany

Zany — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 10:20:17 +0000

Were those special effects in the trailer finished? The temple scenes looked pretty good,but the plane, the cliff-face scene,car collision, and the car Indy got pulled out of looked really fake.Why did they have to make a stationary car CG?

By: Manfred Powell

Manfred Powell — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:52:13 +0000

Studios are extremely PR savvy, and understand what trends and fashions exist.

There was a time when your film having “extensive CGI” was something to brag about.

Now, people are trying to hide it.

I bet the “650 effects shots” is something of a white lie. It’s a PR gag. Big budget movies today are inextricably linked with CGI.

And that’s not a bad thing.

It’s just that sheep-minded people who follow the crowd will do their best to ensure directors are subjected to arbitrary love/hate depending on what’s ‘popular’ at the time.

By: patrick

patrick — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:46:09 +0000

it’s gonna be tough to even come close to the quality and originality of the original Indiana Jones’

By: Kestrel

Kestrel — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:05:27 +0000

Funny how the digital shot count has become bad news for some. . . I remember when 400 cgi shots spawned responces like: “DUDE THIS FILM WILL ROCK!!!”

By: Jordan

Jordan — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:55:50 +0000

I think the main VFX vendor on Zodiac was Digital Domain. Matte World Digital also did some really great work.

Re-watch zodiac with the knowledge that there is not a single (real) helicopter shot in the whole movie. Even though there are several flawless-cgi helicopter shots throughout!

By: wsmith

wsmith — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:54:37 +0000

The series always had VFX - and some pretty cheesy ones at times. People need to get over it. it isn’t star wars - there aren’t going to be any digital characters or CGI whips, relax.

By: Captain Awesome

Captain Awesome — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:39:03 +0000

Fincher has always been great with his use of CG. And the company he uses (BUF) does amazing hyper-realistic work. That amazing camera pan he designed in Panic Room where the camera starts from the top of that portal and moved all the way down to the kitchen?

I was blown away to find out it was all CG, it looks so real!

By: b e n - a

b e n - a — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:24:26 +0000

I agree for the most part with Captain Awesome. I definitely have found in recent years to prefer films with less CG and those which have more of an attempt to utilise physical effects. The first few which come to mind are the Bourne films, Casino Royale and Batman Begins.

However I do feel that CG is a tool which in certain circumstances can and should be utilised. Now I’m not talking about 300 and Sin City in this case but films like Zodiac which use CG to accurately recreate a past decade in an authentic manner. If you think Zodiac doesn’t use that much CGI - you’d be surprised. Check this video for proof:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT491ctM8Kk

By: JFK

JFK — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:24:08 +0000

Yeah, I think what most fans are complaining about is the general color tones which have been altered digitally. The color grading looks a little bizarre in comparison to the first three films- Read: Artificial.

That said, there is a ton of blue-screen action going on in that cliff-edge chase sequence though… When Blanchet rams Indy’s jeep… it looks really fake and tame and sound-staged. It looks like they’re outside, sure. But where is all the turbulnence and bumpyness of that raw terrain? This has none of the actuality from the dirt-flying in your face grit-holy-crap-tacular-cool chases of ‘grail’ or ‘arc’.

By: Captain Awesome

Captain Awesome — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:14:49 +0000

This is how most CG work should be utilized. I’ve always viewed it like the airbrush. Mainly for accents and to “aid” what can be done.

I can understand for certain films where CG will be the “main” design, like say something like 300 or a special effects heavy film like LOTR or even Iron-Man. But for the most part, I believe CG has also made many directors progressively lazier and lazier over the years.