Indy 4 - CGI not to be!

Indiana Jones 4 will not be a CGI mess like the Star Wars Prequels. Personally, I'm chuffed.

"While George Lucas continually pushed Star Wars in the direction of using digital cameras and new computer-based filmmaking techniques, he's letting Steven Spielberg shoot Indiana Jones IV using more traditional methods — keeping it grounded in its roots as a historical pulp adventure.

Producer Frank Marshall explained this approach to the New Haven Register: "Steven is very aware of the process and we're not cheating with CG (computer graphics) at all. It keeps the B movie feel."

Photography at the New Haven location has now wrapped, and the crew is heading to Hawaii where filming will continue. Hawaii is likely to stand in for various tropical locations in Central or South America."

Nice to know that directors like Spielberg can still play old hat. What do you lot think? A good decision or a mistake? Discuss!

EDIT: Linky! http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/802/802307p1.html (POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN LINK!)

That should definitely be a good thing, in my book. I wouldn't like it if we had a ton of CGI Indy's hopping around doing the stunts.

Well the other indy films had hardly any CGI except for last crusade if i remember

he's letting Steven Spielberg shoot Indiana Jones IV using more traditional methods — keeping it grounded in its roots as a historical pulp adventure.

Not like thats the first spielberg shot the other 3 films

I don't think Indy has ever had any "CGI", it's all been traditional SFX.

And yes, well duh really, Spielberg shot the other three films, but as far as the more fundamental decisions are concerned, Lucas calls the shots as executive producer.

Originally posted by exanda kane
I don't think Indy has ever had any "CGI", it's all been traditional SFX.

I'm pretty sure last crusade had a little bit for the 3rd test "Leap of faith" unless it was more of a visual effect rather then CGI animation.

Visual effects in the old hat sense of the word.

So what does it mean?
It's not like Spielberg hasn't been CGI heavy in virtually all his films since the breakthroughs with Jurrasic Park. Technology was getting pushed along even in the 8-year period the Indy films were being made in; two of those films won Oscars for Visual Effects.
I think all they mean is, there won't be the heavy use of digital sets where actors walk around in bluescreen, while the FX department paints it all in later(aka Star Wars prequels.) Real locations & real sets; I think that's what they mean.
If they use a little CGI here & there to make something look better, they'll do it. No one in the industry - anywhere in the world - is going backwards on VFX tech, and using optical printing tech.

Yeah, I think it's just no blue/green screen.

The absence of CGI and overbearing effects has always been an appeal of the indy series. Though the films have always been rich in special effects, The effects werent a main character in the movies. Atleast for me, i wasnt waiting to see the next big cinematical effects shot while watching the movies. I was always waiting to see what indy would do next.

No CGI is a good thing , it ruined the Star War's prequels due to the heavy use of it. If the original movie's were made 30 year's ago without the use of CGI why make the new ones with CGI. It screws it up and make's it look and feel like two seperate movies.

It is not the CG effects that bother me, it is just the CG landscapes in the PT that takes you right out of the movie. Real Environments like Tatooine, Hoth, and Endor where the actors are physically there hold up over time alot more then the CG landscapes like Kamino, Geonosis, and Mustafar.

Just pop in an old Indy Movie, or an OT movie, and then compare it to a PT movie, and you feel like you are watching a cartoon sometimes with those CG landscapes.

I'm glad they're not using CGI, because that's what makes people able to watch the old Indy movies decades after they've been made. No CGI makes it authentic. It allows the viewers to relate to the characters in a way. Creating elaborate visuals with CGI doesn't do anything for the viewers, because the audience has never experienced anything remotely similar to what's going on and they know it could never happen to them. Also, it distracts from the story. If anything, CGI might inspire awe, but it can never do anything for the story. Seeing a man's rage and hearing the sound as he punches his enemy invokes a lot more catharsis than, say, a giant gorilla ripping a dinosaur's jaw off.

for me, its ok if they did not used CGI..I'm tired of watching CGI films.

All these people b*tching & whining about CGI...

Look at the Indy4 trailer - some CGI is being used in the film.
And here's another newsflash: CGI is NOT going away.
Technology advances forward only - not in reverse. Otherwise, we'd still all be in the era of silent film.
How many films may not have been made, if it wasn't for the breakthrough with CGI in the mid-90's? I'm sure Lord Of The Rings would still be just a dream, as would the Spider Man series - films that wouldn't look nearly as good or convincing without the freedoms granted by new FX tech.

It always amuses me to hear reminiscing about "old-fashioned" special effects. The medium is not a stable form, but in a constant state of evolution. These aren't people in the industry who do that - instead, they get excited by breaking barriers & going forward.

I reakon there will be a little bit of CGi in this 4th one for stuff like when they find the articact and whatever and you see all the mystical energy stuff.

THe explosion in the trailer was CGI. early start.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Indiana Jones 4 will [b]not be a CGI mess like the Star Wars Prequels. Personally, I'm chuffed.

"While George Lucas continually pushed Star Wars in the direction of using digital cameras and new computer-based filmmaking techniques, he's letting Steven Spielberg shoot Indiana Jones IV using more traditional methods — keeping it grounded in its roots as a historical pulp adventure.

Producer Frank Marshall explained this approach to the New Haven Register: "Steven is very aware of the process and we're not cheating with CG (computer graphics) at all. It keeps the B movie feel."

Photography at the New Haven location has now wrapped, and the crew is heading to Hawaii where filming will continue. Hawaii is likely to stand in for various tropical locations in Central or South America."

Nice to know that directors like Spielberg can still play old hat. What do you lot think? A good decision or a mistake? Discuss!

EDIT: Linky! http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/802/802307p1.html (POSSIBLE SPOILERS IN LINK!) [/B]

Well a film like Star Wars is obviously going to need a crap load of special effects, which is why CGI worked out perfectly in most cases for the prequels. CGI will still be used to enhance the next Indiana Jones 4 movie, but obviously not nearly as much as a Star Wars film would need. It will likely contain a lot of CGI but it is so suttle (and good) that many won't notice or think about it. I still have no idea why Spielberg shoots with film when he has to convert it to some digital format during editing.

Becaue he likes film better than video. And there's something to say about that. The two formats are quite different to work with, Spielberg doesn't like to change his style I think. And why should he?

I didn't like the CGI in Indy 4 because it felt out of place.

That bad?