Indiana Jones 5 officially announced

It could be done effectively. But I'm not sure that it always would be.

It's the kind of job that is ripe for being underestimated. The motion needs to look photoreal, and that includes Ford's whipping motion causing the CGI whip to do exactly what they want it to.

It's like trying to shoot a baseball pitcher & batter hitting a home run using a CGI bat & ball. Making the bat & ball look photorealistic will be easy. And getting the physics of the motion 9/10ths perfect will be easy. But the CGI guys will be tearing their hair out trying to get that last 10th of the motion correct. Eventually they will realize that the actors' motions are the problem. And monkeying with that is usually clumsy-looking. Eventually they will get it "good enough" - only it won't be. Not quite.
 
Riceball said:
Third time? I think it's my first, but I do constantly argue that CG does not automatically = bad.
Click to expand...

Oh. Well... okay. I was sure you've posted at least similar vids before...
I'm sure there's one in the Fury Road thread, and I thought there was another one somewhere...
If my attention span wasn't zero tonight I'd track them down, but...
I'm drunk and I don't feel like it. I'ma take your word for it. I trust you.
You look like swell kid - judging from your avatar.
 
batguy said:
It could be done effectively. But I'm not sure that it always would be.

It's the kind of job that is ripe for being underestimated. The motion needs to look photoreal, and that includes Ford's whipping motion causing the CGI whip to do exactly what they want it to.

It's like trying to shoot a baseball pitcher & batter hitting a home run using a CGI bat & ball. Making the bat & ball look photorealistic will be easy. And getting the physics of the motion 9/10ths perfect will be easy. But the CGI guys will be tearing their hair out trying to get that last 10th of the motion correct. Eventually they will realize that the actors' motions are the problem. And monkeying with that is usually clumsy-looking. Eventually they will get it "good enough" - only it won't be. Not quite.
Click to expand...


it can almost always be done effectively give the right team, and constraints. But you can't fast track a production - take the greatest team ever, give them 1/4 of the needed time and/or resources and expect the best. Hell, i run into that problem on in house stuff here. We need 'this', but can we have it tomorrow? Sure, you can have it tomorrow, but it'll look like crap. People (in this case directors) want cheap more than they want good and you get crappy CG.
 
cboath said:
it can almost always be done effectively give the right team, and constraints. But you can't fast track a production - take the greatest team ever, give them 1/4 of the needed time and/or resources and expect the best. Hell, i run into that problem on in house stuff here. We need 'this', but can we have it tomorrow? Sure, you can have it tomorrow, but it'll look like crap. People (in this case directors) want cheap more than they want good and you get crappy CG.
Click to expand...

And 9 times out 10 that's why you get crappy CG, because the director or producers think that since it's all done by computers it's as simple as pushing a button and *POOF* instant top notch, completely photo real CG. It's really no different with practical effects, you try to go cheap and you'll get crappy effects that look like something from the old Buck Rogers movies from the '20s or something out of an old Godzilla movie.
 
Riceball said:
you'll get crappy effects that look like something from the old Buck Rogers movies from the '20s or something out of an old Godzilla movie.
Click to expand...

Yet, The crappy effects add to the nostalgia of the old Sci-Fi series and movies. Poor CGI is only a distraction.

But I am biased. I'll take the original Godzilla movies over the remakes any day.
Even better if I still had my little Hitachi TV.
 
Riceball said:
And 9 times out 10 that's why you get crappy CG, because the director or producers think that since it's all done by computers it's as simple as pushing a button and *POOF* instant top notch, completely photo real CG. It's really no different with practical effects, you try to go cheap and you'll get crappy effects that look like something from the old Buck Rogers movies from the '20s or something out of an old Godzilla movie.
Click to expand...

Fly4v said:
Yet, The crappy effects add to the nostalgia of the old Sci-Fi series and movies. Poor CGI is only a distraction.

But I am biased. I'll take the original Godzilla movies over the remakes any day.
Even better if I still had my little Hitachi TV.
Click to expand...

Today's poor CGI is tomorrow's kitschy nostalgia.

To me, what matters more is keeping the overall feel of the work intact. So, yeah, the stop-motion of the car full o' Nazis going off the cliff in Raiders set against a matte painting? That looks totally cheesy, but I accept it as part of the work as a whole, and in keeping with what was available in the time period.

Flash Gordon serials I can appreciate, wobbly sets and all, because they were working within a budget, and it's true to the feel of the rest of the show.

I recently got my wife in to Star Trek: TOS. I have it on blu-ray, with the option to turn on the new f/x or leave the old ones. We went with the old f/x because so much else about the show just says "1960s." The lighting and framing in various shots, the stunt work in the stage fighting, the acting styles, the writing, all of it just screams "1960s." It would be, to my eyes, way more jarring to have all of that going on and then suddenly cut away to a perfectly modern-looking CGI render of the Enterprise. It's the same reason that a lot of the updated f/x shots in the Star Wars OT don't feel right to me. I mean, ok, make R2 blue. Fine. No big deal there. But doing some "cool" CGI flyby of an X-wing during the trench run? No thanks. Maybe as a novelty, but give me the option to turn that off and go back to the old models (which, I should add, were incredibly well done).
 
Dont really pay much attention to this Disney mouthpiece chanel but it is current Indy news so....

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear God I would love to have 1 % off the top of what they are going to have to pay Harrison for doing this, and THAT is what they would need to pay ME for feining ANY interest in this let alone seeing this
 
They had to for The last one i forgot how much he got but it was in the bank before he even set foot on the set, but yeah he has said in he still has to work he has a family and college and cars to think of for his kids :lol
 
Im curious to see how Indy 5 turns out. Maybe morbid curiosity , I admit but curious all the same. I think done right it could be good. And im positive that Disney will try to find some sort of successor to try to carry on the Indy Legacy as they would not retire the franchise in my opinion.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

drusselmeyer
Indiana Jones and the Lost McGuffin...
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2,315
pengbuzz
P
C
Indiana Jones inaccuracies. Add to the list.
2 3 4
Replies
69
Views
3,316
greenmachines
greenmachines
Captain Dunsel
Steamboat Willie Copyright Officially Expiring
Replies
3
Views
417
CB2001
CB2001
DarkHelmet
Early Indiana Jones
Replies
10
Views
1,122
DarkHelmet
DarkHelmet
Captain Dunsel
Star Trek: Discovery Season 5
2
Replies
22
Views
1,065
universaljoint
universaljoint
Back
Top