Sure enough, no STXI trailer with Indy 4

[pookha]

what i got from the article i posted is that were possible Abrams is going for a much more organic feel but will in places use cgi.

just like in the past as mud shark pointed out they used minatures and matte paintings there will be places were due to demands of budgets a film maker will fill in with cgi but use other methods were possible.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

what i got from the article i posted is that were possible Abrams is going for a much more organic feel but will in places use cgi.

just like in the past as mud shark pointed out they used minatures and matte paintings there will be places were due to demands of budgets a film maker will fill in with cgi but use other methods were possible.

I hope you're right because Indy 4 looks horrible. I just got done watching National Treasure Book of Secrets and that has a much more organic look, as you say. Obviously CGI was used in that film, especially during the ending sequence, but it didn't look obvious.

An interesting observation. There is a brief set/action sequence in Indy 4 that looks very much like one in National Treasure Book of Secrets (which is the older film of course).

Anyway, here's hoping STXI doesn't end up becoming another Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, a movie greatly anticipated but ultimately disappointing.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...I'm not sure I'm reading this quite the same way as you are. He's said that you can't build sets for everything, but that's not news. Even Cecil B. DeMille had to fudge on sets sometimes;

Most of the Tara mansion in "Gone With The Wind" was a matte painting - hell, most of Atlanta was too.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

...I'm not sure I'm reading this quite the same way as you are. He's said that you can't build sets for everything, but that's not news. Even Cecil B. DeMille had to fudge on sets sometimes;

Most of the Tara mansion in "Gone With The Wind" was a matte painting - hell, most of Atlanta was too.

Matte paintings, glass paintings, foreground miniatures, optical mattes, all much better looking than CGI if done right.

 

[StarTrek1701]

I think it depends on what context CGI is being used. Obviously for a movie like Star Wars, Trek or Cloverfield, you'd need to use CGI. I do agree the CGI in Indy looked quite the fake, but I have no complaints whatsoever for Transformers, Davey Jones in PotC and Superman Returns. Those had CGI at the forefront and except the fact of believability, you could never tell those were CGI.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...I'm not sure I'm reading this quite the same way as you are. He's said that you can't build sets for everything, but that's not news. Even Cecil B. DeMille had to fudge on sets sometimes;

Most of the Tara mansion in "Gone With The Wind" was a matte painting - hell, most of Atlanta was too.

Matte paintings, glass paintings, foreground miniatures, optical mattes, all much better looking than CGI if done right.

No, they're not. They look less real.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Most of the Tara mansion in "Gone With The Wind" was a matte painting - hell, most of Atlanta was too.

Matte paintings, glass paintings, foreground miniatures, optical mattes, all much better looking than CGI if done right.

No, they're not. They look less real.

I disagree. A properly done foreground miniature is seemless. A great matte & glass painter like Peter or Harrison Ellenshaw could make a painting of a landscape look real. And optical mattes are still used today. Also miniatures like spaceships can look very real when done right.

I think it depends on what context CGI is being used. Obviously for a movie like Star Wars, Trek or Cloverfield, you'd need to use CGI. I do agree the CGI in Indy looked quite the fake, but I have no complaints whatsoever for Transformers, Davey Jones in PotC and Superman Returns. Those had CGI at the forefront and except the fact of believability, you could never tell those were CGI.

I agree that the CGI in Transformers was very good but it wasn't the whole movie. It was the Transformers themselves combined with live action elements.

 

[Jon1701]

I wonder why the CGI in Indy IV looked so fake. You'd have thought ILM would have been on its A game.

Was it the short time between shooting and release date perhaps.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

I wonder why the CGI in Indy IV looked so fake. You'd have thought ILM would have been on its A game.

Was it the short time between shooting and release date perhaps.

The biggest problem was the fake lighting. The whole film was given a CGI lighting effect. It almost makes it look like you're watching an animated movie. Also, the CGI effects had that flat look. Remember Peter Jacksons King Kong (and I know I keep coming back to it, but Sky Captain as well), how everything looked lifeless and fake? That's how Indy 4 looks. ILM was on there "A" game but that's the look Hollywood is pushing these days.

 

[darkshadow0001]

Isn't it a bit early for a trailor for Star Trek? It's still a year away before it's out. I'd say sometime in the fall we'll probably see something.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Isn't it a bit early for a trailor for Star Trek? It's still a year away before it's out. I'd say sometime in the fall we'll probably see something.

Yes, you're probably right. But you think they would have at least shown the already released teaser trailer.

 

[M'Sharak]

I wonder why the CGI in Indy IV looked so fake. You'd have thought ILM would have been on its A game.

Was it the short time between shooting and release date perhaps.

The biggest problem was the fake lighting. The whole film was given a CGI lighting effect. It almost makes it look like you're watching an animated movie. Also, the CGI effects had that flat look. Remember Peter Jacksons King Kong (and I know I keep coming back to it, but Sky Captain as well), how everything looked lifeless and fake? That's how Indy 4 looks. ILM was on there "A" game but that's the look Hollywood is pushing these days.

Still a carry-over from 300 (or the more recent Beowulf), perhaps? Intentionally comic-book-y?

 

[Tom Servo]

It might have been intentional. Some of the fun about indy is the idea that it looks like a film that was made around the time it was based, i.e it was supposed to look like a 30's film, in the 30's. Maybe ILM was told to give the new Indy a bit of an artificial look to make it look like a 1950's scifi film.

 

[TheBrew]

Blah, blah, blah IHateTheNew, blah, blah, blah CGIisTheWorstThingEver!!! blah, blah, blah LucasSucks, blah, blah, blah.

Did I get it right?

 

[M'Sharak]

^ It depends upon where you happen to be standing.

It might have been intentional. Some of the fun about indy is the idea that it looks like a film that was made around the time it was based, i.e it was supposed to look like a 30's film, in the 30's. Maybe ILM was told to give the new Indy a bit of an artificial look to make it look like a 1950's scifi film.

Exactly. There is good CGI and there is inept CGI, but there are also stylistic choices. Realism is only one available option; there are others equally valid.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

I wonder why the CGI in Indy IV looked so fake. You'd have thought ILM would have been on its A game.

Was it the short time between shooting and release date perhaps.

The biggest problem was the fake lighting. The whole film was given a CGI lighting effect. It almost makes it look like you're watching an animated movie. Also, the CGI effects had that flat look. Remember Peter Jacksons King Kong (and I know I keep coming back to it, but Sky Captain as well), how everything looked lifeless and fake? That's how Indy 4 looks. ILM was on there "A" game but that's the look Hollywood is pushing these days.

Still a carry-over from 300 (or the more recent Beowulf), perhaps? Intentionally comic-book-y?

Yes, I think that look is desired by film makers today.

It might have been intentional. Some of the fun about indy is the idea that it looks like a film that was made around the time it was based, i.e it was supposed to look like a 30's film, in the 30's. Maybe ILM was told to give the new Indy a bit of an artificial look to make it look like a 1950's scifi film.

Intentional, but not effective IMHO. I mentioned before that after seeing Indy 4 I watched Indy 3. That had a much better period look to it.

Blah, blah, blah IHateTheNew, blah, blah, blah CGIisTheWorstThingEver!!! blah, blah, blah LucasSucks, blah, blah, blah.

Did I get it right?

No, I like the new, just not Indy 4. It's a matter of opinion (and I disliked the plot the most). And no, CGI is not the worst thing ever. Look back a couple of posts and you'll see I praised the CGI work in National Treasure Book of Secrets and Transformers. It's just a matter of how it's done. And how could Lucas suck? He invented Indy. And he created Star Wars. Both of the first films in each franchise are great.

^ It depends upon where you happen to be standing.

It might have been intentional. Some of the fun about indy is the idea that it looks like a film that was made around the time it was based, i.e it was supposed to look like a 30's film, in the 30's. Maybe ILM was told to give the new Indy a bit of an artificial look to make it look like a 1950's scifi film.

Exactly. There is good CGI and there is inept CGI, but there are also stylistic choices. Realism is only one available option; there are others equally valid.

Right, but sometimes a stylistic choice can be an inept one.

 

[Gepard]

Yes, it's very common. Star Wars Episode 1 was mostly CGI sets...Then King Kong did it.

Except you're wrong. CGI was used for some background plates, and set extensions in TPM, but the majority of the sets where the actors were standing were actually built.* Ditto King Kong, which, even when the "sets" were being composited in behind the actors used miniature and models sets instead of CGI. So whatever it is that's bothering you about these films, it's not that the environments are being created wholly within a computer like Sky Captain.

*You're not the only one to make this mistake; a pre-release article on TPM in Popular Mechanics made the same claim; IIRC, LucasFlim actually wrote a letter that was published in a subsequent issue correcting them on this.

Blah, blah, blah IHateTheNew, blah, blah, blah CGIisTheWorstThingEver!!! blah, blah, blah LucasSucks, blah, blah, blah.

Did I get it right?

Pretty much.

Look, people: film VFX have always looked fake in one manner or another. It's just that CGI and digital composting look fake in a new and different way from what you're used to, so you think it somehow sucks more. It does not.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Yes, it's very common. Star Wars Episode 1 was mostly CGI sets...Then King Kong did it.

Except you're wrong. CGI was used for some background plates, and set extensions in TPM, but the majority of the sets where the actors were standing were actually built.* Ditto King Kong, which, even when the "sets" were being composited in behind the actors used miniature and models sets instead of CGI. So whatever it is that's bothering you about these films, it's not that the environments are being created wholly within a computer like Sky Captain.

*You're not the only one to make this mistake; a pre-release article on TPM in Popular Mechanics made the same claim; IIRC, LucasFlim actually wrote a letter that was published in a subsequent issue correcting them on this.

Blah, blah, blah IHateTheNew, blah, blah, blah CGIisTheWorstThingEver!!! blah, blah, blah LucasSucks, blah, blah, blah.

Did I get it right?

Pretty much.

Look, people: film VFX have always looked fake in one manner or another. It's just that CGI and digital composting look fake in a new and different way from what you're used to, so you think it somehow sucks more. It does not.

I guess it's up to interpretation. TPM "set extensions" made up most of the shots. Yes, the actors have to have some percentage of actual set to stand on and interact with, even Sky Captain had small areas where actual chairs, desks, etc. were laid out. And as for King Kong, most of the landscapes and cityscapes were CGI, as was Kong himself (and let's not talk about Jar Jar Binks).

Yes, CGI is new and it's a different level of "fake", I'll give you that. But I watch something like Indy 4, Star Wars 1, 2, & 3, LOTR 1, 2, & 3, Spiderman 1, 2 & 3, Superman Returns, King Kong, etc. and I see overly fake, cartoonish effects. But then I watch something like Transformers and I see some of the best effects put on film. So not all CGI is bad. It's just a matter of style and personal taste.

And not all effects shots look fake. Many, many non-scifi movies have had major effects shots to create landscapes, etc. that no one ever notices because they're that good. It's a matter of skill, imagination, time and money (and sometimes sudelty).

But in the end we have (or I have) gotten way off topic. No trailer or teaser with Indy 4, that's what I really wanted to get across. As for Indy 4 itself, go see and judge for yourself. If you like it that's great.

 

[darkshadow0001]

Isn't it a bit early for a trailor for Star Trek? It's still a year away before it's out. I'd say sometime in the fall we'll probably see something.

Yes, you're probably right. But you think they would have at least shown the already released teaser trailer.

No, it's too early. There were complaints about Superman Returns when it came out in 2006... fans were expecting or hoping for a teaser during the Superbowl like Batman Begins received but never got one. I still say possibly later in the summer (maybe during The Dark Knight) or some other movie in the fall/winter.

And, in a way, they did, a few months ago (a teaser trailer)

 

[Jon1701]

Another article on the use of CGI