Jump to content
  • entries
    495
  • comments
    354
  • views
    177,241

Indiana Jones and the Temple of CGI


Flack

504 views

A couple of weeks ago while on vacation, Mason and I snuck away to catch the latest Indiana Jones film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I haven't brought myself to write a full review of the film for Review-o-Matic.com yet and I'm not sure I will. I'm not sure what to say about it -- if you liked the previous three movies and don't mind a greater than normal suspension of belief (even for an Indy film), then this one's a no-brainer. There were a few parts that seemed more of a parody of early serial adventures rather than a tribute, but the movie was fun and not boring or insultingly stupid and to tell you the truth that's all I ask for in an action/adventure movie these days. It will be interesting to see how this one stands up to the previous three Indiana Jones movies a few years down the road.

 

So while Mason and I were watching the movie, I remember an interview I read last summer. I have a pretty good memory when it comes to recalling things I've read. The article said something along about the new Indiana Jones movie would contain very little or no CGI. In fact, I remember specifically that the article referred to the use of CGI as "cheating". Using Google, I was able to quickly track down the article. From the summer of 2007:

 

US, July 9, 2007 - 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. (Source)

 

What a difference a year makes. Here's a clip from a more recent article:

 

"It's horrifying to work on a movie that has this many fans, but at the same time, it's an opportunity and a challenge," Helman told The Associated Press at the ILM offices less than a week before its release. "I think we were all very, very respectful of the other three movies but also to the fans. All the effects work that we're doing are completely reality-based."

 

That is if your reality includes a blooming atomic mushroom cloud, seemingly endless Area 51 warehouse, vicious monkey army, the City of Gold, thousands of man-eating ants and sundry otherworldly things. All those locales and critters were created by Helman and his ILM team for Crystal Skull, making up the film's 450 effects shots — not quite as many as the 600-plus in Transformers, but more than you might expect from a flesh-and-blood character from the 1950s.

 

About 300 artists and editors worked for eight months in post-production on a high-tech computer network at ILM's offices inside the Presidio of San Francisco, a long way from the Raiders of the Lost Ark and Temple of Doom days, when Indiana Jones special effects mostly consisted of miniature sets and a few blue-screen mash-ups. (Source).

 

In a year, the Indiana Jones crew went from "CGI is cheating and we won't use it" to a movie that contains 450 computer-generated effects shots, only 150 less than Transformers -- a movie that stars giant CGI robots. For the record I don't think that the use of CGI particularly hurt the latest Indiana Jones installment, but it does reaffirm the fact that the days of CGI-free action movies, along with Dr. Jones himself, may be relics of the past.

 

On a only-remotely-related note, Mason and I started playing Lego Indiana Jones last night. "Throw me the idol, I throw you the whip!"

 

lego_indiana_jones.jpg

2 Comments


Recommended Comments

Perhaps some filmmakers have come to believe that the only obstacle to people thinking movies were real was that the special effects weren't good enough. They think that if they were to do a good enough job of animating an elephant riding a unicycle on a tightrope while juggling five bowling pins with its trunk, people would believe that an elephant could actually do such a thing. Absolute rubbish notion, of course, but that's what some film makers seem to believe.

 

As a poster on IMDB noted, one of the things that made the earlier Indiana Jones movies work is that Indy started out not believing in the powers of the items he sought. His belief in such powers grew through the film; consequently, the audience's belief grew with his. This mess of acetate (or do they use polyester these days?) starts out with Indy concluding early on that the crystal skull has mystical powers, so there's nothing more for the audience to buy into.

 

Further, this film had even more of a "default-win" plot than the Raiders. Using a default-win plot (i.e. a plot which would end happily if the hero did nothing, thus meaning that the final happy ending happens in spite of the hero's efforts, rather than because of them) can be okay once in a series. Having two almost-default-win plots may be acceptable if the first is closer to a default-win than the second. Going the other way, however, is very bad.

 

Raiders was almost a "default-win" plot, but not quite. Without Indiana Jones' interference, the Nazis might have found the ark and might have (after a few disastrous attempts) figured out a way to harness its power. In KotCS, however, the same ending occurred but without the ambiguity. Since the aliens vanished, Indy's efforts counted for even less than in Raiders.

Link to comment
They think that if they were to do a good enough job of animating an elephant riding a unicycle on a tightrope while juggling five bowling pins with its trunk, people would believe that an elephant could actually do such a thing.

Or perhaps more to the point, that an audience would want to see such a thing.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...