Indiana Jones

1150151153155156199

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,340
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh gosh, I wouldn't: it's VFX. If they're doing a stunt or a chase on set I'd say it's practical, if it's with effects done later by ILM or whoever then it isn't. Models are models, whether they're on a table or in a computer.

    Fair enough. I'd say there's quite a few in the film world who would disagree with you though! :)

    I don't get the obsession those people have with CG being somehow a bad or lesser thing, it clearly isn't. When Indy and his Dad are sat in that plane it isn't somehow better that the backdrop is being appalling optically matted around them than it is that the backdrop to some of the Skull chases is comped in digitally.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'll always view model work as a practical effect - it's real and tangible. If it's made through a computer, purely as a CGI creation, then it's VFX. That's how I see it.

    That is indeed the definition of practical effects, but not of practical stunts (both are VFX though), and we're talking about the Tuk Tuk chase.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited June 2023 Posts: 8,205
    mtm wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    Oh gosh, I wouldn't: it's VFX. If they're doing a stunt or a chase on set I'd say it's practical, if it's with effects done later by ILM or whoever then it isn't. Models are models, whether they're on a table or in a computer.

    Fair enough. I'd say there's quite a few in the film world who would disagree with you though! :)

    I don't get the obsession those people have with CG being somehow a bad or lesser thing, it clearly isn't. When Indy and his Dad are sat in that plane it isn't somehow better that the backdrop is being appalling optically matted around them than it is that the backdrop to some of the Skull chases is comped in digitally.

    No, it certainly isn't a bad or lesser thing. It's just a different tool that in itself can be utilised exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly.

    And I'd agree with your latter point.

    My original point was about people taking issue with the bad CGI in the Tuk-Tuk chase, which is not something I saw but what it felt like people were looking for.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'll always view model work as a practical effect - it's real and tangible. If it's made through a computer, purely as a CGI creation, then it's VFX. That's how I see it.

    Indeed, SFX as opposed to VFX. It might be seen as a subtle form of snobbery, but there's definitely a distinction to be made for things made with the intention of looking good in front of a camera versus things that are created in post. The sweet spot, for me, is when the two principles compliment each other.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,340
    Yeah I don’t see an issue with the effects in that chase. I can see the effects, but I don’t mind. As I say: it’s Indy, not Bond, and Indy has always enhanced with noticeable VFX, right from the beginning.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited June 2023 Posts: 8,205
    I had a guy on Twitter tell me that the chase wasn't all that exciting unless you were the type of person to find people chasing other people in Tuk-Tuks exciting.

    Clearly I am that type of person.

    321-13986.jpg

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    I'm of the camp that will take practical effects and stunts over CGI any day of the week. I don't think it's an objective stance really - we prefer what we prefer. That's why most superhero movies hold zero weight or excitement for me anymore; I'd rather watch a poorly edited fight scene between two actors over stuff like that. That's just me though.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited June 2023 Posts: 9,019
    DONE! I just booked two seats for my wife and me at the Savoy cinema in Hamburg on Friday, June 30, at 15:30. Original version.

    I would have liked to go a day earlier, since the first showing is on Thursday, June 29, at 13:00. But my wife cannot make it then due to her job. So I'm not really among the first ones outside the Cannes audience to see it, but early enough.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,959
    I still don't think my local theater has tickets available or I would've tried to scoop them up already. They're awful with giving a proper heads up on what's coming and when.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,340
    I had a guy on Twitter tell me that the chase wasn't all that exciting unless you were the type of person to find people chasing other people in Tuk-Tuks exciting.

    Clearly I am that type of person.

    321-13986.jpg

    That should shake them off!

    (I think that doesn't get the attention it deserves as possibly being the most dad joke in all of Bond :D )
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'm of the camp that will take practical effects and stunts over CGI any day of the week. I don't think it's an objective stance really - we prefer what we prefer. That's why most superhero movies hold zero weight or excitement for me anymore; I'd rather watch a poorly edited fight scene between two actors over stuff like that. That's just me though.

    I think there's a good chance that there's lots of CG stuff that's so good we've never spotted it though. Did you know that Paloma's legs in the NTTD fight when she's high-kicking people in the face are CG for example? I would never have known that.
    Likewise, I would never have known that the hangar door in the Octopussy Acrostar jet stunt was a foreground miniature unless I'd been told. If it's truly seamless like those, why does it matter either way? One may as well be fussy about the brand of lightbulb used on set to light it.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    When it comes to visual effects, it doesn’t matter if it’s done with miniatures or CGI. A good visual effect is a good visual effect. Also, when the Indy films began in 1981, it wasn’t made with a declaration that they’ll only ever make films from that point on the same way. They made them with the best visual effects available. If CGI was as advanced in 1981 as it was in 2008, they would have absolutely used it. I think the reason we see fans of Indy and Bond not being crazy about CGI is because they both have a direct lineage to a time when CGI didn’t exist, so there’s that desire to want to see the films be made like they were back in the day.

    When Spielberg said he would made CRYSTAL SKULL with old school methods, he wasn’t lying. He actually did have a ton of miniatures and stunt work. The thing is that many misinterpreted his comment as “there will be no CGI”. Maybe he could have made his comment clearer by phrasing it as “we’re gonna use CGI in combination with miniatures and practical stunt work” and that would have set expectations more reasonably.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2023 Posts: 40,959
    @mtm, well of course it's no problem if it's a well-kept secret because of how phenomenal and flawless it looks.

    I always forget this caveat but I figure it goes without saying, since I've made the point a lot over my many years here, but when I offer that preference, I mean CGI physically dominating the action. If it's an extension of the background, the location, etc., I couldn't care less, especially when I don't notice it.

    Hell, for all the grief I give SP for its poor implementation of it, there was a lot of B-roll footage I saw after the fact that I had no clue of after a few viewings, like the train being enlarged through visual work. That's great and works just fine for me. Patrice falling out the window in SF? Looks too rubber-bandy and cartoonish for my liking. And don't get me started on a lot of the superhero films of late.

    So yeah, I don't think anyone here is complaining about seamless, almost impossible to notice moments of CGI, myself included. Even if I realize they are after the fact, it doesn't bug me.

    @MakeshiftPython, reminds me of The Thing prequel, where most of it was shot with animatronics and methods that would've made fans of the '80s classic incredibly impressed, only for the studio to institute horrid CGI enhancements just weeks out from release. Definitely not the same situation but it proves one can go into filming with such intentions and have it cocked up by what's done in post.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,340
    Did you know that the DB5 being shot up in Skyfall was actually an old Porsche digitally altered to look like an Aston? I still can't work out how they made that look so perfect, but folks on Twitter still go on about it being a model effect and therefore somehow better (because a -really quite bad- model was made) when it wasn't. I genuinely don't get it.
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    So yeah, I don't think anyone here is complaining about seamless, almost impossible to notice moments of CGI, myself included. Even if I realize they are after the fact, it doesn't bug me.

    Well fair enough, but you did say you would take practical over CG 'any day of the week'; which is what I was responding to. I can only really answer what people say, and people say this all the time. If you follow Todd Vaziri on Twitter (a very experienced and celebrated VFX artist) one of his big bugbears is when films are promoted on the basis of 'it was all done practically' this or that, and it's easily disprovable that digital effects were used in pretty much every case, downplaying the work of other very talented artists. There's this weird stance that somehow digital is bad and less artistic in some way, which gets repeated and becomes received knowledge, but it's rubbish.

    For example, I think the model effects in GoldenEye are generally terrible. The plane crashing into the dish looks like absolute crap to me- and it did in the cinema too, and I don't give it any bonus points for being a practical model. I remember my friend and I watching it in the cinema and laughing at the huge water sloshing around in the Aricebo dish- it looked dreadful on a big screen. The shots of the Russian jets taking off from the runway look brilliant though, and are indistinguishable from the real thing.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2023 Posts: 40,959
    I did say that, and now I'm offering more context to it because I don't always say it verbatim but (clearly incorrectly) figure it goes without saying considering just how much I've repeated the sentiment over the years.

    I'll take practical effects/stunts over CGI any day of the week when it comes to being a major, integral part of the action itself, not in extending the world and universe around it.

    And funny, cause I love the model effects in GE through and through, and would take those over, say, a CGI jet flying into a CGI satellite dish 100% of the time. Doesn't make either side objectively right or wrong, it just goes to show that everybody has a preference.

    My opinion could change in 50 years if the technology was so unbelievable that you legitimately couldn't tell the difference but I'm not sure we'll ever reach that stage.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,340
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'll take practical effects/stunts over CGI any day of the week when it comes to being a major, integral part of the action itself, not in extending the world and universe around it.

    I'm not sure what that means really though. Was the DB5 explosion not integral? Here's what the real thing looked like:

    S1-Dans-le-film-Skyfall-ce-n-est-pas-une-Aston-Martin-DB5-qui-fut-detruite-341117.jpg

    Or Paloma's legs, Craig's face in the fight with Ash etc.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    I do wish CGI is as good for most films as AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER. I remember before seeing that film there was a trailer for ANT-MAN 3, and boy is that just night and day (though that’s more on the Disney executives overworking the f/x artists, sadly). You could say that film might get away with it just because it’s a superhero film and they’re more inherently cartoonish, but then GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY 3 came out a few months later and that looked far far better.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited June 2023 Posts: 40,959
    mtm wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I'll take practical effects/stunts over CGI any day of the week when it comes to being a major, integral part of the action itself, not in extending the world and universe around it.

    I'm not sure what that means really though. Was the DB5 explosion not integral? Here's what the real thing looked like:

    S1-Dans-le-film-Skyfall-ce-n-est-pas-une-Aston-Martin-DB5-qui-fut-detruite-341117.jpg

    Or Paloma's legs, Craig's face in the fight with Ash etc.

    I can't tell if you're somehow genuinely finding confusion in my opinion or what but it seems like we're now nitpicking absolute-split-second moments, so I'll try another angle.

    For an example to my original, now-overstated point, look no further than the DAD parasurfing garbage. That is an action scene completely dominated by CGI. That's what I don't like. Or look at the Avengers movies, when it's rubber-band looking Spider-Man flipping around the city or Iron Man awkwardly darting around at 200 miles an hour. It just holds no weight for me at all, I can't get into it. There's nothing tangible there for me to enjoy. If the tech was better? Maybe I wouldn't mind as much. That new Avatar movie is clearly in the same field, in terms of being so heavily CGI-focused but the technology there is so wildly, unbelievably impressive that I still had a damn good time and could get behind the emotional weight of it all and the excitement of the fights, the explosions, the crashes and the like.

    I don't mind the absolute tiniest enhancements I'll never know about it. I could've gone my whole life and probably not recognized the Paloma bit you mentioned. Hell, I'm sure, knowing it, I still won't even recognize it on a rewatch. Even in your provided shot, it just looks like a car to me, in a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,340
    It’s a completely different car, that’s my point. It’s integral to the scene: all effects are split-second really.

    And as I say, the model work in GE looked just as embarrassingly bad to me as the parasailing in DAD: in fact there’s a moment in DAD, where the dragster drives off the cliff and rebounds back, which I would say is the single worst effect in any Bond movie, and I’ve always thought it was a model effect. It may be CG but it’s so poor I genuinely can’t tell either way!
    I get what you’re saying, but even with Spider Man there are shots of him swinging about that Vic Armstrong did with a real stuntman than I think most people think are CG anyway and dismiss because there’s a mindset that digital is bad.

    To me, if it’s a bad effect, it’s a bad effect; and if it’s a good effect it’s just good and I probably don’t even notice it. And odds are, most digital effects fall into the latter.


    That said: I do think everything I’ve seen of the opening WW2 train bit of DoD looks way more digital than I’d prefer! I like a real stunt just as much as the next guy, and that scene does look a bit faker than I’d prefer. If it were all done with back projection I’d feel the same.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,556
    I wouldn't say all miniatures in GE looked bad - the train and Severnaya landscape/dish were great. The only reason the MiG looked fake was because it was bouncing up and down as it slid, due to its light weight. A full size jet would've dug into the ground more.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,340
    Yes, the model stuff shows how little weight it has, it looks like Thunderbirds, sadly. I tend to think John Richardson's modelwork was often better.
  • Last_Rat_StandingLast_Rat_Standing Long Neck Ice Cold Beer Never Broke My Heart
    edited June 2023 Posts: 4,575
    My family and I are doing an Indy marathon starting tonight with Raiders tonight leading up to Indy 5. Maybe like 1 movie a week.
  • talos7talos7 New Orleans
    Posts: 8,195
    I am a special effects aficionado; I gave an immense library of books dedicated to all types of special, and, special visual visual, effects. Every effects technique has a tell, and every technique has strengths and weaknesses. There are practical effects that look incredible, and practical effects that look horrible; the same can be said for CGI.

    While I find the creation of practical effects to be more interesting, and I see it advantages, I also see its weaknesses.

    I think it’s a mistake to trash one technique or another. As far as CGI, yes there is some painfully terrible work out there, but there is also an incredible amount of absolutely beautifully done work that for the most part is undetectable.

    The model work of Goldeneye is mentioned above; what makes that work look “fake” and model like are the explosions and fire effects. Fire and Water cannot be miniaturized; they are filmed at high speed, but in the end they are the wrong scale. If Goldeneye were to be filmed today, a hybrid technique would be used; miniatures would be combined with CG , scale appropriate, water and fire effects to make a much mor satisfying result.

    All special effects techniques are tools; they all have their place.
  • Posts: 1,394
    thedove wrote: »
    I will admit to liking The Critical Drinker. He gives props where and when it is needed. Check out his positive review of the new Spider-Man movie with Miles. He takes things to task when the writing or directing or acting aren't up to snuff. Yes he touches on "the message" stuff that tends to crop up now and again in new films and series, but his main focus is always the product.

    I fondly recall as a kid watching Gene Shalit on the Today show with fizzy hair and big glasses, Joel Siegel on Good Morning America. Those were critics that were entertaining on their own but never took themselves too seriously.

    As I stated earlier I am hopeful that this film gives the character a nice send off. I don't care for any spin off that may occur from this ":universe".

    This might not be the best place for this question but I do wonder how a character like Bond can be transferred to one actor to another and yet Indiana Jones seems to be Ford or no one. What is the difference? Is it because of the literary aspect? I will watch with some interest on how the new actor for the Harry Potter series fares with comparisons to Daniel Radcliffe.

    Well speaking of The Drinker..


  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited June 2023 Posts: 16,340
    I had a quick look at that: he hasn't seen it and repeats tired old lies about it being reshot lots of times. Just clickbait, not worth anyone's time.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,179
    He’s a grifter playing to an audience. Of course he’s gonna make a video like that.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    More nitpicking from our usual suspects on the minutiae of a film.
    Clickbait videos from internet morons.
    I can't wait for this film to finally arrive, so we can all make our own minds up.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Some here sound like they read certain “news sites” that have been posting much about the new Indiana Jones film; they claim that PWB punches Indy and “bosses” him around like a “Mary Sue”. Although they haven’t yet seen the film, these sites claim the film is “woke”, and on and on and on these “articles” go… They blame “Hollyweird” and the “child groomers” at Disney. It’s all vile stuff…

    In reality, these people are delusional and read what they want to see. They talk about PWB punching and bossing about Indy in this latest film, yet;

    Marion slugged Indy and was quite the ferocious character in Raiders— and that was in 1981!!! The concept of women “bossing” men around is a trope that has been embedded in pop culture for decades…

    It’s quite nauseating how a certain section of society forgets about this history, only to have an argument to tear down a film they haven’t even seen (or cite silly on-line “reviews”)…
  • edited June 2023 Posts: 1,394
    He’s a grifter playing to an audience. Of course he’s gonna make a video like that.

    He also said he’d never watch Star Trek Picard again and declared the franchise dead after enduring the horror of the first two seasons of that show.However,he was convinced to give Season 3 a go when he was advised by the likes of Rob Burnett ( who saw it months early ) that the final season was fantastic ( which it was ).

    Drinker really liked it and so did i.

    The difference here though is that the early word on Indy 5 is bad.Really bad.It is officially the lowest rated movie of the franchise on RT.
  • BennyBenny Shaken not stirredAdministrator, Moderator
    Posts: 15,129
    And many people couldn’t give a shit!
    I’ve never taken any notice of RT. And I’m not about to start now.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,019
    Benny wrote: »
    And many people couldn’t give a shit!
    I’ve never taken any notice of RT. And I’m not about to start now.
    I think that RT (and I don't mean Russia Today) is a valid source if you don't have an idea of whether you want to watch a certain movie. Nevertheless, you'll have to somehow combine its score with your own experience with other movies of the same kind, or those of the same franchise. And mine is: Spielberg never made a bad movie, even if he only produced it. And the first four Indy films were overall great fun. And I don't care if a bunch of critics think otherwise, until I myself come back from the theater disappointed. Which I don't expect will happen at all.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    I don’t remember the last time I read what a critic wrote, beyond a headline (which they done write anyways)— and I certainly don’t watch any reviews online.

    If I’m interested in a film, I’ll see it.

    If not, then maybe one day….

    But I find that modern reviews are seemingly like modern politics: ridiculous warfare.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    peter wrote: »
    If I’m interested in a film, I’ll see it.

    If not, then maybe one day….
    Words to live by.
Sign In or Register to comment.