Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Great news on Indy 4, less CGI

This is topic Great news on Indy 4, less CGI in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002463

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 09-09-2003, 10:43 PM:

As reported on imdb.com today

Producer Says 'Indy 4' Will Not Rely on CGI

Indiana Jones producer Frank Marshall is determined to shun the current trends in movie making - insisting the upcoming fourth installment of the hit franchise will avoid using computer effects. Frank is adamant the sequel to the hit Harrison Ford adventure franchise will retain the tradition of its classic forerunners by utilizing real stunt work instead of high-tech graphics, giving it the feel of a B-movie. He says, "We didn't have computer effects in those days, we couldn't easily erase things and I think one of the unfortunate by-products of the computer age is that it makes filmmakers lazy. You become more creative when you have to hide ramps with a tree rather than erase it later as you can today. In Raiders Of The Lost Ark, that's a real ball rolling behind him so Harrison really is in some danger running in front of that; these are real situations and that adds to the excitement and the creative energy on the set. When you start getting into computers you get fantastical situations like in The Matrix or movies like that. We don't want that, we want exciting heroism, we want seat-of-your-pants, skin-of-your-teeth action. We didn't have all the money in the world on the first films and we want to keep that B-movie feel. We want to make Indiana Jones 4 like we made the first three."

I'm glad to hear this, hopefully it will remain true. I wish the Bond people could take note of this and great back to the great stunts they're known for.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-10-2003, 12:51 AM:

In no particular order, here are the real stunts involved with this movie:

(a) Making a trilogy with a fourth part
(b) Making an aging Harrison Ford come off as a young, athletic adventurer
(c) Making another zillion dollars by strip-mining a Lucas franchise without destroying our fondness for the originals

Posted by Jeff Stricker (Member # 224) on 09-10-2003, 06:52 AM:

In five years the cable networks will be airing it every other nite like the current films in the series [thumbsdown]

Posted by Sam Hunter (Member # 1119) on 09-10-2003, 10:15 AM:

I think that Harrison Ford will still be just great as is as I figure they will not try to portray him as a young whipper snapper. I will gladly go see the forth installment just for the no CGI crap and secondly to see Indy kick butt.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 09-10-2003, 11:17 AM:

This is great news. If anyone can pull it off, these guys can. I was wondering how they were going to fit a "bullet time" scene into an Indy movie. [Smile]

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-10-2003, 12:31 PM:

My favorite scenario is to bring back Sean Connery as Indy's father. Set the story in the 1960's, with Indy's 20-something daughter as the adventuress, and her overprotective father and straight-laced grandfather worrying about and getting involved in her exploits.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-10-2003, 08:41 PM:

I don't see how ANY movie could be successful without bullet time, dinosaurs, fake ocean waves, and digitally altered backgrounds. If a movie didn't have these things, it would seem too real and I don't think anyone is ready for that.

Remember, if it ain't digital, it ain't no good!

------------------
Sign the petition to re-edit Casablanca to include Bullet Time to make it a better movie!

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-10-2003, 10:25 PM:

Got a link for that petition, Joe? I would hope Lawrence of Arabia will be digitally scanned in at 2000 lines of resolution and have bullet time added as well.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-11-2003, 01:46 AM:

Link is here. This is not a direct link as I can not find it, but it's here somewhere.

Lawrence of Arabia truly does need bullet time to become a good movie. Right now, without it, it is an absolute horrible abomination of a movie! I can't believe they had the gall to make this movie WITHOUT bullet time! If they scanned it in at 2,000 lines, it would be more than great! It would be PERFECT!

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-11-2003, 01:50 AM:

Actually, since it is "DIGITAL" they can could scan it in at only a mere 12 lines of resolution and laser encode it onto milk crates stolen from the back of a Wal-Mart Supercenter. Since it is perfect, crystaline "DIGITAL" it would be perfect!. Do I hear 8 lines of pixels blown up to the size of a house? Or 4 pixels the size of a truck. It's DIGITAL and since it is based on ones and zeros it is automatically Star-Trek Vision Good Enough!!!!

Just don't say anything like icky-analog 70mm. That wouldn't be digitally politically correct.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 09-11-2003, 02:12 AM:

No Bobby, you just don't seem to get it. These days there is no need to decrease resolution to save memory space like there was back in the old days of Compuserve GIF (which everyone loves). New compression algorythms by Kodak and Texas Instruments ensure that a single frame with 2,000 lines of resolution can be shrunken down to 6k of data. It may not look exactly like, or anything like the original (lossy = good enough), but it is digital. Lawrence of Arabia had pretty crappy looking visuals anyway. Nothing like Star Wars Episodes II or III or even Spy Kids, which makes ol' Arab Larry (probably a terrorist anyway) look like excrament smeared on the sidewalk. Those directors know what they are doing when it comes to visual quality. You need to understand. it's not about 12 or 8 lines of resolution. It's about compression. That way we can keep an AMAZING 2,000 lines of resolution and have it stored on a server in the theater and it will only take 5 to 10 seconds for the studios to transfer it from auditorium to auditorium over the 10 base ethernet connection! Also included in that 6k per frame is digital watermarking. As you know, everyone is evil and this is a good way to prevent people from stealing the movie at the theater level, since it has been proven that's where ALL piracy occurs.

JUST ANNOUNCED: Included on most current digital projectors is the bullettime.exe file that can randomly take ANY scene from ANY movie and bullet time it's sorry ass for added enjoyment by the audience! So I guess the petition worked!

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 09-11-2003, 02:06 PM:

Harrison Ford and Sean Connery are actually only 12 years difference in age. Connery is now 73 and Ford is 61, but Ford looked younger than his age and Connery looked older, so it worked.

This has happened before. When Dustin Hoffman made The Graduate, he was 30 and Anne Bancroft, who played his girlfriend's mother, was actually only 36.

But I do like John's idea of teaming Ford, Connery and some young female lead to play Indiana's daughter, as long as it doesn't come across as Lara Croft. The problem is that Last Crusade takes place in 1938, so for his daughter to be 20 in the new film, it would have to take place in 1958 or later, unless they pull the "daughter he didn't know about and suddenly shows up" b.s. But if successful, this would be a plus for the studio because it's a way to extend the franchise, and we all know that studios love franchises.

My guess is that they'll probably plot the film in the late 40's. Spielberg seems obsessed with Nazi villains, so I suspect they'll do that again, although I hope they would opt for something more original.

There was an episode of the Indiana Jones Chronicles TV show in which Ford reprised his role and played Indiana Jones at 90-something years old.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-11-2003, 02:24 PM:

Ugh! I don't know about this. I thought Connery ruined the 3rd Indiana Jones movie as it was. To me it took the fun and spirit from the movie and tried to make a comedy out of it. Bringing in a daughter will destroy all of that far moreso. No more family members!!! Just concentrate on Indiana Jones. That's who people are coming to see anyway.

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-11-2003, 06:26 PM:

Hmm .. Kirsten Dunst in a constantly wet (and cold) shirt? Might work. [Big Grin]

Oh, wait .. that's been done already.

If they mention Tea Leoni, tho, somebody's gettin' hurt! [Mad]

Ron Yost

Posted by John Lasher (Member # 968) on 09-11-2003, 11:45 PM:

Indy 4 sounds boring to me. Were I a betting man, I would bet the plot will go something like this.

Seemingly major catastrophe (but really relatively minor).

Indy finds out which thing he's trying to find (out).

Indy packs his gun, whip and hat and goes to find (out) the thing.

Indy fights the bad guys.

Indy finds (out) the thing.

Indy fights the bad guys some more.

Indy wins.

Roll credits.

...blah, blah, blah...shut up! I'm bored! Movies are boring me! Between 4 mainstream theaters and one art house in the area, there is not one movie showing locally that I'm remotely interested in seeing in a theater.

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 09-12-2003, 12:07 AM:

Spielberg said he made the third one as an act of contrition (for the second one) but really I didn't mind TEMPLE OF DOOM and I absolutely hated LAST CRUSADE.

The phrase -- "I have a bad feeling about this" -- comes to mind.

All the same, I hope I'm wrong. If they can make a good 4th movie then God bless 'em.

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 09-12-2003, 12:53 AM:

Speaking of Sean Connery's age:

When Sean Connery left the 007 series & Roger Moore was cast, part of the idea was that he looked younger than Connery. Ironically, Roger Moore is *older* than Sean Connery.

I personally liked Roger Moore's James Bond movies, but there are some rabid, frothing Connery-is-the-only-Bond folks out there.