Will CGI take over?

Andiana · Post by **Andiana** » Sat May 29, 2004 12:07 am

I am very worried about new films and having bullwhips in them.

When I watched "The Rundown," with the Rock, I saw many scenes with bullwhip material. Most of the time though, the actors never cracked the whip, and they used CGI later in post production.

Then with Catwomen. Yes, Ms. Berry did learn how to use and crack a whip, but from the various trailer and clips I have seen, the whip she uses looks a lot like CGI.

So what does this mean for IV (if it ever gets made)?
Will Indy be using a 'CGI' whip instead of the real deal? With Lucas, you never know.....(hec, he might even give Indya lightsaber....nah...)

Maybe I'm being to worried, but what about the real art of the bullwhip, like we have seen in the Indy Films, and the westerns, and Zorro.....

Trevelyan · Post by **Trevelyan** » Sat May 29, 2004 12:33 am

If Indy iv ever gets off the ground, I wouldn't be too worried about computer generated whips. One of the reasons most of Indy's stunts are real (not done with models or computers) is that they aren't so far over the top that an actor or stuntman couldn't do them. For some reason, I just don't see Indy swinging two whips at a time, grabbing a gun out of the air with one and strangling someone with the other. All of his whip work, although amazing at times, is pretty basic. I do share the concern about cgi in general though. There's just something special about knowing that everything is real. In the old Bond movies, when people would say how ridiculous a stunt was (I'm thinking Live and Let die barrel roll), I always say that if a stuntman can do it, then Bond can. I guess that's also one of the reasons I liked M:I 2 so much when no one else seemed to. Knowing that Tom Cruise was really doing all those stunts, and doing an iron cross on the mountain, helped make the movie for me. It's just not the same when entire armies and sets are created on the computer.

Cassidy · Post by **Cassidy** » Sat May 29, 2004 10:26 am

Everybody seriously needs to quit busting Lucas' *&%!. C'mon. The Indy movies have been a collaborative effort, and do you seriously think someone like Spielberg is going to okay a CGI bullwhip?

ob1al · Post by **ob1al** » Sat May 29, 2004 1:28 pm

Everybody seriously needs to quit busting Lucas' *&%!

George Lucas is obviously surrounded by 'YES' men already and IMO it's only the people on the ground - like us - who are keeping it real.

I admire and enjoy much of George's work but I have to turn a blind eye to the bad points of the new SW films in order to enjoy them. I wouldn't like to have to do that with Indy IV, if it ever gets made - which is looking increasingly unlikely.

In fact, at this rate, we may be discussing the merits or a CGI INDY in a few years time, not just his whip. Seriously, I can see it happening for a few action sequences.

do you seriously think someone like Spielberg is going to okay a CGI bullwhip?

Well he okayed ( and pioneered) CGI dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, so why not? AI used lots of CGI, so did Minority report.

One thing's for sure - if they do get around to making Indy IV, you can bet your bottom dollar it'll be shot on Digital Video rather than film. Lucas has spent megabucks developing DV and all the new SW movies have been shot this way.

gobo · Post by **gobo** » Sat May 29, 2004 8:31 pm

It would never be shot digitally. Spielberg hates digital cameras. He says "I'm going to direct all my films on film until they shut the lab down."

Indiana Joe · Post by **Indiana Joe** » Sun May 30, 2004 2:35 am

gobo wrote:It would never be shot digitally. Spielberg hates digital cameras. He says "I'm going to direct all my films on film until they shut the lab down."

I would also add that for Lucas' love of CGI, use of this device would take away from the Indy trilogy's "B serial" intent. Assuming Indy IV goes forward, I think Spielberg could talk Lucas out of using CGI in order to maintain the "B serial" integrity.

I.J.

Neolithic · Post by **Neolithic** » Sun May 30, 2004 3:00 am

Ugh.
Compare the CGI crowd/battle scenes in Troy, or worse, The Mummy Returns to the real crowd/battle scenes in Lawrence of Arabia. You can tell what's fake and what's real.
CGI isn't quite there yet- it's close- but still no cigar. This period in film history will go down as a period of over computerisation- it'll probably take them a few more years to settle down.
I have no problem with CGI in film so long as it doesn't detract from the visual reality of the drama (there's a lot of CGI in Bridget Jones' Diary but you'd never know it).
I doubt they could make a decent CGI whip just yet. I agree 148, the CG guys tend to overdo it a bit, but I'm with Indiana Joe on this- I think Spielberg, if his heart is in Indy IV, will continue the great 'B' film tradition and keep any CGI used (it's 99.5% certain it will appear somewhere) relevant to the story and within the parameters of 'reality'.

Swindiana · Post by **Swindiana** » Sun May 30, 2004 5:02 am

Indeed. A good example of what CGI should be can be found in Band of Brothers. CGI used in a way to make things look real, not unreal.

Regards,
Swindiana

gobo · Post by **gobo** » Sun May 30, 2004 9:45 am

Most of the CG in Lord of The Rings looked totally convincing as well.

I wrote my master's thesis on digital cinema, and feel the urge to be nitpicky and clarify a few matters here.

The Phantom Menace was shot on ordinary 35mm film, not a digital camera. Attack of the Clones and the third film were shot on the Sony 24p Sony digital camera with an anamorphic Panavision lens, nicknamed SonyVision.

DV and HD are two different formats altogether. DV is the qualitative equivalent of 16mm film, while HD is comparable to 35mm.
Digital video and CG do not necessarily travel hand in hand. Some people, like Sidney Lumet and the Danish Dogme directors, like the digital format for its handiness and the naturalistic look it produces. Spielberg loves to use CG in his films, but says he'll be the last person to use digital cameras.
Robert Rodriguez loves digital cameras as well, because it allowes him to make his movies cheaper and quicker. I'd say they suffer for it.
I would not worry about the use of CG in an Indy film. At the most, we'll see some digital matte paintings. We should rather be concerned about the quality of the script.

gobo · Post by **gobo** » Sun May 30, 2004 12:07 pm

I agree that Raiders is the best of the three by far. It feels fresh and exhilarating on every viewing, and I must have seen it fifty times. It's on my all time top ten list. For the record, here it is:

1. Lawrence of Arabia
2. Bride of Frankenstein
3. North by Northwest
4. Raiders of the lost Ark
5. The Lord of the Rings
6. Gods and Monsters
7. Animal Crackers
8. High Noon
9. Fight Club
10. Star Trek: The Motion Picture

I also agree that compared to Raiders, LC is a slight disappointment. The story is too similar to Raiders, and the downsizing of Brody and Sallah to comedy sidekicks is an insult to the characters. But then again, Connery is fabulous in it, and the interplay between father and son is pure cinematic joy.
But here's my point: LC is disappointing. The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles are disappointing. The SW prequels are disappointing. So were the last two Alien movies, and most of the Star Treks. The Highlander sequels are downright @#$%. But these entries have in no way diminished my enjoyment of the originals. And with the right script, Indy 4 would rule!

Ghos7a55assin · Post by **Ghos7a55assin** » Mon May 31, 2004 1:26 pm

I also have to admit that most CG is not comparable to the real thing. I recently saw Hellboy....and the CG was just terrible. I also have to say that 90% of the backgrounds in SW: Episode II looked as fake as fake comes. They looked like they were walking through paintings, and it was obvious they weren't real.
CG is good when used correctly though...the CG in Lord of the Rings was amazing! Gollum and shelob and all the armies in massive looked enitrely real to me. I think this was because they only used special effects when they needed to, unlike Lucas. Also, I thought the CG is Spider-man looked good as well.

Ray

gobo · Post by **gobo** » Mon May 31, 2004 11:05 pm

I watched AOTC again on DVD last night, and actually kind of dug it. It feels like a Star Wars film, something The Phantom Menace doesn't. But the Yoda-Dooku fight is just about the corniest thing in movie history, and Portman is so terrible you would think she was CG!

The CG in Spider-man is good, except for the bit where he's chasing after his uncle's killer, dressed in the makeshift costume. In those shots, he looks like a Tekken character.
I'm saddened to hear that the CG in Hellboy *****. It hasn't opened here yet, and I was really looking forward to it. I adore the comic book.

There was actually some CG in LC as well; part of Donovan's death was done digitally.

Bad Penny · Post by **Bad Penny** » Mon May 31, 2004 11:53 pm

I don't think CG bullwhips will take over. CG muzzle bursts have been possible for quite a while, but films still use blanks.

There really is no need for a CG bullwhip anyway. What couldn't you make a bullwhip do that you'd need CG?

gobo · Post by **gobo** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:41 am

Most CG is a total cop-out. It's a popular tool not because it looks good, but because it's cheap.
Me and a few friends made a scifi-movie last year called Future Wars. It cost about $1800 to make, has a running time of 33 minutes, and looks pretty awesome. It's won a few awards and much acclaim. You can read all about it on our childish, insipid homepage:

www.homemade.org

It has plenty of CG in it, which didn't really cost a thing, except for a lot of work. After being through such a process, a movie like The Day After Tomorrow is less than impressing.

IndianaGuybrush · Post by **IndianaGuybrush** » Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:15 pm

Gobo, I think the fact that you guys did your own CG work is awesome, but it's also probably why it didn't cost you anything but time

In the private sector time = money and paying skilled workers for their time can be very expensive. I think a large part of why we are seeing so much CGI is because it's relatively new, it's very popular, and the novelty hasn't worn off yet. Already we're seeing (some) movies scale back a bit on it, and use it to enhance rather than carry. I guess CGI is kind of like make-up : it looks best when you can't tell it's there.

Andiana · Post by **Andiana** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 10:50 am

Bad Penny wrote:There really is no need for a CG bullwhip anyway. What couldn't you make a bullwhip do that you'd need CG?

Seriously though, I think the 'Run-Down' and (son to be) 'Catwomen' have insulted the art of the bulwhip. I mean, as Bad Penny said, what couldn't you make a bullwhip do, that you'd need CGI?

From diferent conversations with Speilberg, he mentions wanting to keep the 'B' movie feeling, like the films in the 80's. You would never see a CGI whip in the 80's. I always thought of Indy having a 'B' movie feeling, and that is how it should stay, but as I said before.....when Lucas gets his hands on his films....

(and let's not get into detail here) but am I correct that since Lucas wasn't impressed by the new Indy IV, he turned it down, and is writing it himself!!! Oh boy..... (Remember he wrote the diologue for the new Star Wars films...............exactly)

thefish · Post by **thefish** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:09 pm

First of all, as a caveat to the following post, allow me to explain that I am a huge advocate of digital cinema. I jumped on the Digital Video bandwagon back in '98 when I purchased a broadcast DV camera, and haven't looked back since, (save to thumb my nose at the ones on the other side of the digital divide.) It's leveled the playing field, and really allowed some fantastic artists to showcase their work in ways that wouldn't have been possible a decade ago. That's a good thing.

There, are however drawbacks. As the playing field has been leveled, there is a tendency, (as there always has been,) toward laziness, cheapness, and general tackiness.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...

[quote]I mean, as Bad Penny said, what couldn't you make a bullwhip do, that you'd need CGI? [/quote]

In the Rundown, I don't think it was so much what the whip or a talented whip artist couldn't do, it was what the camera couldn't do. Seriously, the fight scene where they do all the slow-mo where the one guy cracks the gun out of the Rock's hand would have been a nightmare to actually set up.

The fall on the whip is travelling at close to 700 miles per hour, and the frame rate needed from the camera for the slow-mo would be fairly high, (off the top of my head, from memory of the scene, I'd say 96-120 frames per second.) That means your frame exposure is going to be much shorter. That means more light is needed to get a good picture from the film.

Tack on to that, an astronomical shutter speed so that the whip wasn't just a blur. That means even more light is needed.

That also means REALLY EXPENSIVE film stock, and due to the very high frame rate, (to get that slow motion effect,) that means a lot of it. Do three GOOD takes of that shot, with multiple cameras rolling to get the cut aways, along with all the takes that DON'T go perfectly, and that equals a good chunk of change for a 5 second shot.

OR, you hire a few animators to look at some reference video of a guy in a studio cracking a whip. Some reference video of the guy on set cracking a whip WITHOUT the Rock in the shot, (during his luch break, manicure, or make-up touch up,) a prop whip to model the CG whip on, and give him caffiene.

CG isn't insulting the art of the bullwhip any more than it's insulting the art of the stuntman who's been replaced with a 3D model, or the model maker who's been replaced by the pixel pusher, or even the true the art of filmmaking because now everyone EXPECTS to see over the top CGI in any movie with a budget!

CG is just a tool.

It's a hammer.

That's all. I've seen some great stuff done with CG. I use CG often myself for things that I otherwise couldn't have even dreamt of doing. But if I can do something optically, I do it optically. CG is a good tool, but it's also a trap door, and a cop out, and I've NEVER seen a CG shot that looked real, (that includes Lord of the Rings, which I liked, but wasn't worth the hype!)

In my opinion, the Rundown was a pretty good action flick ruined by a director who obsessed over CG. Those CG shots WEREN'T needed. The gun getting cracked out of the hand was COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. It was FLUFF. Was this the fault of the CG artists? No it was the fault of sloppy filmmakers.

CG is a good thing when it's used right. It just seldom is in Hollywood.

On a similar note, I'll be royally p*ssed off if Lucas "Star Wars"-ed the next Indy film, which he will. But, as far as I'm concerned, he's already Jar-Jarred it up the exhaust port it by writing the script. I'll save my $10 in theater admission and put it toward the purchase of a pixel-free whip, and just stay home and watch the original trilogy on DVD.

Cassidy · Post by **Cassidy** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:09 pm

Where did you hear that he was writing them himself? I would also like to remind the Lucas detractors that he came up with all of the original Indy stories (*not the screenplays), but the meat of the ideas came from Lucas.

He's not all bad.

Cassidy

thefish · Post by **thefish** » Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:27 pm

He's not all bad.

Well, he WASN'T all bad.

Orson Welles was a brilliant, loudmouth, genius too, and he ended his days selling cheap wine on crummy commercials. A farce of himself.

These days, Lucas seems so caught up in the tools to create the work, that he utterly ignores the work itself.

I personally don't care if Speilberg shoots Indy IV on film or HD. I'd personally do HD, but it's a comfort level thing, and Steven is better with film, (actually, I don't think ANYONE is good with HD yet, but give it time,) and either way, it acts as a polar opposite to Uncle George's MORE DIGITAL, MORE OFTEN mantra.

George is starting to buy into his own legend. I can see why. I used to worship the man. He is why I went into the field that I'm in, and I'll tow the line and say that digital is a fantastic medium that in many ways blows film out of the water, but that's about where it stops. When it comes to storytelling, and weeding down a story to it's essentials to make it tight, consise, and compelling, he's fallen to an idol of clay, (or at the very least gold-painted plasticene.)

Holy Smoke, Dr. Jones! Wasn't this the whip forum. Sorry for hijacking.

Well, the whips in Underworld weren't CG, (about the only thing that wasn't,) but they were sorely underused, and stunk when they were.

Andiana · Post by **Andiana** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:11 am

No offense to Lucas folks, because if it hadn't been for him, we wouldn't be here right now would we? All I'm sayin' is that his latest Start Wars films have been....flops.....(Jar Jar and Anakin), because he wrote them.

Maybe I said it the wrong way. CGI isn't 'insulting' the art of the bullwhip, it's just that...well..dang.....I forgot what I was going to say...

(thinks of a cover-up)

How 'bout those Dolphins eh?

Neolithic · Post by **Neolithic** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 1:47 am

I think, Indy148, that it's also 'cause Uncle George directed them. I've read interviews with some cast members from THX1138 that George was uncomfortable with actors way back then.

Just thank the powers that be that we never were given a Raiders 'Special Edition'.

Andiana · Post by **Andiana** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 2:14 am

Oh yeah, that's right, he did direct them...

Also, (for those who have rhe DVDs) if you guys remember, the reason Lucas didn't take on the job of directing ROTLA, is because he said he was too "lazy."

I bet he was thinking up Jar Jar while Sepilberg was directing......oh well.

(Um also, not to get to picky here, but almost every CGI character that has a main role in a film, talk in third person, or in riddles....

*Yoda
*Smeagol/Gollum
*Dobby,

for example)

LuckyLighter · Post by **LuckyLighter** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:18 pm

If this question was posed this time last year, I would be very concerned. But based on the documentaries that came with the DVD set, I feel a lot better about this topic. I got the feeling from the interviews with Lucas and Spielberg that they look at the Indy movies seperately from the rest of thier canon. They get the pedigree of the Indy movies--the spirit of the original cliffhangers they were based on. This isn't Star Wars, nor is it Jurassic Park. Unlike with his Star Wars trilogy, Lucas understands what WE like about Indy, and both filmmakers know that we like the fact that the stunts are REAL. They know that's what made the trilogy so wildly popular and appealing. They understand the spirit of the films.

And unlike Star Wars, Indy never really was about special effects, it was about the stunts and the adventure. Lucas is under the impression that we love Star Wars for the effects and the imagery. He doesn't realize it was for the characters and the story / themes. But I think they both know why we love Indy. They'll keep faithful to that spirit, that was the reason they made Indy in the first place. "Quick and dirty" was Lucas' quote, "It has to be done quick and dirty."

They'll do it right when they get around to it. Trust me.

thefish · Post by **thefish** » Thu Jun 03, 2004 12:54 pm

I truly doubt Harrison would do it if it were not true to the spirit of the originals.

But then, money talks...

Hard to say.