I beg to differ one thing...

Posted by IndyCoil from dialup-208-187-56-59.pre.commspeed.net (208.187.56.59) on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 at 5:03am :

In Reply to: Is there still magic in movies? posted by Man With Cool Hat from net24-164-114-191.neo.rr.com (24.164.114.191) on Tuesday, June 11, 2002 at 11:46pm :

In Episode II, I still had the "How'd they do that". Granted, I've grown up in the heart of the digital era, so I tend to look at CGI in a different light. My "How'd they do that" moment came in the whole battle scene. I mean, HOW did they digitally create so many things and still make it look believable? The magic is still there fore me.

Now, as far as Indy IV goes. I will say y $.2

I don't think HF is too old. Hell no. But I guess K-19 will be the faith-tester.

And I agree about the use of CGI in Indy IV, but for one reason.

Indiana Jones is not a graphical movie. It was never meant to be. It never was, never will be. Star Wars(1977), that was SUPPOSED to amaze us with graphics technology. Indiana Jones, Until TOD, there really wasn't any technology, it was all shot live, with the exception of the Map Room, The Warehouse, and the Ark opening, but the rest was all real. Well, the part where the sub enters the island, sure, that was fake, but it was such a classic cinema trick that it really doesn't count. But I think if there's anything in Indy IV that is obviously CGI and is WAY over the top, it will take nostalgia down a notch.

I really think they should use the same type of graphics they did in Cast Away. Until I saw the DVD extras, I didn't know that 90% percent of that movie was fake(For those who don't know, the part where Tom Hanks looks out over the cliff and you can see practically the whole island, was CGI. It was shot in a parking lot.) That's the kind of CGI they should use. But I won't like it one bit if I see one digitally animated monster, animal, death-scene or crappily animated, gigantic, frickin' scorpion that's played by a professional wrestler.

Follow Ups:

Re: I beg to differ one thing... - Man With Cool Hat 9:35am 06/12/2002

Post a Followup

Name:

E-Mail: ( default )

Subject:

Message:
: In Episode II, I still had the "How'd they do that". Granted, I've grown up in the heart of the digital era, so I tend to look at CGI in a different light. My "How'd they do that" moment came in the whole battle scene. I mean, HOW did they digitally create so many things and still make it look believable? The magic is still there fore me. : Now, as far as Indy IV goes. I will say y $.2 : I don't think HF is too old. Hell no. But I guess K-19 will be the faith-tester. : And I agree about the use of CGI in Indy IV, but for one reason. : Indiana Jones is not a graphical movie. It was never meant to be. It never was, never will be. Star Wars(1977), that was SUPPOSED to amaze us with graphics technology. Indiana Jones, Until TOD, there really wasn't any technology, it was all shot live, with the exception of the Map Room, The Warehouse, and the Ark opening, but the rest was all real. Well, the part where the sub enters the island, sure, that was fake, but it was such a classic cinema trick that it really doesn't count. But I think if there's anything in Indy IV that is obviously CGI and is WAY over the top, it will take nostalgia down a notch. : I really think they should use the same type of graphics they did in Cast Away. Until I saw the DVD extras, I didn't know that 90% percent of that movie was fake(For those who don't know, the part where Tom Hanks looks out over the cliff and you can see practically the whole island, was CGI. It was shot in a parking lot.) That's the kind of CGI they should use. But I won't like it one bit if I see one digitally animated monster, animal, death-scene or crappily animated, gigantic, frickin' scorpion that's played by a professional wrestler.

Optional Link ( default )

URL:

Title:

Optional Image Link ( default )

URL:

This board is powered by the Mr. Fong Device from Cyberarmy.com