Indiana Jones and the Backlash of CG in films (some minor spoilers)

[Hollywood]

Thought this would be a good topic since there seems to be some major hate on CG, and a lot of defenders of it who can't discern the differences and they completely miss the point.

The point is this: there's a major backlash against CG action scenes these days, ESPECIALLY in classic films like Indy and Die Hard. They were built on real time action and throwing in ridiculous CG stunts makes them look unbelievable and spits in the face of the original. Then the inevitable response is this: "Well dur, dur .. what about the stuff with the faces melting, explosions, etc in the other ones, its no different. Uh, yes it is. I don't have a problem using CG as special effects that can't otherwise be achieved by stuntwork. Like the face melting in Raiders. They just used a doll or some primitive method anyway. When they just use older versions of special effects, I see no problem upgrading them.

The difference is not only using CG as special effects, but basing your entire action scene after it. It just doesn't look real when Mutt is swordfighting on to of a moving car in the middle of a jungle, and then swings away with a hundred Pixar monkeys back to the chase. It's not even the fact he does it - its the fact its in CG and looks so unrealistic. I bet if they filmed the same exact shot in Raiders era and actually had him swinging back to the chase and real monkeys following him, and its edited correctly, there wouldn't be a problem even if the premise is silly. Old Indy movies are full of silly point A to point C moments that they don't show how and it's completely fine and no one would have thinks it was ridiculous.

Bottom line is people designing this shit need to do a litmus test. If you're having an action scene in a green room, you need to ask yourself, "can this be done realtime with stuntwork and stuff?" If the answer is yes, why the hell are you doing it in CG, except for the special effects? If the answer is no, an even bigger alarm should go off asking how in the hell is it supposed to be believable if even with the best stuntwork and choreography you can't replicate the scene. Mud's swordfire and getting crotched on CG plants anyone? John McClane surfing a fighter jet? I don't see why producers can't figure this stuff out nowadays.

[Mupepe]

I only hate CG when it's overdone.  The best use of CG is when it's used sparingly.  When an entire scene is based around CG it (most of the time) becomes painfully obvious.  It's a cheap tactic to spend less money on the scene and do it more easily at the expense of quality.

[The Fake Shemp]

I don't think it helps that the latest Indiana Jones is mediocre at best.

[Hollywood]

I don't think it helps that the latest Indiana Jones is mediocre at best.

Well the point is, it's made mediocre compared to the others by the fact that they do that stuff. One part is Harrison is just old, you can't get around that - the other part is there's a ton of CG, from the warehouse, to the action scenes, to this and that. I see nothing wrong with the basic story to the movie, if they cut out the ridiculousness in the movie, there would be a lot more love for it. Honestly, I think of about every return of a film series that people hate and CG is basically the center of that hate in every circumstance.

Mupepe understands, don't base your action scenes around it. If you can do it with stunts and realtime action, you should. It looks better, its more realistic, it draws you in more. And if you can't do any action scene without it being in CG, its too ridiculous to do and be believable anyway.

[The Fake Shemp]

Ford's age should not be used as an excuse.  Especially when Spielberg and Lucas are going on and on about how he's in the best shape of his life.  Indiana Jones was never a really acrobatic character to beging with.  Did you even watch Raiders?  He clumsily throws punches around.  His most memorable scene on film is where he does not participate in fight choreography, but rather shoots a guy with a gun.

His age has nothing to do with the abundance of CG.

[recursivelyenumerable]

I haven't seen the movie but as a CG enthusiast I have to object to all this scapegoating of innocent technology.  Computers don't kill movies, people kill movies.   

P.S. I have seen the Star Wars prequels, and the problems with them had absolutely nothing to do with the CG and production design, which was great and was in fact the best part of those movies.

[Hollywood]

Ford's age should not be used as an excuse.  Especially when Spielberg and Lucas are going on and on about how he's in the best shape of his life.  Indiana Jones was never a really acrobatic character to beging with.  Did you even watch Raiders?  He clumsily throws punches around.  His most memorable scene on film is where he does not participate in fight choreography, but rather shoots a guy with a gun.

His age has nothing to do with the abundance of CG.

Uh, I never said his age had anything to do with the abudance of CG. I even explicitly pointed out that him being old is something different than CG that makes this film mediocre compared to the others. I watched Raiders the day before, and watching him 27 years later, he's obviously aged a ton. He doesn't even sound the same a lot of times, except when he yells. You can't get around that though, and I got more acclimated to it as the movie went on. This movie would have been better made about 10 years ago, because Ford would have been younger, and there likely wouldn't have been near as much ridiculous CG.

[Hollywood]

I haven't seen the movie but as a CG enthusiast I have to object to all this scapegoating of innocent technology.  Computers don't kill movies, people kill movies.   

P.S. I have seen the Star Wars prequels, and the problems with them had absolutely nothing to do with the CG and production design, which was great and was in fact the best part of those movies.

I edited my original post because it was longer, so I just got to the point, but I pointed out the different in a CG fantasy film and an established realtime action film. Die Hard and Indiana Jones are perfect examples of the latter. CG is necessary and accepted in fantasy movies. Who would want to see a ghetto Spider-man swing around on harnesses in the movies? Star Wars you obviously need CG since the entire world is fantasy, and its impressive. In these films you need it, because they're fantasy, supernatural abilities and worlds. But you sure as hell don't need it for car chases and action sequences in Indiana Jones or Die Hard. And it's not even wanted. That's the difference.

[FlameOfCallandor]

Star Wars you obviously need CG since the entire world is fantasy, and its impressive.

WRONG

[Hollywood]

Star Wars you obviously need CG since the entire world is fantasy, and its impressive.

WRONG

I should rephrase that - some special effects are necessary. You could technically use whatever they did in the originals and look 20 times shittier, but thats besides the point. I'm not arguing with the Star wars homos. Point is, you create a fantasy worold, unless you're going out to space and have space fighter jets, you can't do a fucking realtime action scene in fantasy shit like that. Indiana Jones doesn't have much fantasy parts in it, and definitely not in the action scenes, so CG is not necessary.

[recursivelyenumerable]

OK, I don't really watch (pseudo-)realistic action movies, but I did sit through Die Hard 4 against my will.  The action scenes through most of the movie were designed to appear "gritty", hard-hitting, etc., up until the extended climactic sequence (with the planes and stuff), which was so over-the-top blatantly ridiculous that I figured the designers must've intentionally made it unbelievable as a subversive gesture against the movie's right-wing politics.  I thoroughly approve of such gestures, so nope, DH4 doesn't count here either.

[Bildi]

ITT we hate on CG?  Awesome.  I am quite good at suspending disbelief when I go to the movies, but CG that just looks fake is so tiring.

The worst I've ever seen would be Matrix 2 where Neo fights all the Agents. 

Also Terminator 3 had one of the most awesome action sequences around with the TX driving the crane truck but then sadly it was stuffed at the end with the blatant and jarring CG of the truck getting destroyed.

And don't even get me started on fucking CG Yoda. 

The only good CG character I can think of just now is Gollum, and I think a lot of that came because they copied an Andy Serkis' performance.  Gollum had a distinct lack of stupid "floaty movements" that comes with other CG characters.  And technically he did look sufficiently realistic not to stand out like a sore thumb.

[Phoenix Dark]

I'd also add Davy Jones to that short list. Both him and Gollum are great examples

I basically agree with Willco on Indy: the entire movie is over blown to compensate for a lack of purpose and soul, and CG is one of the flashiest ways to do that. I suppose Ford's age limited some decisions but I have a feeling that Spielberg/Lucas would inflate this movie even if Ford looked exactly like he did 20 years ago.

Die Hard still looks amazing today because it looks real. The same can be said of Raiders. Sure both films have some crazy over-the-top scenes but they don't RELY on them. Producers today would rather throw a bunch of shit at you hoping something sticks. POTC3 is one of the more recent examples of this.

I can't get into a scene when everything looks fake, or is too over blown, or too pretentious. The CG in the Matrix Reloaded car chase isn't horrible but imo it's an example of unnecessary, pretentious non sense that goes on for too damn long. It's one of the most expensive action scenes ever (iirc) yet is totally bland. 

[Bildi]

I'd also add Davy Jones to that short list. Both him and Gollum are great examples

I forgot about Davy Jones - he is also extremely well done.

[Mupepe]

Davy Jones and Gollum are incredible.  Gollum seems a little off in some spots, but jesus christ, he did a lot and interacted with the real world a lot and it looked incredible.