What is Digg?182 Comments
- Coven, on 05/28/2008, -0/+134Um. Steven, we noticed...
- pimpbot1979, on 05/28/2008, -0/+70They dusted off and brought back the camera lens, craftsmanship and film style from Raiders of the Lost Arc and used them on the camera and crew that filmed Big Mama's House IV.
- CTK14A, on 05/28/2008, -2/+72Of all the movies to have used so much CGI, why the Indiana Jones franchise? When Kate Capshaw was riding a stinky elephant through a miserable jungle in Temple of Doom, you KNEW the elephant stank and that the jungle was miserable. Is Hollywood too pampered these days to get their hands dirty, on location, and not in a green-screen stage?
- mikephimikephi, on 05/28/2008, -0/+64...and then George Lucas thought he would make it better with CGI and green screens.
- fkr3, on 05/28/2008, -1/+59 I saw it today and didn't really notice any special effects apart from the groundhog and monkey. And the commie chick at the end. And the weird alien guys. And the space ship. And that valley or whatever you'd call it being demolished.
But apart from that... - Groady, on 05/28/2008, -1/+44Sorry... what?!?! People are worried about some CGI gophers when one highly unnecessary CGI scene involves a character swinging along vines like George of the ***** Jungle to catch up to a convoy of speeding vehicles. WTF?!?!
- pat0neill, on 05/28/2008, -0/+40i hope he is kidding.
- SlapAyoda, on 05/28/2008, -2/+36What, that UFO wasn't real?
- DrunkenSavior, on 05/28/2008, -2/+35I liked the movie, but I would have enjoyed it more without the groundhogs and the monkeys.
- CarStan, on 05/28/2008, -7/+36'For example, in a jungle chase sequence shot in Hawaii, to make an area look more like undisturbed terrain, the team tapped into ILM's virtual garden library and added lush plants digitally.'
So they went through the lengths of filming in a real jungle, but then destroyed its authenticity by adding some digital mambo-jumbo nobody would have cared about?
It seems like the makers themselves don't get what made the magic of the first Indy movies.
They felt real. Indy was sweating, bleeding, failing. And although they involved many over-the-top choreographed action scenes, they looked authentic, that you didn't cared or thought about the flaws. In short: They were fun.
But in the new movie, the obvious CGI forced you to realize the ridiculousness of some scenes.
For example:
Last Crusade: Indy's father takes down a plane by scaring seagulls with his umbrella.->FUN
a short scene, real seagulls, the story goes straight forward after it, you don't even have the time to think about the odds of this succeeding. instead you go: LOL, Sean Connery shot a plane with his umbrella, COOL
Cristal Skull: A horde of killer Ants eating people and even dragging One underground.
If you don't see the ants are fake the first time they appear and bite the Russian bitch, you surely do when after they show you the 101th shot of the huge ant-army, like ILM is saying: Look how many ants we can animate in one screen. The artificiality is so obvious,
that by the point the Russian is dragged underground by the ants you go: duh, how unrealistic, instead of: LOL, the ants kicked this commies ass, COOL.
Dont get me wrong, i am not against CGI in general. I enjoyed Transformers and even the SW-prequels, because the nice pictures distracted from the lame plot.
There are some movies that profit from CGI, and couldn't be imaginable being made without it.(f.e. all the great, recent superhero movies). But Indiana Jones is definitely not one of them. - thefirelane, on 05/28/2008, -9/+38Let me just make sure I understand: In previous movies, he found a *still living* knight from the CRUSADES, cups that cause instant aging, walked across an invisible bridge on *faith* powered by GOD.
but Aliens are too much for you? - Saprazzan, on 05/28/2008, -16/+43This movie was complete and epic FAIL. /agree with basically every comment on CNet. With the opening scene, a freaking CGI gopher, WTF?! I didn't even realize it was Indiana Jones for the first 30 seconds of the movie, I thought it was the commercial for another ridiculous Disney/Pixar animated furry f**k
Don't waste your money, instead, go watch the originals. - thashiz, on 05/28/2008, -8/+29It always amuses me that when people point out the flaws in CG enhancements, they rarely mention the poor effects in the previous films. Blue squares around TIE fighters look just as dumb as podracers sailing through the desert at 400 mph with no wind screens. Stop motion taun tauns look just as silly as a CG acklay fighting a real man. Melting wax heads in fast forward look just as unbelievable as a CG alien blowing Cate Blanchett's mind. Rubber snakes look just as lifeless as CG gophers. It's a new world in digital film enhancement and it generally looks just as unreal as the old techniques. The problem is that we are all grown up now and we are tainted by our innocence as adolescents when we first saw those films. I'll probably get buried for stating it, but if you take a moment to view the classics in the same light as the new films, you may find that you're tearing apart effects now that are very much in the same spirit of the originals.
An 8-12 year old kid now won't know the difference. Makes me wish I was a kid again. - UtopiaInTheSky, on 05/28/2008, -0/+19Unnoticed, as in surviving a nuclear explosion inside a fridge.
- mikephimikephi, on 05/28/2008, -1/+19I heard you the first time
- farsonic, on 05/28/2008, -1/+17yeah, hurtling through the air and crash landing. It may have been lead lined....but it didn't have airbags.
Lucus needs to be a tad more realistic....nutter - Wilf55, on 05/28/2008, -3/+19The bridge wasn't invisible - it just looked invisible, anyway I agree with your point... so carry on.
- mikephimikephi, on 05/28/2008, -4/+20wrong. stories about god are crazy and unbelievable - BUT they are pulled off because we didn't see a bearded old man fly down on a cloud, instead we saw smoke wisps and transparent skulls covered in sheets. We also never saw Sheeva and her snake arms.
If Indy 4 eluded to aliens, as it did in the first 3/4 of the film, it might have been ok. ...but to see a goddamn flying saucer is a huge stretch, even for an audience who tried so hard to suspend disbelief. - btm4k, on 05/28/2008, -0/+15That's nice...
They're redoing Star Tours!! - Archonis, on 05/28/2008, -7/+21CGI was the least of this movie's problems
- ParaSwarm, on 05/28/2008, -6/+20Wow, you dorks are the most conforming, wannabe-rebellious turds I've ever seen. Indy4 was a great movie. Yes, it had CGI gophers and aliens, we get it. Thank you for pointing that out continuously. However, that's not what made the movie. What made the movie was Harrison Ford's character, along with the action and the very unique humor that goes with this series. I didn't think of Harrison Ford as an old guy at any part of the movie - they REALLY made him seem like Indy from the old days. That in itself was enough of a miracle for me.
The ones of you who don't appreciate the cast and crew of Indy4 doing this one last time (with Ford as the star, anyway) for the fans should shut up. Don't buy the movie when it comes out. As for me, I'll have a special place for it next to The Last Crusade in my collection. - lololol1, on 05/28/2008, -1/+14SPOILER:
Theyre not aliens, theyre interdimensional beings, stupid. - filmbandit, on 05/28/2008, -2/+14i swear i read somewhere (maybe the esquire article) early in production spielberg saying the film would consist of no more than 20% CGI because he wanted to retain the look of the previous films.
45 minutes in a 124 minute film isn't 20% -- it's something closer to 40% - jasdf, on 05/28/2008, -1/+13In my opinion Jurassic Park 1 has the most realistic CGI ever created and that was back in 1993. Take the scene when the T-Rex gets out of his pen and is walking around. It...Looks...Real!
- Optimaximal, on 05/28/2008, -0/+11So how do you explain the CGI monkeys?
- BlackTye, on 05/28/2008, -4/+15Ark of the Covenant melting Nazi faces.
Falling out of an airplane and landing on a snow covered mountain with a raft.
Pulling the beating hearts out of living people.
Invisible bridge.
Live Knight Templar.
The Holy Grail.
Somehow everyone has a problem with the monkeys. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. - smek2, on 05/28/2008, -1/+12My thoughts exactly. It was watching the very first scene and were exposed to CG animated effects on screen. Disappointing.
- heavystone, on 05/28/2008, -8/+17The CGI really ruined parts of the movie for me, not to mention the ending bit...still a great movie and it deffently was just as enjoyabul as the others!
I had a great time! - quasimot0, on 05/28/2008, -1/+10The sole reason the movie sucked..
http://jollyjack.deviantart.com/art/From-the-crayo ... - inactive, on 05/28/2008, -0/+9Watch the video clip in this article. This guy seems so nervous to be talking to a girl. He just mumbles his words sometimes. He's CG alright (Classic Geek)
- chaosevil, on 05/28/2008, -1/+9How about cutting the cost of a movie ticket to coincide with the cost cutting done in production?
- tcpip4lyfe, on 05/28/2008, -1/+9The favorite part of that movie for me was the Wall-e trailer at the beginning. That movie looks sweet.
- geauxtig3rs, on 05/28/2008, -4/+12Realistic....like, ghosts jumping out of a shiny box and melting anyone who looks at them? Or maybe spontaneous aging after drinking from a cup? Maybe more realistic like ripping a still-beating heart out of a man's chest....or maybe jumping out of an airplane with an inflatable raft, landing unscathed, and continuing to travel down river in said raft?
Realism doesn't seem to be Indiana Jones' forte. - ParaSwarm, on 05/28/2008, -0/+7Yes, there was a reason. At the end of Raiders, they put the ark in a huge box and put it in a warehouse - the warehouse at Area 51. Now we know where they stored it, for those of us that found it interesting. It's part of the lore. And yes, nostalgia is always nice.
You didn't leave disappointed; you went to the movie with the intent of being disappointed before you even saw it. Get over yourself, you couldn't have done a better job if your life depended on it. - legendxx, on 05/28/2008, -5/+12Ark of the Covenant melting Nazi faces.
- Power of god, totally passable.
Falling out of an airplane and landing on a snow covered mountain with a raft.
- Mythbusters thought it was worth a try.. passable
Pulling the beating hearts out of living people.
- Added to the unknown creepiness/horror of the cult. - Also there is a reason the second movie is easily the worst of the original 3.
Invisible bridge.
- Optical illusion, passable
The Holy Grail.
- Are you serious? Making a movie that plays towards people's faiths was the best decision the script writers ever made. There is nothing else on Earth that has the power to provoke emotion like a story about God and faith. Very passable.
Now, about the new movie:
Surviving a Nuclear explosion in a fridge tossed several thousand yards.
- It didn't even have anything to do with the story... completely worthless
Aliens?
- Comeon.. a story about faith, god, and events that shaped western civilization or a story about aliens where they can just make stuff up.
South America
- No one really cares about South American history, not nearly as much as the crusades. Every story placed in South America will have something to do with Spanish conquistadors, treasure, and indians which are probably hostile, very strange, and good at ambushes. YAWN
CGI Monkeys
- Monkeys spontaneously deciding to side with the good guys and attack the bad guys.. not important to that action sequence at all and seemed like a project to give to the interns at Indust. Light & Magic to give them some real world experience.
Every corny moment in the trilogy was methodically placed and well executed where as the majority of those in the new movie seemed forced and you could tell by the look on Ford's face that even he couldn't believe he was saying this stuff. - manofdestiny, on 05/28/2008, -3/+9Agreed, the spirit of Indy is alive and well in the movie. As a 30 something I grew up with this character and I was smiling throughout the film because it WAS Indy and it was fun to watch! It is funny how nerds love to tear apart the very essence of what makes them nerds...the love of the fantastic.
- Konrad9, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6Bad special effects in old movies > overused CGI in new movies.
- jezsik, on 05/28/2008, -0/+6Oh, well THAT's different.
- lcarsdeveloper, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6I'd digg you up twice if I could, you're completely right. How can a real jungle be less realistic than a CGI one?
I saw a short clip of the battle scene in Star Wars episode 3, and I was stunned when I saw one of the soldiers wearing armor was made entirely of CG, and then he removed his helmet and because of the CG/greenscreen his head was sliding around his neck. It looked ridiculous! Why the hell didn't they just make a costume for him?
They built hundreds of costumes for the first 3 films, was their budget really reduced that much that they couldn't build one for him?
George Lucas has not only lost the plot, he's getting good at ruining perfectly good ones. - NeoCortex, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5Don't forget the ant scene. That was pretty blatant CGI.
- rodrigo74, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6The lighting in the movie was crap. No matter where they were or what time of the day it was, all characters were fully illuminated with this white light, as if they had 1000 reflectors all around them. Really weird.
- ousthouse, on 05/28/2008, -2/+7It's an adventure movie by Steven Spielberg and George Lucas... and you're SURPRISED that it involves aliens?
- RyomaNagare, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6Finally someone I can Agree with,
I really wanted to like this movie, I went opening night. I tried my new and improved suspension of disbelief, It suffered after the Nuke, but heck it was indy being badass that was awesome, the movie followed smoothly, even Shia's rebel without a cause was awesome, then it happened, right after they found the crystal skull, thats the exact minute the movie went downhill, from the stupid it only attracts gold plot-device, to look into its eyes craziness, to the old man ox comic relief, monkey Shia, killing the savage-men, etc.
also what the ***** with tripplecrossing agent at that point, it was really forced, come on "I lied being a double agent in the first place"? then there is the whole marion thing, I just re watched last crusade, and Indy was supposed to be a misogynistic Arrogant *****, just like his father, I don't want to see Indiana Jones married with children, or "mad about you", I want to see Indiana Jones being Indiana Jones.
- AlThor880, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5The bridge was carved on top in such a way to blend in with the wall on the other side. The bridge was actually there, it just was camouflaged. The faith part was taking the first step without seeing anything there.
- Optimaximal, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5It was... They just tarted it up with CGI.
- ravencrusader, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5Remind me never to hire ILM if I want my CG to be subtle.
- filmbandit, on 05/28/2008, -1/+6did you draw the line when Indy bailed from a plane to a raft to a snowy mountain? or did you laugh?
- Shshashazam, on 05/28/2008, -9/+14if you can build a ***** jungle with it. you think you could have just shaved a few years off of mr ford?
- chrisreynolds, on 05/28/2008, -0/+5Obviously we still don't have adequate technology. Things shouldn't take you out of the experience but bad cgi always does. the plants and things were good because I didn't notice. But the monkey's and ants. ugh.
I miss seeing a movie in a theater and wondering how they did that. -
Show 51 - 100 of 183 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is