Why does Indy 4 has such lousy CGI

Particularly during the second half. All the way though the Jungle Chase, and the finding of the temple, I never got the feeling they were out in the actual jungle.

It took me out of the film more then the awkward script.

It literally looks like they filmed it inside an Indiana Jones theme park attraction. Or a garden centre.

Why does Jaws shark look like rubber?

Karol

Because it was made in 1975.

So KOTCS looks like this because it was made in 2008.

Funnily enough, I actually did answer the question.

Karol

ILM stretched themselves too thin, working on too many movies at once, instead of focusing on making the best possible effects for this one particular movie

crocodile's skeleton wrote:So KOTCS looks like this because it was made in 2008.

Funnily enough, I actually did answer the question.

Karol

Sorry, what?

I mean, it's not like by 2008 we reached a peak of this technology. That's what I meant.

Karol

To be fair, only part of the movie has bad CGI. Most of the large scale stuff, like the departure scene, look great. The ants too.

Some of the large scale stuff looks good. The ants are a mixed bag. some shots are great, while others look fake.

Actually it's more interesting to find out why Indy 4 has such a lousy script. Here's an acceptable explanation:

http://mysterymanonfilm.blogspot.com/2008/05/50-flaws-of-indy-iv.html

(This blog is a goldmine of really interesting stuff, check it out).

i think that some bag effects are intentional, a nod to the other movie's imperfections.

I think jungle chase has very good CGI. except the vines part. and crotch plants othewise im pretty sure the are many items in the jungle you dont know its cgi.

and it was filmed in hawai's jungle, they just overgrew the dirt road where they filmed.

even if the ants look fake in some shots, its the best cgi insect animal ever seen on screen.

Lucas, prepare to die! wrote:
even if the ants look fake in some shots, its the best cgi insect animal ever seen on screen.

Eight Legged Freaks had some awesome effects, but I believe they did a combo of CGI and animatronics.

Lucas, prepare to die! wrote:i think that some bag effects are intentional, a nod to the other movie's imperfections.

I think jungle chase has very good CGI. except the vines part. and crotch plants othewise im pretty sure the are many items in the jungle you dont know its cgi.

and it was filmed in hawai's jungle, they just overgrew the dirt road where they filmed.

even if the ants look fake in some shots, its the best cgi insect animal ever seen on screen.

Yes, its not really the CGI itself that is poor, its the lighting/coloring of the film that sucks.

Lucas, prepare to die! wrote:

and it was filmed in hawai's jungle, they just overgrew the dirt road where they filmed.

The part were they drive along the edge of a cliff looked very cartoonish, especially compared to a similar scene in Raiders. and some of the background work looked fake.

Too much like LOTR, not enough like the real thing.

Faleel's Essence wrote:

Yes, its not really the CGI itself that is poor, its the lighting/coloring of the film that sucks.

Not untill they get too the jungle.

Stefan's Ghoest wrote:

Faleel's Essence wrote:

Yes, its not really the CGI itself that is poor, its the lighting/coloring of the film that sucks.

Not untill they get too the jungle.

I was talking about the Jungle...

Stefan's Ghoest wrote:

Lucas, prepare to die! wrote:

and it was filmed in hawai's jungle, they just overgrew the dirt road where they filmed.

The part were they drive along the edge of a cliff looked very cartoonish, especially compared to a similar scene in Raiders. and some of the background work looked fake.

Too much like LOTR, not enough like the real thing.

i knew thre was good in you too!

I think it's harder to get across the idea of campiness with CGI. The background projection, optical effects, and physical effects in Raiders all worked because it was complimented by the material. When you try to achieve the same effect with CGI, it doesn't work.

Yes. People accept bad sfx when the film itself is of high quality. Indy IV is low quality masquerading as cream of the crop.

nightscape94 wrote:I think it's harder to get across the idea of campiness with CGI. The background projection, optical effects, and physical effects in Raiders all worked because it was complimented by the material. When you try to achieve the same effect with CGI, it doesn't work.

This.

Ironically, Raiders isn't camp at all. In fact it's the movie least likely to sell that theory.

Perhaps camp isn't the right word, but I'm referring to the exaggerated and over the top style of film making used in Raiders, especially the story and characters. How about "pulp"? There's something about CGI that doesn't service that type of story well.

Upended Quint wrote:Ironically, Raiders isn't camp at all. In fact it's the movie least likely to sell that theory.

Raiders isn't, but the other 3 certainly are. Contrary to what people say, this is rather unstable franchise quality-wise. KOTCS simply follows suit.

Karol

Contrary to what you say, I think the only camp one is ToD. Which is a compliment. KotCS isn't camp at all. Campiness requires a degree of quality to shine through. KotCS is merely a bad movie with some good bits.