zombie84 said:
That said, the CGI in Crystal Skull is very tastefully done, except for the jungle chase--thats the most "unreal" part of the film, and its especially frustrating because theres absolutely no reason why it should be the most unreal, they could have easily done it better without using CG and if this movie was filmed in 1981 it would look every bit as realistic as the truck chase in Raiders.
That said, the CGI in Crystal Skull is very tastefully done, except for the jungle chase--thats the most "unreal" part of the film, and its especially frustrating because theres absolutely no reason why it should be the most unreal, they could have easily done it better without using CG and if this movie was filmed in 1981 it would look every bit as realistic as the truck chase in Raiders.
According to that interview with Spielberg that was posted, they couldn't do the jungle chase practically because it simply wasn't safe. They couldn't find a jungle dense enough that allowed them to safely drive through at the speeds they wanted. So instead, they chose a less dense jungle and then added extra foliage. I guess I just didn't notice it nearly as much as everyone else.
CO said:
For me, the negatives of CGI is when the whole screen IS CGI! It just comes off as a cartoon, and for me, it is when guys like Lucas and many other directors these days, use these fake CGI environments that look like something different then we have every seen: Kamino, Utapau, Geonosis, but just don't hold up well, because....they aren't real environments.
For me, the negatives of CGI is when the whole screen IS CGI! It just comes off as a cartoon, and for me, it is when guys like Lucas and many other directors these days, use these fake CGI environments that look like something different then we have every seen: Kamino, Utapau, Geonosis, but just don't hold up well, because....they aren't real environments.
So what you're saying is that if a director is envisioning a certain environment that simply doesn't exist, rather than do it with CGI the director should just throw their vision out the window and compromise everything in order to do it "realistically"? The problem I had with the prequels wasn't the "unreal" looking environments, it was the non story. Lucas could've shown us the most amazing, can't find this anywhere on Earth environments and if the story had been good, I wouldn't have given a shit if the environments were 100% CG. My biggest beef is simply the fact that most of the story elements in the PT didn't match up with the OT, which shouldn't have been that hard to do.
If there's a good story to the movie, it shouldn't matter if the environment is 100% CG or not. Sky Captain was heavily CG, but it had a great story too so that didn't matter.