Looks like a whole lotta "CGI" to me!!!

I know alot of us had a very long discussion about CGI this past fall. It was after Transformers was released on HD DVD. Some loyal fans of this site were making references to the OLD SCHOOL effects. Someone, and I cannot remember who, used the Indiana Jones movies as an example of how movies were supposed to be made.
Well here we are, a few day's away from #4, and some of the new trailers show a whole lotta CGI in this instalment. Now even though I feel that Mr. Lucas is a con artist, I am hoping that the movie alone is good. I use the term Con Artist, due to what he did with his own franchies in Star Wars. Looks like a TON of eye candy, and I am just hoping that the CGI does not over power the movie. To me, I am just hoping that this movie is not like Star Wars 3,4 and 5.... um I mean 1, 2 and 3. Let's just keep our fingers crossed.

What I don't get is why we go against effects when the writing is the rotten apple here.

Special effects are and will always be special effects. They can be CGI by ILM, Weta or whatever other workshop...or they can be miniatures or well built models...but in the end, if the story doesn't make sense, you can have effects that cost millions (I'm lookin at you [inster lame movie here])...

And we can see that as years go by...old movies have outdated effects, but still make for great movies. New movies that have great eye candy and not a good story, will become outdated and less enjoyable as time goes by (I'm looking at you Die Hard 4.0, McLane is NOT Superman...)...

MV I agree with you. The point I was making is that I was reminding certain people who were basically saying that movies that use tons of CGI, are crap most of the times (Transformers) At the time of the discussion, those making that statement used the Indiana Jones movies, as an example of great movie making without CGI. I then told those individuals that wait until #4 is released, I gurantee that Old Georgie Boy uses lot's of CGI in his new Indie release. Well like I said, it looks like a whole lotta CGI is being used, like I knew he would.I am hoping that the movie stands up to at least number 1 and 2 (3 was weird and pretty bad in my opinion)

My opinion about CGI is that sometimes dealing with the directors vision of the film, CGI is needed. LOTR for example, great trilogy and not saturated with CGI. and when used it tickled the imagination. Case in point, when Gandolf faught the fire demon and was falling into shadow. That was great CGI and could not have been convincingly done 20 yrs ago.

I don't think the CGI will be overdone(I hope). Spielberg won't let it. Speilberg and Lucas probably put their best CGI Guys on the project.

Hey I just got an e mail from a friend of mine who rights for the local entertainment section of our newspaper.(I am in the Pittsburgh area) He got to screen the movie last night, and he told me it was a C+ maybe a B- He said it was to much Lucas, and not enough Spielberg. I am sure that this movie will make a boat load $ (at least over the memorial day weekend) but will it have the legs to last beyond that, we will see.

I agree IB...everybody, just remember that IT IS FAKE... ...you can't make it 'faker'...you can make the story bad, the script bad, the characters bad...oh, well, the CG on the Indy trailer look faky, lol...Roger Ebert gave it a 3.5/4...so it's a good one...

my "star wars" ratings:
episode 1: 6
episode 2: 3
episode 3: 2
episode 4: 5
episode 5: 5
episode 6: 5

my "indiana jones" ratings:
"raiders": 7
"doom": 7
"crusade": 8
"crystal skull": 1 ( "you're a teacher?" "part time." ) (eddie leaves the theatre.)

[Post edited by posters5 on May 19, 2008]

I'm sorry. Ive never been to your site eddie. Are you saying that "The Phantom Menace" is the best SW movie? And "The Last Crusade", the best Indy movie?

CGI sucks. Looks fake. Hate it. Kills Storytelling. Ok in cartoons....

Empire was and still is the best Star Wars film hands down, so I'm not sure why you would give it just a 5...