Return of the Giger ALIEN?

[Xhan]

I'm struggling to think of bad CG in Indy 4 off hand.  I suppose the ants could've been a bit better.  One thing that stuck for me - and I really enjoyed Indy 4 - was when they're tearing through the jungle sword fighting and machine gunning etc on nice straight stracks - where only minutes earlier they needed that honking great cutting thing to actually make a track.  But that's more a story issue than an effects one.

But then I've always ignored the question of how Indy's been trekking for days in South America in Raiders, but runs back to the plane in a couple of minutes. 

The ants were badly animated and weren't lightmatched properly, and in general compositing in the movie is godawful. Like Flash Gordon HawkMen awful.

[SiL]

you guys are dumbass. You guys actually thought the avpr alien (guy in a suit) look better than ANY of the movies that come out recently (that are cgi)?  look at lord of the rings, king kong , star trek(that reptilian monster at the ice scene was phenomenal) they are pure GOLD.

The only dumbass here is you.

You're comparing a film made by a group of incompetent hacks, to films with established filmmakers and incredibly large budgets. For every movie with great CGI creatures there are plenty with utterly useless CGI creatures.

Want a better example to compare against the likes of Kong and Star Trek? Pan's Labyrinth, or Hellboy. Look at the practical work in those. They're so beautiful you could cry.

[SM]

Yeah, but by the same token there were quite a few CG shots in Hellboy that I found a bit lacking.

Like Flash Gordon HawkMen awful.

Harsh!!!

[Alien³]

CGI f**king sucks.  It completely ruined the 4th Indiana Jones film.  I remember them promising they would only use traditional special effects like the first 3 films.  God has Stephen Spielberg f**king lost it.
In moderation used stealthily I supposed it could be good, but in almost every film it looks fake as hell.  Seriously Godzilla 1985 looks more realistic than CGI does in most films.

Complain about C.G.I now, but in 50 years time, when we're in a whole new territory of cinema effects, we'll look back on films such as Indy4 and say they're classics, and no one will complain about about the effects because they'll be old techniques.
Indy 4 is awesome.

[SiL]

Yeah, but by the same token there were quite a few CG shots in Hellboy that I found a bit lacking.

Which only goes to prove the point that suits can still be better than CGI

[SM]

At least in that film.  Interesting to see how GDT goes with WETA.

[SiL]

The only time I've ever been convinced by a computer-rendered living, breathing organism was Jurassic Park, or in films where they're really far away.

[ShadowPred]

Jurassic Park to this day still stands alone in my eyes as cgi perfection, the only thing besides other jurassic park films that can come close is Transformers and...damn that's about it.

[Übermensch]

I actually thought the cg T-Rex looked better than the practical one.

[Nachtfalke]

The only time I've ever been convinced by a computer-rendered living, breathing organism was Jurassic Park, or in films where they're really far away.

For the most part of the film, I agree, but some shots of CG, the kitchen raptors for instance, it looks iffy.
Its nothing to make them seem real if they don't blend well.
Aside from JP, 'Starship Troopers' and 'Spider-man 3' are also very convincing. The forming of the Sand Man in the pit after the accident is just beautiful. 

[SM]

Never found any of the Spider-Man effects to be much chop.  The first film was particularly appalling.

[Nachtfalke]

Never found any of the Spider-Man effects to be much chop.  The first film was particularly appalling.

Suits the films fine, I think they work very well. The style of films have a lot do with the effects, just like compositing and animation IMO. Speaking of which, just watched the interesting "A Sound Of Thunder" with some decent shots, but many cringley ones too.

[Uncanny Antman]

There are definitely some pretty dodgy effects in Spidey 1.  But then, there are heaps of shots in it that look really great, but those tend to stick in people's minds less than the crummy ones.

[Nachtfalke]

There are definitely some pretty dodgy effects in Spidey 1.  But then, there are heaps of shots in it that look really great, but those tend to stick in people's minds less than the crummy ones.

Ain't that the truth. Same with anything really isn't it? Bad service, bad products...

[TJ Doc]

CGI f**king sucks.  It completely ruined the 4th Indiana Jones film.  I remember them promising they would only use traditional special effects like the first 3 films.  God has Stephen Spielberg f**king lost it.
In moderation used stealthily I supposed it could be good, but in almost every film it looks fake as hell.  Seriously Godzilla 1985 looks more realistic than CGI does in most films.

Complain about C.G.I now, but in 50 years time, when we're in a whole new territory of cinema effects, we'll look back on films such as Indy4 and say they're classics, and no one will complain about about the effects because they'll be old techniques.
Indy 4 is awesome.

I will never call Indy 4 a classic.