Well I just got back from watching it and I must say I am not that impressed.

Am I the only one who thinks that CGI has totally ruined movies?

A message for movie directors/writers/producers/studios. "Just because it can be done with CG doesn't mean it should be done".

Without trying to give any plot points away. There are just to many scenes that look totally fake. And there are so many scenes that just logistically couldn't happen. So why have a guy swing on vines and somehow catch up to 2 cars on the side of a cliff that are going 40+ mph? Why have ants that can carry a 210+ pound man down into their anthill? Why have two people sword fight on moving cars in a jungle at 40+ mph when everyone knows it is impossible. Why have 20 bad guys shoot machine guns from 15 feet away and only hit boxes?

I mean come on. It can be done where at least you think, "Well that could happen, not likely but it could". I do not want to watch a movie where the whole time I am saying to myself "Yea right that's impossible". It RUINS a movie for me.

And the thing is , it could have been a great movie. But no, now it's a movie I won't even buy on Blu-Ray because it will look even more fake on my 1080p 180" screen.

George Lucas you have failed me yet again.

I think you forgot something, Its just a movie. But yeah I know what you mean. They can overdo the cgi in movies. I think eventually though, movies will be entirely cgi and actors will just do voice over work. Think about it, its way cheaper to cgi and the movie can be made however they want it to look, take place anywhere and what ever they want to happen can happen. They still have to make humans more realistic looking though.

Oh I know it's a movie.

And if it's "supposed" to be a Sci-Fi or Futuristic movie, etc , I don't mind the over the top, that can't really happen stuff.

But we're talking Indiana Jones. It's supposed to be a post WWII slightly realistic archealogy type movie. And now it's just another CGI movie with no real life or feeling to it.

Until viewers demand less fakery and more realism it shall continue.

nothing, and I mean NOTHING EVER will beat the first time yous ee the sean where the chick is in the basket and the big sward master come a swinging, and BANG!! Indy dont play that game - it was awesome. I still love it to this day. Come to find out it was HF improv and the director loved it.



I shal see the new one, and if its hokey I'll blame it on the metaclorians, and move along, but yeazh buy it anyway - just because I MIGHT watch it, mabey someday in the box set

"The infamous scene in which Indy shoots a marauding and flamboyant swordsman was not in the original script. Harrison Ford was supposed to use his whip to get the swords out of his attacker's hands, but the food poisoning he and the rest of the crew had gotten made him too sick to perform the stunt. After several unsuccessful tries, someone made the off-handed remark, "Why doesn't he just shoot him and get it done and over with?" Steven Spielberg immediately took up the idea and the scene was successfully filmed."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/trivia

I have the SE trilogy with director's commentary, IIRC the version Spielberg's tells is similar (Indy was supposed to use whip, Ford sick from Food poisoning etc) but he gives full credit to Ford for thinking up the "just shoot him..." solution.

That's the way I remember it to, and that's what I was expecting to find on IMDB.

Viewers, and more importantly directors
I hope people do get tired of CG. I will take Jim Henson's Creature Shop ANY day!
Im afraid the almighty dollar might be a culprit too. Im guessing CG is much cheaper to produce in the long run, but I could be wrong.

I cant really even get "into" the LOTR films because they rely on so much CG.
Some directors are anti C/G though. Guillermo Del Toro seems to shy away from it when possible, and he's directing 'The Hobbit' films.

Some novel adaptations and genres pretty much demand CG. But I tend to side with JJ regarding the Indiana Jones flicks. Sometimes it just gets way too beyond belief and it can kind of ruin a movie if your brain says "YO!!! That's just soooo over the top." It interrupts the continuity of the film and breaks that trance I personally like to be in while watching. It doesn't always happen to me but when it does it kinda pisses me off.

LOTR, Harry Potter, etc. - don't mind them much. The Jones movies should stick more to Mad Max type doings. But some CG is still a must for Jones.

I don't agree with most of the posts here, i actually really enjoyed the film...not sure if its the nostalgia of the other films that tempted me to like it or what. i do agree that some things did go over the top and were a bit ridiculous...the vine swinging and not wanting to spoil anything, the fridge incident. most parts would have killed any normal human, but thats what makes it a film that can be watched and enjoyed by all.

There are many parts to like, and something for all the family, you just don't have to think too far into it. even so, some of the things from the other films have been ridiculous also(the ghosts that come out of the arc of the covenent and only kill those with their eyes open for one).

as long as you don't read to far into it i thought it was great and without a lot of the cgi an actor in his late sixties could not do most of what was going on, so i think some parts were essential (just look at how slow he punches...none of the leaps etc. would be possible...and if they had employed stunts men for this it would also have been ridiculous).

Just my thoughts....i would recomend it but i agree its not everyones cup of tea and inkeeping wiht the others.

I haven't seen the whole thing yet, but just watching a short part where they crash their cars, and bugs start coming out everywhere, I was thinking that it looked too fake as well! Another related disappointment for me was Superman Returns. Superman looked like a wax model half of the time, and the perspective was way off for some of the flying scenes.

On the other hand, Beowulf was all CG, and didn't look too bad considering the genre, and what they were aiming for. (again, I just saw parts of it)

Although I haven’t seen the film yet, I have seen CGI. I think we may be just getting a little bored with the advancement of this technology is all. Take a step bake in time to before CGI. They look very poor in comparison to today’s movies but at the time they seemed fine to watch. I watched the original superman movies recently and I was very aware of how unrealistic they looked, at the time of release though I was more excepting of it. Another example is the Terminator films. The liquid metal Terminator just doesn’t have the same wow-look it originally had. CGI has come a long way, still not perfect but getting closer. Some of the CGI scenes from Transformers were outstanding. I was fully aware that they were CGI but they weren’t irritating, they are more of an art form of there own rather than simply looking realistic.

I blame George Lucas. To me, SW Eps 1 and 2 were the epitome of "We don't need a plot - Just look at all the cool stuff we can do with CGI!" The problem for me is when they substitute tons CGI for an actual plot... (I'm sure his stamp is on every one of those lame Indiana Jones CGIs mentioned above)

The directors can say what they want but they use CGI because of laziness.

They just don't want to take the time to create awesome sets and good scenery. "Let's just use a blue screen and CGI"

It looks terrible to me and I would rather not see it done unless the movie dictates it. Like Sci-Fi or movies that are about things that aren't real.

The things done in the Crystal Skull would have been so much better with real scenery. Like the car chase scene. Truthfully would you rather watch the one in the Indy movie or the car chase scenes in the Bourne movies. It's a no-brainer. And the big studios need to realize that audiences are going to tire of the over the top , it can't be done and it doesn't even look real CGI.

No offense to any one. yea it looks fake but how many movies any more are real, rember Star Wars back in the 70's. Come on it is a movie aren't most moves fake anyway? so lets just remeber it's a Movie. It's entertainment. I saw Indy today and thought it was pretty cool.

Movies are fake? NOOOOOOOoooooooo.........

I went to the AMC to watch this. Before they started playing Indiana Jones, they were using a lcd projector for ads. The screen is huge there. And when you stretch even 1080p (I don't know what the resolution actually was) the pixels were inches big. It was really annoying. No body that I was with noticed but me. I was really glad that the movie wasn't played with that projector.

Ya know, I was watching 'City of Lost Children' last night -1995. It got me to thinking that maybe film makers just need to find better ways for bothCGI and "real 3" to work together in more creative ways.

Before I put on my tin foil hat and sacrifice this chicken, whiles wearing a sign that says the end is near - anyone has a movie hes directed ? I dont know this director..

the return of the king was a tad of a let down, it was sort of lame compared to the other 2 - how ever for what it was it was badass. I'm just worried about continuity here.

Guillermo del Toro is best known in North America as the writer and director of Pan's Labyrinth. He also directed 2004's Hellboy and wrote and directed Hellboy II: The Golden Army that'll be coming out later this summer. I saw the preview for that movie as one of the previews before the Indiana Jones movie at my local AMC24. It looked pretty kick-ass.

The Indiana Jones movie was entertaining. About on par with the other three, IMO.

I jUst saw the movie. And what bothered me more than the very well trained and brutally strong antz or Mutt swing ing with his monkey friends faster than 60 miles an hour was Mutt himslef. I thought Transformers was a good film because of the 300 mil they poured into specail effects. But both new indy and transformers suffered in my opinion form that actor himself. He sucks he belongs on a teen soap opera and not in my blockbuster films with his corny attitude. Go hang out with Ryan seacrest and Jar jar binks!

In Transformers Shia LaBeouf i thought played his part really well. In this role he acted as a geeky misfit teenager and he did this well. For me i could not take him seriously in Indiana Jones where he suddenly was portraying this cool lay about. Although this did spoil a bit of my enjoyment of the film i thought he was excellent in both. Both films required a bit of slap stick humour and i think he pulled it off. He does somewhat seem to be becoming Spielbergs prodigy though so it will be interesting to see how his career develops.

I felt the same way about Hayden Christensen in Star Wars II and III. I thought his acting was horrible in those two movies and didn't really care to ever see him again. I had thought he was just an amateur actor, but it turns out that it was just George Lucas raping the Star Wars saga, again.

I've seen Hayden Christensen in Awake and Jumper since then, and they're not too bad. He was also in Life as a House before the Star Wars films and I don't remember that movie being too bad.

Ok well... as an actor and someone who has worked in front of Green Screen (albeit just for stock footage) and who has now seen the latest Indiana Jones film I have to say I both agree and disagree with the comments made so far.

Yes CGI can be overused or poorly used... the scenes in the first Spiderman movie come to mind when he is running and jumping over roof tops... the animators just clearly did not have the motion down correctly and it looked terrible. The same thing can be said for any number of the scenes in the latest Star Wars movies (but perhaps Hayden could have done with some CGI acting enhancement )

However to just blanketly say CGI should stop being used is to say we don't want movies that use it well... Jurassic Park would have to be a key example here... it is also a great example of the old being mixed with the new for the best effect.

I think a lot of the issue is growing pains... there still needs to be much more work on developing natural movement and in some cases physics effects on objects needs much improvement (down to just the simple flow of hair or clothings sometimes).
But when it's used well it really ads to a movie.

Yes a lot of the stuff in Crystal Skull was over the top... but that's really part of that movie style anyway... it is based on the old pulp novels... Enjoy for what it is... a bit of escapism... it's not exactly a documentary and therefore not confined to reality.

But the bottom line is to each their own... I liked the movie (though did certainly find somethings a little odd) and I don't fear CGI will ever completely remove humans from movies... Final Fantasy the spirits was in was impressive... but I think you will always be able to tell it's not real... but who knows... maybe I will be proved wrong.