'Indiana Jones' graphics meant to go unnoticed

Industrial Light & Magic's Hayden Landis, who was the computer graphics supervisor on the latest Indy film, views stills at the San Francisco headquarters of the Lucasfilm special effects division.

(Credit: Michelle Meyers/CNET News.com)

SAN FRANCISCO--There's just something about that familiar Indiana Jones music. You know it--dun ta dun ta, dun ta da...

Even having spent months slaving over some 540 computer-generated images for the just-released Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the admittedly jaded Hayden Landis still gets excited when he hears that theme song.

"The little kid in you comes out," said Landis, computer graphics supervisor on the film, recalling the music in the opening of the movie trailer. "I grew up with Indiana Jones."

It's that very nostalgic feeling that Landis and his team at Lucasfilm's Industrial Light & Magic tried to create with the film's visual effects--at director Steven Spielberg's request, Landis said.

Whether it was from nostalgia or some other motivation, people have turned out for the movie in force. Hollywood Reporter said Sunday that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull has tallied an estimated gross of $269 million worldwide for its opening weekend, finishing No. 1 in all major markets. In the U.S., the Associated Press reported, the movie grossed an estimated $101 million from Friday to Sunday, plus $25 million from its opening night Thursday.

Spielberg "wanted to make sure it looked like all the other" Indy films, Landis explained Friday in an interview with CNET News.com here at ILM's headquarters. Spielberg even shot the film with one of the very lenses used for the first Indiana Jones film, Raiders of the Lost Ark, which was released 27 years ago.

From a technological standpoint, that meant some challenges in seamlessly matching the computer-generated images (CGIs) to the older film style--lens scratches and all. In that vein, the computer animation couldn't be "in your face," and if ILM did its job, viewers will hardly notice the 45 minutes of CGI in the film, Landis said. Interestingly, about 300 people worked in-house on CGI for Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, the same number of people who worked on the film's set, Landis said.

Another technological challenge was the sheer array of types of CGI used in a film which, like its prequels, involves worldwide adventure. "We have a bit of everything in this," Landis said, listing examples like water, space, hair, and creatures.

An Indiana Jones movie poster is displayed prominently in the lobby of Lucasfilm's Industrial Light & Magic in San Francisco.

(Credit: Michelle Meyers/CNET News.com)

For example, in a jungle chase sequence shot in Hawaii, to make an area look more like undisturbed terrain, the team tapped into ILM's virtual garden library and added lush plants digitally. A relatively plain road was magically converted into a dramatic cliffside, he said.

ILM also created a new software tool for the film called Fracture, which allows the special effects team to "destroy" (i.e. blow up) huge "set pieces," (i.e. buildings), Landis said. These are things that were never possible before CGI, he added, because of health risks or other constraints.

As for working with Spielberg, Landis called it "refreshing," because the director always had a clear big-picture idea of what he wanted and left the details to others.

Next up for Landis is another nostalgia-oriented project--a redo of the Star Tours ride at Disneyland. The big question...will Captain EO make a comeback?

This post was updated at 11:12 a.m. PDT after ILM corrected the number it initially provided of CGI shots in the film. There were 540 CGI shots in the film, not 450.

[The_Decider]

I haven't seen the movie but I hope that the CGI is unnoticeable. CGI is what ruins movies. For many directors, most notably George Lucas, CGI has replaced story and character development. I remember a long time ago seeing star wars on TV hosted by Mark Hamil and he said something quite prophetic about FX trumping the story and characters. I wish I could find the quote, but it is something Hollywood directors need to be reminded of. Episode 4 beats Episodes 1-3 hands down. IMO, it even has better effects because they are more organic looking, and thus more real.

[benjwah]

The CGI is VERY noticeable, and if it weren't for the fact that the rest of the movie is terrible, it would have ruined it single-handedly.
Put simply, gerbils don't pout for the camera.

[dreamworks21]

they weren't gerbils, they were groundhogs.

[The_Decider]

Groundhogs? That excuses it?

[Ouchimoo]

Indeed, that stupid, unneeded CGI ruined the movie for me and it wasn't even playing for ten minutes! As for the two who "cleverly" tried to correct you: Who cares if he called it a gerbil. It was so bad it didn't even look like the animal it was suppose to be! Oh that and it's a prairie dog not a groundhog.

[chuchucuhi]

I don't think computer graphics destroy movies but as mom always said, "there's a time and a place for everything" and I think that's what makes a good director these days is the ability not to lose sight of the story.

[edbaldwin]

Unfortunately, the CGI is incredibly noticeable in the film. Painfully so. The original films effects are far more convincing than some of what goes on in the new one.

[scruthut]

Must be awful to not be able to enjoy things as they are. There are lots of groaners in life but they should not reduce the value or enjoyment . It's like all the people who yell "photoshop" when they see a great graphic. SO WHAT?!! Thanks for your attention!! We now return you to the "thinking" part of this program................................

[The_Decider]

That is an ironic statement since 99.999% of all movies that heavily rely on CGI require no thinking at all.

[ciphoto]

Yes some of the CGI is very obvious, but the saddest thing is you'd think they would have used a period motorcycle or one of the new ones that is actually a modern day build of the flathead engine and motorcycle that was around at the time. I really can't believe they didn't do that.

[dreamworks21]

yes, many people are thinking the same thing. NOT.

[DavoRider]

It's not that the CGI effects were noticeable, but in Indy4 they were so blatant that they occasionally broke the emotional connection I had with the movie, which is very disappointing. Just because you can use CGI to render landscapes or gophers does not mean you should...

[Magallanes]

Yes, CGI is not the problem but the movie himself, for example Jar Jar Binks (yuck!) and Gollum (a correct use of cgi)

[jloiterer]

Indiana Jones is a terrible movie. I saw the press conference at Canne where they were acting like this movie is a masterpiece. It is a paycheck movie pure and simple. The effects were very noticeable. In fact it was as though Spielberg thought all the warts on this turkey couldbe fixed with CGI. There is not even one moment for which anyone would suspend disbelief. Lucas and Spielberg should retire already, they have lost the ability to tell stories. (Lucas should have retired before Episode 1)

[The_Decider]

I think they should have went with my idea: Indiana Jones and the Mythical Silver Dollar. See Indy scour the backyard of his retirement home for this precious artifact.

[dreamworks21]

i thought Indy was a disappointment, but i wouldn't go so far as to say spielberg should retire. Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal, and War of the Worlds were all good (if not great) movies with decent plots and great acting. Just because he has this one stinker doesn't mean he's done for good.

[mikebur]

Seeing how they did an effect doesn't make the movie bad. It's all about the story and characters.

Yeah, you can see CGI. But I remember in the original Star Wars (before they CGI'ed it) you could see the square boxes around all the spaceships against the stars. And in Raiders, you could see the reflections on the glass between Indy and the snakes. I'm sure if you rewatched today, you'd see tons of things where you can see the special effects.

[Thomas, David]

If it's all about the story and characters, then it should have been a radio version.

[jidesk]

Maybe it's too late to do anything, but there's an error in the video of the interview: during the clip of Jurassic Park (02.57) the text says "Jurrasic Park"... :-)

[reidhb]

"Spielberg "wanted to make sure it looked like all the other" Indy films"

If by this they mean, that the special effects are all underlit, motion blurred beyond recall, and and adolescent, then i don't thinkl I'll go to see this until it gets to youtube.

[chrisw10]

Spoilers-but-not-really:

No, that's not what people are referring to. And I don't think people are mad in the same way they were upset over the prequel Star Wars films. There were really no "show-off" set-pieces of CGI in this film as there were all throughout the Star Wars ones. Spielberg really limited ILM in that respect to making the CGI unnoticable. The only one that's debatable is a sequence involving a refrigerator, which I don't count because it moved the plot forward and introduces some aspect of the Cold War that became one of the tones or themes of the film.

I think people are not so much upset over the 'noticable' CGI, but rather that the movie's special effects didn't emulate only what could have been done in the 1980's when the original three movies were made. The CGI in this film doesn't limit itself in that way (and can't because of the nature of the story), and that changes the nature of the picture, which changes the nature of the experience, which offends the nostalgia of many people.

The CGI makes this Indy not like the old Indy, but in my opinion, unlike what many are claiming, it's no Episode I either.

[chrisw10]

I don't think people are upset over the special effects in the same way that they were upset over the prequel Star Wars films. There were really no "show-off" set-pieces of CGI in this film as there were all throughout the Star Wars ones. Spielberg really limited ILM in that respect to making the CGI unnoticable. The only one that's debatable is a sequence involving a refrigerator, which I don't count because it moved the plot forward and introduces some aspect of the Cold War that became one of the tones or themes of the film.

I think people are not so much upset over the 'noticable' CGI, but rather that the movie's special effects didn't emulate only what could have been done in the 1980's when the original three movies were made. The CGI in this film doesn't limit itself in that way (and can't because of the nature of the story), and that changes the nature of the picture, which changes the nature of the experience, which offends the nostalgia of many people.

The CGI makes this Indy not like the old Indy, but in my opinion, that doesn't divorce it from its older siblings; it's still a good Indy movie. And unlike what many are claiming, it's no Episode I. You won't be seeing many Phantom Edits of this one.

[isamuelson]

Actually, the sword fight was very much CGI. Parts of it (when you didn't see Shia's face such as an overhead shot, were not. But, when it came time for him, it was very apparent that it was CGI.

The monkies scene swinging from the vines was CGI and was just plain stupid and not needed. Nor were the gophers.

Even the explosions in the warehouse were CGI which is a shame. The stunts during that scene weren't bad, but the action just seemed so tame compared to what you saw in Raiders and Crusade.

I enjoyed the movie, but as I think back on what I saw, it is becoming a disappointment for me.

Heck, I enjoyed Temple of Doom a LOT more than this one.

[Ouchimoo]

My beef with this fourth edition wasn't that they used CGI, but abused it, again. They just throw it in there because they can not because it is needed or useful. Like the animal gawking for the camera before the movie even started. And the directors storytelling is getting so sub par.

[TheEverestYeti]

All I have to say is: Shia LaBeouf swinging with monkeys. Seriously, was that necessary?

[fudabushi]

The original was released in 1981, 27 years ago, not 19 years ago.

Simple fact I've seen screwed up more than a few times by reporters.

[isamuelson]

I think what they mean is the last Indy movie (Crusade) was 18 years ago. But, that's still a major gaffe if they're talking about the original Raiders.

[danponjican]

I thought it was VERY noticeable. But then again, I have a nack for that kind of stuff.

http://transformerspart2.blogspot.com/

[ShamelessShamus]

The CGI was SO noticeable. Sorry guys, but the jungle vehicle chase scene was cartoonish and didn't even compare to the Nazi truck chase scene in Raiders. Ummm, vehicles don't travel smoothly over freshly cut down trees in the rainforest guys. The original Indy and Star Wars movies were great largely cause the stories were good, but also because the effects were realisitc. Stunts, miniature models, camera angles, and editing tricks are far more exciting, suspenseful and realistic than the digital crud that Lucas has been putting out since Episodes 1-3. That said, I enjoyed Indy 4, but it could have been sooo much better without the CGI (or far less at least).

[1234fan80]

i thought the movie was bad. Spielberg went ET on Indiana. The small quirky Jokes were missing , lucas and his flying monkey was absurd. I was better of spending money on that stupid battleshitt t-shirt at
https://tshirtsales.com/home.php than spending on the movie.
Please make another one, a better one.

[AngelaC06]

I don't go the movies. I rather wait until they come out on DVD and watch from the comfort of my bed. Yesterday, I rented the last Indiana Jones movie. I've always been a fan until last night. Besides all the laughable "special effects" I have to ask, When is Hollywood going to hire competent researchers to get accurate facts? This a Spielberg/Lucas movie and as such viewer's expectations are high. Let's start by asking the same question I ask myself everytime I watch a movie where the storyline takes place in a Latin American Country. Why mexican music? The story after all takes place in Peru not in Mexico. Going further, Pancho Villa was a mexican revolutionary. How Indiana learns "Quechua" from Pancho Villa (Mexican remember?) is a mistery since "Quechua" is a language that was only spoken by the Incas, an ancient civilization in South America, not in Central America or Mexico (where Pancho Villa was from). Again, we need accurate facts: for example, no warm weather in Bogota, Colombia, like it is depicted in "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" (Bogota is cold and about 8600 ft high so believe me is not warm up there), no Mexican music or people speaking Spanish with a Mexican accent when the story takes place in a country other than Mexico, as I have seen in so many other movies I can't even begin to name. Being Spanish or Latin does not automatically mean Mexican.