
How Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan Created 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' (2013) - Thevet
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/08/how-lucas-spielberg-kasdan-created-raiders-of-the-lost-ark
======
kingmanaz
>How Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan Created 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'...

...without CGI, thankfully.

It's been more than a decade since Hollywood released a movie with a realistic
patina.

For an example, compare the centerpiece truck chase in Crystal Skull with the
propeller-dodging fistfight in Raiders. Where's the fullers earth, where's the
blood, where's the sweat? Contemporary CGI effects contaminate films with a
phony "sheen" which future film historians will no doubt condemn as glaringly
phoney.

Likewise, CGI seems to encourage special effects artists to "overload" movie
frames, the clutter devolving into little more than a figurative close-up of a
child smashing toys together. Was the Tarzan reference really necessary in
Crystal Skull's truck chase? Did a kitchen sink really need to float by in
Revenge of the Sith?

Further, CGI characters are forgettable. Can filmgoers still see the details
of the spheroid attack vehicles from Attack of the Clones in their minds eye?
Contrast this with the AT-AT's from Empire Strikes Back. The former CGI props
do not ring true to the mind and are thus only imperfectly recalled. The
latter physical models are unforgettable. Also see ED209, the stop motion owl
from clash of the titans, the terminator skeleton from Terminator 1, etc.
Physical models are crude but effective. CGI is nuanced but phoney at a deeper
and much more damning level.

The widespread adoption of CGI circa Phantom Menace will likely mark the
beginning of a protracted dark age in filmmaking. Who knows when or if there
will be a renaissance.

~~~
joosters
Another big difference between CGI and 'traditional' special FX is that CGI
really seems to age worse. The SFX in the Indiana Jones films are dated, but
they have aged well, IMO, and are still watchable today. Yet CGI from only a
few years back (barring one or two exceptions) somehow manages to look so
poor.

I wonder if this trend will continue, or will CGI manage to become 'good
enough' so that the effects can stand the test of time. It's weird looking
back at old movies and being disappointed at the computer effects, yet when I
watched them the first time around I thought they were fine.

Or maybe this is just nostalgia, a sign of me getting old, and how "everything
was better in the old days" :)

~~~
ars
I think that might just be survivor bias. You don't remember, or have never
watched, the bad pre-CGI movies.

~~~
dredmorbius
It really depends.

 _Clash of the Titans_ and _Jason and the Argonauts_ were both stop-motion
animations for much of their effects. The artifice is obvious but ages well.

 _Forbidden Planet_ uses a mix of practical effects, mattes, and hand-drawn
animations (the monsters of the Id). Again, fairly obvious, but all told, ages
fairly well.

And _2001: A Space Odyssey_ , only ten years later, has effects many of which
could be contemporary. Shots of _Discovery_ in particular are near perfect,
and I found the effects in the 1984 sequel, 2010 to be _worse_ in regards --
the sagging of a supposedly zero-G bridge was one that still registers with
me.

But there are also lots of bad examples. Many of the James Bond franchise
sequences involving flight or spaceflight are pretty obviously cheesy. The
effects from Superman are hit-or-miss. Rear and front-projection effects,
especially in automobile scenes, where auto occupants _clearly_ aren't in the
same physics as the vehicle, are quite distracting to me (and date to the
1930s).

The thing about practicals -- model effects especially -- is that you've got a
real physical object at play, and that's going to have depth and other
elements which are still hard to capture in CGI. Though _blends_ of CGI with
live-action (the epiphany for me was _True Lies_ which pioneered much of this)
_can_ be highly convincing. The key is subtlety.

------
drewmate
Raiders has long been one of my favorite movies. For me it represents an era
of filmmaking (the 1980's) when filmmakers relied on strong characters and
stories more than familiar sequels and over-the-top special effects.

If Indiana Jones or Raiders seem cliche, it's only because they were instant
classics created by brilliant filmmakers at the peak of their craft.

~~~
stackthatcode
Remember when people used to clap or cheer at the movies??The don't make 'em
like they used to. Even with its moments of campiness, there's a certain
authenticity, even nobility to Raiders. To this day when I watch the ark-
opening sequence I get chills, in no small part due to John William's
masterful soundtrack.

------
Thevet
Here's a PDF of the transcript of the 1978 story development session between
Lucas, Spielberg and Kasdan:

[http://maddogmovies.com/almost/scripts/raidersstoryconferenc...](http://maddogmovies.com/almost/scripts/raidersstoryconference1978.pdf)

------
RexRollman
I just watched this the other day and it is amazing how well the movie has
held up over the years.

------
jhwhite
Here's an article talking about it from 2009. I like this article better
because it talks a little more of Indy's background and history, especially
with Marion.

I like how this article talks about how you make someone more likeable having
things happen off screen.

Although this is a little more disturbing because Lucas wanted Marion to be
11-15 when she had her affair with Indy.

------
tonylemesmer
Check out Jamie Benning's filmumentaries on this film[1] and the original Star
Wars trilogy and Jaws. Great fan produced pieces with making of info and
interviews with cast and crew. Throw him a tip if you enjoy them too :)

[1] [https://vimeo.com/36011979](https://vimeo.com/36011979)

------
th3m
Just search for "Raiders of the Lost Archives" on YouTube, and you ll see the
truth about how the movie was made!

~~~
th3m
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8bG9AbfwM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns8bG9AbfwM)

