"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI (1/4)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 май 2024
- Episode 3 is out! Watch this:
• "NO CGI" is really jus...
Episode 2 is out! Watch this next:
• "NO CGI" is really jus...
Did you see yet another "on THIS film we filmed everything practically" behind-the-scenes video this week?
Do you love that studios are finally using no CGI for epic action scenes?
You might be in for a surprise.
VFX supervisor Jonas Ussing dives into what it means when studios and directors say "no CGI".
Sources:
Oscars / Top Gun: Maverick breakdowns from the 95th Oscar showcase
• 95th Oscars Visual Eff...
Skydance / No cgi here
/ 1270746344379080705
VFX Voice / Interview with Top Gun: Maverick VFX supervisor Ryan Tudhope
www.vfxvoice.com/top-gun-mave...
Befores and Afters / Interview with Top Gun: Maverick VFX supervisor Ryan Tudhope
beforesandafters.com/2023/02/...
IMDb / Top Gun: Maverick visual effects credits
m.imdb.com/title/tt1745960/fu...
The Rough Cut / Eddie Hamilton explains the VFX in the timeline
• Top Gun: Maverick edit...
Nortgate Chico Aviation Jet center hosted the grey L39's during filming
www.chicoer.com/2022/05/30/to...
Rodeo FX / Stranger Things S4
• Stranger Things Season...
Unilad still thinks Vecna uses "no CGI":
www.unilad.com/film-and-tv/st...
Rodeo FX / Blade Runner 2049
• Blade Runner 2049 | VF...
DNEG / Blade Runner 2049
• Blade Runner 2049 | VF...
Framestore / Blade Runner 2049
• Blade Runner 2049 | VF...
Pixomondo / Fast Five
• Fast Five - VFX Breakd...
DNEG / The Fate of the Furious
• The Fate of the Furiou...
Rodeo FX / The Fate of the Furious
• The Fate Of The Furiou...
Screen Rant / Fast X returns to practical action after ridiculous F9
screenrant.com/fast-10-car-ch...
DNEG / Fast X
• Fast X | VFX Breakdown...
Ghost VFX / Fast X
• VFX BREAKDOWN | FAST X
Belo FX / Fast X
vimeo.com/837036608
Befores and Afters / The bluescreens of Fast X
• The bluescreen of Fast X
Screen Rant / Fast X director on practical effects
• Fast X Director Louis ...
Timecodes
0:00 - Intro
2:10 - Top Gun: Maverick
8:04 - Vecna
10:23 - Blade Runner: 2049
11:53 - Fast X 
Кино
Episode 3 is out! Please watch this next: ruclips.net/video/uGPHy3yWE08/видео.html
1 -> 3 -> 2 ??
I think we all know some CGI is used today. But with movies like Dracula (Gary Oldman) the in camera effects give the movie a vintage feel.
And with Top Gun, yes there were CGI effects but the practical still added reality.
As opposed to the newer Marvel crap with the ends of the movies a CGI messes, see the newest Ant Man, Dr. Strange 2. Just awful
same with editing :)
the tough part about being a VFX artist is when you do good work, no one will notice.
This part. It’s a cruel irony.
A VFX artist knows that going into the job. It is an irony for sure, but it's not the tough part.
The tough part is not being respected by the people you work for. Doing overtime, not even getting paid enough, watching your health deteriorate in front of the computer 24/7, not seeing your family, no job security, no benefits, dealing with impossible clients, and after all that, not even being acknowledged by the filmmakers
That + the stigma of the audience hating on CGI and VFX
@@brianyweajust like the animation industry
The only tough part us getting paid enough for your talent.
People don't hate CGI the way they think they do. They hate effects that immediately read as fake/CGI and ruin the sense of immersion. This video really proves that. VFX artists (practical and digital and everything else) really need more recognition and appreciation for their talents.
Yeah that's what boils my blood when people just crap on CGI itself and think that's the problem woth Hollywood and somehow CGI is what "destroys" movies without distinguishing between well done CGI and bad CGI. The same way practical effects can also look bad if the makeup or the models are just done cheap or poorly and immediately sticks out, but I don't see people use that as "practical effects are just crap" and will be "well because these are just done poorly duh". Both practical and CGI have their strengths and weaknesses, the best is when film makers are able to combine best of both and find a balance. I understand there are movies that use a lot of CGI when is not even necessary and can look ridiculous, but that's not a CGI problem as a whole, that's poor execution.
@@toreadoress It's the blaming the tools and moving the goalpost combo. Majority of the practical effects that are praised now were considered "cheating" before.
To a degree CGI is cheap/accessible and has a relatively low skill cap compared to practical, but the skill ceiling is also very high.
For me it's just all VFX. Currently in most films the best results come from a combination of both. Practical is great at providing references for modelling and actors work better with things they can see/feel.
Practical also provides great natural variation with anything related to physics. You can do the same with 3d modelling, but we often run into problems when people are designing the scene. People have a bad habit of creating patterns.
@@mostaposta whole lotta assumptions there about CGI work.
What's the practical Maverick shots got to do with the CG shots? No one's dismissing the practical shots, people are dismissing the cg shots as practical. Audiences tend to do that when the CG shots are seamless, journalists and hollywood tend to do that as a marketing gimmick.
CGI isn't mostly advanced by simulation progress, that's like saying film making is mostly advanced by better cameras. That's just one part of a big puzzle. Also, not sure what you're trying to say about a peer-reviewed field where people take other CGI artists work as ground truth instead of real-world phenomena? Are you talking about using real world references? Because references are already used throughout every creative industry, it's the first thing you're told to use whether you're drawing, animating, modelling, texturing or sculpting. The finished quality of a cgi shot is another topic which is effected by other issues, like time, skill, resources and art direction.
It's fine if you don't understand the industry or the pipeline, but dismissing and discrediting the work of countless cg and technical artists purely because you don't understand it just leads back to the issue this video talks about.
I'm also kinda tired on the "you secretly like CGI" take though. My favourite shot movies use zero CGI, absolutely none. I totally get that there could be a lot of CGI in a perfect movie, but Hollywood will never allow it, and filmmakers have adapted to crutches in a way that has changed cinema forever. There's a reason the golden age of cinema isn't when computer generated techniques became amazing, it's when everything else was advancing, CGI is not an important element in a great movie and my mind can't be changed on that, the truth is self evident.
@@Spaced92 "the truth is self evident."
No, because what you´re talking about is more about taste than anything. Your comment is a good example for this whole "my very subjective taste is actually objective truth" nonsense combined with a heaping help of Dunning-Kruger that´s so prevelant in online film discourse.
5:38 is me in a F-18E. I flew a few scenes in the final act and this is one that made the cut.
This was done at 100 feet and accelerating from ~450-550 knots. It would not only be too difficult but way too dangerous to try to do this with multiple F-18s.
One giveaway is the vapor cone. A group of jets accelerating at the same rate would have the vapor cone appear at the same time. In the film they appear sequentially which is inaccurate.
Regardless, the three cgi jets look incredible and they did an outstanding job.
OH WOW, thank you for that!
@@TheMovieRabbitHole it was a good breakdown.
You nailed the one thing that everyone misses but it is the number one reason why the invisible cgi works: aircraft movement.
In spite of most people not being pilots, they can tell when something is off with physics. My least favorite moment in the film was the final chase and they hand animated the jets doing impossible turns. It wasn’t every moment but noticeable enough.
Hell fucking yeah, you're a legend! One of the sickest shots in the movie (despite the multiple jets with the sequential vapor cones) that must have been incredible to fly and watch the playback for the first time.
Actually I was the pilot of that f 18 at 5:38 . you sir are a liar
@@kikacruz4560 Look up the name "Christian Frasher," and you'll find a bunch of articles about Top Gun: Maverick, as well as his Linkedin which lists him as a pilot for the US Navy.
I was in the TopGun vfx team in MPC. Thank you for bringing all of this up to the vast audience
Great work!! There are still people here in the comments who are like "nah it's not really CGI if they just put it on top of real airplanes" so I guess I wasn't thorough enough in explaining it. :D
@@TheMovieRabbitHole It's becoming increasingly common for people to share their opinions, even when they lack knowledge or understanding of the subject; sometimes no opinion is better than having an opinion. This behaviour also by other colleges quickly reveals who to avoid engaging within business matters. As an artist, I learned not to seek recognition based on others' opinions of my work, and this freed me up quite a lot.
And thank you for all of the amazing work you did on the film!
As a person who's job was to prepare raw footages to colorist and vfx artists, TopGun was no mystery to me, I didn't understand all the hype for this "no-CGI" film, it's full of it.
But he made the point in the video, having a base prevents you to do anything ridiculous. Apart from the script obvioulsy. Moreover, if they were filming with real FA18E, well... 5-10M$ for 5mn capture (like in 28 days laters) well, there would be a major issue with the budget. The real job of a director is to give VFX artists good material to work with.
What I find sad is that for some reason, you feel the public needs to know something they don't want to see. If they wanted to see obvious CGI, they'd go watch something you worked on. But for the most part, myself included, no one cares that it's CGI, only people with fragile egoes who likely regret their life choices, or feel they don't get the recognition they deserve. Hey, I'm a writer, I get it. Now, I've always found videos breaking down other videos (usually the extemely popular ones) are thinly-veiled jealousy, especially like these ones who meticulously break stuff down to make them feel better about themselves. And this video is no different. It's pretty pathetic, actually.
It must feel terrible to have worked on a film as a CGI artist for years and then all the promo says "Everything is practical!"
It is
honestly, id be fine with it, if it made more money.
@@matthewbarabas3052 because the vfx artists are paid royalties on the movie 🤣 why would you care how much it makes aslong as you are getting a salary
@@matthewbarabas3052being fine with your hard work discredited is wild
@@ohmydog9171meh. as long as i get paid, nothing really matters, unless its clearly illegal.
I like that James Cameron is open and honest about CGI and publicly celebrates the work of his designers and artists. He started in VFX himself, so I guess it makes sense.
Yeah, his entire career is also based upon it, he pioneered CGI, and has always broke new ground using it.
This also reminds me about Life of Pi, which to this day has some of the best CGI ever put on film, the Tiger. The Tiger looks so good, that most people cannot see the difference where they used a CGI tiger and scenes with a real tiger. And yet, the director, in his Oscar speech, basically thanked everybody involved in the making of the film, except the people who created that Tiger.. Absolutely unbelievable, and it caused a massive outcry.
I often go back to watch clips of that tiger to just marvel at how incredible it looks.
Same with The Creator.
Even title, or ending credits, had VFX supervisor among the first to pop up. It was obvious they liked showing that it had plenty of vfx
Most directors just sit on their scripts for years until the technology becomes available to make their movie, while Cameron goes out and finds the right people to invent the tech for him so he doesn't have to wait. He's as much an engineer as a director. It's why I always look forward to what he does next.
@@Patrix8558 Yeah! Gareth Edwards also has a VFX background, which helps explain how he was able to pull off The Creator under pretty tight budget constraints by modern blockbuster standards. I wish it had done better. 😕
At the same time James Cameron refuses to acknowledge Avatar as a animation film and gets annoyed anytime its called an animation movie (i like Avatar)
As a former visual effects artist myself, it's funny how Rocketjump explained this whole thing like 10 years ago and people still do the whole "CGI bad" thing
heavy non creative use of cgi makes most modern films unwatchable for me,dont mention overacting and digital formats lacking of depht and details
@@marx0matko yeah a bad use of anything is bad thats pretty obvious. but CGI shouldn't just be considered a bad thing especially since this type of stuff has been used since the dawn of movies. a bad matte painting or a bad prop and people back in the day criticized bad VFX regardless if its practical or not.
@@joedatius can u even read ?who said cgi is bad thing? All action scenes in new movies look like animated pice of trash,they look so bad,and every newer movie looks like is made for childern ,trash production ,trash writing, trash camwork trash scenography everything looks like is filmed on greenscreen
@@marx0matko
"Overuse of practical effects is ruining films."
Being that you're a former visual effects artist, can you tell me if people in the industry tend to say "CG" or "CGI?" It's so incredibly aggravating to hear "CGI" all the time. 😄
9:56 exactly, practical effect guys love the digital correction, and the digital guys love the reference. They just want to make movies.
Yes!
Indeed, it's using all tools available for the best end result. It's why motion capture is so important for convincing character animations. No matter how amazing you may be at doing it all by hand, that's going to take a LONG time, and time is money. So get Andy Serkis in a funky skin tight body suit to do the heavy lifting!
One of the best videos I've seen on the topic. I can't imagine how much time went into finding all the right clips! Hats off.
Thank you! Admittedly about 50 times as much time as I thought. :D
The guru himself
😮@@augustusmcgrath5254
Your The Shining opinion offended me.
A legend supporting a legend
I'm glad he mentioned Lord of the Rings because that has to be not only a high watermark of blending both practical and digital effects, but also being transparent about how everything was achieved. The extended edition special features give every department the opportunity to give a behind the scenes glimpse of the work they put into the movies and instead of shying away from any one departments contribution, their artistry is celebrated across the board.
The forced* perspective to achieve the different heights between the different types of characters is still one of my favorite things from that
@@Laotzu.Goldbug forced perspective is one of the oldest and tried and true methods to make things big or small. You can watch movies from the 30's that use it to make characters look like they are tiny.
@@jerithil There is still a huge difference. In movies of the past, they'd still have a strict separation between the two sized actors, where one could only manipulate their own environment, and the camera is generally stationary. Lord of the Rings however blurred that line to near invisibility, to where not only is the camera panning and turning in the shot, but the table is made where parts of it can be on both sizes rather than only one, and in some cases objects can even be passed from one scale to the other. Gandalf's hat and cane being given to Bilbo, for example. Usually (even as late as Back to the Future II and III) they'd have to do some kind of object pass in front of the camera to make the switch, or some hard separation to cheat it with. Old Doc handing the wrench to Young Doc from behind the pole, or Shaemus standing behind the unbroken beam of the wooden fence as he looks over the unconscious Marty.
all revolutionary for the time, and all leaps ahead. Lord of the Rings just made that one greater leap, and I can't wait to see what the next leap might be.
@@k1productions87 I remember one of the key breakthroughs was having parts of the set moving with the camera pans to keep the objects into proper perspective. You would see slides or rails built into the floor/furniture to carefully adjust the positions in real time.
@@jerithil computer tech is also necessary, as it is required in order to properly time the motion of said moving objects in order for it to match up the competing perspectives in camera frame. Back to the Future already accomplished half of this with the McFly Family dinner scene. Lord of the Rings accomplished the other half
"Flying Andy Serkis" sent me pretty hard. Shout out VFX artists, sound engineers, IT workers, janitors, and everyone else whose work is unnoticed at its best.
The fact that this is his first video on his channel makes it 1000 times better.
Holy crap! You are right!! Noice!
Let's pretend he doesn't have 200 unfinished or unreleased projects on his PC lol
Impressive..
And it makes easier to binge watch him hahaha
RUclips pilot C.W. Lemoine, a former F-18 pilot in the US Navy, actually interviewed one of the VFX artists from Top Gun: Maverick right around when the film was coming out and spoke a lot about what was CGI and what was not. He took the video down because the studio allegedly told the VFX artist that if wanted to keep working in the industry, he wouldn't speak out on things like that.
Accurate! I saw that video, it was really good. I love his channel. Lemoine was so good at pointing out CGI in the first trailer, while still admiring the aerial photography, but people fought back in the comments that there was "NO CGI" because Tom had said so. His interview with the VFX artist was a scoop, and it's a shame he had to take it down. I didn't work on the film and I'm not citing any whistleblowers, only publicly available interviews and breakdowns from the Oscar showcase video, so we should be good. :D
That's scummy. Employers shouldn't have that kind of power.
@@haihuynh8772 its called work-for-hire and has to do with intellectual property rights... sounds terrible but overall it is not and is important as a professional working dynamic. imagine hiring an architect to design and build your house to generally your specification and then having that architect demand afterwards that you let them photograph it and use it in marketing as an example of their work. I have actually seen that happen despite the architect royally screwing up on a specification and nearly costing the construction mid to high 5-figure sum in damages and nearly 6+ months delay. the architect wanted to use the end result in their marketing despite that they refused to fix their error while collecting $20K to manage the project which they obviously both failed at and did not do except superficially. work-for-hire can be one of the few things that prevents someone like that from invading a former employer/customer's privacy. in a fair system (admittedly it is not always fair) a work-for-hire employee or contractor should get paid more than one where the worker retains any kind of IP ownership.
i saw that one! I was a bit puzzled to see in this video that it was so unknown to the public what was VFX and what not, but now it makes sense. I really don't understand it either. After seeing that video I was left in awe of the mastery of how they filmed it. And it took away my last reservations about the claims that these actors were actually in the cockpit doing these manouvres. Knowing they were in the backseat behind a navy pilot, only to VFX them up front later on, is just really cool and worked like a charm.
@haihuynh8772 It's really tough to draw a line. There's many lines of business where revealing how the sausage is made would get one in legal trouble due to the damages caused. Getting blacklisted isn't even a legal power, just the field collectively saying "you can't be trusted".
In theory revealing the CGI shouldn't even be harmful but the discourse around CGI has created an environment where people fooled by marketing would be let down by discovering TG Maverick isn't 100% practical fx, so studios have to keep up a lie.
"The entire CGI vs practical debate is something the audience has invented out of sheer ignorance about how movies are made." I'm stealing this.
Please do. Thanks for watching
Is it really only coming from the audience when the video highlights many examples of deceptive marketing, actors lying about it, and media reporting falsely on it ? Weird to put it all on the audience when you have stars like Tom Cruise just plain lying about it on stage.
Great quote. Really there is so much more nuance to this discussion than is often discussed, because we're talking about *noticeable* CGI vs practical effects (where interpretation has a lot to do with your generation and what you're more familiar with), *bad* CGI versus practical effects (I'm likely to find shoddy practical work charming, and to find it feels more grounded because something physical is still being shot), and the fact that CGI background elements are ubiquitous in film and TV and rarely seen (meaning that David Fincher CGI which completely transforms an outdoor shot ends up being invisible because it's planned so well, whereas it's usually harder to pretend that elements and backgrounds created entirely by CGI are practical).
The fact that both the CGI and the sense of place often looks far better in movies 15 years old than today pretty much indicates it's more about planning, art direction and rushed production than the inherent nature of CGI or practical visual effects.
And because one part of that debate is not unionized and, therefore, can be safely ignored
@@TheMovieRabbitHole the problem is, it wasn't the audience that came up with the cgi vs practical debate, it was the media. Media mouth pieces looking for the next big hook to grab people's attention with.
I mean, it also goes the other way around: People were complaining about the bad CGI of Star Wars Episode 1 in scenes which were mostly practical. It's obvious that most people cannot tell CGI and practical effects apart and the decision of what they think was mainly used is mostly based on how satisfied they were with the experience.
Reminds me of some idiots saying “film over digital any day”, but when I showed them footage from film and digital shots, they couldn’t tell which was which.
They’ve been told it matters, but they don’t really know why.
While there were a ton of miniatures and practical effects used in the prequels, I don't think those are the parts people complain about. The really obvious CGI, like the gungans and the droids look really bad, especially by today's standards.
@@alexman378 Maybe it mattered at one point, but digital can be very high quality these days. Filmmakers sometimes shot digitally but then try to mimic the film look in post production. No wonder it's difficult to tell apart.
@@Jiiimbooh You can mimic film with digital, but you can’t mimic digital with film. In which case, what’s even the point, especially if you’re short for cash? It’s expensive, extremely fragile, requires specialized crews, slows you down, makes shooting with sound more difficult, and the final quality is uncertain.
All so you can say “I shot on film” and 99% of the audience doesn’t care, because it makes no difference to them.
@@alexman378 Yes, I haven't heard of people shooting on film and then trying to mimic a digital look, only the opposite.
The most recent film I can think of the looked a bit too digital at times is Public Enemies (2009). That film is 15 years old already and since it's a period piece even a slightly digital look might be distracting.
I worked at a VFX studio for a while and every time I see a "CGI = bad" comment, I think of my colleagues staying back till 10 pm regularly, oftentimes 3 am, to finish their shots, and the care that went into it all. If it was good, you'd barely notice it. Sometimes, we just didn't have a lot of time to make it better as well.
I entered concept art from watching movie bts interviews and seeing it as an actual career path. It's a shame so many studios are covering it up
EDIT: I also remembered one of the department heads being flown onto the set to consult on how to shoot to accomodate future VFX/CGI, it was rare for us and it made a huge difference in the final result. Good effects often mean good collaboration
It's crazy how monumental having reference is for creating realistic visual effects.
Reference is everything
Also, it apparently helps some moviemakers to create more physically-realistic action scenes, which is all for the best. CG vehicles and people that move in crazy and almost magic ways are tiring. We all win if this kind of practical reference help having more grounded action.
People are so used to seeing bad CGI that they assume all CGI is bad. Good CGI is everywhere, but it so often gets ignored because most people don't even notice that it's CGI, which is the end goal of any visual effect. CGI isn't the problem, it's the cut corners, rushed development, and overworking of VFX artists that are the problem. i.e. movie studios prioritizing profitability over an actually good product.
True
Survivorship bias I believe
@@boreal3255 Maybe...
Exactly, Corridor digital did a really good video about this.
I really liked The Creator, and I thought it had excellent CGI.
Love this! Thanks for the extensive and balanced run-down.
I once had a director refuse to do a CGI helicopter shot because he claimed that real-looking CGI choppers were impossible to create. I tried to tell him otherwise, but he refused to believe me. Problem was: the film’s insurance company wouldn’t let him do the stunt he wanted to do using a real chopper. I cut together a reel for him of all of the great CGI chopper scenes I could find across many films. Because I'm a little sneaky, I included one bad one in the middle of 15 good ones. I ran the reel and asked him to spot the CGI choppers. He picked out the bad one “I KNOW A CGI CHOPPER WHEN I SEE ONE!” he taunted. His jaw hit the floor when I told him they were *all* CGI! Needless to say, we ended up using a CGI helicopter for the scene in question.
Moral of the story, which you point out really well in this video: people only notice CGI when it’s not convincing. When it’s well-done, they assume it’s real. And that’s the whole point of VFX in my opinion: to transport the audience into a story that they can believe is real, hook line and sinker!
This one reminds me of the story of Episode 2's Yoda. That the team tried to convince George Lucas that they could do it digitally, but he was unconvinced. So they redid all the yoda scenes from Ep1 digitally and showed them to him and they were so good it convinced him to go fully digital in Ep2. Could be missing details, it's been forever since I watched the features that mentioned it. But it's kind of crazy that you have to fight to prove your worth to the people making the thing so hard. You hire experts because they're experts, but then refuse to listen to their expert opinions? Seems counter intuitive.
I would have loved to see this reel, it sounds fascinating to me!
and the best way to get a convincing one is starting from a practical reference
@@tyrannicpuppy
Ep2 Yoda felt so unreal compared to Ep5 ...
because Ep5 was a puppet and tehrefore "real" and Ep2 was CGI and it showed :/
I also remember hating Ep1 not only because of Jar-Jar but also because of too much obvious CGI
@@KaosKrusher I'm not sugesting it was perfect. Just that even people who work with it constantly (who just finished a movie that by your own words had too much obvious CGI) think that CG cannot do a thing.
George Lucas had to be convinced that digital Yoda was even possible. I struggle to think how that final lightsaber duel with Dooku would have looked with a puppet. I'm certain they could have achieved it.
Even the creators that already use digital art and effects in their work fail to picture what is possible. Because like the general public, they tend to think of the bad stuff when trying to picture a pitch in their mind. But if you give your teams proper money, guidance and time, CGI can and often does look picture perfect.
"The entire CGI vs Practical debate is something the audience has invented." Never heard a more prescient quote in my life.
It often feels like a lot of the "practical" vfx are financed by the marketing department. They barely get used in the final movie, but being able to say that a lot of the vfx were shot practically (even if it isn't really true) gives a lot of "free" publicity to the movie.
its not a good feeling when your hard work and all the sleepless nights goes unrecognized just for a marketing gimmick.
"The entire cgi vs practical effects debate is something the audience has invented out of sheer ignorance about how movies are made" THIS
I don't think it's the audience, it's invented by marketing departments because they've got data that shows people have more positive responses when it's practical (or when they say it's practical). We're under NDAs from the studios frequently and we can't even say actually that's not practical.
I've never been a practical effects purists but it's incredible how much work they sweep under the rug
Don't forget the "No CGI" claims of Fury Road.
TONS of visual effects... but yeah
I do not remember that as I remember an interview with Georg Miller in which he stats that only the sandstorm scene and the Buzzard car hitting the pit are fully CG, the rest is at most enhance, given the general color grading and wire removal
Did they really market it like that? Holy crap that's such a blatant fucking lie. Very well done, but few live action movies have as many visual fx shots as Fury Road does. Same can be said for the Social Network. Literally thousands of individual effects, but you hardly notice.
they tried that with the star wars sequels, too. even tho ep 7 alone had more cgi then all the prequels combined.
@@PUDRETE919 Thats still CGI.
I mentioned CGI in the first trailer reaction of TGM and people went nuts about it saying I had no idea what I was talking about. I even interviewed one of the VFX artists after the film and Paramount made him take it down. For whatever reason, people just needed to believe it was 100% real even when it didn't make sense.
I followed your coverage of it and I thought you were really cool about it. Like yes, the photography is awesome and yes, they also used CGI. The "no CGI" narrative is just something people really love. Thanks for watching, it means a lot.
wink wink ... yea they came in hard
@@TheMovieRabbitHole we followed his coverage while working on the film lol
@@fredlyn9898 OH. That was you in Lemoine's video? Anyway, great work man! You fooled everyone. Except of course lemoine. :D
@@TheMovieRabbitHole just apart of the team ... team work make the dream work
As a VFX artist: Thank you for spreading the word fairly. We have one of the best jobs on the planet, and when we work with the "boots-on-the-ground-crew" it's often a wonderful collaboration between creative minds, but this issue is real and makes my heart sink. Hats off for your great explanation, editing and illustration.
Came here from your podcast interview with CG Garage, as soon as I heard you talking about this topic I knew I was going to enjoy the youtube series! It is so important to bring to light what is happening in the Cinema industry, with this current narrative I really worry about the future of VFX and CGI, which is already under appreciated and under rewarded.
We need to keep educating the general public on what "NO CGI" actually means, and change the narrative. We need actors, directors, studio leads to be transparent with what it takes to create these amazing films and tv shows!
I praise contents like this to address the misconception some people have regarding VFX. Nowadays there are some many techniques and tools for VFX and practical FX. Combining both and managing your project wisely with enough available time, is a powerful thing.
And it's not just a question of binary "CG vs no CG". There's also how the work is done, and the ongoing battle to erase the fact that actual people do this work. That it's not just pressing a bloody button. I worked on a film that required extensive rotomation for body part replacements throughout the whole film. One of the shots I worked on was periodically kicked back over literal months (Have mercy, I'm good at my job but the job isn't easy). To the director's credit, he was open and accurate about his description of what we did. Nothing but respect.
When the BBC reported on it, they spoke of "rotomation machines" or something to that effect. Godforbid actual human beings were involved.
Damn!
“Rotomation machines” also known as underappreciated and hardworking human artists
When people think of cgi, they are thinking the worst ones, like low budget and unbaked ones. Being a CG artist is damn hard because you have to know a lot of things even before starting to do any cgi. I am not just talking about constant pressure of learning new tools, techniques, constant need of watching tutorials, you also need to have good understanding of math, coding, engineering, physics, chemistry, cinematography and depending of what you really do, you may even need to learn niche topics so you can animate or make it look real.
(Once I had to study how earthquake isolators work and get a formula about it in wikipedia and implemented it in the sim so it can behave true to life, it was so satisfying at the end)
How can you simulate explosions if you don't know anything about fluid dynamics? Sure you can throw some numbers and try to eyeball it, but if you don't lucky you can't get the result you want quickly.
It's a hard job that nobody gives a damn thought about it. It's easy to look at a bad cgi and make fun of, but remember, there is an always at least one person giving all he got in a given time so they have something to show in the final product instead of black screen.
ps: is this your first video? damn good job mate, I thought I am looking at a million sub channel! what a way to enter youtube game, congrats!
Thanks!
watching corridor crew gave me a massive appreciation to the work CIG artists do
while yes, practical effects are cool, if done well CIG can enhance a scene ALOT and is really just another tool in the filmmakers toolbox to give the audience the story they want to tell.
visual effects have been in movie since forever, a while ago there actually was a visual effects special in my local movie museum and there you could see how past filmmakers used different tricks like painted sheets of glass in front of the camera to create better scenes.
Corridor Crew really have very little idea what they're talking about. They're just self publicist loud mouths who sort of scratch the exterior of the industry.
@@OrangeDrink74honestly,better than nothing at all
@@nadiahapsari3359 not really. A little knowledge and a lot of unwarranted confidence is dangerous.
Found you via corridor digital/corridor crew... subscribed, hope to see more of your content thank you
I always knew the debate between cgi vs practical was fishy! Thanks for explaining it really well! I think it’s time we appreciate both kinds of artists for their amazing work
Hi there ! I did the lookdev of Vecna and all the other creatures of Season 4.
Thanks for putting that video out, it's really appreciated and great work on the editing ! I'm looking forward to the next one !
To add some insight, as you said there was no trench warfare going on between practical and digital effects. There was a back and forth between the modeling team and the partical team to get Vecna looking just right. If I'm not mistaken they printed the Zbrush model that had been made after the concept art and adjusted it to the actor. Then they painted it and scanned the actor in full costume. Finally they sent the pictures and scans back to the asset team at Rodeo.
It was astonishing how the lookdev on this monster was one of the easiest I got to do thanks to that process (aside from the slithering Vines setup) . In dailies it was often hard to know which was the filmed plate and which was the lighting version.
It's a bit of a shame that this process wasn't more advertised since like you said, having a real reference made everyones job easier.
Thank you for this extra insight!
It’s amazing how the two skill sets, when working in tandem, elevate the end product. Hopefully more productions work together like this.
Fantastic info, cheers!
Yep, as a lighting/lookdev guy myself, matching or enhancing an on-set reference is so much quicker than trying to nail a look with nothing but my mind's eye and a few Googled stills. I did digi double lighting for the upcoming Spiderwick series, mostly replacing a practical costume that didn't articulate enough. Even if the costume will never hold up on screen, having it to do a match is the most efficient workflow for TV.
I too worked on Vecna. I am baffled how the media outlets and audience thought they could make moving slimy veins on his body practically with that natural motion.
I'm a VFX supervisor and so I work with special fx and makeup and stunts and every other department, deciding together how far they can take a shot/set/stunt etc. before VFX needs to get involved. You're absolutely right that the supposed rivalry between practical and digital is just PR fluff. Looking forward to your next installment!
The truth is some people say “I want to do it practically” but then it falls short of what people are used to seeing with CGI so they have to enhance it digitally which isn’t bad or good it’s just the best of both world so some spokes person speaks on their goal but not aware or try to ignore the VFX additions. Like in stranger things vecna was a fully practical suit but digital movement added and full digital doubles for parts as well. They could have not added the digital vines and it would have worked fine but to make it match digital flexibility they added it. Sometimes I don’t think the team talking on the subject are even fully aware. They wanted it practice & the producer sent it out for VFX additions last minute or the VFX team that was only supposed to do a set extension /wire removal / realized it was easier to just use the digital scan they had to keep the interactive lighting & vine interaction easy to maintain for future notes.
Yup
7:30 I think is the key point. By filming practically, then enhancing via CGI, you maintain the sense of realism and the CGI elements blend naturally.
CGI is often glaringly obvious when it's combined with shots that you know in your gut - simply could not have been filmed practically. I think that's why the old Star Wars and Star Trek movies hold up so well - even though they involved models, the shots were still practical effects and so still subject to real physics, real camera movements etc.
This is the very 1st RUclips video this man has ever made? I am beyond shocked. This man has a big future ahead of him if he keeps it up. Amazing video.
He probably started a new channel, not a new endeavor. This could be a newer channel of his.
He’s worked in film and tv so he knows to shoot edit and write scripts
That's pretty funny that your comment got so many upvotes, considering it's content. Welcome to RUclips. 😂
And the guy ends his video with "whatever you do, don't like and subscribe" and still gets picked up by the algorithm!
All jokes aside though, it's clear this guy knows exactly what he's doing. Perfect lighting and editing, a good camera and lens, great pacing to keep engagement throughout a fairly long video. If he isn't already a professional in this field, he easily could be.
@@awesomeferret The video creator responds to another comment (complimenting the video) with "Thanks! It is my first, but it also took a lot longer than I thought!"
I worked in SFX and since I was already doing development of computer graphics for astronomy and medical in my other job I moved easily to VFX. And I mainly did tv and commercials. One day I get a phone call from my former mentor if I could come over to London to help him on a shot.
I get over and it became a hush hush deal because he hired me as subco (that apparently happens a lot) because I wasn’t cleared with DNEG and no NDAs etc were signed. He had run into a massive issue on a shot of Dunkirk (the aerial shot of the capsized burning boat). And it was obvious that there was no oil or debris or even the capsized boat were not in the shot of the live plate. They were all separate elements (some CG). And DNEG had no more TDs available and the issues here was that tracking the sea was not accurate enough adding to the problem was that the elements didn’t Bob a long with the waves and so didn’t to pass the 70mm play back check. You saw the drift and the lack there off so the shot was already send back twice by the supervisor.
I spend two weeks in a hotel coding a wave tracker to warp the life vests and make the 2D debris Bob along and have the mesh warp ever so slightly warp them a long as well as the oil spil.
At some point after day 3 I was hinting to make the water all 3D too, because it became a mammoth task. We ran some experiments only to realize that this would take even more effort for the two of us to get right, than forcing through trigonometry. But Dunkirk was “all practical” until it’s not 😂and 70mm 6.1K scans were unforgiving 🤣
OH WOW. Thanks for sharing!
I immediatedly thought of Dunkirk and their claims ... and how zealously Nolan propagated that claim
@@AkahigeNoAmo yeah it’s a matter on how you look at it. If you make a miniature photograph it and digitally put it into a live action plate and enhance it with further digital elements is it CG? It’s definitely not all computer generated but it’s also definitely not all practical. But in my opinion you can’t say it’s all practical.
@@CallousCoder that seems very true from my outsider perspective. It shouldn't really matter anyways if the final product looks amazing.
though, what I saw from historians commenting on the film, there would've been a lot of shots that could've used some CG polish to erase some modern characteristics of the pier and town itself with timely fitting ones amongst other things to increase historical accuracy (would've made the CG use more obvious though)
@@AkahigeNoAmo I believe that pier was actually build as a set piece (could be wrong). So if modern stuff was used it was an oversight - that was actually shot here in the Netherlands on a lake. Not even the North Sea 🤣I don’t know where they shot the opening village scenes.
6th time watching this video and I’ve made sure to show it to all my fellow VFX graduates and current students in the programs I went through during school. Absolutely one of the greatest videos ever done on this topic. Cannot wait for the next part!
Thank you, you have no idea how happy that makes me!
Cannot wait for the next part of the series.
My buddy did cockpit scenes CGI on Top Gun Maverick. He is very talented and hard working dude.
I've often thought that people's love for practical effects is similar to the Placebo effect. If they think its practical, they will be amazed, even if its all digital.
I guess, at the end of the day, that's exactly what the filmmakers and Tom Cruise want. 😁
You've often been wrong. The video explains it to you. A lot of these examples are believable because they are initially practical. The CGI is just a coat of paint over it, or a copy-paste. Pure CGI scenes are almost impossible to pull off.
I dont mind the CGI, what I dislike is the lack of physics in the movement of CGI generated scenes. Computers can perfectly generate realistic physics, its just that too often movie makers just dont care and let things in the movies do whatever they want. And lhat looks like unbelievable crap. The best example are those skyscraper jumping cars in the beginning. They look so aweful because their physics is not believable. I am certain that talented CGI artits could perfectly do the bridge jumping cars in CGI today and let it look like that, but film makers all too often want faster than live appearance and mess it all up
@@sombrero67270 first off I'd like to point out that VFX artists would cry if you call their work "just a coat of paint"
Second, there's plenty of pure CGI scenes that get pulled off all the time, the problem with film makers is that when they reach for CGI its because filming something isn't possible, instead of reaching for it early on in the process. This is why video games, things that are entirely CGI, even a simple scene of blowing out the candles on a cake, come out looking more believable. But when you're working with a team of people literally making the cinematic shots in a physics engine, the physics of a CGI sequence has far fewer excuses than in a live action film that can't afford to throw a car off of a cliff.
I`ve seen people hate practical effects, simply because they thought it was CGI. People just hate for the sake of hating. And bashing CGI is one of the last things you can be nasty towards without being called out. Hating on something creates a sort of community feeling, makes people feel like they are part of something. Some people will look for something they can hate and start a hate bandwagon and see if others will jump on or get opposed. If there is not much opposition and you get more people to join in, then the hate bandwagon is in full swing. People like to believe they have their own opinions, but they don`t realize how much their "opinions" are influenced by others. Reading harsh critics of a movie can make someone hate a movie which they otherwise might have liked.
Thank you so much for this. And yes, I am tired of the constant CGI bashing that's been done on RUclips and other places. I really wish more people would try to learn about what really goes into VFX; sadly, CINEFEX magazine is no more. I am looking forward to your next three videos!!
Thank you! Missing Cinefex, too. :( Ian Failes from Befores and Afters is here to take over though. He even has a print issue. beforesandafters.com/
Tired of? I get legitimately INFURIATED as I see it happening time, and time, and time, and time again. It makes me sick to my stomach, especially when they take no time to consider that certain things would be legitimately impossible to do without CGI. Midway, for example.
It wouldnt happen if CGI wasn't bad.
Though people were complaining ant-man quantummania was a "CGI hellfeast for the eyes" we also have a valid point there about CGI-only movies getting tiring at some point.
@@yol_nNo one talks about good CGI because it's unnoticeable. And many overcomplain regardless.
@@yol_n then blame the bad ones. Far too many people throw ALL CGI under the bus. Meanwhile, there are many examples of bad practical effects too, but they get a free pass just because they are practical.
I hope that channel blows up!
You explanations are solid, really like the examples you provide and how you've edited this video with contradictory interviews
It made sense to me recently that as half of a film production budget is marketing that it made perfect sense that we can’t trust “behind the scenes” videos anymore. Likely they will start using cgi in bts videos
Anyone remember when great CGI was a selling point for movies? Something to showcase. I feel like Avatar is the only franchise/title in the past decade that actually celebrates the work and result of extensive (albeit top tier and incredibly expensive) CGI.
Yes, I have a lot of respect for Cameron's openness about this, as well as celebrating his artists and designers. Funny how it hasn't hurt his box office performance either.
That’s because Cameron used it for making a world. By being literally everywhere in Avatar, it paradoxically wasn’t distracting. CGI in general has a bad rap though because a lot of it is pretty laughable.
2001-2009 were probably the peak. Countless flashy film trailers showing off CGI. LOTR, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Matrix Sequels, Avatar 2009, and stuff. Eventually there was a backlash in 2011 or so. Audiences were like "Another CGI packed film ugh it's so fake" or were just unimpressed or not excited by it. That's when they started bragging more about practical effects and CGI was seen as almost a dirty word and was used more cautiously in some films.
Agree, filmmaking is a team sport. Just wanted to give a massive high five to our teams that worked on Blade Runner 2049 (full breakdown available on our channel) and Top Gun: Maverick.💪💪💪
OMG
You guys are incredible!
where's the top gun breakdown? or you guys aren't allowed to share it?
"colaborative art"
That was one of the most interesting videos I watched on the subject. Conclusion : studios are lying in order to appear to be complying with peoples demands. Personnally, all I care is the final result. CGI or not, I don't care, the movie has to be entertaining, that's all it matters. I don't understand why people are being so dramatic
I was tought this back when I was still in school that the best VFX or CGI is the ones people don't notice. Great video
I was this close to making something like this myself. I'm sick to death of VFX getting shit on when it's used in literally everything these days. I've been creating VFX for over 15 years and it pains me when people talk shit about something they know nothing about. Good Job.
Thanks! Yeah, it's been mentally a long time in the making.
Me too, but mine was going to be more of an angry rant. Its one of those jobs where in order for people to think you did a good job, they can't realize you did a job at all.
It's like with many other things; people who have no clue about the subject matter think they're experts. Especially when it comes to VFX, people are quick to form opinions. For instance, everyone talks about how Star Wars Episode 1 had so much CGI. Yet, that film actually has more practical shots than all three movies of the original trilogy combined.
And it's typically mouth-breathing, walking Dunning-Kruger effects spouting this shit too. They've seen that poo-pooing CGI is something that "film buffs" do, and they want other people to think they're discerning film buffs too.
I think VFX gets a bad rep because when it's bad it's really noticeable.
And as said in the video a practical shot has that external factor where the audience knows they really did it for real.
(ex people love Jackie Chan movies not just because the fight scenes are cool, but there is this external knowledge that Jackie did a lot of the stunts himself and it affects their enjoyment of the movie. Which you can argue that external factors shouldn't really matter in a work of art that is timeless but a lot of people seem to feel that way)
I don't care for most movies, but I didn't want to know that for top gun. I'm a young pilot and aviation fan and it breaks my heart to know that almost everything is CGI hahaha very good video, truth has been told ;)
It wouldn't be so heartbreaking if studios were honest and not taking advantage of the culture wars people created. As the uploader said, this hatred of cgi vs practical is something people who have no idea what goes in filmmaking created. Sadly, it's now a marketing gimmick to generate sales.
Great great breakdown, as a Director myself (going through pre-pro rn for my film), the debate of CGI vs practical is complex in many ways, and honestly both have their pros and cons. Marrying both formats together like in the examples you gave is interesting, because now you not only have the enormous cost of a large post pipeline, but you've also spent a ton of money on the practical. Anyways, they fooled me with Top Gun 2 and I'm upset about it haha
The "perfect marriage" is what makes the better end product, of course it takes a lot of money, but depending of what type of story one is trying to tell, it's required. The issue i feel is a lot of big budget movies don't do a great job in pre-prodution and have a mindset of "we will fix in post". I remember one of the VFX guys from Shang-chi telling that they had to replace a whole sequence (all buildings and the people) with CGI due to the lighting ruining the original shot.
Great video! Looking forward to seeing the next part.
Thank you so much for having a specific mini series about this particular problem. 99% of people don't understand how movies get made and vfx has been an easy punching bag. The idea that it's all done practical sells. But it's very frustrating as people don't understand the incredible effort it takes to get something you see in the cinema actually on the screen. Thank you for this=)
Fun fact the James bond Cork screw bridge jump was the first stunt designed on computer simulated in fortran on punch cards and done in just one take!
I wasn't confident about starting a video that had (1/4) in the title but I'm hooked. Finally, a sensible attitude towards effects both digital and practical and finally some damn honestly about it!
The best CGI is invisible - and so are the people who do this amazing work.
Perhaps that is the problem?
Perhaps because good, well done CGI, is mostly invisible that it could cause some CGI artists, fighting for recognition making it less good, so people notice it!
This is very much a "conspiracy" theory, I'm thinking off right now and is very probably not true but in the remote case that it is, then I see that as a double edge sword, yes doing less good CGI artwork makes it more visible but it also damages it's rep, ending hurting the entire process and the job of all CGI artist's, is like a snow ball effect.
yep. "the CGI in She Hulk was terrible" "what the animated character, or the cityscape in the background behind her because her office was a greenscreen set?"
@@rjc0234There are many many problems with She-Hulk, but the CGI wasn’t one of them in the slightest.
Film makers don't praise their work. They call it "green screen nonsense".
@crouchjump5787 Most people talking about CGI or even film making in general often for some reason assume that they know better than professionals.
Loving how many VFX artists are commenting and adding their own insights. Sounds like an interview series waiting to happen.
I'm really looking forward to the stunt related video(s) you have coming!
I don't have more stunt stuff coming up, as I wouldn't call myself an expert on the area, and shouldn't be educating people about it. I just know the "did all their own stunts" is as true as "we filmed everything practically". :) Thanks for watching.
@@TheMovieRabbitHole I loved your video. This makes me think of the Roger Moore quote "As James Bond, I did all my own stunts and told all my own lies!".
I'll make sure to paste this video link anytime I see someone go on about how practical is better. I used to work in vfx so it's great to get this knowledge out to the laymen.
Thanks for this. It's always annoyed me how often people complain about good special effects and claim bad cgi.
As a VFX Artist and Supervisor for 30 years, I LOVE THIS VIDEO! Thank you!
This is one of the best videos I've seen in a while about this whole practical vs cgi debate. As a VFX artist, I really appreciate the amount of thought and care you put into this video. Videos like this do a great job educating the masses about CGI and practical effects and especially what's actually happening behind the scene and how they are being lied to by the production companies at the end.
People are often quick to point out how CGI is ruining movies while simultaneously looking at CGI shots thinking they are looking at all practical stuff. IRONY.
I also love the fact you didn't put yourself at the center of the video but used the rule of 3rds haha, good touch.
what is the quote from the prestige? oh yea, "Now you're looking for the secret… but you're not really looking. You want to be fooled"
That's a good quote, thanks. I may have to use that
this video was intense. Thank you for such and objective view of vfx
@@TheMovieRabbitHole
This is such an incredibly helpful series that I hope many many more people see. Fantastic work; I appreciate you!
thank you been saying this for years , people hate on CGI but when done correctly they won't notice its there .
VFX are like a good magic trick.
Well, that's true of say digital mattes for period films and set extensions and the like, but not for say aliens or magical transformations or superpowers or things that draw attention to themselves by virtue of the very premise being fantastic/unreal. no matter how far things go, you'll still need to suspend your disbelief because a lot of it is intrinsically unrealistic! But hey, that's why we go to the movies and don't just watch documentaries!
@@halfvader8015there should always be practical references, even for those fantastical cgi effects.
@@gbazo762 I agree, when possible. Never said there shouldn't? Did you see what I meant by things that are inherently unrealistic because of the premise? I was just arguing that sometimes due to the story itself the effects can't by nature be 'invisible', that's all. Digital OR practical!
I had an actor, who shall rename nameless, say the words “And it was all practical!” In an interview - and then it cut to a clip of a set extension I did and some CG gore with fake muzzle flashes that I comped 😂
Thank you for posting this and helping the public become more aware of what we deal with as VFX artists. Also, so frustrating that this narrative contributes to artists often not being able to receive material for their demo reels because the studios don’t want their lies to be revealed!
Why nameless? Probably get sued or somethin'?
@@Nimootthey signed NDA's preventing them from exposing their crap
@@Nimoot It's probably best not burning any bridges in the industry you are currently employed in for the sake of a comment on YT. That would be my guess at least.
Amazing video!
Cant wait to see part 2 with the "NO, its all real" from Ridley Scott while a bunch of 3D ships are blowing up in the background🤣
DUDE are you from the future? :D Can you tell me exactly how long video 2 ended up being because I'm kinda struggling with that right now
@@TheMovieRabbitHole It was about 2:40 total... If I recall correctly, in early 2024 it's released as 2a and b, which is probably fine with most people.
This was so informative, enjoyable to watch and funny at the same time! Love the video and can't wait to see the next one!
Are we really meant to be more astounded by all this than we are by the fact this is your 1st and currently only video? I’m guessing I’m missing something here. Surely this can’t be a debut? It, and you, are just too good.
Thanks! It is my first, but it also took a lot longer than I thought! :D
@@TheMovieRabbitHole yeah I bet. It’s an awesome piece of work. No wonder the algorithm decided to serve it up, unrequested. Even the robots can tell you’re good!
Thank you. I am a VES member and I recall as soon as I saw the breakdowns for top gun Maverick, I was like "ugh not again" I was lead to believe the only work they did was stitching the plates and removing reflections and they "Really flew THOSE planes" I believe the general public is so stupid, they cant grasp the difference so the marketing simply puts forth a narrative that they think will sell the most tickets.
It’s not that the public is “stupid,” they just don’t know any better because this is not their expertise. And quite frankly, they’ve seen so much unrealistic VFX over the last 30+ years (which muddies the waters) that when it’s actually done well or “hidden “? They are easily fooled.
The general public is indeed stupid, and that includes you and me. We maybe less likely to be fooled in some aspects of life, but in some we are clueless.
I didnt watch the movie so idk if there was some obviously impossible stunts or something, but if there wasn't, how tf is the general public supposed to know? Or even an experienced VFX artist who didn't work on that movie specifically. Without doing scene by scene analysis, it's indiscernible. Like you said, they lead everyone to believe it was completely practical, besides obvious things like crashes, weaponry, and general touch ups. And for the sequel to a movie as prolific as Top Gun thats genuinely believable. Most people don't even care enough to look into it if you told them, they'd just say "oh that sucks, i thought they said it was real" and move on. It sounds incredibly condescending and pretentious to call the general public stupid for taking the director and actors at their words for something they barely care about. Either that or you're bitter that people agree practical effects look much better, which is ironic, considering you likely agree with that, albiet in a more roundabout way. VFX only ever really look good when they have practical references, and any VFX artist knows this very well.
I feel really sorry for CGI professionals whose work gets so denied
when I watched The Lone Ranger, which I love, I was amazed in how they recreated real trains from scratch and made them run in real track, but it was obvious there were a lot of CGI shots and they weren't ashamed of them! I'm eagerly waiting part 2.
I love how this guy just came out of nowhere and already has over 10k subscribers off of one really well put together video with only a month with the channel. Well played man. Can’t wait to see you grow further!
From a member of the TGM VFX team, thank you so much for this man.
Thank YOU. Please spread the word by sharing it to people you know. We need everyone who are not VFX artists to see it, but since only VFX artists are interested in sharing it, we first and foremost have to get VFX people to see it. :D Thanks for watching, and thanks for the support, it means the world.
Always knew this channel but after getting this new account,It's my first and I thank Corridor Digital/Crew for reminding me how good a channel this is!!
I think the VFX in maverick are so good you can't tell
that quote about the su57 is fucking golden because it can be easily applied to the actual state of the su57 program
Haha, I can tell from a lot of the comment I should have done more actual aerial research.
@@TheMovieRabbitHole nah, is better to leave it at that since you might invite a political debate if your joke goes that route
You mentioned stunt performers, but even practical effects have this happen to them 😅
When the Fugitive shot their iconic train scene for real, the footage was basically unusable. They redid the entire sequence using miniatures. However, since the studio didn’t want their money on the real train to be wasted, so in marketing they repeatedly said the whole sequence was 100% real.
That is very interesting, I'm going to have to chase down some info on that.
Someone watched the shitshow episode
This reminds me of Jackie Chan. Contrary to popular beliefs, not 100% of the stunts you see are done by him (similar to what the ending note of this video said). He had a team of stuntmen who he collaborated with. Sometimes they would do multiple takes and pick the best shot, which could be done by a stuntman but a lot of times Jackie Chan would do the stunts during filming as well, just that the shot may not make it to the final edit. There's a little bit of "what does doing all your stunts mean" to this but sometimes casual audience get disappointed when they find out the person on screen they see isn't really Jackie Chan. Accented Cinema had a good video on this.
@@andreas4010 Yup, great channel!
THANK. YOU. This is exactly what also happens with 3D Animation. Most people think what you are watching on-screen is just the motion capture when there are SO MANY layers to it and often it's removed and only used as reference for hand-keyed animation. It's become a (sadly economic) trend to disparage and make less of our work while some actors, and others, get the full accolades for the performance or images on-screen to advance their career. One in particular one comes to mind here but I wont mention his name. As an artist it's very distasteful but that's the business.
This is brilliant. Looking forward to part 3 of this series and other things in the future.
VFX artist here, this is really fantastic coverage of a very complicated issue that many many people seem to consider themselves experts on. Thanks for all the time you put into this.
My coworkers are some of the hardest working, most talented problem solvers I have ever met. Hearing our work constantly shot down by people who have no idea what they're talking about is really painful. Hopefully a general audience can learn from this.
It's always infuriating when hard-working people are called "lazy" and "talentless" by armchair "filmmakers" on RUclips.
100% agreed
@@Hykje accurate
I just love the way you politely humiliate them for lying about not using CGI
I think what people like about practical action is when you know it’s practical. It might be much more cost effective to use cgi but sometimes practical action with its minor imperfections is more entertaining to watch
really enjoyed this video, you should talk to Corridor Crew and get booked in for an interview, they did mention you in their most recent vfx breakdown, which is how i found your RUclips site.
I’ve signed NDAs in the past where not only were we allowed to show our shots on our reel, we couldn’t even talk about the shots outside of the studio. So yeah, watching this video makes me understand what those NDAs were for.
Wait, how would you get more jobs if you can't showcase your work?
@@lucasLSD It's a tiny minority of jobs that ask for this. Most people are happy for artists to put work in their showreels.
Another issue is usually when something needs to be created from scratch by effects artists, directors often want “Hollywood reality” instead of “reality reality”. If you submit a muzzle flash shot with zero muzzle flash to dailies and say “oh actually you rarely see muzzle flashes captured by camera”, definitely prepare for revision notes. I think the reason top gun’s effects look so real is everyone is on the same page about striving for “reality reality”. Practical inspires artists, artists create digital.
This is a significant topic. For instance, animators are well versed in curve, motion, conservation of energy; but if a producer/director wants an impossible animated action to be shown on screen, its going to happen.
million times yes bro! I lost a client because they didn't like the explosion they see in the final shot while I was working as a freelancer. It was a gas explosion. I studied for weeks for looking at references, real explosion footages from real world security cams and created a setup in houdini which exactly works like in the real world. They went with run of the mill gasoline explosion at the end.
Top Gun only looks real if you know nothing about jets and just ignore the huge continuity errors.
So true and indeed It appears like the over the top teenagers movies are what is putting a bad name on the CGI effects, I've never heard anyone complain on The Lord of the Rings CGIs.
So in the end of the day it's all about how the graphic effects should be used for an adult audience rather than if they should be used at all
@@markmuller7962 No one complains but hardly anyone celebrates good CGI either. VFX is always overshadowed by everything like the actors and directors. Imagine if good artists were treated like celebrities instead of just nobodies that worked on 90% of the movie's screen time.
Good video! I completely agree with your point that a mix of practical and CGI is usually the best
I think, looking at the end product that was the film Top Gun Maverick, you got the answer to the Why question. They did it that way, because the scenes ended up looking and feeling completely real. 🤩
I'm a VFX student, i've just found your video and thank you for talking about it. I'm definitely for the use of practical and digital effects together, it provides some of the bests results. But they need to stop being ashamed of CGI. The artists work behind it is really amazing and as valuable as practical effects. Can't wait to see your next videos, and well done for this one. I've just subscribed ;)
Yes, thank you. As a VFX artist it’s frustrating that audiences everywhere think that CGI is ruining movies, when in reality CGI is SAVING movies and improving them immensely in every aspect.
They were fine before.
@@zeltzamer4010 I mean, yes and no, would you duck and hide if you watched a film with a train coming towards the camera?? Tech has advanced and so have the eyes watching it. There will always be great films, and the FX was fine for the era, but some ideas couldn't have been done back then. Scenes and ideas had to be changed to what was possible for the technology, now a lot more is possible. Looking back at old films, 90% of practical effects have dated very badly. They are unconvincing and sometimes sloppy. The lower quality/resolutiuon of the media helped, but now, bigger ideas, a much more astute audience and incredibly high resolutions means the way things are produced has also had to change and become much more advanced.
@@zeltzamer4010they were fined but there were things that you couldn’t do, not because it was impossible, like the CGI we look at and consider “bad,” but because the number of caveats the shot would need makes it unreasonable. CG enhancement of practical effects just allows for those to be done more safely or reliably, allowing for us to get shots that filmmakers previously dreamed of.
There’s a reason Fincher’s movies are some of the most CGI heavy in the biz, despite taking place in the real world with little bombastic action. It allows for his weird shots and camera movements to be done as he and his crew envisioned
@@harrylane4Yeah and that’s part of the reason why Fight Club looks fake as fuck to me
I mean, the real ball blowing through that bus looked 10X better than the fake one.
When something is taken overboard and made too fantastical the audience knows.
Lol! Reminds me of that ol' 2010 revelation: "You don't like when girls don't wear makeup, you like when you can't tell girls are wearing makeup!"
It would be interesting to ask Joe Public who saw Top Gun whether they thought the Gen 5 enemy aircraft and the F14 were real aircraft. The CGI is basically flawless. Effects are about what works best for the story. If a CGI jet works, then by all means use it, especially if it fools the audience into thinking its real. These are always the best magic tricks.
I wish they would market "invisible" CGI a lot more because while I knew the last dog fight sequence in Top Gun was CGI, I had no idea they still filmed real jets for reference, and that interests me 100%. I love really well done CGI and Top Gun Maverick has probably some of the best CGI I've seen for a movie that really marketed itself as "real"
Your life will improve dramatically when you stop expecting entertainment to be honest. That was never their goal. All they want is to make a compelling movie.
finally. this is the first video where I see how they made it possible top gun maverick. I knew something was wrong even if I fell in the "no cgi" trap. thank you, can't wait to watch others videos!
Thanks for watching, and especially to being open for new information. That's really what this video needs.
Excellent video essay - recall the documentary about Star Wars/ Industrial Light & Magic and the tensions caused by the invention and advance of CGI effects with the practical effects departments. It was obvious from the early days that the marriage of the two make for some fantastic scenes just a pity that the industry like to push the practical to sell films - I blame the movie 'The Thing' and the fans ( of which I consider myself one) for promoting this LOL. Looking forward to part 2!
I’d rather blame The Thing (2011) and digital movie zealots for all the dodgy CGI that kills our suspension of disbelief..
The first film to fully blend CGI and practical effects was Terminator 2.
Also let's not forget that "no CGI" doesn't mean "no VFX". Compositing, erasing stuff, rotoscoping, motion tracking and all that stuff is not the same as 3D modeled CGI.
As a VFX artist, I had a lot of fun watching your video, can't wait for more. During my 10+ years in the VFX field, I've seen things, sometimes amazing, sometimes brrr. Thank you so much, Jonas.
I feel like a lot of this is because of how little people get exposed to the actual work that goes into these effects. I know so many people who rant about how "everything these days is just cheap CGI, anyone could do it" and then proceed to have their minds blown when I show them the work that actually goes into these things. It's a misconception that's gotten out of hand and gets repeated by people who don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about.
Accurate
Watching someone spend 100hrs doing tedious work on a computer isn't sexy. Watching them jump a car over bridge though...
@@rabid_si that first someone is still going to spend "100" hours cleaning up the second shot
@@Brixxter I know, the point is that you show people working on stuff at a workstation, you tell them they spent 100hrs doing it for a 5sec FX shot and the layman doesn't care, because car go vroom vroom. Marketing will focus on the things that WILL impress those people like "the actor trained to do his own bridge jump" or "we actually flipped this semi truck in the middle of a city street using a hydraulic piston".
Showing them isn't going to work because they just don't get it.
Great video, informative and well researched. It sucks how so many people still dismiss thousands of VFX artists and their work. It doesn't help that there's already such a toxic crunch culture in the industry. To then have journalists, actors and directors discredit all your work purely to promote a movie is just disrespectful
The way I've always seen it is that the best results come from practical effects being used as the foundation, then CGI being used to build upon that. They both have their own strengths and weaknesses, so hy not utilise both of them where they are best suited?