Go to ground.news/cgy to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link to get 30% Off unlimited access this month only. Hey everyone, thanks for watching - This video really was a massive research project, and there was so much to talk about that originally it was gonna be 50 minutes long! So I’ve chopped it down a little just for the pacing, and because I think the No Way Home stuff in the last third really ties all of this together in a very interesting way, and i wanted to get to that point sooner rather than later 😅 So yea, I hope you guys liked this video and please let me know what you think!
CNN is factual most of the time. Huh? Then didn't even know who Nvidia was or what they do. The mirror has the worst track history in the UK. CTN is just Chinese state propaganda. Really your sponsors matter as they direct people.
I was one of the puppeteers on the Doc Ock tentacles and I’m grateful for this look back to one of the most satisfying film experiences I’ve ever had. Well presented and happily received.
I love how those arms move like SNAKES instead of tentacles and whisper into Octavius' mind the way the snake whispered to EVE in the garden of Eden, leading to her downfall.
Otto's weight distribution was such an important aspect NWH was missing. He was clearly just on a dolly, while SM2 really made it feel like the arms were carrying him.
I was thinking this exact thing! It's really interesting to me how he looks much more like a puppet in the film which didn't use puppetry. SM2 really made him feel like he actually could exist with the way he moved
This film and Godzilla: Final Wars is how you do puppetry in the "modern digital" movie landscape. Before you had to hide wires... Now a puppet's strings/wires can out in the open and simply digitally edited out.
The saddest part about the lack of practical effects in modern times is how 3D printing can make the creation of said props so much easier and quicker even if it can only be used as far as prototyping for the design in mind. Say you had some fancy sci-fi weapon but need to have multiple people on screen using it, you can just print simplified versions for them to wield. Say you have some that has forms it transitions between but it’d be to complicated to make a version that operates in reality, you can print it in different stages at the same time to at as reference points for a cgi transition.
Mhm it's not quite like that i would say for something like these tentacle arms. Modelling approach for 3D printing and for CGI is very different. Mechanical plausibility isn't a high consideration for CG, things frequently are allowed to intersect themselves in space, but must follow topology rules for subdivision and deformation. When you do something for real, whether 3D printed or hand built or however, you don't have the luxury of being mechanically implausible or sloppy, but CG topology is of no regard, but mechanical CAD software has its own topological constraints that are different. The problem of integration between live action and CG is largely solved very well with light field probing, so a real life reference is often not needed. And in turn the reason a lot of CG looks conspicuous is because you can intuitively feel that the mechanics doesn't work out, doesn't look plausible, and 3D printing static stand-ins does nothing to help. Of course if you have a fully static model, even if it's for CG intent, it's easy to fix it up enough to where it can be 3D printed. But you still have surface treatment and paint. But of course static props for actors is something that is often 3D printed based on CG production files, very very frequently done. And yet i would suggest that whatever way you produce, physical first often makes more sense if physical items and digital doubles must co-exist and you're after full believability. You can either retopologise on top of 3D files made for 3D printing for CG, or you can 3D scan handmade items. 3D scanning has recently become hobby accessible, but it is not a new technnology at all as far as industrial use.
You're right that it's sad these things aren't utilized, but that utilization depends on the film maker. There are lots of directors who use practical effects, and a lot of the costumes you see in modern movies are made with 3D printing. Film should utilize more physical props, but it has to be a project that they are passionate about.
would need planing tho otherways you can just shoot some scenes and let the after effect crew take care of the rest You don´t know where this scene takes place yet? no problem, you don´t know how they even look like? well, okay, I guess we will just make a docent bland versions and pick the best one later
The mix of CG and practical arms was certainly amazing, but what really sold the effect for me was Alfred Molina's body language. The way he carried himself made me believe the effects. Because, realistically speaking, if you had something like that fused to your body, those things would be pretty damn heavy, don't you think? And it's not just how he carries himself; it's how he lunges and thrusts himself in a specific direction to offset the weight of one or more of his mechanical arms going in a specific direction. Doing stuff like that helps keeps the effects grounded in reality.
They would be heavy, but like your legs, while they are powered, you don't notice their weight, except through inertia. Each one of your legs would weigh around a bag of cement, maybe a hair under, but they don't feel like bags of cement hanging off your body. But kicking or running, that's when this weight becomes more noticeable through reaction forces and energy transfer.
Absolutely. Even the best sfx, be it practical or cgi, cannot surpass good acting. The first 2 robocop are a great example, 90% of the character was the actor in the suit, not the suit itself.
@@kingcosworth2643 the leg is held up by your bones and muscles and there is a lot of weight distribution, the tentacles are only connected to his spine, with no additional muscle to hold them, so I think it would feel more like a heavy backpack unless one of the legs stems the weight on the ground or so
I think what helped the recent return of Doctor Octopus a ton is also the fact that Alfred Molina, despite not being able to work with the props anymore, still knows how it feels to work with them. The entire kinaesthetics of those arms is familiar to him which automatically makes it much easier for him to sell them to the point of being believable once again.
While I do agree with you, I sadly have to speculate that the directors of NWH chose Alfred for exactly this reason, knowing he would bear the weight of making those CGI props more real. I applaud the CGI and CDC teams, everyone who worked on those scenes, but it's still a sad story...
The arms just felt like they actually had *weight* in Spiderman 2. When you saw Otto using them to walk you really got the sense that they were actually carrying him. The lack of smoothness in places I feel also helps. It gives off the impression of machinery going from point A to B, with no wasted movement, while also being just fluent enough to make them feel like tentacles.
@@anjafrohlich1170 It's like when you see a robot arm move. It can be incredibly fluid but there's still something about it that's alien and mechanical rather than biological.
Man the hospital scene in Spider-Man 2 was just such a perfect 90's \ Frankenstein style "monster coming to life" moment it was my favorite. It really showed the arms having a perverse symbiosis with their host, protecting him from the doctors and on coming cars, wanting the same things as him just not caring how they did so, they had the duo acting perfectly down to the last minute details.
What I loved the most what just when Doc Ock was conflicted, the way he looked at his arms, and the way the looked back, the seemed truly alive, menacing, and manipulative, so much deja vu in terms of AI. Or in the first incredibles movie, where Mr. Incredible said about the robot he was hired to take out “it got smart enough to wonder why it had to take orders”, so cool to see this in 20 year old movies.
That’s probably why Sam Raimi wanted to have a mask on green goblin (not the mask in the movie the one they didn’t use for the movie) he probably wanted to enhance the mask with cgi.
Yea this is actually one of the parts I cut out! Doc Ock's digital double was a massive step up for the SPI team in comparison to doing the Green Goblin because of making stuff like his hair, skin, loose clothes etc - There also were a few more reasons like how different the pair of them moved in comparison to each other and such as well - Maybe I'll make a quick YT short about it if people are interested? (Also it goes to show how nuts Sandman/Venom were for SM3 as digital characters)
I actually really love the original mask that they removed from the movie. That practical mask with movement is such an eye candy to me. Even if it may give children nightmare, it looks like the best thing that could have happened if it did make it to the movie.
The first 3 Pirates movies are also perfect balances of practical effects and CGI. Those movies are absolutely stunning to this day. They are movie magic at its finest. The undead skeleton pirates still look fantastic and that CGI is from 2003… and then in the following two you have Davy Jones who literally looks real. I never for a second feel like I’m watching a fake character. My dad thought Jones and his crew were all makeup effects back in 2006. His mind was blown. Still the best looking CGI character I’ve ever seen. Then you have the real pirate ship sets, the real filming locations, the flawless blue screen, all blended with top of the line CGI.
I agree, also another example: in Jurassic Park 1, the T-Rex looks so good, specially the first scene when the T-Rex appears, in comparison, in Jurassic World 1, the T-Rex doesn't look as real, looks more CGI than in JP1 (Spielberg really made a good balance of practical and CGI for that movie).
@@ArcaneTuberto add to JP1's T-Rex, it was genuine horror. The animatronic got really wet during filming, and caused it to collect moisture and made the motors bear heavier loads than intended. It made the animatronic moved a little jittery and unpredictable, and in that one scene almost crushed the kids accidentally. Those unintentional micro (and macro) movements really sold the T-Rex's appearance being grounded to reality.
Molina's off-the-cuff blooper of him suddenly breaking out into song - while the arm operators just going along with his spontaneousness made him VERY special. I kind of wished they put that blooper in, it would make him even more scary and sympathetic because it would show him literally LOSING it.
This mix of practical effects and CGI was actually quite common in the 90s and early 00s. The limitations of CGI at the time forced filmmakers to be more creative and do things practically. While today CGI can do pretty much anything, audiences can still feel when what they’re seeing has no basis in reality, even when they can’t quite put their finger on why. Practical effects and sets still have a place in cinema, even if they’re only going to be used as reference.
Ock's tentacles in Spiderman 2 were a beautiful demonstration of why CGI and practical effects so often work better in concert than just CGI on its own.
The hell are you on about, NWH looks amazing. The CGI is so good most people don't even know that Tom's suit is fully CGI for a good portion of that movie. Even Doc and the rest look great. The movie was even nominated for awards for its cgi. Yall need to stop hating for sport
nah, while i agree that the og looks waaaaay better, the arms in nwh doesn't look that bad at all, imo no way home has the best cgi in the holland trilogy
@@M_k-zi3tn No Way Home doesn't look amazing, it looks like it was filmed entirely on blue screens because it was. it's a great movie but it's not exactly a gold standard for VFX.
@@vanlllasky It's definitely a gold standard. Nothing about that movie looks like it was filmed entirely on blue screens. As a vfx artist, I was in awe of what they were able to pull off in that movie and wish to be as masterful as those guys. I can see why the movie got an Oscar nomination for it's vfx. Amazing visuals in that movie.
The 2000s are such an underappreciated era in visual effects, there's movies that have held up like fine win in 24 years. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars prequels( especially General Grevious and Mustafar) and the Raimi Spider-Man sequels.
I don't mind the tentacles being all CGI in NWH, but I hate the way they move compared to Spider-Man 2. They just move so stiff, and they don't feel like tentacles. They feel like big vacuum cleaner tubes, especially at 1:00
My issue was that his arms were WAY longer than they were in Spiderman 2, and seemed far stronger too. I also took issue with when he told the arms to listen to him when the nanobots took them over. The whole thing about that was the arms were telling HIM what to do, and controlling the arms should have released him from their control... but that's a different topic.
@@beayn I agree.....One of my few critiques of _No Way Home_ was the scene where the Green Goblin broke.....no.....DESTROYED one of the tentacles! Tentacles that were created to survive and work in the most *extreme* of conditions one can think of! They survived the artificial fusion process of a star, the batterings and beatings of Spider-man and colliding with a high speed subway train, and yet, Green Goblin was able to easily slice through them like a hot knife through butter? .........I didn't find myself buying that!
@@19TheFallen Ah yes I forgot about that one. He definitely cut through one way too easily. On a side note, Dr. Octopus had a revolutionary invention without even thinking about Fusion with his powerful robotic prosthetics and the fact they had a neural link so he could control them directly. He could have gotten rich off both of those inventions separately and THEN worked on fusion in a proper laboratory. Dr. Octavius: I want to create fusion, but first let me quickly and casually create a neural link to insanely powerful robotic arms that no one has ever come close to building prior to me.
@@19TheFallen It could work, if the Goblin managed to scrounge some MCU vibranium to upgrade his glider's blades. That stuff probably doesn't even exist on his and Doc Ock's home Earth, so there's no way Octavius could've built his arms to resist it. And you can bet Green Goblin would've sought out much deadlier gear as soon as he realized that MCU-Earth was a lot higher-tech than his world of origin.
I haven't looked at clips of Spider-man 2 in a bit, but I will always remember as a kid just how MENACING Doc's arms were and that their tendency to twitch and have that mechanical "flinch" made them all the more terrifying whenever they'd suddenly lunge at people super fast. Their design language was always cool to me as well, being this mix of rusted old looking machinery with a hint of "futuristic" having all of those folds and crevices, not to mention the way the claws looked opened or closed. Crazy design and effects, and the shot of Doc Oc and Spider-man punching at each other on the side of a building is still my favorite fight scene in that movie.
This shows what people with passion can produce. It also shows the amazing acting ability of the actor to form a bond with not only props, but the people manipulating them.
The science of movie puppetry is absolutely fascinating! This BTS just reinforces my belief that a mix of practical & CGI effects basically always works better than purely computer-generated effects? It provides so much more real physics & lighting interactions, as well as (per the commentary here) helping with acting and editing. Requires a heck of a lot of pre-planning too, which actually seems to help with keeping the plot coherent & the shots motivated?
If you like to learn about movie puppetry, I'd suggest watching anything related to the making of the child's play and chucky movies. It's crazy to learn how many people were puppetering the dolls at the same time and how they hid the crew in each shot.
This channel is genuinely so cool because when learning to be a filmmaker, there's so much writing and directing advice on youtube, but hardly anything this detailed and informative about vfx. These videos are invaluable to anyone studying film because understanding vfx is so important. Keep up the fantastic vids bro.
The trick to good CGI is making it as unnoticeable as possible. The best way to do it is cutting from CGI that a practical effect would be too complicated to achieve, to a practical shot with practical elements that are quick to match the elements in the CG shot. This creates the illusion of undisrupted continuity and stops a CG shot from hanging too long to be noticeable. A good example is when Peter loses his powers and falls into an alleyway. He falls in a CG shot and hits a dumpster, but before you could notice it, it cuts right back to Tobey in the practical suit and you've already moved on without any time to think about it.
This is the exact same method James Cameron used when filming Titanic. He would switch from miniatures to cgi to entire sets. The trick is to never use the same trick twice.
Let me just say that ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE MADE THIS VIDEO! I thought I was nuts when I said that ocks arms looked way better in Spider-Man 2 than the cgi made in marvel today. The part when he raises his arms and the tentacles mimic his gesture during the reveal at the demonstration was beyond 2004s time. I mean, clearly you could tell it was cgi given the fact that they moved so smoothly but still you could not see any rushed cgi as it looked like pristine cgi. Even before the poor cgi RUclips videos that released online recently talking about them rushing the effects. I noticed it back in infinity war with Ironmans suit. But this makes so much sense now. Thank you for talking about this finally. 🙏🏻
I love how those arms move like SNAKES and whisper into Octavius' mind the way the snake whispered to EVE in the garden of Eden leading to her downfall.
The same was true of Jurassic Park, which was touted as revolutionary in digital VFX and still stands up today. People believe it was mostly CGI, but in fact much of it was actually practical. They even built a life sized animatronic of the T-Rex.
That's a fantastic example. Dennis Muren's team (along with Stan Winston and his crew) were amazing at finding and developing exactly the right techniques to get the best results possible for each VFX shot. They didn't decide in advance "We're going to use CGI for this bit", they decided as they went along based on what each method could deliver in terms of realism and fulfilling Spielberg's vision. It's a great lesson in how to do VFX.
Something you mentioned there at the end really highlights my issue with modern marvel and why I don’t really watch the films any more. Once the management started removing everything practical done on set because cg is easier to tweak, it’s no longer a film, it’s an expensive committee-drafted cartoon or a video game cutscene. So much of the life of the film feels like it’s been extracted.
Severely underrated channel discussing the industry. I just wanted to leave a comment in support, I really enjoy your breakdowns/dissertations of various films and their elements :)
A glaring example of your point between the two movies that helps distill it down very well is looking at the costumes in End Game. They were able to film the movie and not have costumes until just before the movie shipped. They in fact didn't have a final design for the costumes until just before the movie shipped. Nowadays, with the modern pipelines that superhero movies go through, you couldn't even film a movie like Spider-Man 2 because they had to plan so many things ahead and make sure they knew how a scene was going to look for those practical effects to work, and those human performances, and then go in and add the CGI where they already knew it was going to be. Nowadays movies are filmed with the intent that everything can just be changed in post and half the movies visuals can be conceived of in post. I am a huge fan of a mix of practical effects and CGI because, as you say, The CGI can do things you just cannot do practically, and the practical effects force you to really consider the art you're making.
One of my favorite things that I've learned about films and film making is the problem solving old filmmakers had to go through. They literally invented techniques in order to pull off their shots and effects. I think what CGI has done is take that away. Instead of problem solving and testing, they just shrug and say, "It's easy to do in CGI."
In No Way Home, they modified the cgi arm design (before nanobots interaction) so they could cheat performance. The “death flower” is on a free-swivel to the arm instead of being connected to the triple tube connections of the original design. (28:47 you see the 360 swivel point perfectly) The old design is beautiful and you would think with procedural cgi, the studio wouldn’t have gone cheap; I made it work in Blenders Geometry Nodes. But I digress. Great video.
I totally noticed the full swivel on the hand! I remember thinking on my secondor third NWH watch "I don't remember the hand being able to spin like that"
Do you know what the real secret is? The good writing. Nobody cares about CGI characters if they are boring or poorly written. Thanos in Infinity War is great, his CGI really good. But then in Endgame... It's funny, but him turning into a generic boring villain somehow makes the CGI worse. I think it's because if the character is immersive, you buy the CGI better.
I believe one of the big reasons is the manpower and time requirements. Studios are now typically working on several if not dozens of movies all at once, overworking their special effects artists, and cutting corners everywhere. Also, many of these studios want these movies out fast, which means they don’t have the time dedicated to them like Spiderman-2 did. I am always an advocate of the “practical effects first” mindset but sadly the industry is not
The arms having their own minds works very well with puppeteers. I feel Raimi was okay with imperfections here and there. Spider-Man had a very raw feel to it, not as polished. It grew on me as I watched the film. Many films today feel too polished. I found an old VHS tape of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and that film had this rawness to it. It's like rock music. A little bit underpolish can bring in a little reality, but man is it an art to pull off
What you said reminds me of a re-done Death Star Trench Run. The visual effects they added made me notice the effects more than the action. I love what you said about the citizens. I felt like I cared about the citizens, which made when they were scared more impactful. I watched an anime recently, and the way they used soldiers gave the story more impact. I cared about the soldiers. The soldiers went from cannon fodder to people we care about. They even save the protagonist a few times!
Another character that I think blends practical effects, CGI, but also hand drawn animation together perfectly is Aggie from Paranorman. She made the climax of the movie stand out SO much, the sheer aura her appearance carried was something to write home about.
The best era for special effects was between 1990 and 2005-ish. Where practical effects and CGI blent in. Movies like Jurassic Park, Jumanji, Spiderman, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribean, etc... those had some brilliant scenes with live footage special effects along with digital enhancement.
Your points about the effortlessness of digital double now really opens my eyes to just how much having limits that you have to plan for in advance can really ground an entire piece. Obviously you said that more eloquently but I really appreciate opening my eyes in that capacity.
The problem with the No Way Home version of the arms for me was that they seemed infinitely long and when they got longer and stretched the spaces between the arm segments should have gotten bigger which we do not see in that film.
I often say with the amount of work hollywood practical effects, engineers put in and their ingenuity that if they wanted to they could in fact create a real superhero if they wanted to.
This was actually the peak of special effects. The combination of high quality practical and cgi to fill in the gaps was the perfect point. It feels real, but anything is possible.
The Polar Express was soo ahead of it's time. When I first watched it as a child on Christmas eve 2004, I thought animated movies can't and will never look better. For some time, I actually thought this movie was real, not CGI. It's a perfect christmas childhood classic, like Home Alone 1-2.
Creativity in fights in this movie are in another level to this day. Maybe its nostalgia but I will never forget Train Fight, especially extended edition.
You've had so many opportunities to show the "Willem Davoe plays with the tentacles of Doc Oc" scene and I won't forgive you for that it's way too funny
Having that kind of foundation to build up those effects it just layers everything in such a way where it looks natural and it gives weight and realism to the visuals
10 месяцев назад+2
Thanks, mate, this was a really enjoyable video EDIT - regarding your question, Dredd and Fury Road. Those films have almost flawless blending of practical and CGI
Another thing I really appreciate with the cinematography here is how much they lean into the "comic book framing"-giving a lot of very distinctive keyframes that they linger on for a beat, just along for that shot to stick in your brain, before flowing to the next one, such the doctor thrusting the chainsaw into the air before getting absolutely merc'd. They give a lot of very quickly-paced shots (probably straight from the storyboards) that make it really flow like a comic brought to life, that you can almost _see_ on the page, and it works far better than directly ripping something from page to screen (such as the animated Killing Joke movie, which worked basically in the complete opposite direction).
the ratched deadlocked reference was SO NICE to see. i dont think ive ever seen dallas and juanita referenced...their voice lines play in my head WAY too often. CGY is in rare form tonight!
This video really makes me appreciate how much work goes into what is essentially a gamble. That's basically what movies are at the end of the day, gambles. Studios sink shiploads of money into making a movie, and they really don't know how people are going to react until they release it.
there was such a sweet spot in the transition from practical to more advanced CG work and that's exemplified by the wedding of the two by Raimi for Spider-Man 2
Good video, although you keep claiming that 2004 CGI wasn't so good and for that kind of thing it's just.. not true. You keep showing sequences of Polar Express characters, which is a VERY different thing to tackle. For Doc Ock, we're talking about 4 hard-surface mechanical arms, which was essentially already figured out back then. It's not so different from all the CGI machines we could see in The Matrix 5 years before, for instance. Much easier to nail in terms of modeling, surfacing, and rigging. With good lighting, those could absolutely look real. I'm not saying they _should_ have made the arms CGI - I think a clever mix of practical and CGI is more often than not the way to go. Real stuff on set is better, obviously. But on a visual level, with enough planning and care they could have achieved it digitally imo. Just thought it was a bit disingenuous to not provide a better context of what quality late 90s / early 2000s CGI was like.
I agree about the usage of The Polar Express. To be fair, he DID show at least one clip of Catwoman (the one starring Halle Berry), and I recall people mocking its CGI heavily back in the day. I personally feel he could've used some clips from Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines instead of The Polar Express. :) Or even The Matrix: Revolutions.
I'm glad that you talk about all the aspects of the utilization of practical effects, the pros and cons, the way they improve the production and the logistical costs of trying to physically use them in the case of Doc Ocks arms. I love practical effects, I will always prefer them over CGI, but they aren't perfect and they aren't always best for what you're trying to achieve. You need to be smart with what you have and I'm glad you talked about that.
They are so perfect that I have never even questioned how the effects were achieved. They are so convincing that my brain just accepted them as actual reality. It literally took this video drawing attention to them for me to... this is an odd moment.
To answer the question: Because they used more than just CGI to animate them. The actual arms are puppets being controlled from offscreen. The CGI smooths it over and makes it look seamless, so they look like they're really part of the guy.
Honestly, CGI is a tool that needs to be used with the correct level of responsibility. Just dumping all of the work on the artists will make their life a living hell to animate the film, and give a bad product. I hated the CGI of that last flash film because they didn't responsibly use CGI as a tool to enhance a moment, they tried to use it to replace so much of the practical work. The time travel segments looked so wrong because they ended up looking like plastic or rubber most of the time, just throwing off the immersion.
When I saw Doctor Octopus for the first time, I was stunned. All these years later, and that movie is still glorious. They truly out did themselves bringing him to life.
One of the problems with photorealistic cgi constantly getting better is it gives execs an excuse to keep making stories in live action that would likely be better in stylised animation
Awesome video, this has remained my favorite Spider-Man film since I first saw it in theaters. Love the characters, and the life affirming themes of humanity. Would you at all be willing to do a video covering the practical effects used for Audrey II in Little Shop of Horrors? I always thought that plant looked WAY too good for a film out of the 80s
1:55 they needed to give it weight. And it needed an awkward realness. If it was purely CG, then the actor would flail his arms around without any concern. The CGI team would just have to make the arms curve and dodge out of his way. This implies power and control over them. But with real effects, the actor has the same concerns as the character- he has to worry about knocking his elbow against a piece of metal. The actor has to twist, turn, and bend over for the arms. The arms are in control.
I come back to this movie so much. Rami + Molina made such a deep story and villain. Such a big part of the animated series I grew up with also makes it impactful. The best way now seems to be this mix of practical and cgi and making it just feel real. Dune does that so well especially part 2 where it doesn’t feel like effects even though I’m watching an energy weapon or sand worm.
In 2004, in that movie, the effects people, both practical and CGI, took pride in their work, worked HARD to get it done and done right, and it showed in the show. Today, so many movies' effects are just mailed in. It's like nobody today takes the pride in their work to make sure it is done right.
The framing in this movie is also god tier. There are so many "money shots" that feel and look like a comic book splash page in motion. This movie is almost comic book movie perfection.
Agree. As a practical lover and CGI hater this was the perfect combo. They looked perfect and had personality. Perfectly cast, the perfect guy to slowly transform.
I totally forgot the arms were real for many scenes. So much better looking than many modern effect shots. So impressive that they got these to work so accurately as to take glasses off someones head and lighting cigars back then.
I think you have a really good point about cgi being overused. I think that despite not looking at good graphically the use ten or more years ago when it's used to supplement a movie gave more weight to the action. I think that a part of spectacle is lost when we all know it's fake, it's part of the joy of mission impossible. Not that it's unfixed by cgi but that you know someone did the stunt irl.
Go to ground.news/cgy to stay fully informed. Subscribe through my link to get 30% Off unlimited access this month only.
Hey everyone, thanks for watching - This video really was a massive research project, and there was so much to talk about that originally it was gonna be 50 minutes long!
So I’ve chopped it down a little just for the pacing, and because I think the No Way Home stuff in the last third really ties all of this together in a very interesting way, and i wanted to get to that point sooner rather than later 😅
So yea, I hope you guys liked this video and please let me know what you think!
Basically Rami's team laid the ground work in both CGI and robotic engineering to make Doc Ock.
That’s a pretty cool sponsor, honestly something like this should’ve been normalized over ten years ago
they were basically real, used in movies, but not available to public yet, meant for science only.
Wonder if game engines will change the economics of CGI in movies?
CNN is factual most of the time. Huh? Then didn't even know who Nvidia was or what they do. The mirror has the worst track history in the UK.
CTN is just Chinese state propaganda.
Really your sponsors matter as they direct people.
I was one of the puppeteers on the Doc Ock tentacles and I’m grateful for this look back to one of the most satisfying film experiences I’ve ever had. Well presented and happily received.
I want to thank immensely for contributing to something so good as Spiderman 2
Thank you a lot
that’s amazing man, the overall look is believable.
Ooo would you do a Q&A?
Larry harry mo or flow?
Amazing work, man. This Spiderman trilogy is still my fave and SM2 is my fave amongst them
Ok, Doc ock smoking a cigar by using his mech arms goes hard asf
Or drinking that glass of scotch
Very hot🥰
I love how those arms move like SNAKES instead of tentacles and whisper into Octavius' mind the way the snake whispered to EVE in the garden of Eden, leading to her downfall.
@neonkscksc if that is not symbolism, then I don't know what is.
Rip bozo 😯 🚬
Otto's weight distribution was such an important aspect NWH was missing. He was clearly just on a dolly, while SM2 really made it feel like the arms were carrying him.
I was thinking this exact thing! It's really interesting to me how he looks much more like a puppet in the film which didn't use puppetry. SM2 really made him feel like he actually could exist with the way he moved
@millo7295 no they didnt
But It wasn't bad either . I love how they have their own unique takes
@millo7295Nanomachines son
@@maxTheTimeSlasher objectively horrible take
Spider-Man 2 was ahead of its time
Or should I say that most films are behind of their times?
The sand particle effects in Spider-Man 3 were pretty groundbreaking for 2007
more like we're falling behind our times
This film and Godzilla: Final Wars is how you do puppetry in the "modern digital" movie landscape. Before you had to hide wires... Now a puppet's strings/wires can out in the open and simply digitally edited out.
It was really good, but wasn't at all ahead of its time.
Those Doc Oc's mechanical hands has better emotional depth compared to recently released marvel superheroes
has more emotion than Captain Marvel
You have less character development than Doc Ock's lower right mechanical arm 🤣 new roast unlocked!
Practical effect are superior.
Doc arm has more emotion than madame weeb
Agreed 😭
The saddest part about the lack of practical effects in modern times is how 3D printing can make the creation of said props so much easier and quicker even if it can only be used as far as prototyping for the design in mind. Say you had some fancy sci-fi weapon but need to have multiple people on screen using it, you can just print simplified versions for them to wield. Say you have some that has forms it transitions between but it’d be to complicated to make a version that operates in reality, you can print it in different stages at the same time to at as reference points for a cgi transition.
Just remember to paint it. *Looks at the Halo TV Show*
Mhm it's not quite like that i would say for something like these tentacle arms. Modelling approach for 3D printing and for CGI is very different. Mechanical plausibility isn't a high consideration for CG, things frequently are allowed to intersect themselves in space, but must follow topology rules for subdivision and deformation. When you do something for real, whether 3D printed or hand built or however, you don't have the luxury of being mechanically implausible or sloppy, but CG topology is of no regard, but mechanical CAD software has its own topological constraints that are different.
The problem of integration between live action and CG is largely solved very well with light field probing, so a real life reference is often not needed. And in turn the reason a lot of CG looks conspicuous is because you can intuitively feel that the mechanics doesn't work out, doesn't look plausible, and 3D printing static stand-ins does nothing to help.
Of course if you have a fully static model, even if it's for CG intent, it's easy to fix it up enough to where it can be 3D printed. But you still have surface treatment and paint.
But of course static props for actors is something that is often 3D printed based on CG production files, very very frequently done.
And yet i would suggest that whatever way you produce, physical first often makes more sense if physical items and digital doubles must co-exist and you're after full believability. You can either retopologise on top of 3D files made for 3D printing for CG, or you can 3D scan handmade items. 3D scanning has recently become hobby accessible, but it is not a new technnology at all as far as industrial use.
deadpoll used 3d printing to help create the clothes
You're right that it's sad these things aren't utilized, but that utilization depends on the film maker. There are lots of directors who use practical effects, and a lot of the costumes you see in modern movies are made with 3D printing. Film should utilize more physical props, but it has to be a project that they are passionate about.
would need planing tho
otherways you can just shoot some scenes and let the after effect crew take care of the rest
You don´t know where this scene takes place yet? no problem, you don´t know how they even look like? well, okay, I guess we will just make a docent bland versions and pick the best one later
The mix of CG and practical arms was certainly amazing, but what really sold the effect for me was Alfred Molina's body language. The way he carried himself made me believe the effects. Because, realistically speaking, if you had something like that fused to your body, those things would be pretty damn heavy, don't you think? And it's not just how he carries himself; it's how he lunges and thrusts himself in a specific direction to offset the weight of one or more of his mechanical arms going in a specific direction.
Doing stuff like that helps keeps the effects grounded in reality.
They would be heavy, but like your legs, while they are powered, you don't notice their weight, except through inertia. Each one of your legs would weigh around a bag of cement, maybe a hair under, but they don't feel like bags of cement hanging off your body. But kicking or running, that's when this weight becomes more noticeable through reaction forces and energy transfer.
Absolutely. Even the best sfx, be it practical or cgi, cannot surpass good acting.
The first 2 robocop are a great example, 90% of the character was the actor in the suit, not the suit itself.
Also his facial expressions, especially when interacting with the arms are so well done and convey so much about his character and emotions.
@@kingcosworth2643 the leg is held up by your bones and muscles and there is a lot of weight distribution, the tentacles are only connected to his spine, with no additional muscle to hold them, so I think it would feel more like a heavy backpack unless one of the legs stems the weight on the ground or so
I think what helped the recent return of Doctor Octopus a ton is also the fact that Alfred Molina, despite not being able to work with the props anymore, still knows how it feels to work with them. The entire kinaesthetics of those arms is familiar to him which automatically makes it much easier for him to sell them to the point of being believable once again.
100%
While I do agree with you, I sadly have to speculate that the directors of NWH chose Alfred for exactly this reason, knowing he would bear the weight of making those CGI props more real.
I applaud the CGI and CDC teams, everyone who worked on those scenes, but it's still a sad story...
The arms just felt like they actually had *weight* in Spiderman 2. When you saw Otto using them to walk you really got the sense that they were actually carrying him.
The lack of smoothness in places I feel also helps. It gives off the impression of machinery going from point A to B, with no wasted movement, while also being just fluent enough to make them feel like tentacles.
god, I'd kill for machines to look clunky again.
@@Appletank8 Like Tony's original Iron Man suits.
@@jordanholloman5907yes, love those suits
@@hotdog3392 They were so good when they actually looked like armor instead of a second skin.
@@anjafrohlich1170 It's like when you see a robot arm move. It can be incredibly fluid but there's still something about it that's alien and mechanical rather than biological.
2000s CGI just goes insanely hard. Spider Man, Transformers, Iron Man, Avatar, all just had insane CGI, especially Iron Man. It looked so real.
Dont forget about pirates of the caribeen and King Kong
The Incredible Hulk
@@Eliotex Hell yeah
@@GeneFOX70 dude the Hulk never looked that good again after that
The Lord of the Rings
Man the hospital scene in Spider-Man 2 was just such a perfect 90's \ Frankenstein style "monster coming to life" moment it was my favorite. It really showed the arms having a perverse symbiosis with their host, protecting him from the doctors and on coming cars, wanting the same things as him just not caring how they did so, they had the duo acting perfectly down to the last minute details.
What I loved the most what just when Doc Ock was conflicted, the way he looked at his arms, and the way the looked back, the seemed truly alive, menacing, and manipulative, so much deja vu in terms of AI. Or in the first incredibles movie, where Mr. Incredible said about the robot he was hired to take out “it got smart enough to wonder why it had to take orders”, so cool to see this in 20 year old movies.
That’s probably why Sam Raimi wanted to have a mask on green goblin (not the mask in the movie the one they didn’t use for the movie) he probably wanted to enhance the mask with cgi.
Yea this is actually one of the parts I cut out! Doc Ock's digital double was a massive step up for the SPI team in comparison to doing the Green Goblin because of making stuff like his hair, skin, loose clothes etc -
There also were a few more reasons like how different the pair of them moved in comparison to each other and such as well - Maybe I'll make a quick YT short about it if people are interested?
(Also it goes to show how nuts Sandman/Venom were for SM3 as digital characters)
I actually really love the original mask that they removed from the movie. That practical mask with movement is such an eye candy to me. Even if it may give children nightmare, it looks like the best thing that could have happened if it did make it to the movie.
@@Silvanor0 it would have been iconic. My god.. it's insane.
The first 3 Pirates movies are also perfect balances of practical effects and CGI. Those movies are absolutely stunning to this day. They are movie magic at its finest. The undead skeleton pirates still look fantastic and that CGI is from 2003… and then in the following two you have Davy Jones who literally looks real. I never for a second feel like I’m watching a fake character. My dad thought Jones and his crew were all makeup effects back in 2006. His mind was blown. Still the best looking CGI character I’ve ever seen. Then you have the real pirate ship sets, the real filming locations, the flawless blue screen, all blended with top of the line CGI.
I agree, also another example: in Jurassic Park 1, the T-Rex looks so good, specially the first scene when the T-Rex appears, in comparison, in Jurassic World 1, the T-Rex doesn't look as real, looks more CGI than in JP1 (Spielberg really made a good balance of practical and CGI for that movie).
@@ArcaneTuberto add to JP1's T-Rex, it was genuine horror. The animatronic got really wet during filming, and caused it to collect moisture and made the motors bear heavier loads than intended. It made the animatronic moved a little jittery and unpredictable, and in that one scene almost crushed the kids accidentally. Those unintentional micro (and macro) movements really sold the T-Rex's appearance being grounded to reality.
Molina's off-the-cuff blooper of him suddenly breaking out into song - while the arm operators just going along with his spontaneousness made him VERY special. I kind of wished they put that blooper in, it would make him even more scary and sympathetic because it would show him literally LOSING it.
I Saw him in fiddler! He was phenomenal! Still a massive fan
This mix of practical effects and CGI was actually quite common in the 90s and early 00s. The limitations of CGI at the time forced filmmakers to be more creative and do things practically.
While today CGI can do pretty much anything, audiences can still feel when what they’re seeing has no basis in reality, even when they can’t quite put their finger on why.
Practical effects and sets still have a place in cinema, even if they’re only going to be used as reference.
Yes. Practical effects still go a long way. If you like VFX and Blender 3d you may like our RUclips channel, ruclips.net/user/lightarchitect
Ock's tentacles in Spiderman 2 were a beautiful demonstration of why CGI and practical effects so often work better in concert than just CGI on its own.
The CGI in NWH made me wince because I couldn’t stop comparing it to the originals in my head. It’s no contest.
The hell are you on about, NWH looks amazing. The CGI is so good most people don't even know that Tom's suit is fully CGI for a good portion of that movie. Even Doc and the rest look great. The movie was even nominated for awards for its cgi. Yall need to stop hating for sport
nah, while i agree that the og looks waaaaay better, the arms in nwh doesn't look that bad at all, imo no way home has the best cgi in the holland trilogy
@@M_k-zi3tngoon from marvel studios
@@M_k-zi3tn No Way Home doesn't look amazing, it looks like it was filmed entirely on blue screens because it was. it's a great movie but it's not exactly a gold standard for VFX.
@@vanlllasky It's definitely a gold standard. Nothing about that movie looks like it was filmed entirely on blue screens.
As a vfx artist, I was in awe of what they were able to pull off in that movie and wish to be as masterful as those guys. I can see why the movie got an Oscar nomination for it's vfx. Amazing visuals in that movie.
The 2000s are such an underappreciated era in visual effects, there's movies that have held up like fine win in 24 years. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars prequels( especially General Grevious and Mustafar) and the Raimi Spider-Man sequels.
I think anyone who knows what they're talking about understands that a mix of practical and CGI is usually the best way to go.
I don't mind the tentacles being all CGI in NWH, but I hate the way they move compared to Spider-Man 2. They just move so stiff, and they don't feel like tentacles. They feel like big vacuum cleaner tubes, especially at 1:00
My issue was that his arms were WAY longer than they were in Spiderman 2, and seemed far stronger too.
I also took issue with when he told the arms to listen to him when the nanobots took them over.
The whole thing about that was the arms were telling HIM what to do, and controlling the arms should have released him from their control... but that's a different topic.
@@beayn we can chalk that last part up to him thinking he was in control the entire time
@@beayn I agree.....One of my few critiques of _No Way Home_ was the scene where the Green Goblin broke.....no.....DESTROYED one of the tentacles! Tentacles that were created to survive and work in the most *extreme* of conditions one can think of! They survived the artificial fusion process of a star, the batterings and beatings of Spider-man and colliding with a high speed subway train, and yet, Green Goblin was able to easily slice through them like a hot knife through butter? .........I didn't find myself buying that!
@@19TheFallen Ah yes I forgot about that one. He definitely cut through one way too easily.
On a side note, Dr. Octopus had a revolutionary invention without even thinking about Fusion with his powerful robotic prosthetics and the fact they had a neural link so he could control them directly. He could have gotten rich off both of those inventions separately and THEN worked on fusion in a proper laboratory.
Dr. Octavius: I want to create fusion, but first let me quickly and casually create a neural link to insanely powerful robotic arms that no one has ever come close to building prior to me.
@@19TheFallen It could work, if the Goblin managed to scrounge some MCU vibranium to upgrade his glider's blades. That stuff probably doesn't even exist on his and Doc Ock's home Earth, so there's no way Octavius could've built his arms to resist it. And you can bet Green Goblin would've sought out much deadlier gear as soon as he realized that MCU-Earth was a lot higher-tech than his world of origin.
I haven't looked at clips of Spider-man 2 in a bit, but I will always remember as a kid just how MENACING Doc's arms were and that their tendency to twitch and have that mechanical "flinch" made them all the more terrifying whenever they'd suddenly lunge at people super fast. Their design language was always cool to me as well, being this mix of rusted old looking machinery with a hint of "futuristic" having all of those folds and crevices, not to mention the way the claws looked opened or closed. Crazy design and effects, and the shot of Doc Oc and Spider-man punching at each other on the side of a building is still my favorite fight scene in that movie.
This shows what people with passion can produce. It also shows the amazing acting ability of the actor to form a bond with not only props, but the people manipulating them.
The science of movie puppetry is absolutely fascinating! This BTS just reinforces my belief that a mix of practical & CGI effects basically always works better than purely computer-generated effects? It provides so much more real physics & lighting interactions, as well as (per the commentary here) helping with acting and editing. Requires a heck of a lot of pre-planning too, which actually seems to help with keeping the plot coherent & the shots motivated?
If you like to learn about movie puppetry, I'd suggest watching anything related to the making of the child's play and chucky movies. It's crazy to learn how many people were puppetering the dolls at the same time and how they hid the crew in each shot.
The dead meat channel is a good place to start to with their killcount series. Really informative and entertaining
This channel is genuinely so cool because when learning to be a filmmaker, there's so much writing and directing advice on youtube, but hardly anything this detailed and informative about vfx. These videos are invaluable to anyone studying film because understanding vfx is so important. Keep up the fantastic vids bro.
The real reason why Dr. Octopus arms look so realistic is because Alfred molina still has both of them
hahaha
Practical and CGI really are at their best when they're enhancing one another.
The trick to good CGI is making it as unnoticeable as possible. The best way to do it is cutting from CGI that a practical effect would be too complicated to achieve, to a practical shot with practical elements that are quick to match the elements in the CG shot. This creates the illusion of undisrupted continuity and stops a CG shot from hanging too long to be noticeable. A good example is when Peter loses his powers and falls into an alleyway. He falls in a CG shot and hits a dumpster, but before you could notice it, it cuts right back to Tobey in the practical suit and you've already moved on without any time to think about it.
This is the exact same method James Cameron used when filming Titanic. He would switch from miniatures to cgi to entire sets. The trick is to never use the same trick twice.
Let me just say that ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE MADE THIS VIDEO! I thought I was nuts when I said that ocks arms looked way better in Spider-Man 2 than the cgi made in marvel today. The part when he raises his arms and the tentacles mimic his gesture during the reveal at the demonstration was beyond 2004s time. I mean, clearly you could tell it was cgi given the fact that they moved so smoothly but still you could not see any rushed cgi as it looked like pristine cgi. Even before the poor cgi RUclips videos that released online recently talking about them rushing the effects. I noticed it back in infinity war with Ironmans suit. But this makes so much sense now. Thank you for talking about this finally. 🙏🏻
I love how those arms move like SNAKES and whisper into Octavius' mind the way the snake whispered to EVE in the garden of Eden leading to her downfall.
I wonder if that was the inspiration for the.... Acting? Yeah screw it, the acting by the puppeteers.
@@splatninja9447 Raimi made movies like Evil Dead, so he probably is familiar with the Bible.
@@neonksckscAnd there's a few Biblical references in the movies as well
🤣 he was raised in America, he knows about the bible if only by osmosis.
The same was true of Jurassic Park, which was touted as revolutionary in digital VFX and still stands up today. People believe it was mostly CGI, but in fact much of it was actually practical. They even built a life sized animatronic of the T-Rex.
That's a fantastic example. Dennis Muren's team (along with Stan Winston and his crew) were amazing at finding and developing exactly the right techniques to get the best results possible for each VFX shot. They didn't decide in advance "We're going to use CGI for this bit", they decided as they went along based on what each method could deliver in terms of realism and fulfilling Spielberg's vision. It's a great lesson in how to do VFX.
Something you mentioned there at the end really highlights my issue with modern marvel and why I don’t really watch the films any more.
Once the management started removing everything practical done on set because cg is easier to tweak, it’s no longer a film, it’s an expensive committee-drafted cartoon or a video game cutscene.
So much of the life of the film feels like it’s been extracted.
Severely underrated channel discussing the industry. I just wanted to leave a comment in support, I really enjoy your breakdowns/dissertations of various films and their elements :)
extremely high quality and detailed analysis... i wonder how he escapes content id?
A glaring example of your point between the two movies that helps distill it down very well is looking at the costumes in End Game. They were able to film the movie and not have costumes until just before the movie shipped. They in fact didn't have a final design for the costumes until just before the movie shipped. Nowadays, with the modern pipelines that superhero movies go through, you couldn't even film a movie like Spider-Man 2 because they had to plan so many things ahead and make sure they knew how a scene was going to look for those practical effects to work, and those human performances, and then go in and add the CGI where they already knew it was going to be. Nowadays movies are filmed with the intent that everything can just be changed in post and half the movies visuals can be conceived of in post. I am a huge fan of a mix of practical effects and CGI because, as you say, The CGI can do things you just cannot do practically, and the practical effects force you to really consider the art you're making.
One of my favorite things that I've learned about films and film making is the problem solving old filmmakers had to go through. They literally invented techniques in order to pull off their shots and effects. I think what CGI has done is take that away. Instead of problem solving and testing, they just shrug and say, "It's easy to do in CGI."
In No Way Home, they modified the cgi arm design (before nanobots interaction) so they could cheat performance. The “death flower” is on a free-swivel to the arm instead of being connected to the triple tube connections of the original design. (28:47 you see the 360 swivel point perfectly) The old design is beautiful and you would think with procedural cgi, the studio wouldn’t have gone cheap; I made it work in Blenders Geometry Nodes. But I digress. Great video.
Blender user here, I'd like to see that.
I totally noticed the full swivel on the hand! I remember thinking on my secondor third NWH watch "I don't remember the hand being able to spin like that"
Holy crap, that's nuts - Where did you read that? - I would love to know more!
Do you know what the real secret is? The good writing.
Nobody cares about CGI characters if they are boring or poorly written. Thanos in Infinity War is great, his CGI really good. But then in Endgame... It's funny, but him turning into a generic boring villain somehow makes the CGI worse. I think it's because if the character is immersive, you buy the CGI better.
I believe one of the big reasons is the manpower and time requirements. Studios are now typically working on several if not dozens of movies all at once, overworking their special effects artists, and cutting corners everywhere. Also, many of these studios want these movies out fast, which means they don’t have the time dedicated to them like Spiderman-2 did. I am always an advocate of the “practical effects first” mindset but sadly the industry is not
GGI in films nowadays, is basically wanting to make an animated film, but being told it's only for kids so you can't do that. It's utterly stupid.
The arms having their own minds works very well with puppeteers. I feel Raimi was okay with imperfections here and there. Spider-Man had a very raw feel to it, not as polished. It grew on me as I watched the film.
Many films today feel too polished. I found an old VHS tape of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and that film had this rawness to it. It's like rock music. A little bit underpolish can bring in a little reality, but man is it an art to pull off
What you said reminds me of a re-done Death Star Trench Run. The visual effects they added made me notice the effects more than the action.
I love what you said about the citizens. I felt like I cared about the citizens, which made when they were scared more impactful. I watched an anime recently, and the way they used soldiers gave the story more impact. I cared about the soldiers. The soldiers went from cannon fodder to people we care about. They even save the protagonist a few times!
Up to 16 puppeteers
That kind of gives you an indication of how powerful Doc Oc is.
Another character that I think blends practical effects, CGI, but also hand drawn animation together perfectly is Aggie from Paranorman. She made the climax of the movie stand out SO much, the sheer aura her appearance carried was something to write home about.
The best era for special effects was between 1990 and 2005-ish.
Where practical effects and CGI blent in. Movies like Jurassic Park, Jumanji, Spiderman, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribean, etc... those had some brilliant scenes with live footage special effects along with digital enhancement.
Sam Rami has unlocked a new skill. Advanced Puppeteering
Your points about the effortlessness of digital double now really opens my eyes to just how much having limits that you have to plan for in advance can really ground an entire piece. Obviously you said that more eloquently but I really appreciate opening my eyes in that capacity.
4:49 It’s because studios don’t give vfx artists enough time nor put in enough thought into making CGI scenes look cool.
The problem with the No Way Home version of the arms for me was that they seemed infinitely long and when they got longer and stretched the spaces between the arm segments should have gotten bigger which we do not see in that film.
So what I’m hearing is we need a balance between cgi and practical cgi to hide practical mistakes and practical to hide cgi mistakes
That's why I believe Alfred molina is such an under appreciated actor
"Oh my God, it's Alfred Molina"
DR OCTAGONAPUS BLAAAAARRGH!
I often say with the amount of work hollywood practical effects, engineers put in and their ingenuity that if they wanted to they could in fact create a real superhero if they wanted to.
This was actually the peak of special effects. The combination of high quality practical and cgi to fill in the gaps was the perfect point. It feels real, but anything is possible.
The Polar Express was soo ahead of it's time. When I first watched it as a child on Christmas eve 2004, I thought animated movies can't and will never look better. For some time, I actually thought this movie was real, not CGI. It's a perfect christmas childhood classic, like Home Alone 1-2.
Creativity in fights in this movie are in another level to this day. Maybe its nostalgia but I will never forget Train Fight, especially extended edition.
You've had so many opportunities to show the "Willem Davoe plays with the tentacles of Doc Oc" scene and I won't forgive you for that it's way too funny
Man, I’m so used to CGI that it almost makes his arms look uncanny.
That opening scene when they come to life and kill the doctor and assistants scared the crap out of me when I was younger, lol.
to be fair blending cgi with practical effects or extending practical effects with cgi is pretty common
Spiderman 2 was one of our most rented movie in my childhood!
0:46 "I told you Dave, I control Doc Ock's robotic tentacles"
That's why movies were better before
kinda
having real props just makes everything so much better
Having that kind of foundation to build up those effects it just layers everything in such a way where it looks natural and it gives weight and realism to the visuals
Thanks, mate, this was a really enjoyable video
EDIT - regarding your question, Dredd and Fury Road. Those films have almost flawless blending of practical and CGI
Another thing I really appreciate with the cinematography here is how much they lean into the "comic book framing"-giving a lot of very distinctive keyframes that they linger on for a beat, just along for that shot to stick in your brain, before flowing to the next one, such the doctor thrusting the chainsaw into the air before getting absolutely merc'd. They give a lot of very quickly-paced shots (probably straight from the storyboards) that make it really flow like a comic brought to life, that you can almost _see_ on the page, and it works far better than directly ripping something from page to screen (such as the animated Killing Joke movie, which worked basically in the complete opposite direction).
the ratched deadlocked reference was SO NICE to see. i dont think ive ever seen dallas and juanita referenced...their voice lines play in my head WAY too often. CGY is in rare form tonight!
This video really makes me appreciate how much work goes into what is essentially a gamble.
That's basically what movies are at the end of the day, gambles. Studios sink shiploads of money into making a movie, and they really don't know how people are going to react until they release it.
“Because it wasn’t try to be perfect, and, therefore in a way, it kinda was” is what I also learned from this video for myself. Perfect video 🖤
That’s why this film won the Oscar for 2005
there was such a sweet spot in the transition from practical to more advanced CG work and that's exemplified by the wedding of the two by Raimi for Spider-Man 2
Good video, although you keep claiming that 2004 CGI wasn't so good and for that kind of thing it's just.. not true.
You keep showing sequences of Polar Express characters, which is a VERY different thing to tackle.
For Doc Ock, we're talking about 4 hard-surface mechanical arms, which was essentially already figured out back then. It's not so different from all the CGI machines we could see in The Matrix 5 years before, for instance. Much easier to nail in terms of modeling, surfacing, and rigging. With good lighting, those could absolutely look real.
I'm not saying they _should_ have made the arms CGI - I think a clever mix of practical and CGI is more often than not the way to go.
Real stuff on set is better, obviously. But on a visual level, with enough planning and care they could have achieved it digitally imo.
Just thought it was a bit disingenuous to not provide a better context of what quality late 90s / early 2000s CGI was like.
I agree about the usage of The Polar Express.
To be fair, he DID show at least one clip of Catwoman (the one starring Halle Berry), and I recall people mocking its CGI heavily back in the day.
I personally feel he could've used some clips from Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines instead of The Polar Express. :) Or even The Matrix: Revolutions.
imagining the blend of physical props with the high level of CGI would really push the immersion to the next level. great video!
I'm glad that you talk about all the aspects of the utilization of practical effects, the pros and cons, the way they improve the production and the logistical costs of trying to physically use them in the case of Doc Ocks arms.
I love practical effects, I will always prefer them over CGI, but they aren't perfect and they aren't always best for what you're trying to achieve. You need to be smart with what you have and I'm glad you talked about that.
They are so perfect that I have never even questioned how the effects were achieved. They are so convincing that my brain just accepted them as actual reality.
It literally took this video drawing attention to them for me to... this is an odd moment.
movie directors having to make a serum to make you look like a monster:
To answer the question: Because they used more than just CGI to animate them. The actual arms are puppets being controlled from offscreen. The CGI smooths it over and makes it look seamless, so they look like they're really part of the guy.
The 2000’s was such a good time to be a teenager. Creativity was still Green lighted
Honestly, CGI is a tool that needs to be used with the correct level of responsibility. Just dumping all of the work on the artists will make their life a living hell to animate the film, and give a bad product. I hated the CGI of that last flash film because they didn't responsibly use CGI as a tool to enhance a moment, they tried to use it to replace so much of the practical work. The time travel segments looked so wrong because they ended up looking like plastic or rubber most of the time, just throwing off the immersion.
"Sometimes to do what's right, you need to give up what you want the most."
There's some deep truth in here.
I've been waiting for this essay/doc/rumination since 2004. Nice work.
3:05 Benedict as the dragon from the hobbit is a whole flex in itself 😂😂😂 I wonder if you did a video on that. Still watching this video.
When I saw Doctor Octopus for the first time, I was stunned. All these years later, and that movie is still glorious. They truly out did themselves bringing him to life.
One of the problems with photorealistic cgi constantly getting better is it gives execs an excuse to keep making stories in live action that would likely be better in stylised animation
what are you trying to get at
Awesome video, this has remained my favorite Spider-Man film since I first saw it in theaters. Love the characters, and the life affirming themes of humanity. Would you at all be willing to do a video covering the practical effects used for Audrey II in Little Shop of Horrors? I always thought that plant looked WAY too good for a film out of the 80s
1:55 they needed to give it weight. And it needed an awkward realness. If it was purely CG, then the actor would flail his arms around without any concern. The CGI team would just have to make the arms curve and dodge out of his way. This implies power and control over them. But with real effects, the actor has the same concerns as the character- he has to worry about knocking his elbow against a piece of metal. The actor has to twist, turn, and bend over for the arms. The arms are in control.
I really love that you pointed out Uncle Joey 24:10
CGY with the power of RUclips in his hand.
That’s why the first few iron man looked more realistic
Also cafeteria scene when peter saves MJ and her lunch plate, that was not CGI they did it for real(100 or so tries later they nailed it)
Shoutout to that one video where he sang "If I were a rich man" with the 16 different puppeteers
Such a well put together video 👌🏾. This video deserves a hundred times the views 🙏🏾. Keep it up!
nice to know this was all exclusive to Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man 2 just perfected what Jurassic Park started!
I come back to this movie so much.
Rami + Molina made such a deep story and villain.
Such a big part of the animated series I grew up with also makes it impactful.
The best way now seems to be this mix of practical and cgi and making it just feel real.
Dune does that so well especially part 2 where it doesn’t feel like effects even though I’m watching an energy weapon or sand worm.
In 2004, in that movie, the effects people, both practical and CGI, took pride in their work, worked HARD to get it done and done right, and it showed in the show. Today, so many movies' effects are just mailed in. It's like nobody today takes the pride in their work to make sure it is done right.
Live these videos! Keep up the great work, hope the algorithm is kind to you today!
The framing in this movie is also god tier. There are so many "money shots" that feel and look like a comic book splash page in motion. This movie is almost comic book movie perfection.
Agree. As a practical lover and CGI hater this was the perfect combo. They looked perfect and had personality. Perfectly cast, the perfect guy to slowly transform.
I totally forgot the arms were real for many scenes. So much better looking than many modern effect shots. So impressive that they got these to work so accurately as to take glasses off someones head and lighting cigars back then.
I think you have a really good point about cgi being overused.
I think that despite not looking at good graphically the use ten or more years ago when it's used to supplement a movie gave more weight to the action. I think that a part of spectacle is lost when we all know it's fake, it's part of the joy of mission impossible. Not that it's unfixed by cgi but that you know someone did the stunt irl.