You lucky dog. Man, you are a man after my own heart. I wanted to do SFX for film when I first saw Star Wars in 1977. I learned who the masters were and then of course I learned among them about Mr. Trumbull and his work on CE3K (as it was referred to in Starlog magazine back then). I also learned about his work then on Star Trek TMP and Blade Runner. That you got to "play" in his studio, and with him there as a guide, makes me very envious. Finally, in 2006 I was able to begin my pursuit in filmmaking. I am still Indie but it's coming along, living the dream.
Amazing! I love his approach and ideals. I totally agree, and try to emulate the same in my work. I make super dark space music, and use mostly analog equipment - so this is inspiring.
This was inspirational to say the least. I've been working on a couple sci-fi short film scripts for a while, and recently I started thinking about using miniatures instead of CG. This video is helping me make that decision. Which is cool, because it makes me feel inspired. Which is one of the steps I need to walk through to make the leap into completing a project. Thanks for this video.
The tank reminded me of Arnold Gillespie's effect on the wizard of Oz. The witch writing was merely a needle and some black ink and the water was blue coloring almost opaque. The camera shot from below the tank . The needle was disquised to look like the witch and her broom. He placed the needle just enough into the water to not show his hand above pushing the plunger and releasing the ink as he moved it around to form the letters of "SURRENDER DOROTHY". Remember this was 1938. They did use rear projection as in the tornado scene. The tornado was filmed separately using industrial fans and a Muslin tube type sock and then rear projected on glass in back of the stage.
Omg this is incredible! long live practical FX. I love the look of this stuff. I trained myself my whole life to do this stuff then CGI took over Hollywood and it was like losing dear friend. Its fantastic that people are giving practical FX a renaissance
There's still hope for sci fi. This is proof. Also, there's no CGI!! That fact alone makes this movie superior. CGI has ruined almost all sci fi today. This is wonderful to see!
I'm building my own studio this year and deciding should I go this way or the video wall way. I prefer this. It is more human. There is an even newer technology of a black wall that is so black as in most light absorbing substance on earth that is being used wherein extraction and desperation is much better but I have only found one item on it. I prefer not building into obsolescence.
Hey, they never "belittled" CGI, buddy. The y simply said that you gonna get something different with practical effects, and a unique results when combining both. Actually, we *always* combine both in some way or another.
I’ve been working in the VFX industry for years and I notice how often I hear someone who’s a sculptor or practical artist down play cgi. I don’t hear cgi artist say anything about practicals. Any good artist should understand booth are amazing and have their place, especially combined. I thought the film Gravity looked pretty good and most of the interiors were cg too.
This comment section is pretty weird, it's not about the tool, it's about how you use it. You have no idea how many invisible vfx movies have... non vfx movies... and you don't even notice 🤦♂️
This looks like great art. But the shots don't necessary look realistic. Filming small models is a challenge. Often times the final shots look like miniature photography instead of 100 foot long ships. Good CGI can pull off anything these days with the right artist. But the point was the unpredictable gems that come out of practical experimentation, which is why this is cool.
Heh, most can't really afford to work with Doug Trumbull... And in particular, the effects here in my opinion, especially the natural space phenomena and its abstractions, quite inferior to his work on bigger projects, such as 2001, Close Encounters, Star Trek TMP, Blade Runner, Tree of Life, etc. Also physical miniatures were in fact in common usage as late as 10 years ago, like half the non live action stuff in the Star Wars prequels is actually miniatures (and among the people who worked on them is none other than Mythbusters' Adam Savage). In fact they were even used in movies like Avatar, the Hobbit trilogy, and Blade Runner 2049, and in the shots where they appeared they often weren't hidden or misdirected from by anything. So they're really not that much of an ancient relic lost to time as many would have you believe - It's just that especially when CGI in visual effects was new it took all the attention, as it was this new crazy thing, and people often overhyped it and what it could do (even back when everyone avoided global illumination as much as possible, and everything just used the Blinn/Phong shading models and all 3D CGI had the same old Renderman look...bleugh). Physical effects have never really left us. For a time they just didn't make as good PR as CGI.
Is it a requirement to be associated with the Creators Project that one must be a pretentious douche? That's the vibe I get from every single one of these videos.
The purists that forgive me, but there is no good reason to not use digital effects nowadays. There is no good reason to use a complicated analog effect if you could get the same result, or even a better one, using CGI. I mean, I'm sorry but this is just irracional cheap nostalgia. It's like Tarantino with his "Oh, I'll always shoot digitally, 'cause the film has the texture and feeling, and touch" bullshit. That's irracional nostalgia. I don't have anything against analog effects, but if you use analog effects to achieve a result that you could easily, with just one after effects-like program, achieve... it doesn't make sense. Especially because… in the end, people will be watching your movie in their TV and smartphones, and your movie will be encoded in a bunch of zeros and ones.
It comes down to the process - this is how the director wanted the film to be made. "The core message is really just to try and go out and do something beautiful for yourself"
you should check the cost of quality CGI, it ain't cheap. and it ain't easy. can be more labor intensive than practical effects. it' good for certain things but definitely not a replacement for practical effects. just another tool of storytelling. often misused. best CGI is when it's seamless.
Well, I think it depends of the type of the effect that you want to portray. For example, if you want to render 3D skin in a realistic manner, that's very hard to do, and very expansive. If you want to recreate space in 3D? Not that much... But in general, I agree, if the CGI effect is very expansive, you should use analog effects. I said I don't have anything against analog effects. But, apparently, that was not the reason for why they choose analog effects in this case. They choose "'because nostalgia". Also, about the best "CGI being seamless", I wouldn't put this way. Because the CGI being seamless depend of what kind of thing you want to show rather than the realism of it. For example, if you are showing a dinosaur on Mars... You can create the most realistic CGI ever... that people would know that it's fake, that there's a CGI there. But... the CGI has no "fault" about that. It's just that you are showing something that people know that couldn't possibly be real.
***** Again, I don't really think it's "because nostalgia", whilst I'm sure that plays a part in the decision to make the film like this - I think it comes down to what type of project the director wanted to do, maybe even test himself at.
People that do things due nostalgia, many times don't admit that they are doing this "because nostalgia". They will fabric an excuse to justify why they are are choosing a (obviously) more complicated and harder way to make their product. And when you point "Hey, everything that you achieve in this project, you could have achieved more quicky and even cheaper using 3D.." They will say something abstract like "Oh, but if we use practical effects, you can feel the touch of the realism" or other bullshit. Cheap nostalgia of people that idealize the past.
They need to keep creating with this style of craftsmanship.
Nothing beats the practical special effects method. Great stuff.
There are 3 decades of heavy-handed CGI, of which very little will be aging gracefully.
the videos that don't have a sponsor behind them turn out to be the best ones.
And THAT is what film making is supposed to be.
The active ingredients in all of the classics!!!!!
Art evolves
Even knowing what is happening behind the scenes, knowing the trick, this is beautiful.
You lucky dog. Man, you are a man after my own heart. I wanted to do SFX for film when I first saw Star Wars in 1977. I learned who the masters were and then of course I learned among them about Mr. Trumbull and his work on CE3K (as it was referred to in Starlog magazine back then). I also learned about his work then on Star Trek TMP and Blade Runner. That you got to "play" in his studio, and with him there as a guide, makes me very envious. Finally, in 2006 I was able to begin my pursuit in filmmaking. I am still Indie but it's coming along, living the dream.
found this really inspiring. want to make sci fi films myself one of these days.
Hope you do, there's never enough sci-fi movies!
Do it. Dont let anyone stop you.
AWE! Big hug from Brazil!
Practical effects and minimal computer use, that's how I like it 👍
Amazing! I love his approach and ideals. I totally agree, and try to emulate the same in my work. I make super dark space music, and use mostly analog equipment - so this is inspiring.
Love this. Right up our street.
This was inspirational to say the least. I've been working on a couple sci-fi short film scripts for a while, and recently I started thinking about using miniatures instead of CG. This video is helping me make that decision. Which is cool, because it makes me feel inspired. Which is one of the steps I need to walk through to make the leap into completing a project. Thanks for this video.
The tank reminded me of Arnold Gillespie's effect on the wizard of Oz. The witch writing was merely a needle and some black ink and the water was blue coloring almost opaque. The camera shot from below the tank . The needle was disquised to look like the witch and her broom. He placed the needle just enough into the water to not show his hand above pushing the plunger and releasing the ink as he moved it around to form the letters of "SURRENDER DOROTHY". Remember this was 1938. They did use rear projection as in the tornado scene. The tornado was filmed separately using industrial fans and a Muslin tube type sock and then rear projected on glass in back of the stage.
This will be a masterpiece. Will see it tmrw for sure.
That is a true art. Well done to all concerned .
My goodness, this was enlightening
That was an awesome movie!
this looks like mega cool! I want to try some of that water galaxy stuff
Omg this is incredible! long live practical FX. I love the look of this stuff. I trained myself my whole life to do this stuff then CGI took over Hollywood and it was like losing dear friend. Its fantastic that people are giving practical FX a renaissance
Check out Slice of Life
Well. That was fantastic.
Looks very good. There are not many people left with enough courage to show their imaginations/dreams. It is also hard work. Good luck!
Thanks for sharing this!!!! Subbed!
awesome video , thanks for the inspiration,
Amazing!
This was a super cool vid!
Where can I find/watch this masterpiece???
There's still hope for sci fi. This is proof. Also, there's no CGI!! That fact alone makes this movie superior. CGI has ruined almost all sci fi today. This is wonderful to see!
What cameras did you use?
muy bueno ....!
great!
I'm building my own studio this year and deciding should I go this way or the video wall way. I prefer this. It is more human. There is an even newer technology of a black wall that is so black as in most light absorbing substance on earth that is being used wherein extraction and desperation is much better but I have only found one item on it. I prefer not building into obsolescence.
Wow..
release date?
3rd June.
+etbadaboum cinama or online?
Cinema according to Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approaching_the_Unknown
At 1:07 We do still!
Wow.
Thought this was gonna be shit but it's creative and cool looking.I wanna see this movie now.
1:03, have you seen the work of top VFX shops, like The Mill, Double Negative, Framestore...ILM? Seriously? Don't belittle CGI :P
OCUBOX yeah but practical is better.
CGI is good, but it will never replace practical effects.
Cgi is better at animation of organic forms. Practical is better for close up detail and tangibility
Hey, they never "belittled" CGI, buddy. The y simply said that you gonna get something different with practical effects, and a unique results when combining both. Actually, we *always* combine both in some way or another.
I’ve been working in the VFX industry for years and I notice how often I hear someone who’s a sculptor or practical artist down play cgi. I don’t hear cgi artist say anything about practicals. Any good artist should understand booth are amazing and have their place, especially combined. I thought the film Gravity looked pretty good and most of the interiors were cg too.
This comment section is pretty weird, it's not about the tool, it's about how you use it. You have no idea how many invisible vfx movies have... non vfx movies... and you don't even notice 🤦♂️
This looks like great art. But the shots don't necessary look realistic. Filming small models is a challenge. Often times the final shots look like miniature photography instead of 100 foot long ships. Good CGI can pull off anything these days with the right artist. But the point was the unpredictable gems that come out of practical experimentation, which is why this is cool.
Ex Machina and District 9 were also low budget Sci-Fi films that were amazing and were greatly enhanced through the use of CGI so what's the point?
Getting unexpected and beautiful results. It's art and I love seeing people experimenting. This is the process of inspiration.
It’s sad since there is nothing like this on the way to mars since there isn’t a nebula on the way to mars.
😎👍🏻
When I watched this I saw 600 views and 60 likes guess I'm 601-61.
shanks fx
Heh, most can't really afford to work with Doug Trumbull...
And in particular, the effects here in my opinion, especially the natural space phenomena and its abstractions, quite inferior to his work on bigger projects, such as 2001, Close Encounters, Star Trek TMP, Blade Runner, Tree of Life, etc.
Also physical miniatures were in fact in common usage as late as 10 years ago, like half the non live action stuff in the Star Wars prequels is actually miniatures (and among the people who worked on them is none other than Mythbusters' Adam Savage). In fact they were even used in movies like Avatar, the Hobbit trilogy, and Blade Runner 2049, and in the shots where they appeared they often weren't hidden or misdirected from by anything. So they're really not that much of an ancient relic lost to time as many would have you believe - It's just that especially when CGI in visual effects was new it took all the attention, as it was this new crazy thing, and people often overhyped it and what it could do (even back when everyone avoided global illumination as much as possible, and everything just used the Blinn/Phong shading models and all 3D CGI had the same old Renderman look...bleugh). Physical effects have never really left us. For a time they just didn't make as good PR as CGI.
"Give me the ugliest hat you have."
X🤘🏻X
FIRST
Is it a requirement to be associated with the Creators Project that one must be a pretentious douche? That's the vibe I get from every single one of these videos.
Calm your tits
I was wondering why there were space clouds. Pretty sure there's nothing between Earth and Mars.
The purists that forgive me, but there is no good reason to not use digital effects nowadays. There is no good reason to use a complicated analog effect if you could get the same result, or even a better one, using CGI.
I mean, I'm sorry but this is just irracional cheap nostalgia. It's like Tarantino with his "Oh, I'll always shoot digitally, 'cause the film has the texture and feeling, and touch" bullshit.
That's irracional nostalgia. I don't have anything against analog effects, but if you use analog effects to achieve a result that you could easily, with just one after effects-like program, achieve... it doesn't make sense.
Especially because… in the end, people will be watching your movie in their TV and smartphones, and your movie will be encoded in a bunch of zeros and ones.
It comes down to the process - this is how the director wanted the film to be made. "The core message is really just to try and go out and do something beautiful for yourself"
you should check the cost of quality CGI, it ain't cheap. and it ain't easy. can be more labor intensive than practical effects. it' good for certain things but definitely not a replacement for practical effects. just another tool of storytelling. often misused. best CGI is when it's seamless.
Well, I think it depends of the type of the effect that you want to portray. For example, if you want to render 3D skin in a realistic manner, that's very hard to do, and very expansive. If you want to recreate space in 3D? Not that much...
But in general, I agree, if the CGI effect is very expansive, you should use analog effects. I said I don't have anything against analog effects. But, apparently, that was not the reason for why they choose analog effects in this case. They choose "'because nostalgia".
Also, about the best "CGI being seamless", I wouldn't put this way. Because the CGI being seamless depend of what kind of thing you want to show rather than the realism of it. For example, if you are showing a dinosaur on Mars...
You can create the most realistic CGI ever... that people would know that it's fake, that there's a CGI there. But... the CGI has no "fault" about that. It's just that you are showing something that people know that couldn't possibly be real.
***** Again, I don't really think it's "because nostalgia", whilst I'm sure that plays a part in the decision to make the film like this - I think it comes down to what type of project the director wanted to do, maybe even test himself at.
People that do things due nostalgia, many times don't admit that they are doing this "because nostalgia".
They will fabric an excuse to justify why they are are choosing a (obviously) more complicated and harder way to make their product.
And when you point "Hey, everything that you achieve in this project, you could have achieved more quicky and even cheaper using 3D.."
They will say something abstract like "Oh, but if we use practical effects, you can feel the touch of the realism" or other bullshit.
Cheap nostalgia of people that idealize the past.