On the point! Music videos, commercials and short films that I have directed or been involved with, have mostly been on an actual location. But with digital enhancement in post. For the actors it works better if they have a physical object that have something more to work with than "hit this mark" or so. Generally actors work better when they have someone there than just reading lines and with the direction such as "Look shocked. No right beside the camera lense. Up, up, up.. NO! Lower." My reel looks grounded, and the actors have something to interact with, so they seem real. On one occasion, though, people asked me how I got this very amazing shot for a short film of mine done. Opening shot panning down from a bright blue sky to this girl sitting by the water. Many people assumed that it was done in front of a green screen or so, but in reality...well we were awfully lucky with the location and the weather. My brilliant DOP more or less just needed to frame it and sit back and relax. A total fluke when it came to timing. This was a 3 day shoot (day and night) and the days before, the weather was quite the opposite of what we wished for, And then suddenly bright sunlight for a few days, The very second we left the location, it started raining cats and dogs. However, I would have to say that even that perfect frame was digitally altered. No sky replacement, nothing at all except for some color grading. Still a visual effect. Ergo: the perfect mesh is if you have the right team both in front and behind the camera, who understands your vision. And with a little bit of luck and with good coordination, you can make great things together.
As do I. It must be a disconcerting experience, if not a bit uncomfortable. Beyond Ian McKellen & Batista, others like Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Martin Freeman, Hugh Grant, Anthony Hopikins, and others haven't enjoyed the experience much.
Lol I hadn't considered that, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Certainly, there's no other actor that's always on time, never complains, and does exactly what's asked of them.
I only feel a little better about Peter Cushing being in Rogue One was because he expressed disappointment that he wouldn’t be able to play the character of tarkin again after the first Star Wars film, and I have a feeling maybe he wouldn’t mind so much. But then again, we’ll never know for sure. I just am glad to have seen Tarkin again, but not sure I want them to do anything like that again
Seriously, I came to hate CGI so much, mostly because it's way overused. Every movie frame looks digitally altered nowadays. I can't stand it. It's a visual pleasure to watch older movies with practical SFX, like Terminator, even though the puppets they used don't look believable 50% of the time, at least our brain knows they actually exist.
The overuse is certainly one of the bigger issues. One of the videos I linked (ruclips.net/video/S0HSX-pKGgo/видео.html) brought up some examples where it's just totally unnecessary. Like one where, instead of just going to a bar to film a scene, they used a blue screen to fill the bar in. Totally unnecessary. Another was making a CGI gun instead of making a prop gun.
I watched the first two Terminator films recently and they still hold up. Every time I watch Terminator 2 Judgment Day I always want to know how they did the shot of the T1000 pulling the blade out of Todd's mouth.
Ideally the plan should be to never need CGI and either use it sparingly or not at all. Ideally everything should be tried to be done in-camera first and whatever is truly impossible to pull off in real life that is the only time CGI should be needed but if you use too much CGI even the audience will find it hard to suspend their disbelief especially if it ends up looking like a PS2 game. Bad CGI has been done so much that the audience is clamouring for more Practical Effects again & will seek them out like I do now and in the modern age it be interesting to see what more Practical Effects filmmaking would look like on a modern mainstream budget compared to the 70’s, 80’s & 90’s and to see how far that can be pushed before needing CGI
This is a bit of a stretch, CGI isn't the problem. It's the studios that don't give enough time and don't care about the work of the artists. Everything being in camera would just make it more expensive and take a lot more time to do. Most 70-90's films would've used CGI if they had the chance, almost every single trick in films like those would've been easier and quicker to do with CGI. The fact we have TV shows that look better than some movies from the 90's or even the early 2000's should tell you how important CGI is to filmmaking as a whole. You're basically asking a filmmaker to stop using a tool because you'd rather blame the rushed CGI job that not even the artist likes than the studio who is rushing out the CGI.
this video had some great points, but i really hate when people disrespect the artists and the creativity involved in cgi the way you did at 11:16 the whole video feels so condescending to artists when the focus should be on the awful studios who force time constraints and last minute/poorly planned cgi. none of this is new though, as the movie rabbit hole (a channel you pointed to) explained in a video this lazy film making you talk about didnt come about with the advent of cgi, nor is it recent at all. matte paintings and unbuilt sets have been surprisingly and incredibly prevalent in film making for about a century. when a movie is made for profit, people get greedy. when profit is involved people become tantalized. its everywhere in our world ._. soooooooo yeah anyways just think about the message you are sending young audiences about laborers. movie companies are to blame!!!! loved the video though sorry for this tangent
I rewatched that portion, but I think I disagree with your takeaway (or perhaps I came off unclear). I wasn't using the use of optical illusions like forced perspective as a negative thing - far from it. My point was that because The Hobbit was also made for a 3D release, some of those effects wouldn't work which is why The Hobbit had to go the CGI route. That presented troubles with acting for Ian McKellen, who had to film parts of it by himself without the dwarves or Bilbo, who would be on another set. I've nothing but respect for the artists that have made film all these years. Building the sets, making the miniatures, models, and matte paintings, getting creative with optical illusions - and making it all look believable - all takes a lot of skill. I do make the point at the end of the video that poor time management skills on the parts of leads is an issue. I think most artists that work on a movie (CGI or otherwise) are actually really good at their jobs, but there's only so much that they can do if the director or higher ups put them on a time crunch. Then, they need to make do with what they have, which is hardly their fault.
I audibly groaned at CGI Peter Cushing when I saw Rogue One in the theater. It just didn't look good and there are so many other ways they could have accomplished the same thing.
What an amazing video! I really appreciate the angle you took amongst all the CGI discourse these days. As a filmmaker with no budget but some CGI skills, I am always looking for the best ways to come in Clutch with CGI in order to elevate my production value, without needing to prop my story up with the Crutch of CGI. I'm really glad to have that vernacular now. Subscribed!😎 Keep making great videos, mate!
I'm glad you enjoyed it! That's one of the ways CGI is helpful: if you have no budget but the technical chops, it can help you bring a lot of creativity without massively increasing the cost. It's inspirational to see you going that route - also subbed, and looking forward to your future videos.
Lol the VFX guys themselfs doing the Acting Performaces for characters Like Framestore for Rocket, Paddington, Oompa Loompa, Every Character in Christopher Robin, Groot, Cosmo, every IF Creature in the Movie "IF", Taweret, King Shark and more like they are Performer of these Creature and every other Studio Who does Digital Character/Creature Work like WETA, ILM, Rodeo FX, DNEG, Digital Domain, Image Engine and many more thats hard work
Since 1993, CGI revolutionized everything! BUT I forgive uses of CGI if it involves dinosaurs, TALKiNG DRaGONS, Na’Vi and dangerous stunts! NOT possible recreations like Beasts, werewolves, dwarves(you can still hire real actors for them) and humans! And maybe forgive uses of CGI if an actor is so ornitophobic that live birds shouldn’t be used at all!
Yup, almost everything AI generated is discerned after around 15-30 seconds of looking at it. That's also the danger, I think. You might not notice it on a quick glance but given time, you always will.
CGI goes hand in hand with super HD cameras because CGI cannot work with old film cameras even if edited by a computer. Personally I hate the ultra HD cameras every production uses, it ruins the atmosphere or requires far more money to obtain the same atmosphere as a lower fidelity camera would give with its reduced FOV and quality. Practical effects do not play well with ultra-HD cameras and again requires more work and money to obtain the same effect should someone go practical
you all do realize that theater actors have been pretending about their surroundings for centuries? they don't put a fricking desert out on a stage for a live play
CGI, colour grading and wokeness are the unholy trinity that have killed the entertainment industry. All three are utterly unresponsive to criticism. It doesn't matter how distressed and desperate we are for it to stop. It just gets stronger and stronger. That is why I believe it has all been meticulously planned from the beginning. We have gone so far beyond saturation point.
On the point!
Music videos, commercials and short films that I have directed or been involved with, have mostly been on an actual location. But with digital enhancement in post.
For the actors it works better if they have a physical object that have something more to work with than "hit this mark" or so. Generally actors work better when they have someone there than just reading lines and with the direction such as "Look shocked. No right beside the camera lense. Up, up, up.. NO! Lower."
My reel looks grounded, and the actors have something to interact with, so they seem real.
On one occasion, though, people asked me how I got this very amazing shot for a short film of mine done. Opening shot panning down from a bright blue sky to this girl sitting by the water. Many people assumed that it was done in front of a green screen or so, but in reality...well we were awfully lucky with the location and the weather.
My brilliant DOP more or less just needed to frame it and sit back and relax.
A total fluke when it came to timing. This was a 3 day shoot (day and night) and the days before, the weather was quite the opposite of what we wished for, And then suddenly bright sunlight for a few days, The very second we left the location, it started raining cats and dogs.
However, I would have to say that even that perfect frame was digitally altered. No sky replacement, nothing at all except for some color grading. Still a visual effect.
Ergo: the perfect mesh is if you have the right team both in front and behind the camera, who understands your vision. And with a little bit of luck and with good coordination, you can make great things together.
Balanced analysis. "It's a tool." Totally agree! Though i do feel sorry for the actors trying to react to a tennis ball😅
As do I. It must be a disconcerting experience, if not a bit uncomfortable. Beyond Ian McKellen & Batista, others like Ewan McGregor, Liam Neeson, Martin Freeman, Hugh Grant, Anthony Hopikins, and others haven't enjoyed the experience much.
We're going to give an oscar to the fucking tennis ball aren't we
Lol I hadn't considered that, but it's not outside the realm of possibility. Certainly, there's no other actor that's always on time, never complains, and does exactly what's asked of them.
I only feel a little better about Peter Cushing being in Rogue One was because he expressed disappointment that he wouldn’t be able to play the character of tarkin again after the first Star Wars film, and I have a feeling maybe he wouldn’t mind so much. But then again, we’ll never know for sure. I just am glad to have seen Tarkin again, but not sure I want them to do anything like that again
Seriously, I came to hate CGI so much, mostly because it's way overused. Every movie frame looks digitally altered nowadays. I can't stand it. It's a visual pleasure to watch older movies with practical SFX, like Terminator, even though the puppets they used don't look believable 50% of the time, at least our brain knows they actually exist.
The overuse is certainly one of the bigger issues. One of the videos I linked (ruclips.net/video/S0HSX-pKGgo/видео.html) brought up some examples where it's just totally unnecessary. Like one where, instead of just going to a bar to film a scene, they used a blue screen to fill the bar in. Totally unnecessary. Another was making a CGI gun instead of making a prop gun.
I watched the first two Terminator films recently and they still hold up. Every time I watch Terminator 2 Judgment Day I always want to know how they did the shot of the T1000 pulling the blade out of Todd's mouth.
Mr holio I'm afraid digital is here to stay. The entire movie is digital, not just the special effects.
Why do you hate CGI?
Ideally the plan should be to never need CGI and either use it sparingly or not at all. Ideally everything should be tried to be done in-camera first and whatever is truly impossible to pull off in real life that is the only time CGI should be needed but if you use too much CGI even the audience will find it hard to suspend their disbelief especially if it ends up looking like a PS2 game. Bad CGI has been done so much that the audience is clamouring for more Practical Effects again & will seek them out like I do now and in the modern age it be interesting to see what more Practical Effects filmmaking would look like on a modern mainstream budget compared to the 70’s, 80’s & 90’s and to see how far that can be pushed before needing CGI
This is a bit of a stretch, CGI isn't the problem. It's the studios that don't give enough time and don't care about the work of the artists. Everything being in camera would just make it more expensive and take a lot more time to do. Most 70-90's films would've used CGI if they had the chance, almost every single trick in films like those would've been easier and quicker to do with CGI. The fact we have TV shows that look better than some movies from the 90's or even the early 2000's should tell you how important CGI is to filmmaking as a whole. You're basically asking a filmmaker to stop using a tool because you'd rather blame the rushed CGI job that not even the artist likes than the studio who is rushing out the CGI.
this video had some great points, but i really hate when people disrespect the artists and the creativity involved in cgi the way you did at 11:16 the whole video feels so condescending to artists when the focus should be on the awful studios who force time constraints and last minute/poorly planned cgi. none of this is new though, as the movie rabbit hole (a channel you pointed to) explained in a video this lazy film making you talk about didnt come about with the advent of cgi, nor is it recent at all. matte paintings and unbuilt sets have been surprisingly and incredibly prevalent in film making for about a century. when a movie is made for profit, people get greedy. when profit is involved people become tantalized. its everywhere in our world ._. soooooooo yeah anyways just think about the message you are sending young audiences about laborers. movie companies are to blame!!!! loved the video though sorry for this tangent
I rewatched that portion, but I think I disagree with your takeaway (or perhaps I came off unclear). I wasn't using the use of optical illusions like forced perspective as a negative thing - far from it. My point was that because The Hobbit was also made for a 3D release, some of those effects wouldn't work which is why The Hobbit had to go the CGI route. That presented troubles with acting for Ian McKellen, who had to film parts of it by himself without the dwarves or Bilbo, who would be on another set. I've nothing but respect for the artists that have made film all these years. Building the sets, making the miniatures, models, and matte paintings, getting creative with optical illusions - and making it all look believable - all takes a lot of skill.
I do make the point at the end of the video that poor time management skills on the parts of leads is an issue. I think most artists that work on a movie (CGI or otherwise) are actually really good at their jobs, but there's only so much that they can do if the director or higher ups put them on a time crunch. Then, they need to make do with what they have, which is hardly their fault.
I audibly groaned at CGI Peter Cushing when I saw Rogue One in the theater. It just didn't look good and there are so many other ways they could have accomplished the same thing.
What an amazing video! I really appreciate the angle you took amongst all the CGI discourse these days.
As a filmmaker with no budget but some CGI skills, I am always looking for the best ways to come in Clutch with CGI in order to elevate my production value, without needing to prop my story up with the Crutch of CGI. I'm really glad to have that vernacular now.
Subscribed!😎 Keep making great videos, mate!
I'm glad you enjoyed it! That's one of the ways CGI is helpful: if you have no budget but the technical chops, it can help you bring a lot of creativity without massively increasing the cost. It's inspirational to see you going that route - also subbed, and looking forward to your future videos.
Totally agree, trying to make that my niche. Not the best pieces, but the best pieces for the story.
Thanks @Syntopikon ! I’m excited to share!
16:51 WTF were they thinking???
Lol the VFX guys themselfs doing the Acting Performaces for characters Like Framestore for Rocket, Paddington, Oompa Loompa, Every Character in Christopher Robin, Groot, Cosmo, every IF Creature in the Movie "IF", Taweret, King Shark and more like they are Performer of these Creature and every other Studio Who does Digital Character/Creature Work like WETA, ILM, Rodeo FX, DNEG, Digital Domain, Image Engine and many more thats hard work
Since 1993, CGI revolutionized everything! BUT I forgive uses of CGI if it involves dinosaurs, TALKiNG DRaGONS, Na’Vi and dangerous stunts! NOT possible recreations like Beasts, werewolves, dwarves(you can still hire real actors for them) and humans! And maybe forgive uses of CGI if an actor is so ornitophobic that live birds shouldn’t be used at all!
I get the "uncanny valley" effect mostly when I look at AI art these days. there's just something truly unsettling about it
Yup, almost everything AI generated is discerned after around 15-30 seconds of looking at it. That's also the danger, I think. You might not notice it on a quick glance but given time, you always will.
I dunno. Andy Serkis nails it every time.
CGI goes hand in hand with super HD cameras because CGI cannot work with old film cameras even if edited by a computer. Personally I hate the ultra HD cameras every production uses, it ruins the atmosphere or requires far more money to obtain the same atmosphere as a lower fidelity camera would give with its reduced FOV and quality. Practical effects do not play well with ultra-HD cameras and again requires more work and money to obtain the same effect should someone go practical
you all do realize that theater actors have been pretending about their surroundings for centuries? they don't put a fricking desert out on a stage for a live play
They’re still interacting with other performers and in the same room together. It’s not the same.
So much bullshit in the comments thats crazy
You don't like CGI, watch the 1976 version of King Kong😅
CGI, colour grading and wokeness are the unholy trinity that have killed the entertainment industry. All three are utterly unresponsive to criticism. It doesn't matter how distressed and desperate we are for it to stop. It just gets stronger and stronger. That is why I believe it has all been meticulously planned from the beginning. We have gone so far beyond saturation point.