Yeah, the problem with current era of movies is that they use CGI for everything. Like, do you really need to do a green screen to film a normal non-action scene where 2 characters talk out on the street?
CGI isn't bad, it's how it's used today that's bad. CGI needs to be a condiment, not the whole freaking course. To use CGI completely, as food stuff, you need to understand every aspect of it down to the very code that makes it tick. There isn't a single director alive that knows these things, hence why CGI doesn't look good and why it's even more jarring (not unnoticeable) than before. In Terminator, the use of the CGI to sprinkle practical effects could be passed on as the reparation stage. Exactly how in Matrix, in the fight between Neo and the Smiths, the CGI could be passed on as the system (The Matrix) was unable to cope with the anomaly and thus the CGI effect (willing or not willing, the use of CGI there and in specific other scenes, does lead to that).
For a great comparison, compare how much CGI was used in LOTR trilogy to how much CGI was used in The Hobbit trilogy. Heck, listening to Ian talk about how lonely he was should show you exactly what people are talking about.
@@Ironica82 Exactly! So much of LOTR was done practical, and it looks amazing. Whereas a whole lot of the Hobbit shots looked bad even at the time, and it's because instead of building a forced-perspective set and capturing everything in-camera, every element was shot separately and composited together, or even created entirely out of CGI. The best 90s VFX still hold up today because it was just augmenting practical things. Jurassic Park, The Fifth Element, The Matrix, T2, Apollo 13, etc. The only shots in Titanic that don't hold up are the big, sweeping, CGI shots of the ship; everything else was done with models and digital compositing/touch ups. Obviously, CGI today is capable of being so much better than it was back then, but studio practices now demand that basically everything be CGI, so the producers have the option of changing things at every step of the process. Have you seen that breakdown of the VFX in one of the Avengers movies, about how they got all of these real people and CGI characters to interact? The trick is, basically nothing other than the heads of the actors were real. The marketing department didn't know what uniforms they wanted on the toys yet, so the actors were all wearing motion-capture suits, and their entire bodies were added in post. That's a bad use of CGI. We've had the technology to make clothes since well before we were making movies.
Very smartly done VFX that account for the limitations of the time. It helped that this might have been the peek of professionals that could do puppetry, animatronics, matte painting and all the practical FX that had been developed over nearly a hundred years of cinema.
The T-1000 CGI work that Steve Spaz Williams, Mark Dippe and the rest of the ILM digital effects team produced was absolutely phenomenal, and it still stands up to this day. The fact it was done in 1990-91 is mind blowing. They were trailblazers and really paved the way for what was to come.
terminator movies are always been my fav of all time both for the story, the vusual effect and cgi. no matter if some of them is not like the 2, but i still enjoy watching them.
I feel like people who talk about hating CGI and loving practical effects are comparing bad CGI to great practical. Even in shows and movies with massive budgets you can usually tell when something is a practical effect in the same way you can with CGI. Personally I find practical effects way more jaring than CGI.
I suspect it's because a lot of these "CGI BAD! PRACTICAL GOOD! ME DISCERNING FILM BUFF!" types have only seen a small handful of pre-CGI era movies, mostly just Star Wars. If they had a larger repertoire, they would have seen some comically fake-looking practical effects.
If you really study the film you realize that every CGI shot of the t-1000 is supported by practical effects first and foremost. Anytime the t-1000 is shot a bullet shot impact foam piece is triggered. Then they use cgi to show its healing. Same with its spikes. Starts with the actor trying to grab the door, then a static shot of the door as the spikes form, then back to practical as the t-1000 opens the elevator. T-800 splits its head (cgi), then shows it wiggling (practical) as the elevator closes and goes down. The t-1000 reforms its head (cgi) and jumps into the elevator shaft. There’s the constant pattern of practical supporting and introducing the virtual effects. That’s what separates the cgi quality of t2 compared to modern action films
Cgi definitely has a place in film. It should be used to complement practical effects when they aren't, well, practical; which T2 is a prime example of. It's when cgi is the only source of any and all effects in a movie is when I feel it can really detract and ruin the experience.
I think some things that are often overlooked is 1. the story should always come first and any effect is to support a story not the other way around (you see less screw up on a good story) and if you have to resort to looking at it frame by frame to find something wrong with it then you have way too much time on your hands
As long as a movie suspends your disbelief, you will forgive minor imperfections. As for the story, if this script had been given to Roger Corman none of us would remember it. In movie making, every team member adds to the final product. Not just the writer.
Yep. That's another problem with current era of movies. It feels like they make everything CGI and flashy just to make it flashy and amaze the viewers with visuals, not to support the story. Like modern Marvel "movies". It's just a farce with pretty pictures: an absolute failure as movies. The 1994 Fox Kids' cartoon series Spider-man has a much better story than Marvel movies made after like 2004(Spider-man 2 with Tobey Maguire). You can tell they were trying to make a good story and teach kids some morals, not to amaze kids with flashy animations.
Planning is everything when it comes to making movies, especially visual effects. That and they had £102 million dollars. Makes doing things practically a little easier. Don’t forget the helicopter stunt on the freeway chase sequence towards the end of the film, was done FOR REAL. No CGI, no Miniature. Just a crazy Vietnam vet pilot and James Cameron himself filming it due to the camera crew refusing for being too risky.
this issue is not that "movies should stop using GCI and go back to practical effects", it's that movies should stop focusing on GCI and go back to storytelling.
Yes and the big difference is T2 (ILM) used both practical effects and cgi seemingly to achieve an action as opposed to doing everything in front of a green screen.
CGI and special effects is integral part of movies and I would argue has been since Méliès in the early 1900s; he did some cool special effects with plates for his short films. CGI has in part made some filmmakers lazy they think ohh people will be like "wow CGI" like in T2 but CGI can not replace the effort put into a good story, characters etc... I like what Spielberg said recently most people when they see a movie are like this scene,character, or music moved me not he was using this specific type of shot or lens. Filmmakers need to realize that the average movie goer has seen quite alot of CGI so they have to make it look good and or serve the story like Racconooni in Everything Everwhere All At Once. It is like a having a really good slice of well-baked cake, once you have had a good cake why go back to a bought cake mix you will always know the difference.
They do rely too heavily on CGI especially in big box office films (Fast Furious etc!) the trick is the correct one for the right scene (Practical Explosions as an example!) as well as blending CGI & Practical together.
It’s foolish to hate movies that use CGI and it’s the wrong reason to hate it. If a movie is planned and filmed accordingly for the use of CGI it will work wonders in your favour. This is why older movies looked better than some of todays. Todays its haphazardly thrown in a last minute attempt to fix something the filmmaker doesn’t understand and changed under such tight deadlines. VFX artists are actual wizards with prep time.
Funfact the Melted Metal the T1000 falls into was water had some yellow dye in it and lit with yellow and orange lights and was not CGI or Real Liquid Iron/Steel
In Terminator 2 there is not one scene completely created by CGI... only some objects were digitalized. And that is the difference. All scenes were build either in studios or in real life environment. That's why it is more believable.
Doesn't it come down to cost and efficiency in the very end? Making practical effects probably is much more expensive the larger you make them. And if you go full CGI you can model and fix stuff that you would may have to re-shoot or entirely cut out otherwise.
It’s not that CGI is bad, it’s that over reliance on it with poor planning & execution is. ie. when it’s a couple of weeks of loosely scripted acting, mostly to green screen, for a franchise movie outsourced to various unrelated CGI staff on $2 an hour, with daily ‘executive input’ from a director who doesn’t care about the fans, characters or lore.
Several characters in Dr Strange 2 wore CGI clothes. I didnt know because it was completely seamless, so theres an example. However, a liquid metal robot or a dinosaur, is obviously not invisible CGI, so you know its a computer generated image, no matter how real it looks.
"Art never dies" - maybe try tell that to abused, overworked, underpayed CGI artists that (tried to do their) work on Marvel's panoply of unimaginative films. Instead of being used sparigly as possible and for "an effect" (pun intended), it became incompetent producer(s)'/scriptwriter(s)'/screenplay writer(s)'/director(s)' panacea and "fix-all" for everything, and an excuse to not do their job properly. Those movies are the definition of CGI over(ab)use.
That scene where the T-1000 goes through the bars is brilliant and the fact that they achieved that in 1991 makes it even more amazing
This and jurasic park were the films that made the jump to CG visual effects, couldnt have been done as well without them.
and The Phantom Menace
CGI is so important when it's done right.
good CGI is good, bad CGI is bad, wise words
Yeah, the problem with current era of movies is that they use CGI for everything. Like, do you really need to do a green screen to film a normal non-action scene where 2 characters talk out on the street?
t1000 is one of the most fearsome enemies to be on screen or imagined.
I could only imagine how many takes it took to get the actor to drop the milk carton and the blade to retrieve out of his mouth in time.
I take so long to create a short movie I assume this was a tough job.
CGI isn't bad, it's how it's used today that's bad. CGI needs to be a condiment, not the whole freaking course.
To use CGI completely, as food stuff, you need to understand every aspect of it down to the very code that makes it tick. There isn't a single director alive that knows these things, hence why CGI doesn't look good and why it's even more jarring (not unnoticeable) than before.
In Terminator, the use of the CGI to sprinkle practical effects could be passed on as the reparation stage. Exactly how in Matrix, in the fight between Neo and the Smiths, the CGI could be passed on as the system (The Matrix) was unable to cope with the anomaly and thus the CGI effect (willing or not willing, the use of CGI there and in specific other scenes, does lead to that).
For a great comparison, compare how much CGI was used in LOTR trilogy to how much CGI was used in The Hobbit trilogy. Heck, listening to Ian talk about how lonely he was should show you exactly what people are talking about.
@@Ironica82 Exactly! So much of LOTR was done practical, and it looks amazing. Whereas a whole lot of the Hobbit shots looked bad even at the time, and it's because instead of building a forced-perspective set and capturing everything in-camera, every element was shot separately and composited together, or even created entirely out of CGI.
The best 90s VFX still hold up today because it was just augmenting practical things. Jurassic Park, The Fifth Element, The Matrix, T2, Apollo 13, etc. The only shots in Titanic that don't hold up are the big, sweeping, CGI shots of the ship; everything else was done with models and digital compositing/touch ups.
Obviously, CGI today is capable of being so much better than it was back then, but studio practices now demand that basically everything be CGI, so the producers have the option of changing things at every step of the process. Have you seen that breakdown of the VFX in one of the Avengers movies, about how they got all of these real people and CGI characters to interact? The trick is, basically nothing other than the heads of the actors were real. The marketing department didn't know what uniforms they wanted on the toys yet, so the actors were all wearing motion-capture suits, and their entire bodies were added in post. That's a bad use of CGI. We've had the technology to make clothes since well before we were making movies.
Art Never Dies!!
Very smartly done VFX that account for the limitations of the time. It helped that this might have been the peek of professionals that could do puppetry, animatronics, matte painting and all the practical FX that had been developed over nearly a hundred years of cinema.
The splash head puppet head wasn't worn by Robert Patrick, it was worn by his stunt double. The CGI and practical effects in T2 are legendary.
Another excuse to remind ourselves how good Terminator 2 is.
The T-1000 CGI work that Steve Spaz Williams, Mark Dippe and the rest of the ILM digital effects team produced was absolutely phenomenal, and it still stands up to this day. The fact it was done in 1990-91 is mind blowing. They were trailblazers and really paved the way for what was to come.
Buen video, esta pelicula será siempre una de mis favoritas
Terminator 2 is basically the ultimate memory, that movies can in fact look breathtaking AND be damn good in all other ways. Unlike modern cinema.
terminator movies are always been my fav of all time both for the story, the vusual effect and cgi. no matter if some of them is not like the 2, but i still enjoy watching them.
I feel like people who talk about hating CGI and loving practical effects are comparing bad CGI to great practical. Even in shows and movies with massive budgets you can usually tell when something is a practical effect in the same way you can with CGI. Personally I find practical effects way more jaring than CGI.
I suspect it's because a lot of these "CGI BAD! PRACTICAL GOOD! ME DISCERNING FILM BUFF!" types have only seen a small handful of pre-CGI era movies, mostly just Star Wars. If they had a larger repertoire, they would have seen some comically fake-looking practical effects.
Wow another fantastic vid 😍
If you really study the film you realize that every CGI shot of the t-1000 is supported by practical effects first and foremost. Anytime the t-1000 is shot a bullet shot impact foam piece is triggered. Then they use cgi to show its healing. Same with its spikes. Starts with the actor trying to grab the door, then a static shot of the door as the spikes form, then back to practical as the t-1000 opens the elevator. T-800 splits its head (cgi), then shows it wiggling (practical) as the elevator closes and goes down. The t-1000 reforms its head (cgi) and jumps into the elevator shaft. There’s the constant pattern of practical supporting and introducing the virtual effects. That’s what separates the cgi quality of t2 compared to modern action films
Cgi definitely has a place in film. It should be used to complement practical effects when they aren't, well, practical; which T2 is a prime example of. It's when cgi is the only source of any and all effects in a movie is when I feel it can really detract and ruin the experience.
I think some things that are often overlooked is 1. the story should always come first and any effect is to support a story not the other way around (you see less screw up on a good story) and if you have to resort to looking at it frame by frame to find something wrong with it then you have way too much time on your hands
As long as a movie suspends your disbelief, you will forgive minor imperfections. As for the story, if this script had been given to Roger Corman none of us would remember it. In movie making, every team member adds to the final product. Not just the writer.
Yep. That's another problem with current era of movies. It feels like they make everything CGI and flashy just to make it flashy and amaze the viewers with visuals, not to support the story. Like modern Marvel "movies". It's just a farce with pretty pictures: an absolute failure as movies. The 1994 Fox Kids' cartoon series Spider-man has a much better story than Marvel movies made after like 2004(Spider-man 2 with Tobey Maguire). You can tell they were trying to make a good story and teach kids some morals, not to amaze kids with flashy animations.
A good blend of practical and digital is always impressive to see.
Well said people just complain about vfx because they have nothing else to do!!!
“Art Never Dies”
AI: “Hold My Bitbeer”
Planning is everything when it comes to making movies, especially visual effects. That and they had £102 million dollars. Makes doing things practically a little easier. Don’t forget the helicopter stunt on the freeway chase sequence towards the end of the film, was done FOR REAL.
No CGI, no Miniature. Just a crazy Vietnam vet pilot and James Cameron himself filming it due to the camera crew refusing for being too risky.
Beautiful video!
They need to go back to this
this issue is not that "movies should stop using GCI and go back to practical effects", it's that movies should stop focusing on GCI and go back to storytelling.
Yes and the big difference is T2 (ILM) used both practical effects and cgi seemingly to achieve an action as opposed to doing everything in front of a green screen.
CGI and special effects is integral part of movies and I would argue has been since Méliès in the early 1900s; he did some cool special effects with plates for his short films. CGI has in part made some filmmakers lazy they think ohh people will be like "wow CGI" like in T2 but CGI can not replace the effort put into a good story, characters etc... I like what Spielberg said recently most people when they see a movie are like this scene,character, or music moved me not he was using this specific type of shot or lens. Filmmakers need to realize that the average movie goer has seen quite alot of CGI so they have to make it look good and or serve the story like Racconooni in Everything Everwhere All At Once. It is like a having a really good slice of well-baked cake, once you have had a good cake why go back to a bought cake mix you will always know the difference.
They do rely too heavily on CGI especially in big box office films (Fast Furious etc!) the trick is the correct one for the right scene (Practical Explosions as an example!) as well as blending CGI & Practical together.
It’s foolish to hate movies that use CGI and it’s the wrong reason to hate it. If a movie is planned and filmed accordingly for the use of CGI it will work wonders in your favour. This is why older movies looked better than some of todays. Todays its haphazardly thrown in a last minute attempt to fix something the filmmaker doesn’t understand and changed under such tight deadlines. VFX artists are actual wizards with prep time.
Awesome!
Funfact the Melted Metal the T1000 falls into was water had some yellow dye in it and lit with yellow and orange lights and was not CGI or Real Liquid Iron/Steel
What people mean: Shooting everything in a volume, all backgrounds CGI, no practical sets, just green screen or volume.
2:14 Either T2 is gorier than I remember or the pixelation caused me to imagine it to be gory.
It's not that gory, not sure why they felt they had to pixelate it.
@@farmersboy RUclips is finicky with gore of any kind. You can't be too paranoid about showing it these days, unfortunately.
Ótimo vídeo
Wonder if you can find your green friends in the moon landing footage ?
Bro you are just like deadpool when you wear goggles 😎😎
In Terminator 2 there is not one scene completely created by CGI... only some objects were digitalized. And that is the difference.
All scenes were build either in studios or in real life environment. That's why it is more believable.
I could be wrong, but the only full CGI shot in the movie is when the T1000's liquid metal face finally dissipates into the molten steel.
No you are correct.
I think part of the problem is when they use CGI when practical will do. I personally hate CGI blood.
Doesn't it come down to cost and efficiency in the very end? Making practical effects probably is much more expensive the larger you make them.
And if you go full CGI you can model and fix stuff that you would may have to re-shoot or entirely cut out otherwise.
I work in vfx. Can anybody tell me what hardware they were using for these shots? It still holds up today.
It’s not that CGI is bad, it’s that over reliance on it with poor planning & execution is. ie. when it’s a couple of weeks of loosely scripted acting, mostly to green screen, for a franchise movie outsourced to various unrelated CGI staff on $2 an hour, with daily ‘executive input’ from a director who doesn’t care about the fans, characters or lore.
❤👍
The problem with CGI is that no matter how good it is, it always looks layered onto the shot, whereas practical effects are actually in the shot.
The recent and upcoming Planet of the Apes films beg to differ. Digital effects with a huge budget never look layered on, but they do in cheap films.
Thats not true. Theres lots of CGI in films that looks absolutely like its there.
@@peterlenham3180 I’m not saying there’s not exceptional CGI.
What are some examples you would point to where it’s indiscernible from reality?
Several characters in Dr Strange 2 wore CGI clothes. I didnt know because it was completely seamless, so theres an example. However, a liquid metal robot or a dinosaur, is obviously not invisible CGI, so you know its a computer generated image, no matter how real it looks.
i will feel guilty if i don't give you a like. i knew more about my favorite movie at the pass now
didnt they used Video Toaster for Terminator ?
👍
What's with the blurring?
🎉🎉
People just need to stop complaining and whining and enjoy the damn movie.
Thanks to CGI... Made filmmakers life easy
What is the name of the movie
So qu3m e fa de verdade vai curtir esse come
ntario
Lol I always thought the T-1000 bullet wounds looked fake
Look at movies today 90% is CGI nothing is real anymore. T2 barely used it and that is why that movie is still great
See Adipurush trailer you will know what is CGI 🤦😤
Hollywood can't compete with our Telugu movie CG's !
1:27 couldn't they just shot in reverse ?
The smoke in the background would be going down instead of up.
Back ground music tittle please 😅
Mr 🍏 pls do moon landing
How is that possible 😂
Just watch 2001 space odissey...
"Art never dies" - maybe try tell that to abused, overworked, underpayed CGI artists that (tried to do their) work on Marvel's panoply of unimaginative films.
Instead of being used sparigly as possible and for "an effect" (pun intended), it became incompetent producer(s)'/scriptwriter(s)'/screenplay writer(s)'/director(s)' panacea and "fix-all" for everything, and an excuse to not do their job properly.
Those movies are the definition of CGI over(ab)use.
قوه
Are you sick? The subtitles are so big, how many lines of sight are blocked.
Hello. You could just not watch this video.
You can change the size in your options
Бред полнейший