Can we take a second to appreciate how well the skeleton fight looks in _Jason and the Argonauts_ from 1968? Like, seriously, 1968, and damn! That stop motion is meshed perfectly.
When I was 10 years old, and saw TRON for the first time, I knew instinctively, that movies were about to change forever. And even though "The Academy" snubbed it at 1982's Oscars, to this very day, TRON is my favorite film of all-time.
Same here. I had two action figures and two light cycles but the toys were on their way out when I first saw Tron. My Dad rented it for me, then we taped it off Hbo and I watched it just about every day. I used to tape frisbees to my back and shit lol
it bugs me when cgi is used for stuff that could be easily (and seemingly more cheaply for a better result) with a practical effect. My biggest bugbear is cg blood splatters in modern low budget horror films. I get that it means they dont have to clean up the actors between takes, but it always looks fake.
The Channel Fadge agreed. It's like the Wolverine scene shown in the video. From the first time I saw that movie, I had wondered why did they not use practical effects for those blades. The CGI blades were terrible looking and really unnecessary. It came off as if they used CGI for that scene just because they could.
Well it's POSSIBLE to make CG explosions well. But you know what, how often do you see explosions in real life? Lots of movies in the 70ies and 80ies used model explosions and model flames that looked waaaaaay wrong, because the whole substituted chemistry isn't the same, and we got used to them. Maybe real explosions look fake to us now too?
I am elated that a film aficionado, such as yourself, has such a fair and balanced view of CGI. So many film fanatics seem to take the trendy position that practical effects are so much superior. As you stated, it really comes down to the quality of CGI, and the context in which it is being used, when it comes to assessing whether CGI is good or bad.
The fact that there's so much CGI that movie goers don't notice shows that CGI isn't bad. Like you and Georg said, it's all about how it's used and when. There are so many instances where CGI in the background is used without anyone ever noticing. And in more in your face examples, how Gollum still looks better than the any of the CGI characters in the Hobbit trilogy. The importance, I think, is to ground it in reality as much as you can, no matter how it looks. Compare the Gollum scenes in the Two Towers with any CGI character in any of the Harry Potter films. There's a drastic difference in believability despite technology.
Practical effects are superior at least in that you can get away with them in more places. That said, you can't exactly composite them together without extreme limitations, or CGI. With Bladerunner they had to use an expensive computer camera control rig, and dozens of exposures to get the resulting image. It's beautiful, but it is objectively far too much work. Now computers can extrapolate the exact position of the camera and do the same compositing into free moving shots. CGI as a replacement for matte paintings and multi-exposure compositing? Top notch. That said, the easier and more accessible these techniques become, the easier it is to put amateurish, ugly or jarring CGI characters and effects into shots that didn't need them. That's what everyone means when they talk about bad CGI.
I think the problem is that bad CGI or overuse of it is kind of noticeable like a soar thumb. But we rarely acknowledge good CGI, like in the Planet of the Apes movies, there's no way you can use real apes for doing what they do and the motion capture with excelent trained actors like Serkis works fine, same with It and Lord of the Rings, but then you have movie like World of Warcraft or The Hobbit where the CGI obviusly doesn't work, the motion capture sucks and it give you the idea that it was just lazyness because no one wanted to do make-up and use costumes. So it depends on the movie and the usage.
Modern CGI gets hate because it's the easy way out. Most of the time it's done so cheaply and lazily. They send in the overlay footage, it looks fine as a rough draft. The art director says it looks out of place and fake. Director and studio head says to disregard the art director because they have a schedule to keep. They don't get a second render with better lighting and weightier animation. Instead it gets sent to the editing bay where they try and do some colour correcting and add things on top to obscure it. Rinse. Repeat. CGI can look good, it's just that most of the film has tons of CGI and so the time and money required to make it look good is too much. It's why there should be a balance between practical effects and CGI, because if either one gets to be too dominant then it looks terrible.
To me it looks very much like the Tron shot at 6:21 is handdrawn animation and composite, not 3D rendered, but it's framed by two shots that are 3D. Similarly, the Terminator elevator scene showed is mostly practical, in-camera, and has two 2-second CG shots. And a bit later the moment you say "effects that can CONVINCE", you are showing a practical shot. And then again, wireframe in Star Wars was 3D rendered in some places, but the one in the pilot cockpit is hand drawn. Imitating computers of course. A bit disappointed that you didn't include The Last Starfighter and Young Sherlock Holmes. I think these two are first notable example of taking a shot at CG realism, with the first 'seamlessly' replacing a real car with a 3D rendered one, besides having a lot of CG in general. The second contained a scene where stained glass shatters and becomes a knight - not having a frame of reference of what a glass knight would look like, and it being composed of materials closely mimicking those photographed on the set, i think it vaguely counts as realistic. Both of these are from early/mid 80ies.
Yes, I too found myself mentally pointing out the shots that are believed to be cgi but are actually cleverly used practical effects. But in the end, while most don't realise how little cgi there actually was in many of the early cgi-heavy blockbusters and there has even been those in the know who explain that there are more practical effects shots in the dreaded Phantom Menace than in all of the original trilogy combined... The arguments in this video still are true though. So I forgive quite easily these mis-identified cgi shots.
The problem with The Phantom Menace... even when they fake it for real, it looks fake. Because things never quite match up, and that blandest of bland cinematography turned out to be the same, whether you're shooting for a CG backdrop or a model backdrop. Except CG backdrop would have been more flexible... you don't have to shoot it just from one side where the miniature has an opening! Rarely i would say anything of a kind, because i think this movie is the perfect poster child for special effect abuse, which is... pardon me, a menace, but i wish The Phantom Menace had more CG!
eldospinks, wait that comment doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I mean it's factually (almost) correct, it just doesn't fit the context in any sensible way.
Siana Gearz Makes perfect sense to me. Just because the effects cost more, does not mean there were more than there were in three films that relied on pratical effects.
Yesterday I saw a small feature on TV about a local (German) guy who does practical effects for hollywood. He even got an Oscar for it, for his work on the new Blade Runner. He says that, with a snowfall-scene as an example, 90% of the snow is fake, but some in the foreground is physically there, mainly to give the actors something to react to. Also, in a later flood scene in the movie, they did the water and waves for real and just extended the background, because water still doesn't look 100% realistic if it comes out of a computer rather than a hose.
This is becoming one of my favorite channels with every new vid, whether talking about cinema industry, or more social matters... Keep up the good stuff!
CGI effects are almost always over used. There's just too much temptation to throw in unnecessary camera movements and color grading. Just one more lens flare or laser blast. One more unnecessary space craft zooming by background character doing summersaults. One of my favorite scenes is the reveal of the USS Enterprise in dry dock by Douglas Trumbull's team in Star Trek The Motion Picture from 1979, a sequence that is so good it was re used for the immediate sequel. The graceful movement, the attention to detail, the lighting effects and the conveyance of real scale is unforgettable. And it was all 100% real. Every detail had to be hand crafted and budgeted. Had that scene been made today, there would be dozens of dry docks in the background, many more shuttles zooming around and a frenetic camera threatening to invoke motion sickness. Many of these sequences are now made of the benefit of the trailer, not to support the story itself. It's a shame.
David fincher, who worked on the cgi team from ILM on Return of the Jedi, used more shots with cgi in the social network than was used in Jurassic world. He uses it where you dont notice, only to make what you're seeing more believable and logical as well as stylistic
Extremely interesting!!! Your efforts are evident. Thanks for all your hard work. The high quality of your videos is always greatly appreciated by your followers
I think George Lucas made a great point when he said effects need to be in service of the story (ironic), I can forgive a bad effect if the story is interesting or charming. I can watch old Godzilla movies where its some guy crushing cardboard all day long, but hardly be interested when its a photo-realistic CG creation. Its similar with The Last Starfighter, those effects are clearly of their time, but that story has charm to it (imo), so its easier to not get hung up on it.
Check out the latest Japanese Godzilla film, "Shin Godzilla". I think it's a great example of CGI used appropriately. It still manages to capture the feel of those Showa era films despite it's heavy use of CGI. I also think it's pretty incredible what a Japanese studio made with 15 million dollar budget compared to the 2014 Legendary Godzilla that had a budget of like 160 million.
bigevilworldwide1 yeah but think about the quality of the film after it's complete. Those movies earned their fame through hard work to keep remaking the setd
Great video as always! Was a little sad to see no mention of Flight Of The Navigator though. That shiny spaceship blew me away as a kid and I think it was quite groundbreaking at the time.
Wir fahren fahren fahren auf der autobahn! You just gave me a flashback to when I was a kid in the 80's. Our national tv station used to play the full video for that song every now and then, I guess when they had slots they hadn't managed to sell ads in. It used to both fascinate and disturb me. It would just randomly appear between scheduled programs without warning, so I'd be waiting for the next cartoon show or A-Team episode or whatever and then be almost hypnotised against my will by this freaky animation that would go on and on forever from my 5 or 6 year old's perception of time. Bits of the visuals have been lodged in my head ever since and would come to mind every now and then despite their source being long forgotten by me until just now. As an adult seeing it again for the first time in decades it's lost its sinister edge but it still goes on a bit for my taste but that's kind of a feature of Kraftwerk's music in general. Now I guess I see a few influences in it like 2001: A Space Odyssey and possibly a hint of Geiger. Hearing that music again just unlocked part of my memory like a trigger phrase, and set me off on another brief drug free trip! Cheers for that, and all your stuff in general.
Stop motion is pretty much always laughably noticeable and potentially distracting, so there's that. People in creative field just tend to forget these days that just because you can make something, doesn't mean you should, because the audience might not believe you.
Siana Gearz oh I can suspend my disbelief if it's done well, same goes for stop motion, like the bear scene from The Revenant, obvious CGI, but it was so well done that I ignored it, plus it was very harrowing. But when I'm talking about bad and distracting CGI I think of the baby from Twilight.
That is a ridiculously well done effect! And yet what if they made it just a tiny bit more hectic, a bit worse lit, a bit more silhouetted, and managed to show a bit less of the bear? Wouldn't it be better? Because there's at most a few split seconds where it doesn't move quite right or the fur doesn't move quite right. It seems to me that the paws might be on-set props for the close-up, that does a lot to sell the effect.
Siana Gearz I think for me it's when the bear interacted with Leo that's when I can really tell it was CGI, perhaps the lightening need some tweaking, but other than that it was still a great effect especially with the use of wires for Leo being thrown around.
It's amazing how little CGI the original tron actually features, watching it again reveals most of it is still traditional animation and matte paintings
A really interesting film to mention would have been Robocop 2. It used practical effects for the "Robocain" robot, with a CG face shown on the robot's monitor - all at the same time. To me it is the perfect example of the point where practical effects began to phase out of movie making and CG to phase in
Its interesting that because of the prohibitive cost of mainframe time, John Carpenter had to use practical effects to emulate cgi for the glider sequence in Escape from New York. I think it gives it a unique look.
Unpopular opinion: Decent CGI looks better than the best puppetry/miniatures ever can. I don't say this to in any way disrespect or shit on the work of practical FX teams, but...well, I'll use Farscape as my example. Farscape's aliens were primarily done with practical effects, by Jim Henson's team, and they were amazing. They were imaginative and emotive, but oh, my goodness, they were _clumsy._ Rigel, one of the main supporting characters, was nearly all done as a puppet. He was supposed to be a glutton, always after more food, but whenever he reached for it, or tried to put it in his mouth, it was painful to watch. Pilot, another main supporting character, was supposed to be constantly operating controls at the centre of the ship. It was, however, blatantly obvious that his four arms were mostly just bouncing up and down on the control panels and not actually moving with the precision needed to control anything. This was puppetry at its very best. This was The Jim Henson Company from 1999-2004, with plenty of time to iron out any problems with their puppetry, and it still never looked as convincing as good CGI. CGI raised the bar. You can't get away with "good enough" any more in practical effects - you have to be the very, very best, or you'll be replaced.
Wow! Thank you, Sir! Everything you talked about early CGI before Star Wars in 1977, I'd never even heard of. Everything I've ever heard of prior to that here in the United States was credited to American scientists. Apparently here in the states, we're fed a very U.S.-centric view of the development of technology!
Well to be fair, them conniving Brits didn't bother declassifying Bletchley park and taking credit for the first programmable computer until well after the frigging millenium. Sometimes it's not our fault that everyone let us think we were first at everything.
That happened a lot during and after WW2. There are probably developments achieved at time that will never be known, so many were destroyed during the period, or just buried in a basement somewhere and forgotten. Quite likely, some things had to be reinvented later. That period also saw tech talent moving around a fair bit between nations, eg. a lot of German scientists ended up in the US, but their origins are glossed over in favour of their impact on the space programme. Wernher von Braun inparticular is sanitised for the convenience of comfortable history. Likewise, the UK ended up giving away significant elements of British jet engine technology to Russia, in a manner that quite likely came back to bite us and the USA in the ass during the Korean War, but this isn't going to be mentioned in any highschool history book. :) Such a complicated time, so many untold stories...
Good work on the video. The "Too soon" joke may need some explanation to people in the future since most people won't know that you live in Mexico and you probably did feel the big earthquake of September 2017. Keep up the good job! =D
Great stuff! Would've been nice to see a bit more of the 80s: Andre and Wally B, Last Starfighter and Young Sherlock to name a few - but interesting and entertaining content nonetheless 👍🏼
I don't believe we're at the point yet of believable, realistic CGI. The trick most filmmakers rely on today is blending the CGI imagery with tangible elements such as setting or actors with color grading and filters that serves to make real people, real locations, and real objects look *less real* as opposed to the CGI looking more real. It will all blend, but our movies are largely looking more and more fake. Compare The Force Awakes with A New Hope. TFA doesn't look nearly as tangible as ANH. The Millennium Falcon looks no more real than something from a video game. In contrast, ANH looked like it actually existed in reality. I can see scuff marks on the floor of the Death Star. I can imagine myself feeling every fabric and every texture and the coldness of the metal. I don't get that feeling with new films because none of it looks real. It all looks like a video game that I can't play.
I got to have a chat with Brendan McCarthy last winter. He was the lead concept artist/"co-writer" for Fury Road, and, among many other things, the lead designer for the 90s 3D animated show Reboot, and the 90s TMNT movie. So having worked practically and with a pioneering CGI show, he had a good perspective on effects. We both ultimately agreed that the main thing that makes current day CGI look so fake despite being at the point of photo realism is over-animation. Look at any scene in Game of Thrones where the dragons move about and you'll see that nigh-on every individual part of them jostles and shifts and flexes when they take a single step. Everything sways unnaturally and unnecessarily, down to individual scales and spines. Compare that with an actual lizard or animal and you'll see how relatively little they move. Likewise, human models tend to do this weird cartoony smear/deform when they move, giving the appearance that they're made of rubber. Movements are over-exaggerated too, where every punch has to arch around twice it's regular distance in order to supposedly "compensate" for it's lack of weight. It works in 2D, but causes conflict in 3D It seems to come down to a common choice the animators make, all based on older 2D principles of animation. If a model can move beyond the point of a real life counterpart, or if the animator can shift around 50 separate points of articulation at once, they will do it.
I can't be the only person that got that Kraftwerk reference. Edit: I think a very "let's do this as much as we can" film is the Wachowski's adaptation of Speed Racer, nearly everything in that movie was CGI, including part's of the house where the Racer family live and parts where the car isn't even in motion, and for a movie that came out in 2008, they aren't half bad and make for a headache inducing watch that I think compliments the old anime well
The Tarkin shots were still very uncanny. It really frustrated me because they're done in a relatively dark room and the camera comes in through a window. If they were just to leave the camera outside the window, the obfuscation would keep that shot looking perfect. Careful framing of the other shots could have really helped as well. I mean, it looked good, but just too clean in that way that only 3D animation does. Dirtying up the shot by other means takes this away, like Terminator 2 on VHS. The Leia scene..... Did not fare so well, being in a well lit pod and shot straight into her face.
Exactly tumbwarriordx! I remember thinking in the theatre for a brief moment "oh, they're just going to show the CGI Tarkin as a reflection in the glass, this is a great way to sell the effect!". Of course that thought was abruptly ended and the uncanny valley effect just got worse throughout the film..
well they could do it better because as im aware the effects used for Tarkin scene was the same used for Young Kevin Flynn/CLU on TRON Legacy, and in one scene the one where guards take Sam Flynn to see CLU on his flagship, has the better effects for the young Jeff Bridges face in the movie, i mean that scene alone makes me think that if they had their sweet time with that technology they could easly made me believe that there are 2 Jeff Bridges in the movie instead of Old Bridges and Half CGI PS3 Bridges, because they used for the other scenes half CGI Young Bridges and mixed it with his mocap actor that sadly doesnt look anything like Jeff on the face department, that's why CLU for other scenes looks so...off instead of looking exactly like the scene where he talks for the first time with Kevin's Son, if only had more time and sticked with that instead of doing what i said it could had been such an amazing feat but i could think that maybe in more heavly action paced scenes this technology couldn't keep up at all since it was originally used for "The strange case of Benjamin Button" and in that movie Brad Pitt barely moves let alone jumps, rides a bike, or makes a fighthing coreography so yeah i can get why it looks so PS3-ish for the rest of the movie, but man that was a let down.
11:38sec sums it up very well.I would add that recently we have a new generation of Artists, who first started on computers and not with pens, pencils and clay. Just as those working in the todays movie ind, dont always have a background in Theater, or Profesional Photographers who have never shot a role of film.
I think there was an computer animated portion of the Andromeda Strain (1971), where they are showing one of the characters progress through the facility using rudimentary computer animation- this proceeded Westworld, also a Michael Crichton based product.
The best is mixing both. It looks better than just good CGI or just good practical fx. Movies nowadays usually use too much CGI and too little practical effects.
The difference however is that bad and or excessive CGI is often used to compensate a poorly executed film. While bad or subpar practical effects in the past was in large part due to technical limitations but despite this still more so followed a coherent story line.
I would say the difference is that even when practical effects don’t look ‘real’ they still look and behave as though they exist in the world of the film, if that makes sense. A bad looking Arnold face clone in Terminator isn’t fooling anyone into thinking that it’s Arnold but it doesn’t look like a cartoon as it would if it were a poor cg effect.
Not sure if anyone's said anything about this, haven't done much comment digging yet. Though I thought I would mention, you talked about the uncanny valley, but then didn't show the the young Jeff Bridges from Tron Legacy even though you had a couple clips from the movie in the video. But I swear when I see that movie, every time he is on screen it just creeps the hell outta me, lmfao. Just feels wrong. And honestly, I think they did a great job with it. It's incredibly well constructed, especially for the time. It was just too... "smooth", for lack of a better term. Both impressive and off putting. A weird combination of feelings xD Also just wanna say, great video! I love your well balanced view on CGI. I do agree that it's definitely here to stay, and has much more growing to do. Though while I think that's mostly a good thing. I'm still in the camp that it should generally be used to improve practical effects, or only where practical effects are well, as you said, impractical. Gratuitous use of CGI just get's stale and can make movies that could have been great, (Looking at The Thing[prequel], and Jurassic World) just kind of... mediocre.
You briefly touched upon it with ParaNorman but don't forget about how 3d scan and print greatly affected CGI in films. I think a lot of older CGI's uncanniness came from the fact they were photo modeled by hand so it was never 100% perfect. with the advent of super accurate lidar and more affordable photogrammetry, you could capture people places and things with 1:1 accuracy making the CG asset indistinguishable from the live action plate. and on the flipside with rapid prototyping and 3d printing, any CG asset can be fabricated into tangible elements actors can work off of. not only can they fabricate partial sets and props but they have recently been 3d printing maquettes of CG characters so actors could have proper eyelines and don't have to strain themselves trying to imagine a ball on a stick is a hulking monster or dragon or baby tree because they are looking at physical representations. not to mention secondary assets like textures and camera tracking helping blur the lines. companies like Quixel and SurfaceMimic have used advanced 3d surface scanning to make shaders and texture materials that mimic the shape color and reflexion of real-world surfaces allowing even the most fantastic CG asset look physically tangible and plausible. the rock monster from Thor the dark world looked like he was made of rock despite moving like rocks never do. and camera tracking does as the term implies, tracking the camera's position in footage allowing compositors to put in any 3d asset they see fit without it looking out of place. hell, the most popular 3d compositing app, The Foundry's Nuke, could perform some mild photogrammetry that reconstructs some of the environment seen in the footage giving the VFX team something "tangible" to work off of, including anchor points to attach already digitized sets and environments making the transition seamless. and that is just the CGI you see on film! with commercially available 3d apps and assets a director can literally previs their entire movie without having to leave the studio. I think gravity and interstellar were famous for having 90% of the movie "filmed" without even having actors slated for roles yet. hell thinking about it now some prop shops do that as well. Legacy Effects, famous for making 3d printed suits like iron man's armor, have virtual "mannequins" of various generic builds in their asset library letting them design their specialty suits before an actor is slated, only needing minor touchups and fitting once an actor is found. oh and it goes without saying 3D graphics revolutionized concept art, allowing an artist to just make one asset to turn around instead of several turnarounds of the one asset. oh and the very nature of 3-dimensional graphics allows an artist to inspect every nook and cranny of their design and fix them to be both functional and appealing allowing for more verisimilitude that sells the believability of an effect. computers literally ease labor burdens and automate tedious jobs letting creative people do their thing faster, more accurate and efficient!
The big groundbreaking achievement was the de-aging of RDJ in Captain America Civil War. Unlike the previous attempt at de-aging Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy, the de-aging of RDJ was astonishingly realistic! He did look 30 years younger!
I remember being wowed by the CGI scenes in T2 Judgment Day, like when the T-1000 made himself part of the floor to kill the guard and then when he phased through the bars. To my 14-year-old self, that was mind blowing. The problem I think is when movies started doing CGI for CGI's sake, like Independence Day. However, I loved how the CGI complemented the acting and storytelling in the LOTR trilogy.
Great video. Agree with your bedroom director prediction and the role cg will play when that happens. You already see it happening in the game industry with the availability of game engines such as Unity and Unreal where individuals have access to very robust systems. Lone wolves can make very complicated games by themselves now. It's only a matter of time that we get blockbuster level movies that one person made.
I love CGI. I love Harryhausen puppets. I like Anime and high-end computer assisted anime, like Bloodlust but I love the 60s/70s era anime also. I like Rocky and Bullwinkle. IMO it's about the STORY - something modern films forget. They have incredible effects, the CGI artists are awesome. But the movies they have to make are bland "Re-Boots" of old memories - G-d help them if they risk $ on new stuff or don't dumb something down so people in the ...'exceptional' department can get the plot and shout it out loud.
I love your clips and your points are well thought out and very interesting but sometimes what ever camera you use looks like it needs an update. But thank you so much on your views.
Fred Park was my Facial Animation professor at Texas A&M! He is a wealth of information about computer imagery and visualization. Sadly he is retiring soon.
I do miss the artistry of the upper crust of practical effects movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien (and it's sequel) the original Star Wars trilogy etc...
I took an intro to film class last year (not a film major) and we had a debate about the use of CGI in films and its future in the film industry. My professor seemed to think that the ever more realistic CGI was a bad thing because films would no longer be grounded in reality (something about the audience not being able distinguish between what was filmed and what was created). She had a slippery-slope point of view where it would lead to there being no need for real actors anymore in the film industry. I tend to disagree and think that audiences don't need to be able to distinguish between real and fake because there is a suspension of disbelief when you watch something in a movie. Even if it's non-fiction, I think CGI would only aid in a more accurate portrayal.
The relatively recent breakthrough in subsurface scattering technology for digitally rendered images is going to bring a huge breath of life to all computer graphics. The Unreal4 Engine can be 99% photo realistic. If you are curious look up some of the demos for UE4, mainly some of the nature ones. They look pretty damn real. The only thing that throws them off, sometimes, is the shadows. Even that is barely noticeable though, as I only saw it because i was looking for problems. Edit: That comment about creativity being unlimited has led to a plethora of CGI that looks identically bad. There are some absolutely stunning uses of CG of course. Looking at you Sunshine.
The two movies that comes to mind is "The Last Starfighter" which was an early movie with quite a lot of CGI, but also "Jurassic Park" which was the first movie I ever saw with CGI that was blended into a real movie and was photo realistic.
And yet, it used a lot less CG than people assumed. CG raptors are in for the lot of 4 seconds; another few minutes it's actors in suits! They even forgot to wear their stilts in one of the shots. Most smaller dinosaurs are puppets, and they had a T-Rex puppet too.
I'll have to check out Street of Crocodiles. Tool - Sober has always been a favorite video of mine and I could immediately see the influence it took from it.
Can we take a second to appreciate how well the skeleton fight looks in _Jason and the Argonauts_ from 1968? Like, seriously, 1968, and damn! That stop motion is meshed perfectly.
Love how ur vids start straight away with no annoying intro music.
amen! i hate intros as well...
Yeah
Or bitching about liking subscribing and clicking the bell..
"Hey guys toDAY we are going to be talking about
C G I in Films but BEfore that, our sponsor is Raid Shadow Legends"
Instantly engaging.
I always found "Max Headroom" to be an interesting case of the reverse -- practical effects purposely mimicking CGI to produce a cyberpunk feel.
When I was 10 years old, and saw TRON for the first time, I knew instinctively, that movies were about to change forever. And even though "The Academy" snubbed it at 1982's Oscars, to this very day, TRON is my favorite film of all-time.
Same here. I had two action figures and two light cycles but the toys were on their way out when I first saw Tron. My Dad rented it for me, then we taped it off Hbo and I watched it just about every day. I used to tape frisbees to my back and shit lol
it bugs me when cgi is used for stuff that could be easily (and seemingly more cheaply for a better result) with a practical effect. My biggest bugbear is cg blood splatters in modern low budget horror films. I get that it means they dont have to clean up the actors between takes, but it always looks fake.
And yet Fincher always uses CG blood, pretty much every single time, and it always looks real!
The Channel Fadge agreed. It's like the Wolverine scene shown in the video. From the first time I saw that movie, I had wondered why did they not use practical effects for those blades. The CGI blades were terrible looking and really unnecessary. It came off as if they used CGI for that scene just because they could.
CGI explosions and flames are the worst. They look so fake, and it's so lazy.
Well it's POSSIBLE to make CG explosions well. But you know what, how often do you see explosions in real life? Lots of movies in the 70ies and 80ies used model explosions and model flames that looked waaaaaay wrong, because the whole substituted chemistry isn't the same, and we got used to them. Maybe real explosions look fake to us now too?
Ketchup is expensive ok.
I am elated that a film aficionado, such as yourself, has such a fair and balanced view of CGI. So many film fanatics seem to take the trendy position that practical effects are so much superior. As you stated, it really comes down to the quality of CGI, and the context in which it is being used, when it comes to assessing whether CGI is good or bad.
Drake Santiago Seriously though, they doesn't realize that even a simple shot of camera panning out of a house cover in snow use CGI.
The fact that there's so much CGI that movie goers don't notice shows that CGI isn't bad. Like you and Georg said, it's all about how it's used and when. There are so many instances where CGI in the background is used without anyone ever noticing. And in more in your face examples, how Gollum still looks better than the any of the CGI characters in the Hobbit trilogy.
The importance, I think, is to ground it in reality as much as you can, no matter how it looks. Compare the Gollum scenes in the Two Towers with any CGI character in any of the Harry Potter films. There's a drastic difference in believability despite technology.
Practical effects are superior at least in that you can get away with them in more places.
That said, you can't exactly composite them together without extreme limitations, or CGI. With Bladerunner they had to use an expensive computer camera control rig, and dozens of exposures to get the resulting image. It's beautiful, but it is objectively far too much work. Now computers can extrapolate the exact position of the camera and do the same compositing into free moving shots.
CGI as a replacement for matte paintings and multi-exposure compositing? Top notch. That said, the easier and more accessible these techniques become, the easier it is to put amateurish, ugly or jarring CGI characters and effects into shots that didn't need them.
That's what everyone means when they talk about bad CGI.
Drake Santiago True, the problem is most of the time it's used badly. Marvel movies especially (which I don't know why).
I think the problem is that bad CGI or overuse of it is kind of noticeable like a soar thumb. But we rarely acknowledge good CGI, like in the Planet of the Apes movies, there's no way you can use real apes for doing what they do and the motion capture with excelent trained actors like Serkis works fine, same with It and Lord of the Rings, but then you have movie like World of Warcraft or The Hobbit where the CGI obviusly doesn't work, the motion capture sucks and it give you the idea that it was just lazyness because no one wanted to do make-up and use costumes. So it depends on the movie and the usage.
Modern CGI gets hate because it's the easy way out. Most of the time it's done so cheaply and lazily. They send in the overlay footage, it looks fine as a rough draft. The art director says it looks out of place and fake. Director and studio head says to disregard the art director because they have a schedule to keep. They don't get a second render with better lighting and weightier animation. Instead it gets sent to the editing bay where they try and do some colour correcting and add things on top to obscure it. Rinse. Repeat. CGI can look good, it's just that most of the film has tons of CGI and so the time and money required to make it look good is too much. It's why there should be a balance between practical effects and CGI, because if either one gets to be too dominant then it looks terrible.
Damn, my man. You've been consistently knocking it out of the park with these videos recently. Can't wait for the next one.
Man the stop motion work in Jason and the Argonauts is beautiful.
To me it looks very much like the Tron shot at 6:21 is handdrawn animation and composite, not 3D rendered, but it's framed by two shots that are 3D.
Similarly, the Terminator elevator scene showed is mostly practical, in-camera, and has two 2-second CG shots. And a bit later the moment you say "effects that can CONVINCE", you are showing a practical shot.
And then again, wireframe in Star Wars was 3D rendered in some places, but the one in the pilot cockpit is hand drawn. Imitating computers of course.
A bit disappointed that you didn't include The Last Starfighter and Young Sherlock Holmes. I think these two are first notable example of taking a shot at CG realism, with the first 'seamlessly' replacing a real car with a 3D rendered one, besides having a lot of CG in general. The second contained a scene where stained glass shatters and becomes a knight - not having a frame of reference of what a glass knight would look like, and it being composed of materials closely mimicking those photographed on the set, i think it vaguely counts as realistic. Both of these are from early/mid 80ies.
Yes, I too found myself mentally pointing out the shots that are believed to be cgi but are actually cleverly used practical effects. But in the end, while most don't realise how little cgi there actually was in many of the early cgi-heavy blockbusters and there has even been those in the know who explain that there are more practical effects shots in the dreaded Phantom Menace than in all of the original trilogy combined... The arguments in this video still are true though. So I forgive quite easily these mis-identified cgi shots.
The problem with The Phantom Menace... even when they fake it for real, it looks fake. Because things never quite match up, and that blandest of bland cinematography turned out to be the same, whether you're shooting for a CG backdrop or a model backdrop. Except CG backdrop would have been more flexible... you don't have to shoot it just from one side where the miniature has an opening! Rarely i would say anything of a kind, because i think this movie is the perfect poster child for special effect abuse, which is... pardon me, a menace, but i wish The Phantom Menace had more CG!
jmalmsten No, the bugdet for pratical effects was bigger. Everthing in the OT was practical.
eldospinks, wait that comment doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I mean it's factually (almost) correct, it just doesn't fit the context in any sensible way.
Siana Gearz Makes perfect sense to me. Just because the effects cost more, does not mean there were more than there were in three films that relied on pratical effects.
Yesterday I saw a small feature on TV about a local (German) guy who does practical effects for hollywood.
He even got an Oscar for it, for his work on the new Blade Runner.
He says that, with a snowfall-scene as an example, 90% of the snow is fake, but some in the foreground is physically there, mainly to give the actors something to react to.
Also, in a later flood scene in the movie, they did the water and waves for real and just extended the background, because water still doesn't look 100% realistic if it comes out of a computer rather than a hose.
1984 The Last Starfighter was pretty ground breaking, the first almost photo real CGI combined with live action
This is becoming one of my favorite channels with every new vid, whether talking about cinema industry, or more social matters... Keep up the good stuff!
CGI effects are almost always over used. There's just too much temptation to throw in unnecessary camera movements and color grading. Just one more lens flare or laser blast. One more unnecessary space craft zooming by background character doing summersaults.
One of my favorite scenes is the reveal of the USS Enterprise in dry dock by Douglas Trumbull's team in Star Trek The Motion Picture from 1979, a sequence that is so good it was re used for the immediate sequel. The graceful movement, the attention to detail, the lighting effects and the conveyance of real scale is unforgettable.
And it was all 100% real. Every detail had to be hand crafted and budgeted.
Had that scene been made today, there would be dozens of dry docks in the background, many more shuttles zooming around and a frenetic camera threatening to invoke motion sickness. Many of these sequences are now made of the benefit of the trailer, not to support the story itself. It's a shame.
Film has been going downhill ever since they stopped using trained orangutans to crank the cameras...
couldn't agree more, ken
I don't know, have you seen the new Blade Runner film
Party Bot ...and started using them as writers and directors.
New subscriber here, keep the great videos going!
Love that autobahn clip
came here to say that. As soon as the 'i like to imagine music', oh how i hoped it would be autobahn
“It would be an impractical effect” *pause*
That was brilliant
David fincher, who worked on the cgi team from ILM on Return of the Jedi, used more shots with cgi in the social network than was used in Jurassic world. He uses it where you dont notice, only to make what you're seeing more believable and logical as well as stylistic
Really enjoy your opinions and reviews. Great channel - Thank you.
Extremely interesting!!! Your efforts are evident. Thanks for all your hard work. The high quality of your videos is always greatly appreciated by your followers
One of your best ones I’ve seen, Georg. Great archival footage and insightful commentary.
I think George Lucas made a great point when he said effects need to be in service of the story (ironic), I can forgive a bad effect if the story is interesting or charming.
I can watch old Godzilla movies where its some guy crushing cardboard all day long, but hardly be interested when its a photo-realistic CG creation. Its similar with The Last Starfighter, those effects are clearly of their time, but that story has charm to it (imo), so its easier to not get hung up on it.
Dwayne Hicks Ironic, isn't it?
And then George Lucas proved his point by doing the exact opposite.
"The Last Starfighter" Fucking love that film.
Check out the latest Japanese Godzilla film, "Shin Godzilla".
I think it's a great example of CGI used appropriately. It still manages to capture the feel of those Showa era films despite it's heavy use of CGI.
I also think it's pretty incredible what a Japanese studio made with 15 million dollar budget compared to the 2014 Legendary Godzilla that had a budget of like 160 million.
bigevilworldwide1 yeah but think about the quality of the film after it's complete. Those movies earned their fame through hard work to keep remaking the setd
Wow. Twelve dislikes. I was wondering how on earth I could make a film fan video THIS good. This channel is sooo underrated. Keep it up, mate.
I love your video essays on films. Yours is the only channel I get antsy waiting for the new video to come out.
Never liked a video so fast in my life. Keep up the quality content, Georg. You're doing God's work.
Great video as always!
Was a little sad to see no mention of Flight Of The Navigator though. That shiny spaceship blew me away as a kid and I think it was quite groundbreaking at the time.
As a software developer, I'm very impressed with your view of computer graphics. Very interesting and informative!
Wir fahren fahren fahren auf der autobahn!
You just gave me a flashback to when I was a kid in the 80's. Our national tv station used to play the full video for that song every now and then, I guess when they had slots they hadn't managed to sell ads in. It used to both fascinate and disturb me.
It would just randomly appear between scheduled programs without warning, so I'd be waiting for the next cartoon show or A-Team episode or whatever and then be almost hypnotised against my will by this freaky animation that would go on and on forever from my 5 or 6 year old's perception of time. Bits of the visuals have been lodged in my head ever since and would come to mind every now and then despite their source being long forgotten by me until just now.
As an adult seeing it again for the first time in decades it's lost its sinister edge but it still goes on a bit for my taste but that's kind of a feature of Kraftwerk's music in general. Now I guess I see a few influences in it like 2001: A Space Odyssey and possibly a hint of Geiger.
Hearing that music again just unlocked part of my memory like a trigger phrase, and set me off on another brief drug free trip! Cheers for that, and all your stuff in general.
I don't mind CGI when it's done well, but when it's bad its very noticeable and can be quite distracting.
Stop motion is pretty much always laughably noticeable and potentially distracting, so there's that. People in creative field just tend to forget these days that just because you can make something, doesn't mean you should, because the audience might not believe you.
Siana Gearz oh I can suspend my disbelief if it's done well, same goes for stop motion, like the bear scene from The Revenant, obvious CGI, but it was so well done that I ignored it, plus it was very harrowing. But when I'm talking about bad and distracting CGI I think of the baby from Twilight.
That is a ridiculously well done effect! And yet what if they made it just a tiny bit more hectic, a bit worse lit, a bit more silhouetted, and managed to show a bit less of the bear? Wouldn't it be better? Because there's at most a few split seconds where it doesn't move quite right or the fur doesn't move quite right. It seems to me that the paws might be on-set props for the close-up, that does a lot to sell the effect.
Siana Gearz I think for me it's when the bear interacted with Leo that's when I can really tell it was CGI, perhaps the lightening need some tweaking, but other than that it was still a great effect especially with the use of wires for Leo being thrown around.
Just like practical effects! Interesting isn't it? It's almost like the problem is bad artists, not a medium :3
It's amazing how little CGI the original tron actually features, watching it again reveals most of it is still traditional animation and matte paintings
A really interesting film to mention would have been Robocop 2. It used practical effects for the "Robocain" robot, with a CG face shown on the robot's monitor - all at the same time. To me it is the perfect example of the point where practical effects began to phase out of movie making and CG to phase in
Man, your videos are real quality. I thank you for keeping up with this channel. :)
Its interesting that because of the prohibitive cost of mainframe time, John Carpenter had to use practical effects to emulate cgi for the glider sequence in Escape from New York. I think it gives it a unique look.
I love this channel. I look forward to every video, no matter the choice of topic. Thank you for the effort you put into making this stuff.
One of the best of your videos I've seen so far. Great job! 👍
Unpopular opinion: Decent CGI looks better than the best puppetry/miniatures ever can. I don't say this to in any way disrespect or shit on the work of practical FX teams, but...well, I'll use Farscape as my example. Farscape's aliens were primarily done with practical effects, by Jim Henson's team, and they were amazing. They were imaginative and emotive, but oh, my goodness, they were _clumsy._ Rigel, one of the main supporting characters, was nearly all done as a puppet. He was supposed to be a glutton, always after more food, but whenever he reached for it, or tried to put it in his mouth, it was painful to watch. Pilot, another main supporting character, was supposed to be constantly operating controls at the centre of the ship. It was, however, blatantly obvious that his four arms were mostly just bouncing up and down on the control panels and not actually moving with the precision needed to control anything.
This was puppetry at its very best. This was The Jim Henson Company from 1999-2004, with plenty of time to iron out any problems with their puppetry, and it still never looked as convincing as good CGI.
CGI raised the bar. You can't get away with "good enough" any more in practical effects - you have to be the very, very best, or you'll be replaced.
(i'm 47) I saw Final Fantasy in the theaters , Still i just wish the story was worth while during it all though.
Very informative and well thought out video, I enjoyed this!
Wow! Thank you, Sir! Everything you talked about early CGI before Star Wars in 1977, I'd never even heard of. Everything I've ever heard of prior to that here in the United States was credited to American scientists. Apparently here in the states, we're fed a very U.S.-centric view of the development of technology!
Forcemaster2000 America being US centric? I don't believe you.
Propaganda
Well to be fair, them conniving Brits didn't bother declassifying Bletchley park and taking credit for the first programmable computer until well after the frigging millenium.
Sometimes it's not our fault that everyone let us think we were first at everything.
That happened a lot during and after WW2. There are probably developments achieved at time that will never be known, so many were destroyed during the period, or just buried in a basement somewhere and forgotten. Quite likely, some things had to be reinvented later. That period also saw tech talent moving around a fair bit between nations, eg. a lot of German scientists ended up in the US, but their origins are glossed over in favour of their impact on the space programme. Wernher von Braun inparticular is sanitised for the convenience of comfortable history. Likewise, the UK ended up giving away significant elements of British jet engine technology to Russia, in a manner that quite likely came back to bite us and the USA in the ass during the Korean War, but this isn't going to be mentioned in any highschool history book. :)
Such a complicated time, so many untold stories...
You probably also believe that Edison invented the lightbulb!
Great video, but you shouldn't skip over The Abyss! That's a really important step for Cameron before T2
Good work on the video. The "Too soon" joke may need some explanation to people in the future since most people won't know that you live in Mexico and you probably did feel the big earthquake of September 2017. Keep up the good job! =D
Great stuff! Would've been nice to see a bit more of the 80s: Andre and Wally B, Last Starfighter and Young Sherlock to name a few - but interesting and entertaining content nonetheless 👍🏼
I don't believe we're at the point yet of believable, realistic CGI. The trick most filmmakers rely on today is blending the CGI imagery with tangible elements such as setting or actors with color grading and filters that serves to make real people, real locations, and real objects look *less real* as opposed to the CGI looking more real. It will all blend, but our movies are largely looking more and more fake.
Compare The Force Awakes with A New Hope. TFA doesn't look nearly as tangible as ANH. The Millennium Falcon looks no more real than something from a video game. In contrast, ANH looked like it actually existed in reality. I can see scuff marks on the floor of the Death Star. I can imagine myself feeling every fabric and every texture and the coldness of the metal. I don't get that feeling with new films because none of it looks real. It all looks like a video game that I can't play.
I second that
racewiththefalcons1 Gollum sold me he was real. But most of the film had more realistic backgrounds than in The Hobbit which all looked fake to me.
You can see this details in The Force Awakens you just haven't seen it a million times
One of the reasons I gave up on the Hobbit trilogy about a third of the way through was an over reliance on mediocre CGI. Disappointing that.
Great! Very informative and actually interesting and original stuff that I hadn't seen/known about before!
I think the film The Young Sherlock Holmes was the first film to have a complete full bodied CGI character: the stain-glass knight.
"It would be an impractical effect."
I died.
02:45
That song is: Wir fahrn fahrn fahrn auf der Autobahn.
(We're drivin drivin on the highway)
I got to have a chat with Brendan McCarthy last winter. He was the lead concept artist/"co-writer" for Fury Road, and, among many other things, the lead designer for the 90s 3D animated show Reboot, and the 90s TMNT movie. So having worked practically and with a pioneering CGI show, he had a good perspective on effects.
We both ultimately agreed that the main thing that makes current day CGI look so fake despite being at the point of photo realism is over-animation. Look at any scene in Game of Thrones where the dragons move about and you'll see that nigh-on every individual part of them jostles and shifts and flexes when they take a single step. Everything sways unnaturally and unnecessarily, down to individual scales and spines. Compare that with an actual lizard or animal and you'll see how relatively little they move.
Likewise, human models tend to do this weird cartoony smear/deform when they move, giving the appearance that they're made of rubber. Movements are over-exaggerated too, where every punch has to arch around twice it's regular distance in order to supposedly "compensate" for it's lack of weight. It works in 2D, but causes conflict in 3D
It seems to come down to a common choice the animators make, all based on older 2D principles of animation. If a model can move beyond the point of a real life counterpart, or if the animator can shift around 50 separate points of articulation at once, they will do it.
"oh no it's an earthquake !"
I can't be the only person that got that Kraftwerk reference. Edit: I think a very "let's do this as much as we can" film is the Wachowski's adaptation of Speed Racer, nearly everything in that movie was CGI, including part's of the house where the Racer family live and parts where the car isn't even in motion, and for a movie that came out in 2008, they aren't half bad and make for a headache inducing watch that I think compliments the old anime well
Really enjoy your videos. Keep up the good work.
0:45 - Perfect. I’m glad you’re all right Georg.
Great video, agree with your view that CGI isnt evil and has its uses when done right :) Also clip from 10:32 is from The Mummy Returns (2001)
Much like how the new lava lamp has come to take over our hearts.
no one will ever replace our old lamp 😡
Don't pretend I don't feel the pain: ruclips.net/video/hR6wxyaymK4/видео.html
this was very informative. you did good. :)
I still don't get why they didn't do Moff Tarkin with make-up. The actor that was doing mocap looked so similar to Peter Cushing even without any.
The Tarkin shots were still very uncanny. It really frustrated me because they're done in a relatively dark room and the camera comes in through a window.
If they were just to leave the camera outside the window, the obfuscation would keep that shot looking perfect. Careful framing of the other shots could have really helped as well. I mean, it looked good, but just too clean in that way that only 3D animation does. Dirtying up the shot by other means takes this away, like Terminator 2 on VHS.
The Leia scene..... Did not fare so well, being in a well lit pod and shot straight into her face.
Exactly tumbwarriordx!
I remember thinking in the theatre for a brief moment "oh, they're just going to show the CGI Tarkin as a reflection in the glass, this is a great way to sell the effect!".
Of course that thought was abruptly ended and the uncanny valley effect just got worse throughout the film..
well they could do it better because as im aware the effects used for Tarkin scene was the same used for Young Kevin Flynn/CLU on TRON Legacy, and in one scene the one where guards take Sam Flynn to see CLU on his flagship, has the better effects for the young Jeff Bridges face in the movie, i mean that scene alone makes me think that if they had their sweet time with that technology they could easly made me believe that there are 2 Jeff Bridges in the movie instead of Old Bridges and Half CGI PS3 Bridges, because they used for the other scenes half CGI Young Bridges and mixed it with his mocap actor that sadly doesnt look anything like Jeff on the face department, that's why CLU for other scenes looks so...off instead of looking exactly like the scene where he talks for the first time with Kevin's Son, if only had more time and sticked with that instead of doing what i said it could had been such an amazing feat but i could think that maybe in more heavly action paced scenes this technology couldn't keep up at all since it was originally used for "The strange case of Benjamin Button" and in that movie Brad Pitt barely moves let alone jumps, rides a bike, or makes a fighthing coreography so yeah i can get why it looks so PS3-ish for the rest of the movie, but man that was a let down.
They were too preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should
Why even use him so much? A quick cameo would have been better
Hey Georg, I'm wondering, did you visit a film school or did you get your knowledge all autodidactically?
impractical effect got me right where I like it. as per usual great content sir
T2 still looks amazing. Especially the directors cut
11:38sec sums it up very well.I would add that recently we have a new generation of Artists, who first started on computers and not with pens, pencils and clay. Just as those working in the todays movie ind, dont always have a background in Theater, or Profesional Photographers who have never shot a role of film.
I think there was an computer animated portion of the Andromeda Strain (1971), where they are showing one of the characters progress through the facility using rudimentary computer animation- this proceeded Westworld, also a Michael Crichton based product.
Brilliant and fascinating video, many thanks Georg.
Love this channel. Keep the videos coming
Everyone complains about cgi because of the bad cgi, but praise practical effects because of the good practical effects. There's your problem.
BJ Vynz You are quite right, BUT I have to say that, bad CGI is not nearly as entertaining as bad practical effects.
The best is mixing both. It looks better than just good CGI or just good practical fx. Movies nowadays usually use too much CGI and too little practical effects.
Yeah but bad practical effects still have personality i guess you could say. Bad CGI is just...bad.
The difference however is that bad and or excessive CGI is often used to compensate a poorly executed film. While bad or subpar practical effects in the past was in large part due to technical limitations but despite this still more so followed a coherent story line.
I would say the difference is that even when practical effects don’t look ‘real’ they still look and behave as though they exist in the world of the film, if that makes sense. A bad looking Arnold face clone in Terminator isn’t fooling anyone into thinking that it’s Arnold but it doesn’t look like a cartoon as it would if it were a poor cg effect.
Autobahn was very fitting there
Not sure if anyone's said anything about this, haven't done much comment digging yet.
Though I thought I would mention, you talked about the uncanny valley, but then didn't show the the young Jeff Bridges from Tron Legacy even though you had a couple clips from the movie in the video.
But I swear when I see that movie, every time he is on screen it just creeps the hell outta me, lmfao. Just feels wrong.
And honestly, I think they did a great job with it. It's incredibly well constructed, especially for the time. It was just too... "smooth", for lack of a better term. Both impressive and off putting. A weird combination of feelings xD
Also just wanna say, great video! I love your well balanced view on CGI. I do agree that it's definitely here to stay, and has much more growing to do. Though while I think that's mostly a good thing. I'm still in the camp that it should generally be used to improve practical effects, or only where practical effects are well, as you said, impractical. Gratuitous use of CGI just get's stale and can make movies that could have been great, (Looking at The Thing[prequel], and Jurassic World) just kind of... mediocre.
Went and watched La Fiam.. That was terrifying..... Great job on the video!
Loving the Kraftwerk reference
Yaay. More editing, more cutaways and use of footage. 👏👏👏
You briefly touched upon it with ParaNorman but don't forget about how 3d scan and print greatly affected CGI in films. I think a lot of older CGI's uncanniness came from the fact they were photo modeled by hand so it was never 100% perfect.
with the advent of super accurate lidar and more affordable photogrammetry, you could capture people places and things with 1:1 accuracy making the CG asset indistinguishable from the live action plate. and on the flipside with rapid prototyping and 3d printing, any CG asset can be fabricated into tangible elements actors can work off of.
not only can they fabricate partial sets and props but they have recently been 3d printing maquettes of CG characters so actors could have proper eyelines and don't have to strain themselves trying to imagine a ball on a stick is a hulking monster or dragon or baby tree because they are looking at physical representations.
not to mention secondary assets like textures and camera tracking helping blur the lines. companies like Quixel and SurfaceMimic have used advanced 3d surface scanning to make shaders and texture materials that mimic the shape color and reflexion of real-world surfaces allowing even the most fantastic CG asset look physically tangible and plausible. the rock monster from Thor the dark world looked like he was made of rock despite moving like rocks never do.
and camera tracking does as the term implies, tracking the camera's position in footage allowing compositors to put in any 3d asset they see fit without it looking out of place. hell, the most popular 3d compositing app, The Foundry's Nuke, could perform some mild photogrammetry that reconstructs some of the environment seen in the footage giving the VFX team something "tangible" to work off of, including anchor points to attach already digitized sets and environments making the transition seamless.
and that is just the CGI you see on film! with commercially available 3d apps and assets a director can literally previs their entire movie without having to leave the studio. I think gravity and interstellar were famous for having 90% of the movie "filmed" without even having actors slated for roles yet. hell thinking about it now some prop shops do that as well. Legacy Effects, famous for making 3d printed suits like iron man's armor, have virtual "mannequins" of various generic builds in their asset library letting them design their specialty suits before an actor is slated, only needing minor touchups and fitting once an actor is found.
oh and it goes without saying 3D graphics revolutionized concept art, allowing an artist to just make one asset to turn around instead of several turnarounds of the one asset. oh and the very nature of 3-dimensional graphics allows an artist to inspect every nook and cranny of their design and fix them to be both functional and appealing allowing for more verisimilitude that sells the believability of an effect.
computers literally ease labor burdens and automate tedious jobs letting creative people do their thing faster, more accurate and efficient!
Bonus point for the Kraftwerk
The big groundbreaking achievement was the de-aging of RDJ in Captain America Civil War. Unlike the previous attempt at de-aging Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy, the de-aging of RDJ was astonishingly realistic! He did look 30 years younger!
You had me at 1:41 "..not THAT Thing, the other thing."
I remember being wowed by the CGI scenes in T2 Judgment Day, like when the T-1000 made himself part of the floor to kill the guard and then when he phased through the bars. To my 14-year-old self, that was mind blowing. The problem I think is when movies started doing CGI for CGI's sake, like Independence Day. However, I loved how the CGI complemented the acting and storytelling in the LOTR trilogy.
Interesting presentation. Concise, simple & to the point. Earned a sub from me, looking forward to viewing your other vids.
Dammmmn! Your stuff is goood! Great video, as are all of your content.
Welcome back, Lava Lamp. We missed you.
Great video. Agree with your bedroom director prediction and the role cg will play when that happens. You already see it happening in the game industry with the availability of game engines such as Unity and Unreal where individuals have access to very robust systems. Lone wolves can make very complicated games by themselves now. It's only a matter of time that we get blockbuster level movies that one person made.
Great job George as always but I think you should have used Forrest Gump S&M sample of a CGI can enhance a film
Nice song choice for the 60s track sequence, Kraftwerks Autobahn
In case anyone asks, the song he briefly plays over the highway animation is Autobahn by Kraftwerk.
I love CGI. I love Harryhausen puppets. I like Anime and high-end computer assisted anime, like Bloodlust but I love the 60s/70s era anime also. I like Rocky and Bullwinkle.
IMO it's about the STORY - something modern films forget.
They have incredible effects, the CGI artists are awesome.
But the movies they have to make are bland "Re-Boots" of old memories - G-d help them if they risk $ on new stuff or don't dumb something down so people in the ...'exceptional' department can get the plot and shout it out loud.
I sometimes like films in CGI animation, especially if it's a 1990s video series.
I can't think of a CGI moment that looks better than Robert Patrick melting through the bars
Another fantastic video
I know I'm late but Astartes is literally one guy making a cgi movie
I love your clips and your points are well thought out and very interesting but sometimes what ever camera you use looks like it needs an update. But thank you so much on your views.
Fred Park was my Facial Animation professor at Texas A&M! He is a wealth of information about computer imagery and visualization. Sadly he is retiring soon.
2:45 Autobahn, by Kraftwerk. Great song, and great use of it too lol.
I do miss the artistry of the upper crust of practical effects movies such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien (and it's sequel) the original Star Wars trilogy etc...
I took an intro to film class last year (not a film major) and we had a debate about the use of CGI in films and its future in the film industry. My professor seemed to think that the ever more realistic CGI was a bad thing because films would no longer be grounded in reality (something about the audience not being able distinguish between what was filmed and what was created). She had a slippery-slope point of view where it would lead to there being no need for real actors anymore in the film industry. I tend to disagree and think that audiences don't need to be able to distinguish between real and fake because there is a suspension of disbelief when you watch something in a movie. Even if it's non-fiction, I think CGI would only aid in a more accurate portrayal.
did you take some shots from RocketJump Film School video?
Was La Fair made by PilotRedSun?
The relatively recent breakthrough in subsurface scattering technology for digitally rendered images is going to bring a huge breath of life to all computer graphics. The Unreal4 Engine can be 99% photo realistic. If you are curious look up some of the demos for UE4, mainly some of the nature ones. They look pretty damn real. The only thing that throws them off, sometimes, is the shadows. Even that is barely noticeable though, as I only saw it because i was looking for problems. Edit: That comment about creativity being unlimited has led to a plethora of CGI that looks identically bad. There are some absolutely stunning uses of CG of course. Looking at you Sunshine.
The two movies that comes to mind is "The Last Starfighter" which was an early movie with quite a lot of CGI, but also "Jurassic Park" which was the first movie I ever saw with CGI that was blended into a real movie and was photo realistic.
And yet, it used a lot less CG than people assumed. CG raptors are in for the lot of 4 seconds; another few minutes it's actors in suits! They even forgot to wear their stilts in one of the shots. Most smaller dinosaurs are puppets, and they had a T-Rex puppet too.
I'll have to check out Street of Crocodiles. Tool - Sober has always been a favorite video of mine and I could immediately see the influence it took from it.
Loving that DLC jab
The first use of computer aided imagery (not rendered) in motion film was the opening titles of Alfred Hichocks North by North West.