I think we all know some CGI is used today. But with movies like Dracula (Gary Oldman) the in camera effects give the movie a vintage feel. And with Top Gun, yes there were CGI effects but the practical still added reality. As opposed to the newer Marvel crap with the ends of the movies a CGI messes, see the newest Ant Man, Dr. Strange 2. Just awful
A VFX artist knows that going into the job. It is an irony for sure, but it's not the tough part. The tough part is not being respected by the people you work for. Doing overtime, not even getting paid enough, watching your health deteriorate in front of the computer 24/7, not seeing your family, no job security, no benefits, dealing with impossible clients, and after all that, not even being acknowledged by the filmmakers
5:38 is me in a F-18E. I flew a few scenes in the final act and this is one that made the cut. This was done at 100 feet and accelerating from ~450-550 knots. It would not only be too difficult but way too dangerous to try to do this with multiple F-18s. One giveaway is the vapor cone. A group of jets accelerating at the same rate would have the vapor cone appear at the same time. In the film they appear sequentially which is inaccurate. Regardless, the three cgi jets look incredible and they did an outstanding job.
@@TheMovieRabbitHole it was a good breakdown. You nailed the one thing that everyone misses but it is the number one reason why the invisible cgi works: aircraft movement. In spite of most people not being pilots, they can tell when something is off with physics. My least favorite moment in the film was the final chase and they hand animated the jets doing impossible turns. It wasn’t every moment but noticeable enough.
Hell fucking yeah, you're a legend! One of the sickest shots in the movie (despite the multiple jets with the sequential vapor cones) that must have been incredible to fly and watch the playback for the first time.
@@kikacruz4560 Look up the name "Christian Frasher," and you'll find a bunch of articles about Top Gun: Maverick, as well as his Linkedin which lists him as a pilot for the US Navy.
I like that James Cameron is open and honest about CGI and publicly celebrates the work of his designers and artists. He started in VFX himself, so I guess it makes sense.
Yeah, his entire career is also based upon it, he pioneered CGI, and has always broke new ground using it. This also reminds me about Life of Pi, which to this day has some of the best CGI ever put on film, the Tiger. The Tiger looks so good, that most people cannot see the difference where they used a CGI tiger and scenes with a real tiger. And yet, the director, in his Oscar speech, basically thanked everybody involved in the making of the film, except the people who created that Tiger.. Absolutely unbelievable, and it caused a massive outcry. I often go back to watch clips of that tiger to just marvel at how incredible it looks.
Same with The Creator. Even title, or ending credits, had VFX supervisor among the first to pop up. It was obvious they liked showing that it had plenty of vfx
Most directors just sit on their scripts for years until the technology becomes available to make their movie, while Cameron goes out and finds the right people to invent the tech for him so he doesn't have to wait. He's as much an engineer as a director. It's why I always look forward to what he does next.
@@Patrix8558 Yeah! Gareth Edwards also has a VFX background, which helps explain how he was able to pull off The Creator under pretty tight budget constraints by modern blockbuster standards. I wish it had done better. 😕
At the same time James Cameron refuses to acknowledge Avatar as a animation film and gets annoyed anytime its called an animation movie (i like Avatar)
"Flying Andy Serkis" sent me pretty hard. Shout out VFX artists, sound engineers, IT workers, janitors, and everyone else whose work is unnoticed at its best.
I'm glad he mentioned Lord of the Rings because that has to be not only a high watermark of blending both practical and digital effects, but also being transparent about how everything was achieved. The extended edition special features give every department the opportunity to give a behind the scenes glimpse of the work they put into the movies and instead of shying away from any one departments contribution, their artistry is celebrated across the board.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug forced perspective is one of the oldest and tried and true methods to make things big or small. You can watch movies from the 30's that use it to make characters look like they are tiny.
@@jerithil There is still a huge difference. In movies of the past, they'd still have a strict separation between the two sized actors, where one could only manipulate their own environment, and the camera is generally stationary. Lord of the Rings however blurred that line to near invisibility, to where not only is the camera panning and turning in the shot, but the table is made where parts of it can be on both sizes rather than only one, and in some cases objects can even be passed from one scale to the other. Gandalf's hat and cane being given to Bilbo, for example. Usually (even as late as Back to the Future II and III) they'd have to do some kind of object pass in front of the camera to make the switch, or some hard separation to cheat it with. Old Doc handing the wrench to Young Doc from behind the pole, or Shaemus standing behind the unbroken beam of the wooden fence as he looks over the unconscious Marty. all revolutionary for the time, and all leaps ahead. Lord of the Rings just made that one greater leap, and I can't wait to see what the next leap might be.
@@k1productions87 I remember one of the key breakthroughs was having parts of the set moving with the camera pans to keep the objects into proper perspective. You would see slides or rails built into the floor/furniture to carefully adjust the positions in real time.
@@jerithil computer tech is also necessary, as it is required in order to properly time the motion of said moving objects in order for it to match up the competing perspectives in camera frame. Back to the Future already accomplished half of this with the McFly Family dinner scene. Lord of the Rings accomplished the other half
Great work!! There are still people here in the comments who are like "nah it's not really CGI if they just put it on top of real airplanes" so I guess I wasn't thorough enough in explaining it. :D
@@TheMovieRabbitHole It's becoming increasingly common for people to share their opinions, even when they lack knowledge or understanding of the subject; sometimes no opinion is better than having an opinion. This behaviour also by other colleges quickly reveals who to avoid engaging within business matters. As an artist, I learned not to seek recognition based on others' opinions of my work, and this freed me up quite a lot.
As a person who's job was to prepare raw footages to colorist and vfx artists, TopGun was no mystery to me, I didn't understand all the hype for this "no-CGI" film, it's full of it. But he made the point in the video, having a base prevents you to do anything ridiculous. Apart from the script obvioulsy. Moreover, if they were filming with real FA18E, well... 5-10M$ for 5mn capture (like in 28 days laters) well, there would be a major issue with the budget. The real job of a director is to give VFX artists good material to work with.
@mattw3606 Lot's of ad hominem and ignorance oozing from this opinion. You've missed the point. It's not that the FX needs to be noticed, it's that in the marketing of the films, the artist's work is being written off as something that doesn't exist. Big difference.
As a former visual effects artist myself, it's funny how Rocketjump explained this whole thing like 10 years ago and people still do the whole "CGI bad" thing
@@marx0matko yeah a bad use of anything is bad thats pretty obvious. but CGI shouldn't just be considered a bad thing especially since this type of stuff has been used since the dawn of movies. a bad matte painting or a bad prop and people back in the day criticized bad VFX regardless if its practical or not.
@@joedatius can u even read ?who said cgi is bad thing? All action scenes in new movies look like animated pice of trash,they look so bad,and every newer movie looks like is made for childern ,trash production ,trash writing, trash camwork trash scenography everything looks like is filmed on greenscreen
Being that you're a former visual effects artist, can you tell me if people in the industry tend to say "CG" or "CGI?" It's so incredibly aggravating to hear "CGI" all the time. 😄
TH-cam pilot C.W. Lemoine, a former F-18 pilot in the US Navy, actually interviewed one of the VFX artists from Top Gun: Maverick right around when the film was coming out and spoke a lot about what was CGI and what was not. He took the video down because the studio allegedly told the VFX artist that if wanted to keep working in the industry, he wouldn't speak out on things like that.
Accurate! I saw that video, it was really good. I love his channel. Lemoine was so good at pointing out CGI in the first trailer, while still admiring the aerial photography, but people fought back in the comments that there was "NO CGI" because Tom had said so. His interview with the VFX artist was a scoop, and it's a shame he had to take it down. I didn't work on the film and I'm not citing any whistleblowers, only publicly available interviews and breakdowns from the Oscar showcase video, so we should be good. :D
@@haihuynh8772 its called work-for-hire and has to do with intellectual property rights... sounds terrible but overall it is not and is important as a professional working dynamic. imagine hiring an architect to design and build your house to generally your specification and then having that architect demand afterwards that you let them photograph it and use it in marketing as an example of their work. I have actually seen that happen despite the architect royally screwing up on a specification and nearly costing the construction mid to high 5-figure sum in damages and nearly 6+ months delay. the architect wanted to use the end result in their marketing despite that they refused to fix their error while collecting $20K to manage the project which they obviously both failed at and did not do except superficially. work-for-hire can be one of the few things that prevents someone like that from invading a former employer/customer's privacy. in a fair system (admittedly it is not always fair) a work-for-hire employee or contractor should get paid more than one where the worker retains any kind of IP ownership.
i saw that one! I was a bit puzzled to see in this video that it was so unknown to the public what was VFX and what not, but now it makes sense. I really don't understand it either. After seeing that video I was left in awe of the mastery of how they filmed it. And it took away my last reservations about the claims that these actors were actually in the cockpit doing these manouvres. Knowing they were in the backseat behind a navy pilot, only to VFX them up front later on, is just really cool and worked like a charm.
@haihuynh8772 It's really tough to draw a line. There's many lines of business where revealing how the sausage is made would get one in legal trouble due to the damages caused. Getting blacklisted isn't even a legal power, just the field collectively saying "you can't be trusted". In theory revealing the CGI shouldn't even be harmful but the discourse around CGI has created an environment where people fooled by marketing would be let down by discovering TG Maverick isn't 100% practical fx, so studios have to keep up a lie.
Is it really only coming from the audience when the video highlights many examples of deceptive marketing, actors lying about it, and media reporting falsely on it ? Weird to put it all on the audience when you have stars like Tom Cruise just plain lying about it on stage.
Great quote. Really there is so much more nuance to this discussion than is often discussed, because we're talking about *noticeable* CGI vs practical effects (where interpretation has a lot to do with your generation and what you're more familiar with), *bad* CGI versus practical effects (I'm likely to find shoddy practical work charming, and to find it feels more grounded because something physical is still being shot), and the fact that CGI background elements are ubiquitous in film and TV and rarely seen (meaning that David Fincher CGI which completely transforms an outdoor shot ends up being invisible because it's planned so well, whereas it's usually harder to pretend that elements and backgrounds created entirely by CGI are practical). The fact that both the CGI and the sense of place often looks far better in movies 15 years old than today pretty much indicates it's more about planning, art direction and rushed production than the inherent nature of CGI or practical visual effects.
@@TheMovieRabbitHole the problem is, it wasn't the audience that came up with the cgi vs practical debate, it was the media. Media mouth pieces looking for the next big hook to grab people's attention with.
Indeed, it's using all tools available for the best end result. It's why motion capture is so important for convincing character animations. No matter how amazing you may be at doing it all by hand, that's going to take a LONG time, and time is money. So get Andy Serkis in a funky skin tight body suit to do the heavy lifting!
@@TalesOfWar it takes a long time AND it will never fully mimic actual human movement. Animating by hand almost always works better for when something is stylized.
I mentioned CGI in the first trailer reaction of TGM and people went nuts about it saying I had no idea what I was talking about. I even interviewed one of the VFX artists after the film and Paramount made him take it down. For whatever reason, people just needed to believe it was 100% real even when it didn't make sense.
I followed your coverage of it and I thought you were really cool about it. Like yes, the photography is awesome and yes, they also used CGI. The "no CGI" narrative is just something people really love. Thanks for watching, it means a lot.
Also, it apparently helps some moviemakers to create more physically-realistic action scenes, which is all for the best. CG vehicles and people that move in crazy and almost magic ways are tiring. We all win if this kind of practical reference help having more grounded action.
People are so used to seeing bad CGI that they assume all CGI is bad. Good CGI is everywhere, but it so often gets ignored because most people don't even notice that it's CGI, which is the end goal of any visual effect. CGI isn't the problem, it's the cut corners, rushed development, and overworking of VFX artists that are the problem. i.e. movie studios prioritizing profitability over an actually good product.
I worked at a VFX studio for a while and every time I see a "CGI = bad" comment, I think of my colleagues staying back till 10 pm regularly, oftentimes 3 am, to finish their shots, and the care that went into it all. If it was good, you'd barely notice it. Sometimes, we just didn't have a lot of time to make it better as well. I entered concept art from watching movie bts interviews and seeing it as an actual career path. It's a shame so many studios are covering it up EDIT: I also remembered one of the department heads being flown onto the set to consult on how to shoot to accomodate future VFX/CGI, it was rare for us and it made a huge difference in the final result. Good effects often mean good collaboration
When people think of cgi, they are thinking the worst ones, like low budget and unbaked ones. Being a CG artist is damn hard because you have to know a lot of things even before starting to do any cgi. I am not just talking about constant pressure of learning new tools, techniques, constant need of watching tutorials, you also need to have good understanding of math, coding, engineering, physics, chemistry, cinematography and depending of what you really do, you may even need to learn niche topics so you can animate or make it look real. (Once I had to study how earthquake isolators work and get a formula about it in wikipedia and implemented it in the sim so it can behave true to life, it was so satisfying at the end) How can you simulate explosions if you don't know anything about fluid dynamics? Sure you can throw some numbers and try to eyeball it, but if you don't lucky you can't get the result you want quickly. It's a hard job that nobody gives a damn thought about it. It's easy to look at a bad cgi and make fun of, but remember, there is an always at least one person giving all he got in a given time so they have something to show in the final product instead of black screen. ps: is this your first video? damn good job mate, I thought I am looking at a million sub channel! what a way to enter youtube game, congrats!
watching corridor crew gave me a massive appreciation to the work CIG artists do while yes, practical effects are cool, if done well CIG can enhance a scene ALOT and is really just another tool in the filmmakers toolbox to give the audience the story they want to tell. visual effects have been in movie since forever, a while ago there actually was a visual effects special in my local movie museum and there you could see how past filmmakers used different tricks like painted sheets of glass in front of the camera to create better scenes.
Corridor Crew really have very little idea what they're talking about. They're just self publicist loud mouths who sort of scratch the exterior of the industry.
Hi there ! I did the lookdev of Vecna and all the other creatures of Season 4. Thanks for putting that video out, it's really appreciated and great work on the editing ! I'm looking forward to the next one ! To add some insight, as you said there was no trench warfare going on between practical and digital effects. There was a back and forth between the modeling team and the partical team to get Vecna looking just right. If I'm not mistaken they printed the Zbrush model that had been made after the concept art and adjusted it to the actor. Then they painted it and scanned the actor in full costume. Finally they sent the pictures and scans back to the asset team at Rodeo. It was astonishing how the lookdev on this monster was one of the easiest I got to do thanks to that process (aside from the slithering Vines setup) . In dailies it was often hard to know which was the filmed plate and which was the lighting version. It's a bit of a shame that this process wasn't more advertised since like you said, having a real reference made everyones job easier.
Yep, as a lighting/lookdev guy myself, matching or enhancing an on-set reference is so much quicker than trying to nail a look with nothing but my mind's eye and a few Googled stills. I did digi double lighting for the upcoming Spiderwick series, mostly replacing a practical costume that didn't articulate enough. Even if the costume will never hold up on screen, having it to do a match is the most efficient workflow for TV.
I too worked on Vecna. I am baffled how the media outlets and audience thought they could make moving slimy veins on his body practically with that natural motion.
And it's not just a question of binary "CG vs no CG". There's also how the work is done, and the ongoing battle to erase the fact that actual people do this work. That it's not just pressing a bloody button. I worked on a film that required extensive rotomation for body part replacements throughout the whole film. One of the shots I worked on was periodically kicked back over literal months (Have mercy, I'm good at my job but the job isn't easy). To the director's credit, he was open and accurate about his description of what we did. Nothing but respect. When the BBC reported on it, they spoke of "rotomation machines" or something to that effect. Godforbid actual human beings were involved.
I mean, it also goes the other way around: People were complaining about the bad CGI of Star Wars Episode 1 in scenes which were mostly practical. It's obvious that most people cannot tell CGI and practical effects apart and the decision of what they think was mainly used is mostly based on how satisfied they were with the experience.
Reminds me of some idiots saying “film over digital any day”, but when I showed them footage from film and digital shots, they couldn’t tell which was which. They’ve been told it matters, but they don’t really know why.
While there were a ton of miniatures and practical effects used in the prequels, I don't think those are the parts people complain about. The really obvious CGI, like the gungans and the droids look really bad, especially by today's standards.
@@alexman378 Maybe it mattered at one point, but digital can be very high quality these days. Filmmakers sometimes shot digitally but then try to mimic the film look in post production. No wonder it's difficult to tell apart.
@@Jiiimbooh You can mimic film with digital, but you can’t mimic digital with film. In which case, what’s even the point, especially if you’re short for cash? It’s expensive, extremely fragile, requires specialized crews, slows you down, makes shooting with sound more difficult, and the final quality is uncertain. All so you can say “I shot on film” and 99% of the audience doesn’t care, because it makes no difference to them.
@@alexman378 Yes, I haven't heard of people shooting on film and then trying to mimic a digital look, only the opposite. The most recent film I can think of the looked a bit too digital at times is Public Enemies (2009). That film is 15 years old already and since it's a period piece even a slightly digital look might be distracting.
As a VFX artist: Thank you for spreading the word fairly. We have one of the best jobs on the planet, and when we work with the "boots-on-the-ground-crew" it's often a wonderful collaboration between creative minds, but this issue is real and makes my heart sink. Hats off for your great explanation, editing and illustration.
This is the very 1st TH-cam video this man has ever made? I am beyond shocked. This man has a big future ahead of him if he keeps it up. Amazing video.
And the guy ends his video with "whatever you do, don't like and subscribe" and still gets picked up by the algorithm! All jokes aside though, it's clear this guy knows exactly what he's doing. Perfect lighting and editing, a good camera and lens, great pacing to keep engagement throughout a fairly long video. If he isn't already a professional in this field, he easily could be.
@@awesomeferret The video creator responds to another comment (complimenting the video) with "Thanks! It is my first, but it also took a lot longer than I thought!"
It often feels like a lot of the "practical" vfx are financed by the marketing department. They barely get used in the final movie, but being able to say that a lot of the vfx were shot practically (even if it isn't really true) gives a lot of "free" publicity to the movie.
I'm a VFX supervisor and so I work with special fx and makeup and stunts and every other department, deciding together how far they can take a shot/set/stunt etc. before VFX needs to get involved. You're absolutely right that the supposed rivalry between practical and digital is just PR fluff. Looking forward to your next installment!
Thank you so much for this. And yes, I am tired of the constant CGI bashing that's been done on TH-cam and other places. I really wish more people would try to learn about what really goes into VFX; sadly, CINEFEX magazine is no more. I am looking forward to your next three videos!!
Tired of? I get legitimately INFURIATED as I see it happening time, and time, and time, and time again. It makes me sick to my stomach, especially when they take no time to consider that certain things would be legitimately impossible to do without CGI. Midway, for example.
It wouldnt happen if CGI wasn't bad. Though people were complaining ant-man quantummania was a "CGI hellfeast for the eyes" we also have a valid point there about CGI-only movies getting tiring at some point.
@@yol_n then blame the bad ones. Far too many people throw ALL CGI under the bus. Meanwhile, there are many examples of bad practical effects too, but they get a free pass just because they are practical.
Love this! Thanks for the extensive and balanced run-down. I once had a director refuse to do a CGI helicopter shot because he claimed that real-looking CGI choppers were impossible to create. I tried to tell him otherwise, but he refused to believe me. Problem was: the film’s insurance company wouldn’t let him do the stunt he wanted to do using a real chopper. I cut together a reel for him of all of the great CGI chopper scenes I could find across many films. Because I'm a little sneaky, I included one bad one in the middle of 15 good ones. I ran the reel and asked him to spot the CGI choppers. He picked out the bad one “I KNOW A CGI CHOPPER WHEN I SEE ONE!” he taunted. His jaw hit the floor when I told him they were *all* CGI! Needless to say, we ended up using a CGI helicopter for the scene in question. Moral of the story, which you point out really well in this video: people only notice CGI when it’s not convincing. When it’s well-done, they assume it’s real. And that’s the whole point of VFX in my opinion: to transport the audience into a story that they can believe is real, hook line and sinker!
This one reminds me of the story of Episode 2's Yoda. That the team tried to convince George Lucas that they could do it digitally, but he was unconvinced. So they redid all the yoda scenes from Ep1 digitally and showed them to him and they were so good it convinced him to go fully digital in Ep2. Could be missing details, it's been forever since I watched the features that mentioned it. But it's kind of crazy that you have to fight to prove your worth to the people making the thing so hard. You hire experts because they're experts, but then refuse to listen to their expert opinions? Seems counter intuitive.
@@tyrannicpuppy Ep2 Yoda felt so unreal compared to Ep5 ... because Ep5 was a puppet and tehrefore "real" and Ep2 was CGI and it showed :/ I also remember hating Ep1 not only because of Jar-Jar but also because of too much obvious CGI
@@KaosKrusher I'm not sugesting it was perfect. Just that even people who work with it constantly (who just finished a movie that by your own words had too much obvious CGI) think that CG cannot do a thing. George Lucas had to be convinced that digital Yoda was even possible. I struggle to think how that final lightsaber duel with Dooku would have looked with a puppet. I'm certain they could have achieved it. Even the creators that already use digital art and effects in their work fail to picture what is possible. Because like the general public, they tend to think of the bad stuff when trying to picture a pitch in their mind. But if you give your teams proper money, guidance and time, CGI can and often does look picture perfect.
Agree, filmmaking is a team sport. Just wanted to give a massive high five to our teams that worked on Blade Runner 2049 (full breakdown available on our channel) and Top Gun: Maverick.💪💪💪
I worked in SFX and since I was already doing development of computer graphics for astronomy and medical in my other job I moved easily to VFX. And I mainly did tv and commercials. One day I get a phone call from my former mentor if I could come over to London to help him on a shot. I get over and it became a hush hush deal because he hired me as subco (that apparently happens a lot) because I wasn’t cleared with DNEG and no NDAs etc were signed. He had run into a massive issue on a shot of Dunkirk (the aerial shot of the capsized burning boat). And it was obvious that there was no oil or debris or even the capsized boat were not in the shot of the live plate. They were all separate elements (some CG). And DNEG had no more TDs available and the issues here was that tracking the sea was not accurate enough adding to the problem was that the elements didn’t Bob a long with the waves and so didn’t to pass the 70mm play back check. You saw the drift and the lack there off so the shot was already send back twice by the supervisor. I spend two weeks in a hotel coding a wave tracker to warp the life vests and make the 2D debris Bob along and have the mesh warp ever so slightly warp them a long as well as the oil spil. At some point after day 3 I was hinting to make the water all 3D too, because it became a mammoth task. We ran some experiments only to realize that this would take even more effort for the two of us to get right, than forcing through trigonometry. But Dunkirk was “all practical” until it’s not 😂and 70mm 6.1K scans were unforgiving 🤣
@@AkahigeNoAmo yeah it’s a matter on how you look at it. If you make a miniature photograph it and digitally put it into a live action plate and enhance it with further digital elements is it CG? It’s definitely not all computer generated but it’s also definitely not all practical. But in my opinion you can’t say it’s all practical.
@@CallousCoder that seems very true from my outsider perspective. It shouldn't really matter anyways if the final product looks amazing. though, what I saw from historians commenting on the film, there would've been a lot of shots that could've used some CG polish to erase some modern characteristics of the pier and town itself with timely fitting ones amongst other things to increase historical accuracy (would've made the CG use more obvious though)
@@AkahigeNoAmo I believe that pier was actually build as a set piece (could be wrong). So if modern stuff was used it was an oversight - that was actually shot here in the Netherlands on a lake. Not even the North Sea 🤣I don’t know where they shot the opening village scenes.
I was this close to making something like this myself. I'm sick to death of VFX getting shit on when it's used in literally everything these days. I've been creating VFX for over 15 years and it pains me when people talk shit about something they know nothing about. Good Job.
Me too, but mine was going to be more of an angry rant. Its one of those jobs where in order for people to think you did a good job, they can't realize you did a job at all.
It's like with many other things; people who have no clue about the subject matter think they're experts. Especially when it comes to VFX, people are quick to form opinions. For instance, everyone talks about how Star Wars Episode 1 had so much CGI. Yet, that film actually has more practical shots than all three movies of the original trilogy combined.
And it's typically mouth-breathing, walking Dunning-Kruger effects spouting this shit too. They've seen that poo-pooing CGI is something that "film buffs" do, and they want other people to think they're discerning film buffs too.
I think VFX gets a bad rep because when it's bad it's really noticeable. And as said in the video a practical shot has that external factor where the audience knows they really did it for real. (ex people love Jackie Chan movies not just because the fight scenes are cool, but there is this external knowledge that Jackie did a lot of the stunts himself and it affects their enjoyment of the movie. Which you can argue that external factors shouldn't really matter in a work of art that is timeless but a lot of people seem to feel that way)
Thank you so much for having a specific mini series about this particular problem. 99% of people don't understand how movies get made and vfx has been an easy punching bag. The idea that it's all done practical sells. But it's very frustrating as people don't understand the incredible effort it takes to get something you see in the cinema actually on the screen. Thank you for this=)
Loving how many VFX artists are commenting and adding their own insights. Sounds like an interview series waiting to happen. I'm really looking forward to the stunt related video(s) you have coming!
I don't have more stunt stuff coming up, as I wouldn't call myself an expert on the area, and shouldn't be educating people about it. I just know the "did all their own stunts" is as true as "we filmed everything practically". :) Thanks for watching.
@@TheMovieRabbitHole I loved your video. This makes me think of the Roger Moore quote "As James Bond, I did all my own stunts and told all my own lies!".
Perhaps that is the problem? Perhaps because good, well done CGI, is mostly invisible that it could cause some CGI artists, fighting for recognition making it less good, so people notice it! This is very much a "conspiracy" theory, I'm thinking off right now and is very probably not true but in the remote case that it is, then I see that as a double edge sword, yes doing less good CGI artwork makes it more visible but it also damages it's rep, ending hurting the entire process and the job of all CGI artist's, is like a snow ball effect.
yep. "the CGI in She Hulk was terrible" "what the animated character, or the cityscape in the background behind her because her office was a greenscreen set?"
I praise contents like this to address the misconception some people have regarding VFX. Nowadays there are some many techniques and tools for VFX and practical FX. Combining both and managing your project wisely with enough available time, is a powerful thing.
Well, that's true of say digital mattes for period films and set extensions and the like, but not for say aliens or magical transformations or superpowers or things that draw attention to themselves by virtue of the very premise being fantastic/unreal. no matter how far things go, you'll still need to suspend your disbelief because a lot of it is intrinsically unrealistic! But hey, that's why we go to the movies and don't just watch documentaries!
@@SafeAtSpeed I agree, when possible. Never said there shouldn't? Did you see what I meant by things that are inherently unrealistic because of the premise? I was just arguing that sometimes due to the story itself the effects can't by nature be 'invisible', that's all. Digital OR practical!
This is one of the best videos I've seen in a while about this whole practical vs cgi debate. As a VFX artist, I really appreciate the amount of thought and care you put into this video. Videos like this do a great job educating the masses about CGI and practical effects and especially what's actually happening behind the scene and how they are being lied to by the production companies at the end. People are often quick to point out how CGI is ruining movies while simultaneously looking at CGI shots thinking they are looking at all practical stuff. IRONY. I also love the fact you didn't put yourself at the center of the video but used the rule of 3rds haha, good touch.
I worked on Top Gun: Maverick as an FX Artist at Method Studios, and you've used nearly all the shots I worked on with the breakdowns we weren't allowed to request for, or show on our demo reels. Thank you so much for this in depth video, it actually gives me some peace and closure after having left the industry. Great series!
I had an actor, who shall rename nameless, say the words “And it was all practical!” In an interview - and then it cut to a clip of a set extension I did and some CG gore with fake muzzle flashes that I comped 😂 Thank you for posting this and helping the public become more aware of what we deal with as VFX artists. Also, so frustrating that this narrative contributes to artists often not being able to receive material for their demo reels because the studios don’t want their lies to be revealed!
@@Nimoot It's probably best not burning any bridges in the industry you are currently employed in for the sake of a comment on YT. That would be my guess at least.
Yes, thank you. As a VFX artist it’s frustrating that audiences everywhere think that CGI is ruining movies, when in reality CGI is SAVING movies and improving them immensely in every aspect.
@@zeltzamer4010 I mean, yes and no, would you duck and hide if you watched a film with a train coming towards the camera?? Tech has advanced and so have the eyes watching it. There will always be great films, and the FX was fine for the era, but some ideas couldn't have been done back then. Scenes and ideas had to be changed to what was possible for the technology, now a lot more is possible. Looking back at old films, 90% of practical effects have dated very badly. They are unconvincing and sometimes sloppy. The lower quality/resolutiuon of the media helped, but now, bigger ideas, a much more astute audience and incredibly high resolutions means the way things are produced has also had to change and become much more advanced.
@@zeltzamer4010they were fined but there were things that you couldn’t do, not because it was impossible, like the CGI we look at and consider “bad,” but because the number of caveats the shot would need makes it unreasonable. CG enhancement of practical effects just allows for those to be done more safely or reliably, allowing for us to get shots that filmmakers previously dreamed of. There’s a reason Fincher’s movies are some of the most CGI heavy in the biz, despite taking place in the real world with little bombastic action. It allows for his weird shots and camera movements to be done as he and his crew envisioned
I mean, the real ball blowing through that bus looked 10X better than the fake one. When something is taken overboard and made too fantastical the audience knows.
Thank you. I am a VES member and I recall as soon as I saw the breakdowns for top gun Maverick, I was like "ugh not again" I was lead to believe the only work they did was stitching the plates and removing reflections and they "Really flew THOSE planes" I believe the general public is so stupid, they cant grasp the difference so the marketing simply puts forth a narrative that they think will sell the most tickets.
It’s not that the public is “stupid,” they just don’t know any better because this is not their expertise. And quite frankly, they’ve seen so much unrealistic VFX over the last 30+ years (which muddies the waters) that when it’s actually done well or “hidden “? They are easily fooled.
The general public is indeed stupid, and that includes you and me. We maybe less likely to be fooled in some aspects of life, but in some we are clueless.
I didnt watch the movie so idk if there was some obviously impossible stunts or something, but if there wasn't, how tf is the general public supposed to know? Or even an experienced VFX artist who didn't work on that movie specifically. Without doing scene by scene analysis, it's indiscernible. Like you said, they lead everyone to believe it was completely practical, besides obvious things like crashes, weaponry, and general touch ups. And for the sequel to a movie as prolific as Top Gun thats genuinely believable. Most people don't even care enough to look into it if you told them, they'd just say "oh that sucks, i thought they said it was real" and move on. It sounds incredibly condescending and pretentious to call the general public stupid for taking the director and actors at their words for something they barely care about. Either that or you're bitter that people agree practical effects look much better, which is ironic, considering you likely agree with that, albiet in a more roundabout way. VFX only ever really look good when they have practical references, and any VFX artist knows this very well.
I do not remember that as I remember an interview with Georg Miller in which he stats that only the sandstorm scene and the Buzzard car hitting the pit are fully CG, the rest is at most enhance, given the general color grading and wire removal
Did they really market it like that? Holy crap that's such a blatant fucking lie. Very well done, but few live action movies have as many visual fx shots as Fury Road does. Same can be said for the Social Network. Literally thousands of individual effects, but you hardly notice.
Thank YOU. Please spread the word by sharing it to people you know. We need everyone who are not VFX artists to see it, but since only VFX artists are interested in sharing it, we first and foremost have to get VFX people to see it. :D Thanks for watching, and thanks for the support, it means the world.
I'm a VFX student, i've just found your video and thank you for talking about it. I'm definitely for the use of practical and digital effects together, it provides some of the bests results. But they need to stop being ashamed of CGI. The artists work behind it is really amazing and as valuable as practical effects. Can't wait to see your next videos, and well done for this one. I've just subscribed ;)
The truth is some people say “I want to do it practically” but then it falls short of what people are used to seeing with CGI so they have to enhance it digitally which isn’t bad or good it’s just the best of both world so some spokes person speaks on their goal but not aware or try to ignore the VFX additions. Like in stranger things vecna was a fully practical suit but digital movement added and full digital doubles for parts as well. They could have not added the digital vines and it would have worked fine but to make it match digital flexibility they added it. Sometimes I don’t think the team talking on the subject are even fully aware. They wanted it practice & the producer sent it out for VFX additions last minute or the VFX team that was only supposed to do a set extension /wire removal / realized it was easier to just use the digital scan they had to keep the interactive lighting & vine interaction easy to maintain for future notes.
I love how this guy just came out of nowhere and already has over 10k subscribers off of one really well put together video with only a month with the channel. Well played man. Can’t wait to see you grow further!
This exposé was the best wake-up call I’ve ever seen in this site because I always believed the whole “practical effect superiority” message in some semi-conscious way, but having a reasonable voice on TH-cam informing audiences with factual, direct and blunt honesty with how VFX artists and practical effect artists co-exist to play equally important parts in creating masterpieces is invaluable. You deserve all the success if you keep this up! Subscribed.
As a VFX artist, I had a lot of fun watching your video, can't wait for more. During my 10+ years in the VFX field, I've seen things, sometimes amazing, sometimes brrr. Thank you so much, Jonas.
One thing is for sure. Since Tom Cruise is executive producer, he knows damn well the "no cgi jets" thing is a marketing lie. Pretty insulting to the vfx team.
VFX artist here, this is really fantastic coverage of a very complicated issue that many many people seem to consider themselves experts on. Thanks for all the time you put into this. My coworkers are some of the hardest working, most talented problem solvers I have ever met. Hearing our work constantly shot down by people who have no idea what they're talking about is really painful. Hopefully a general audience can learn from this.
I’ve signed NDAs in the past where not only were we allowed to show our shots on our reel, we couldn’t even talk about the shots outside of the studio. So yeah, watching this video makes me understand what those NDAs were for.
I'm a member of the Replica Prop Forum, which is a place where people practically worship movie props and costumes, and I ran into a guy there who created a beautiful replica of the Jupiter 2 from the original Lost in Space and filmed a 100% practical crash scene meant to replicate one from the show. In the comments, I complimented his work and we got into a discussion about practical versus CGI effects, and being the old schooler that he is, he insisted that no CGI could ever truly look good. He reacted negatively when I told him that these days you probably won't notice most CGI because CG artists have learned a lot about how to give proper mass to objects and how to animate them convincingly using plugins that help generate realistic effects. It was like I was spitting on the work of visual effects artists in the past in his eyes, and I just couldn't understand that point of view because artists nowadays work just as hard (harder, I would argue, with the high workload in blockbuster movies) as the ILM guys did in Van Nuys back in 1980 for The Empire Strikes Back or the guys at the Howard Anderson Company working their butts off to get the shots for Star Trek ready for Desilu back in 1966, and they're getting better and better at blending practical and CGI effects. They still miss the mark occasionally, but tell me with a straight face that the effects on any pre-CGI film were flawless (the transparent canopies in TESB come to mind).
finally. this is the first video where I see how they made it possible top gun maverick. I knew something was wrong even if I fell in the "no cgi" trap. thank you, can't wait to watch others videos!
Are we really meant to be more astounded by all this than we are by the fact this is your 1st and currently only video? I’m guessing I’m missing something here. Surely this can’t be a debut? It, and you, are just too good.
@@TheMovieRabbitHole yeah I bet. It’s an awesome piece of work. No wonder the algorithm decided to serve it up, unrequested. Even the robots can tell you’re good!
0:10 Lol litterally my shot, there is nothing real about this one, the trees, grasses, mountain, tracks, we all replaced them... Plus the train and smoke as well, sure no CGI...
Thank you for saying this! I have a section in a later episode dedicated to Mission Impossible, and I would love to dig into this scene, but I have no hard data. Is this something you could be able to talk about, incognito or not?
@@TheMovieRabbitHole I would be happy to but not sure about it to be honest, the film is out so it should be safe but I don't want to get in trouble either, I'm still working there
Came here from your podcast interview with CG Garage, as soon as I heard you talking about this topic I knew I was going to enjoy the youtube series! It is so important to bring to light what is happening in the Cinema industry, with this current narrative I really worry about the future of VFX and CGI, which is already under appreciated and under rewarded. We need to keep educating the general public on what "NO CGI" actually means, and change the narrative. We need actors, directors, studio leads to be transparent with what it takes to create these amazing films and tv shows!
Another issue is usually when something needs to be created from scratch by effects artists, directors often want “Hollywood reality” instead of “reality reality”. If you submit a muzzle flash shot with zero muzzle flash to dailies and say “oh actually you rarely see muzzle flashes captured by camera”, definitely prepare for revision notes. I think the reason top gun’s effects look so real is everyone is on the same page about striving for “reality reality”. Practical inspires artists, artists create digital.
This is a significant topic. For instance, animators are well versed in curve, motion, conservation of energy; but if a producer/director wants an impossible animated action to be shown on screen, its going to happen.
million times yes bro! I lost a client because they didn't like the explosion they see in the final shot while I was working as a freelancer. It was a gas explosion. I studied for weeks for looking at references, real explosion footages from real world security cams and created a setup in houdini which exactly works like in the real world. They went with run of the mill gasoline explosion at the end.
So true and indeed It appears like the over the top teenagers movies are what is putting a bad name on the CGI effects, I've never heard anyone complain on The Lord of the Rings CGIs. So in the end of the day it's all about how the graphic effects should be used for an adult audience rather than if they should be used at all
@@markmuller7962 No one complains but hardly anyone celebrates good CGI either. VFX is always overshadowed by everything like the actors and directors. Imagine if good artists were treated like celebrities instead of just nobodies that worked on 90% of the movie's screen time.
I wish they would market "invisible" CGI a lot more because while I knew the last dog fight sequence in Top Gun was CGI, I had no idea they still filmed real jets for reference, and that interests me 100%. I love really well done CGI and Top Gun Maverick has probably some of the best CGI I've seen for a movie that really marketed itself as "real"
Your life will improve dramatically when you stop expecting entertainment to be honest. That was never their goal. All they want is to make a compelling movie.
Speaking as someone who has worked in Hollywood for my entire career, it's so nice to hear someone actually address the rampant ignorance about the movie making process by laypersons, but also the blatant misinformation by the studios, and happily slurped up by media "journalists". This is the new "its 100% the actor's performance, we didn't animate everything" (1000 underpaid, overworked animators would beg to differ)
I always knew the debate between cgi vs practical was fishy! Thanks for explaining it really well! I think it’s time we appreciate both kinds of artists for their amazing work
I don't think it's the audience, it's invented by marketing departments because they've got data that shows people have more positive responses when it's practical (or when they say it's practical). We're under NDAs from the studios frequently and we can't even say actually that's not practical.
I remember Star Wars: The Force Awakens being one of the first movies where the PR campaign would specifically mention that they were doing the animatronics and puppets, and various other effects practically, and butting heads with people when I'd mention that many of those elements just get enhanced or replaced with CGI in the end, even when the ILM VFX reels would specifically show this. Normally I'd just chalk these sorts of things to typical PR fluff, but to blatantly lie about the VFX work that the biggest movies rely on to make their money, and involving an industry where a considerable percentage of its workforce doesn't get the pay or benefits they deserve just seems genuinely wrong. As a long standing VFX hobbyist dork, I really appreciated this video.
The Force Awakens did use a lot of obvious puppets and costumes which gave it a look that fits with the original trilogy. Also lots of location shooting instead of greenscreen. Still when it uses CG it obviously uses CG
It made sense to me recently that as half of a film production budget is marketing that it made perfect sense that we can’t trust “behind the scenes” videos anymore. Likely they will start using cgi in bts videos
You mentioned stunt performers, but even practical effects have this happen to them 😅 When the Fugitive shot their iconic train scene for real, the footage was basically unusable. They redid the entire sequence using miniatures. However, since the studio didn’t want their money on the real train to be wasted, so in marketing they repeatedly said the whole sequence was 100% real.
This reminds me of Jackie Chan. Contrary to popular beliefs, not 100% of the stunts you see are done by him (similar to what the ending note of this video said). He had a team of stuntmen who he collaborated with. Sometimes they would do multiple takes and pick the best shot, which could be done by a stuntman but a lot of times Jackie Chan would do the stunts during filming as well, just that the shot may not make it to the final edit. There's a little bit of "what does doing all your stunts mean" to this but sometimes casual audience get disappointed when they find out the person on screen they see isn't really Jackie Chan. Accented Cinema had a good video on this.
The way that people praise how good these things look for being "practical" while not realizing almost all of it is CGI and not giving credit to the incredible effort of the CGI artists that did it reminds me of people going "we'd like to thank God for healing our son, the Lord works miracles!" after a dozen medical personnel spent 20 hours doing surgery on them.
Fantastic. Painted/fixed out so many practical elements in TV and film to read lavish PR coverage of the "real" elements that I totally replaced, that I can't even count anymore. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
That was one of the most interesting videos I watched on the subject. Conclusion : studios are lying in order to appear to be complying with peoples demands. Personnally, all I care is the final result. CGI or not, I don't care, the movie has to be entertaining, that's all it matters. I don't understand why people are being so dramatic
“Whatever you do, don’t hit like and subscribe.” So guess what I immediately do….. You could not have chosen any words in any order that would’ve won me over more quickly. I was sold immediately afterwards and would like to thank for being on point, for your accuracy and your articulation. You sir, are a breath of fresh air.
Nolan's "no CGI" claim for _Oppenheimer_ pissed me off beyond expression. Imagine having done digital matte paintings or compositing or color grading or one of a million other ways of _digitally manipulating_ the camera footage to mold it into the finalized product ... to have the director of the project publically *deny* your work on *_his_* movie. All that, needless to say, after having been ground to the bone in 14-hour workdays without weekends *_or_* overtime compensation, driving the company you work for to the brink of bankruptcy. This stupid _"all practical / no CGI"_ hypocrisy makes me sick. Subscribed for the next episodes. Keep up the good work!
Christopher Nolan hates workers so not that surprising to be honest. You really expect the dude who made a Batman movie that villified and lampooned the Occupy Wall Street into terrorists as someone charitable?
@@Noone-of-your-Businessdont assume my response, arrogant person. id be fine with it, because i genuinely dont care. id at least teach my boss a few things that i do so he isnt completely clueless about it. im just there for money, not credit.
@@matthewbarabas3052 unlike you only a true artist will understand the pain of not getting recognition for something you worked literally day and night and on top of it no artist in this industry is getting paid great salary. Credit on a good project goes long way to secure your next job or recognition in the industry. Again, you wouldn't understand or care about.
It's weird how there was a time when CG effects were practically admired. See: T2, Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings (specifically Gollum)... I'm trying to remember when people started disliking CGI so much. Perhaps around the time of Star Wars II + III? PS. Great video!
@@luttren Oh that's right, I forgot it was the same year. Mind you, I skipped Attack of the Clones in the cinema because Phantom Menace had been such a disappointment and didn't watch it until 2004 (on dvd). But that just goes to show that it's all about the execution: People were fine with Gollum, while they mocked fake-looking stuff in the Star Wars prequels.
Yeah despite there being more miniatures in TPM alone than the whole of the OT combined, people routinely and ignorantly assuming it was all CG etc. The prejudice has been around for a long time now...
Congratulations on this video. This is hands down one of the best I've seen, and it's exceptionally well explained. I think the reason CGI has gotten such a bad reputation is because of numerous movies that utilize it poorly. I still recall Steven Spielberg stating for the fourth Indiana Jones that he did everything without CGI for the fans. In reality, what matters most is how both practical effects and CGI work in harmony.
Great video. I appreciate you breaking down not just the effects, but how media is unable to verify the information studios release and they become a glorified PR team. Looking forward to the next parts. Also, TH-cam recommended this video to me and I'm glad it did. But how did you get so many views and subscribers on your first video!?! That's some fast growth.
6th time watching this video and I’ve made sure to show it to all my fellow VFX graduates and current students in the programs I went through during school. Absolutely one of the greatest videos ever done on this topic. Cannot wait for the next part!
I wasn't confident about starting a video that had (1/4) in the title but I'm hooked. Finally, a sensible attitude towards effects both digital and practical and finally some damn honestly about it!
Excellent work, thank you for making this - looking forward for the next episodes. Something quite similar has happened to me too, albeit in much, much, much smaller scale. Already in 2007, a Finnish WW2 film I worked on made a big marketing point about using real tanks and real aircraft. They did not mention that the Stuka replica they shot was actually grounded, so it was only used for shots where the pilot climbs in, and some taxiing on the ground. Every flying plane was CGI. Further, even the real plane was modified to match WW2 era paint (you can't have swastikas on planes in Germany). Similar story with tanks - they had two tank replicas, but every time there were more than two, it was CGI (or split screen composite). Similar story in a more recent film, a period piece about a real life tragedy, an explosion in ammunition factory that shook a small Finnish town in 1977. In the marketing and press interviews, there was a lot of talk bout how they built the set for the interior of the factory, and hauled tons and tons of construction debris to create the aftermath of the explosion - but not a word about the building being 100% CGI in every exterior shot, and of course the big bang itself. I'm not holding this against the marketing people though. They say what they think needs to be said to get asses to seats in the theatre. But i do think it is a real problem in more general sense, the artists making the often invisible work to make movie magic are themselves made invisible too. Successes are hidden, but the failures get the attention. I do think this needs to change.
In an interview for Thor 4, Taika Waititi made a joke about how the CGI in his own movie didn't look very good in some scenes. It was clearly intended to be self-deprecating, but a lot of people got _really_ mad at him for disrespecting the CGI artists who worked on the movie. Yet those same people don't get mad at this kind of stuff. Filmmakers disrespecting not only the CGI artists who worked on the movie, but the _entire profession_ of CGI artists. Straight up saying that CGI is inferior, that using it makes movies worse, despite using it extensively in the movie they're promoting. I honestly don't know why anyone would become a VFX artist these days. Audiences hate you because they only notice your work when it doesn't look perfect, studios overwork you with unreasonable demands, and the filmmakers who rely on your work act like they've never met you.
I feel like the hate against CGI you see on the internet is because some people just love to hate on something and hating on CGI is one of the last things you can be nasty about without people calling you out. From my observations, haters always try to start a hate bandwagon about anything and they sadly succeeded with CGI and others just love to join bandwagons. People like to believe that they have their own opinions, but most people`s opinions are greatly influenced by others. Just reading negative comments about something, can make people more critical about something, which they otherwise might have enjoyed. I no longer read comments about movies, because they suck the joy out of it.
Lord of The Rings, Pirates of The Caribbean, Avatar etc.....there are instances of CGI that are forever touted and praised. If you're gonna throw in backwater work that audiences can IMMEDITEY notice, why should you not be flamed? If a doctor fucks up, he gets flamed, so why would you sitting in front of a computer, drawing on a tablet and producing mediocre work in your field, be exempt from criticism? If 2006 CGI is outclassing you by a mile (not an inch, a freaking mile), then you don't get to feel sorry for yourself.
You know the problem of a director? wanting to have the top quality FX but not having the funds to pay them... Is easy to shit on VFX artistis... Little people decides to charge less as director to make sure the movie is 100% what they wanted to be.
historically they are bad at their jobs. If you cut deadlines on a concrete company and the building collapses you will still say the concrete company did a bad job. This is not a difficult concept
Ironically, the same thing happened all throughout the 90s in reverse. CGI was the hot new thing, so every movie that had a little bit of it, drastically overstated how much was actually done with CGI in the marketing, while in reality almost everything was still practical until the early 2000.
I don't care for most movies, but I didn't want to know that for top gun. I'm a young pilot and aviation fan and it breaks my heart to know that almost everything is CGI hahaha very good video, truth has been told ;)
It wouldn't be so heartbreaking if studios were honest and not taking advantage of the culture wars people created. As the uploader said, this hatred of cgi vs practical is something people who have no idea what goes in filmmaking created. Sadly, it's now a marketing gimmick to generate sales.
This is just brilliant. The most impressive CGI is always the stuff you don't notice - scene expansion, painting out things but I love the "lots of no CGI."
Excellent, thank you for pointing out what is so obvious for VFX connaisseurs and workers, but still not so for regular folks. Looking forward to the other 3 parts!
I enjoyed this video so much I clicked through to your channel intending to binge every video you've ever made. My disappointment is immeasurable. Please make more soon!
As a VFX artist, I find this situation increasingly frustrating and concerning. Our contributions are sometimes downplayed for marketing purposes. Additionally, we are now pressured to align with actors supporting their strike, and failure to do so may result in job loss. This industry's current dynamics are disheartening
Why would you not want to support the actor strike? What you really need to do is to unionize. VFX people are the only workers in the entertainment industry that didn't unionize. Until very recently when Disney VFX artists voted unanimously to unionize.
Before the strikes, there were plentiful VFX jobs with competitive salaries, which had been on the rise in recent years. It was considered the prime time for VFX professionals. However, when the strikes occurred, many companies shuttered, leading to significant market setbacks. Currently, a majority of my colleagues have been unemployed for several months. In addition, to exacerbate the situation, there is a proposition of someone to unionize and potentially blacklist those who opt out. Personally, I seek no special privileges or residual payments. My primary goal is to continue working and pursuing our passion. of course unions are trying to get more subscribers but causing troubles to give you a solution is a bad practice in my opinion
@@alecosta80 Are we talking about the same industry? VFX artists are the only workers in movies and series crunching and working for so many hours. Even if you personally don't want the lunch breaks, overtime pay, parental leave, etc. that everyone else in the entertainment industry has, many of your peers *do.* You must be very young and naive to think like that. I suggest that you talk to some of your elder co-workers. Find one that has been burned out, it shouldn't be too difficult.
@@DiThito think you’re owed any of that by any company is why you will always just be an employee thats blow with the wind If you loved vfx than you wouldnt expect a company to owe you anything and you would get it yourself Let me guess you paid for school to learn vfx too? 😂
As a 3d Generalist, this video made my heart happy. We all know that when they say no CGI, they just mean our work is ADDED to plate photography which is when it's used properly. Strange how our work is best appreciated when you don't see it
as a VFX artist you should know by now those kinds of sentiments is how thousands of VFX artists are underpaid and overworked. nothing good comes out of discrediting peoples hard work
Episode 3 is out! Please watch this next: th-cam.com/video/uGPHy3yWE08/w-d-xo.html
1 -> 3 -> 2 ??
I think we all know some CGI is used today. But with movies like Dracula (Gary Oldman) the in camera effects give the movie a vintage feel.
And with Top Gun, yes there were CGI effects but the practical still added reality.
As opposed to the newer Marvel crap with the ends of the movies a CGI messes, see the newest Ant Man, Dr. Strange 2. Just awful
same with editing :)
the tough part about being a VFX artist is when you do good work, no one will notice.
This part. It’s a cruel irony.
A VFX artist knows that going into the job. It is an irony for sure, but it's not the tough part.
The tough part is not being respected by the people you work for. Doing overtime, not even getting paid enough, watching your health deteriorate in front of the computer 24/7, not seeing your family, no job security, no benefits, dealing with impossible clients, and after all that, not even being acknowledged by the filmmakers
That + the stigma of the audience hating on CGI and VFX
@@brianyweajust like the animation industry
The only tough part us getting paid enough for your talent.
5:38 is me in a F-18E. I flew a few scenes in the final act and this is one that made the cut.
This was done at 100 feet and accelerating from ~450-550 knots. It would not only be too difficult but way too dangerous to try to do this with multiple F-18s.
One giveaway is the vapor cone. A group of jets accelerating at the same rate would have the vapor cone appear at the same time. In the film they appear sequentially which is inaccurate.
Regardless, the three cgi jets look incredible and they did an outstanding job.
OH WOW, thank you for that!
@@TheMovieRabbitHole it was a good breakdown.
You nailed the one thing that everyone misses but it is the number one reason why the invisible cgi works: aircraft movement.
In spite of most people not being pilots, they can tell when something is off with physics. My least favorite moment in the film was the final chase and they hand animated the jets doing impossible turns. It wasn’t every moment but noticeable enough.
Hell fucking yeah, you're a legend! One of the sickest shots in the movie (despite the multiple jets with the sequential vapor cones) that must have been incredible to fly and watch the playback for the first time.
Actually I was the pilot of that f 18 at 5:38 . you sir are a liar
@@kikacruz4560 Look up the name "Christian Frasher," and you'll find a bunch of articles about Top Gun: Maverick, as well as his Linkedin which lists him as a pilot for the US Navy.
I like that James Cameron is open and honest about CGI and publicly celebrates the work of his designers and artists. He started in VFX himself, so I guess it makes sense.
Yeah, his entire career is also based upon it, he pioneered CGI, and has always broke new ground using it.
This also reminds me about Life of Pi, which to this day has some of the best CGI ever put on film, the Tiger. The Tiger looks so good, that most people cannot see the difference where they used a CGI tiger and scenes with a real tiger. And yet, the director, in his Oscar speech, basically thanked everybody involved in the making of the film, except the people who created that Tiger.. Absolutely unbelievable, and it caused a massive outcry.
I often go back to watch clips of that tiger to just marvel at how incredible it looks.
Same with The Creator.
Even title, or ending credits, had VFX supervisor among the first to pop up. It was obvious they liked showing that it had plenty of vfx
Most directors just sit on their scripts for years until the technology becomes available to make their movie, while Cameron goes out and finds the right people to invent the tech for him so he doesn't have to wait. He's as much an engineer as a director. It's why I always look forward to what he does next.
@@Patrix8558 Yeah! Gareth Edwards also has a VFX background, which helps explain how he was able to pull off The Creator under pretty tight budget constraints by modern blockbuster standards. I wish it had done better. 😕
At the same time James Cameron refuses to acknowledge Avatar as a animation film and gets annoyed anytime its called an animation movie (i like Avatar)
"Flying Andy Serkis" sent me pretty hard. Shout out VFX artists, sound engineers, IT workers, janitors, and everyone else whose work is unnoticed at its best.
lol
I'm glad he mentioned Lord of the Rings because that has to be not only a high watermark of blending both practical and digital effects, but also being transparent about how everything was achieved. The extended edition special features give every department the opportunity to give a behind the scenes glimpse of the work they put into the movies and instead of shying away from any one departments contribution, their artistry is celebrated across the board.
The forced* perspective to achieve the different heights between the different types of characters is still one of my favorite things from that
@@Laotzu.Goldbug forced perspective is one of the oldest and tried and true methods to make things big or small. You can watch movies from the 30's that use it to make characters look like they are tiny.
@@jerithil There is still a huge difference. In movies of the past, they'd still have a strict separation between the two sized actors, where one could only manipulate their own environment, and the camera is generally stationary. Lord of the Rings however blurred that line to near invisibility, to where not only is the camera panning and turning in the shot, but the table is made where parts of it can be on both sizes rather than only one, and in some cases objects can even be passed from one scale to the other. Gandalf's hat and cane being given to Bilbo, for example. Usually (even as late as Back to the Future II and III) they'd have to do some kind of object pass in front of the camera to make the switch, or some hard separation to cheat it with. Old Doc handing the wrench to Young Doc from behind the pole, or Shaemus standing behind the unbroken beam of the wooden fence as he looks over the unconscious Marty.
all revolutionary for the time, and all leaps ahead. Lord of the Rings just made that one greater leap, and I can't wait to see what the next leap might be.
@@k1productions87 I remember one of the key breakthroughs was having parts of the set moving with the camera pans to keep the objects into proper perspective. You would see slides or rails built into the floor/furniture to carefully adjust the positions in real time.
@@jerithil computer tech is also necessary, as it is required in order to properly time the motion of said moving objects in order for it to match up the competing perspectives in camera frame. Back to the Future already accomplished half of this with the McFly Family dinner scene. Lord of the Rings accomplished the other half
One of the best videos I've seen on the topic. I can't imagine how much time went into finding all the right clips! Hats off.
Thank you! Admittedly about 50 times as much time as I thought. :D
The guru himself
😮@@Zen_McGrath
Your The Shining opinion offended me.
A legend supporting a legend
I was in the TopGun vfx team in MPC. Thank you for bringing all of this up to the vast audience
Great work!! There are still people here in the comments who are like "nah it's not really CGI if they just put it on top of real airplanes" so I guess I wasn't thorough enough in explaining it. :D
@@TheMovieRabbitHole It's becoming increasingly common for people to share their opinions, even when they lack knowledge or understanding of the subject; sometimes no opinion is better than having an opinion. This behaviour also by other colleges quickly reveals who to avoid engaging within business matters. As an artist, I learned not to seek recognition based on others' opinions of my work, and this freed me up quite a lot.
And thank you for all of the amazing work you did on the film!
As a person who's job was to prepare raw footages to colorist and vfx artists, TopGun was no mystery to me, I didn't understand all the hype for this "no-CGI" film, it's full of it.
But he made the point in the video, having a base prevents you to do anything ridiculous. Apart from the script obvioulsy. Moreover, if they were filming with real FA18E, well... 5-10M$ for 5mn capture (like in 28 days laters) well, there would be a major issue with the budget. The real job of a director is to give VFX artists good material to work with.
@mattw3606 Lot's of ad hominem and ignorance oozing from this opinion. You've missed the point. It's not that the FX needs to be noticed, it's that in the marketing of the films, the artist's work is being written off as something that doesn't exist. Big difference.
As a former visual effects artist myself, it's funny how Rocketjump explained this whole thing like 10 years ago and people still do the whole "CGI bad" thing
heavy non creative use of cgi makes most modern films unwatchable for me,dont mention overacting and digital formats lacking of depht and details
@@marx0matko yeah a bad use of anything is bad thats pretty obvious. but CGI shouldn't just be considered a bad thing especially since this type of stuff has been used since the dawn of movies. a bad matte painting or a bad prop and people back in the day criticized bad VFX regardless if its practical or not.
@@joedatius can u even read ?who said cgi is bad thing? All action scenes in new movies look like animated pice of trash,they look so bad,and every newer movie looks like is made for childern ,trash production ,trash writing, trash camwork trash scenography everything looks like is filmed on greenscreen
@@marx0matko
"Overuse of practical effects is ruining films."
Being that you're a former visual effects artist, can you tell me if people in the industry tend to say "CG" or "CGI?" It's so incredibly aggravating to hear "CGI" all the time. 😄
It must feel terrible to have worked on a film as a CGI artist for years and then all the promo says "Everything is practical!"
It is
honestly, id be fine with it, if it made more money.
@@matthewbarabas3052 because the vfx artists are paid royalties on the movie 🤣 why would you care how much it makes aslong as you are getting a salary
@@matthewbarabas3052being fine with your hard work discredited is wild
@@ohmydog9171meh. as long as i get paid, nothing really matters, unless its clearly illegal.
TH-cam pilot C.W. Lemoine, a former F-18 pilot in the US Navy, actually interviewed one of the VFX artists from Top Gun: Maverick right around when the film was coming out and spoke a lot about what was CGI and what was not. He took the video down because the studio allegedly told the VFX artist that if wanted to keep working in the industry, he wouldn't speak out on things like that.
Accurate! I saw that video, it was really good. I love his channel. Lemoine was so good at pointing out CGI in the first trailer, while still admiring the aerial photography, but people fought back in the comments that there was "NO CGI" because Tom had said so. His interview with the VFX artist was a scoop, and it's a shame he had to take it down. I didn't work on the film and I'm not citing any whistleblowers, only publicly available interviews and breakdowns from the Oscar showcase video, so we should be good. :D
That's scummy. Employers shouldn't have that kind of power.
@@haihuynh8772 its called work-for-hire and has to do with intellectual property rights... sounds terrible but overall it is not and is important as a professional working dynamic. imagine hiring an architect to design and build your house to generally your specification and then having that architect demand afterwards that you let them photograph it and use it in marketing as an example of their work. I have actually seen that happen despite the architect royally screwing up on a specification and nearly costing the construction mid to high 5-figure sum in damages and nearly 6+ months delay. the architect wanted to use the end result in their marketing despite that they refused to fix their error while collecting $20K to manage the project which they obviously both failed at and did not do except superficially. work-for-hire can be one of the few things that prevents someone like that from invading a former employer/customer's privacy. in a fair system (admittedly it is not always fair) a work-for-hire employee or contractor should get paid more than one where the worker retains any kind of IP ownership.
i saw that one! I was a bit puzzled to see in this video that it was so unknown to the public what was VFX and what not, but now it makes sense. I really don't understand it either. After seeing that video I was left in awe of the mastery of how they filmed it. And it took away my last reservations about the claims that these actors were actually in the cockpit doing these manouvres. Knowing they were in the backseat behind a navy pilot, only to VFX them up front later on, is just really cool and worked like a charm.
@haihuynh8772 It's really tough to draw a line. There's many lines of business where revealing how the sausage is made would get one in legal trouble due to the damages caused. Getting blacklisted isn't even a legal power, just the field collectively saying "you can't be trusted".
In theory revealing the CGI shouldn't even be harmful but the discourse around CGI has created an environment where people fooled by marketing would be let down by discovering TG Maverick isn't 100% practical fx, so studios have to keep up a lie.
"The entire CGI vs practical debate is something the audience has invented out of sheer ignorance about how movies are made." I'm stealing this.
Please do. Thanks for watching
Is it really only coming from the audience when the video highlights many examples of deceptive marketing, actors lying about it, and media reporting falsely on it ? Weird to put it all on the audience when you have stars like Tom Cruise just plain lying about it on stage.
Great quote. Really there is so much more nuance to this discussion than is often discussed, because we're talking about *noticeable* CGI vs practical effects (where interpretation has a lot to do with your generation and what you're more familiar with), *bad* CGI versus practical effects (I'm likely to find shoddy practical work charming, and to find it feels more grounded because something physical is still being shot), and the fact that CGI background elements are ubiquitous in film and TV and rarely seen (meaning that David Fincher CGI which completely transforms an outdoor shot ends up being invisible because it's planned so well, whereas it's usually harder to pretend that elements and backgrounds created entirely by CGI are practical).
The fact that both the CGI and the sense of place often looks far better in movies 15 years old than today pretty much indicates it's more about planning, art direction and rushed production than the inherent nature of CGI or practical visual effects.
And because one part of that debate is not unionized and, therefore, can be safely ignored
@@TheMovieRabbitHole the problem is, it wasn't the audience that came up with the cgi vs practical debate, it was the media. Media mouth pieces looking for the next big hook to grab people's attention with.
9:56 exactly, practical effect guys love the digital correction, and the digital guys love the reference. They just want to make movies.
Yes!
Indeed, it's using all tools available for the best end result. It's why motion capture is so important for convincing character animations. No matter how amazing you may be at doing it all by hand, that's going to take a LONG time, and time is money. So get Andy Serkis in a funky skin tight body suit to do the heavy lifting!
@@TalesOfWar it takes a long time AND it will never fully mimic actual human movement. Animating by hand almost always works better for when something is stylized.
I mentioned CGI in the first trailer reaction of TGM and people went nuts about it saying I had no idea what I was talking about. I even interviewed one of the VFX artists after the film and Paramount made him take it down. For whatever reason, people just needed to believe it was 100% real even when it didn't make sense.
I followed your coverage of it and I thought you were really cool about it. Like yes, the photography is awesome and yes, they also used CGI. The "no CGI" narrative is just something people really love. Thanks for watching, it means a lot.
wink wink ... yea they came in hard
@@TheMovieRabbitHole we followed his coverage while working on the film lol
@@fredlyn9898 OH. That was you in Lemoine's video? Anyway, great work man! You fooled everyone. Except of course lemoine. :D
@@TheMovieRabbitHole just apart of the team ... team work make the dream work
It's crazy how monumental having reference is for creating realistic visual effects.
Reference is everything
Also, it apparently helps some moviemakers to create more physically-realistic action scenes, which is all for the best. CG vehicles and people that move in crazy and almost magic ways are tiring. We all win if this kind of practical reference help having more grounded action.
People are so used to seeing bad CGI that they assume all CGI is bad. Good CGI is everywhere, but it so often gets ignored because most people don't even notice that it's CGI, which is the end goal of any visual effect. CGI isn't the problem, it's the cut corners, rushed development, and overworking of VFX artists that are the problem. i.e. movie studios prioritizing profitability over an actually good product.
True
Survivorship bias I believe
@@boreal3255 Maybe...
Exactly, Corridor digital did a really good video about this.
I really liked The Creator, and I thought it had excellent CGI.
I worked at a VFX studio for a while and every time I see a "CGI = bad" comment, I think of my colleagues staying back till 10 pm regularly, oftentimes 3 am, to finish their shots, and the care that went into it all. If it was good, you'd barely notice it. Sometimes, we just didn't have a lot of time to make it better as well.
I entered concept art from watching movie bts interviews and seeing it as an actual career path. It's a shame so many studios are covering it up
EDIT: I also remembered one of the department heads being flown onto the set to consult on how to shoot to accomodate future VFX/CGI, it was rare for us and it made a huge difference in the final result. Good effects often mean good collaboration
When people think of cgi, they are thinking the worst ones, like low budget and unbaked ones. Being a CG artist is damn hard because you have to know a lot of things even before starting to do any cgi. I am not just talking about constant pressure of learning new tools, techniques, constant need of watching tutorials, you also need to have good understanding of math, coding, engineering, physics, chemistry, cinematography and depending of what you really do, you may even need to learn niche topics so you can animate or make it look real.
(Once I had to study how earthquake isolators work and get a formula about it in wikipedia and implemented it in the sim so it can behave true to life, it was so satisfying at the end)
How can you simulate explosions if you don't know anything about fluid dynamics? Sure you can throw some numbers and try to eyeball it, but if you don't lucky you can't get the result you want quickly.
It's a hard job that nobody gives a damn thought about it. It's easy to look at a bad cgi and make fun of, but remember, there is an always at least one person giving all he got in a given time so they have something to show in the final product instead of black screen.
ps: is this your first video? damn good job mate, I thought I am looking at a million sub channel! what a way to enter youtube game, congrats!
Thanks!
watching corridor crew gave me a massive appreciation to the work CIG artists do
while yes, practical effects are cool, if done well CIG can enhance a scene ALOT and is really just another tool in the filmmakers toolbox to give the audience the story they want to tell.
visual effects have been in movie since forever, a while ago there actually was a visual effects special in my local movie museum and there you could see how past filmmakers used different tricks like painted sheets of glass in front of the camera to create better scenes.
Corridor Crew really have very little idea what they're talking about. They're just self publicist loud mouths who sort of scratch the exterior of the industry.
@@OrangeDrink74honestly,better than nothing at all
@@claudius3359 not really. A little knowledge and a lot of unwarranted confidence is dangerous.
Hi there ! I did the lookdev of Vecna and all the other creatures of Season 4.
Thanks for putting that video out, it's really appreciated and great work on the editing ! I'm looking forward to the next one !
To add some insight, as you said there was no trench warfare going on between practical and digital effects. There was a back and forth between the modeling team and the partical team to get Vecna looking just right. If I'm not mistaken they printed the Zbrush model that had been made after the concept art and adjusted it to the actor. Then they painted it and scanned the actor in full costume. Finally they sent the pictures and scans back to the asset team at Rodeo.
It was astonishing how the lookdev on this monster was one of the easiest I got to do thanks to that process (aside from the slithering Vines setup) . In dailies it was often hard to know which was the filmed plate and which was the lighting version.
It's a bit of a shame that this process wasn't more advertised since like you said, having a real reference made everyones job easier.
Thank you for this extra insight!
It’s amazing how the two skill sets, when working in tandem, elevate the end product. Hopefully more productions work together like this.
Fantastic info, cheers!
Yep, as a lighting/lookdev guy myself, matching or enhancing an on-set reference is so much quicker than trying to nail a look with nothing but my mind's eye and a few Googled stills. I did digi double lighting for the upcoming Spiderwick series, mostly replacing a practical costume that didn't articulate enough. Even if the costume will never hold up on screen, having it to do a match is the most efficient workflow for TV.
I too worked on Vecna. I am baffled how the media outlets and audience thought they could make moving slimy veins on his body practically with that natural motion.
And it's not just a question of binary "CG vs no CG". There's also how the work is done, and the ongoing battle to erase the fact that actual people do this work. That it's not just pressing a bloody button. I worked on a film that required extensive rotomation for body part replacements throughout the whole film. One of the shots I worked on was periodically kicked back over literal months (Have mercy, I'm good at my job but the job isn't easy). To the director's credit, he was open and accurate about his description of what we did. Nothing but respect.
When the BBC reported on it, they spoke of "rotomation machines" or something to that effect. Godforbid actual human beings were involved.
Damn!
“Rotomation machines” also known as underappreciated and hardworking human artists
I mean, it also goes the other way around: People were complaining about the bad CGI of Star Wars Episode 1 in scenes which were mostly practical. It's obvious that most people cannot tell CGI and practical effects apart and the decision of what they think was mainly used is mostly based on how satisfied they were with the experience.
Reminds me of some idiots saying “film over digital any day”, but when I showed them footage from film and digital shots, they couldn’t tell which was which.
They’ve been told it matters, but they don’t really know why.
While there were a ton of miniatures and practical effects used in the prequels, I don't think those are the parts people complain about. The really obvious CGI, like the gungans and the droids look really bad, especially by today's standards.
@@alexman378 Maybe it mattered at one point, but digital can be very high quality these days. Filmmakers sometimes shot digitally but then try to mimic the film look in post production. No wonder it's difficult to tell apart.
@@Jiiimbooh You can mimic film with digital, but you can’t mimic digital with film. In which case, what’s even the point, especially if you’re short for cash? It’s expensive, extremely fragile, requires specialized crews, slows you down, makes shooting with sound more difficult, and the final quality is uncertain.
All so you can say “I shot on film” and 99% of the audience doesn’t care, because it makes no difference to them.
@@alexman378 Yes, I haven't heard of people shooting on film and then trying to mimic a digital look, only the opposite.
The most recent film I can think of the looked a bit too digital at times is Public Enemies (2009). That film is 15 years old already and since it's a period piece even a slightly digital look might be distracting.
As a VFX artist: Thank you for spreading the word fairly. We have one of the best jobs on the planet, and when we work with the "boots-on-the-ground-crew" it's often a wonderful collaboration between creative minds, but this issue is real and makes my heart sink. Hats off for your great explanation, editing and illustration.
The fact that this is his first video on his channel makes it 1000 times better.
Holy crap! You are right!! Noice!
Let's pretend he doesn't have 200 unfinished or unreleased projects on his PC lol
Impressive..
And it makes easier to binge watch him hahaha
This is the very 1st TH-cam video this man has ever made? I am beyond shocked. This man has a big future ahead of him if he keeps it up. Amazing video.
He probably started a new channel, not a new endeavor. This could be a newer channel of his.
He’s worked in film and tv so he knows to shoot edit and write scripts
That's pretty funny that your comment got so many upvotes, considering it's content. Welcome to TH-cam. 😂
And the guy ends his video with "whatever you do, don't like and subscribe" and still gets picked up by the algorithm!
All jokes aside though, it's clear this guy knows exactly what he's doing. Perfect lighting and editing, a good camera and lens, great pacing to keep engagement throughout a fairly long video. If he isn't already a professional in this field, he easily could be.
@@awesomeferret The video creator responds to another comment (complimenting the video) with "Thanks! It is my first, but it also took a lot longer than I thought!"
"The entire CGI vs Practical debate is something the audience has invented." Never heard a more prescient quote in my life.
It often feels like a lot of the "practical" vfx are financed by the marketing department. They barely get used in the final movie, but being able to say that a lot of the vfx were shot practically (even if it isn't really true) gives a lot of "free" publicity to the movie.
its not a good feeling when your hard work and all the sleepless nights goes unrecognized just for a marketing gimmick.
I'm a VFX supervisor and so I work with special fx and makeup and stunts and every other department, deciding together how far they can take a shot/set/stunt etc. before VFX needs to get involved. You're absolutely right that the supposed rivalry between practical and digital is just PR fluff. Looking forward to your next installment!
Thank you so much for this. And yes, I am tired of the constant CGI bashing that's been done on TH-cam and other places. I really wish more people would try to learn about what really goes into VFX; sadly, CINEFEX magazine is no more. I am looking forward to your next three videos!!
Thank you! Missing Cinefex, too. :( Ian Failes from Befores and Afters is here to take over though. He even has a print issue. beforesandafters.com/
Tired of? I get legitimately INFURIATED as I see it happening time, and time, and time, and time again. It makes me sick to my stomach, especially when they take no time to consider that certain things would be legitimately impossible to do without CGI. Midway, for example.
It wouldnt happen if CGI wasn't bad.
Though people were complaining ant-man quantummania was a "CGI hellfeast for the eyes" we also have a valid point there about CGI-only movies getting tiring at some point.
@@yol_nNo one talks about good CGI because it's unnoticeable. And many overcomplain regardless.
@@yol_n then blame the bad ones. Far too many people throw ALL CGI under the bus. Meanwhile, there are many examples of bad practical effects too, but they get a free pass just because they are practical.
Love this! Thanks for the extensive and balanced run-down.
I once had a director refuse to do a CGI helicopter shot because he claimed that real-looking CGI choppers were impossible to create. I tried to tell him otherwise, but he refused to believe me. Problem was: the film’s insurance company wouldn’t let him do the stunt he wanted to do using a real chopper. I cut together a reel for him of all of the great CGI chopper scenes I could find across many films. Because I'm a little sneaky, I included one bad one in the middle of 15 good ones. I ran the reel and asked him to spot the CGI choppers. He picked out the bad one “I KNOW A CGI CHOPPER WHEN I SEE ONE!” he taunted. His jaw hit the floor when I told him they were *all* CGI! Needless to say, we ended up using a CGI helicopter for the scene in question.
Moral of the story, which you point out really well in this video: people only notice CGI when it’s not convincing. When it’s well-done, they assume it’s real. And that’s the whole point of VFX in my opinion: to transport the audience into a story that they can believe is real, hook line and sinker!
This one reminds me of the story of Episode 2's Yoda. That the team tried to convince George Lucas that they could do it digitally, but he was unconvinced. So they redid all the yoda scenes from Ep1 digitally and showed them to him and they were so good it convinced him to go fully digital in Ep2. Could be missing details, it's been forever since I watched the features that mentioned it. But it's kind of crazy that you have to fight to prove your worth to the people making the thing so hard. You hire experts because they're experts, but then refuse to listen to their expert opinions? Seems counter intuitive.
I would have loved to see this reel, it sounds fascinating to me!
and the best way to get a convincing one is starting from a practical reference
@@tyrannicpuppy
Ep2 Yoda felt so unreal compared to Ep5 ...
because Ep5 was a puppet and tehrefore "real" and Ep2 was CGI and it showed :/
I also remember hating Ep1 not only because of Jar-Jar but also because of too much obvious CGI
@@KaosKrusher I'm not sugesting it was perfect. Just that even people who work with it constantly (who just finished a movie that by your own words had too much obvious CGI) think that CG cannot do a thing.
George Lucas had to be convinced that digital Yoda was even possible. I struggle to think how that final lightsaber duel with Dooku would have looked with a puppet. I'm certain they could have achieved it.
Even the creators that already use digital art and effects in their work fail to picture what is possible. Because like the general public, they tend to think of the bad stuff when trying to picture a pitch in their mind. But if you give your teams proper money, guidance and time, CGI can and often does look picture perfect.
Agree, filmmaking is a team sport. Just wanted to give a massive high five to our teams that worked on Blade Runner 2049 (full breakdown available on our channel) and Top Gun: Maverick.💪💪💪
OMG
You guys are incredible!
where's the top gun breakdown? or you guys aren't allowed to share it?
"colaborative art"
I worked in SFX and since I was already doing development of computer graphics for astronomy and medical in my other job I moved easily to VFX. And I mainly did tv and commercials. One day I get a phone call from my former mentor if I could come over to London to help him on a shot.
I get over and it became a hush hush deal because he hired me as subco (that apparently happens a lot) because I wasn’t cleared with DNEG and no NDAs etc were signed. He had run into a massive issue on a shot of Dunkirk (the aerial shot of the capsized burning boat). And it was obvious that there was no oil or debris or even the capsized boat were not in the shot of the live plate. They were all separate elements (some CG). And DNEG had no more TDs available and the issues here was that tracking the sea was not accurate enough adding to the problem was that the elements didn’t Bob a long with the waves and so didn’t to pass the 70mm play back check. You saw the drift and the lack there off so the shot was already send back twice by the supervisor.
I spend two weeks in a hotel coding a wave tracker to warp the life vests and make the 2D debris Bob along and have the mesh warp ever so slightly warp them a long as well as the oil spil.
At some point after day 3 I was hinting to make the water all 3D too, because it became a mammoth task. We ran some experiments only to realize that this would take even more effort for the two of us to get right, than forcing through trigonometry. But Dunkirk was “all practical” until it’s not 😂and 70mm 6.1K scans were unforgiving 🤣
OH WOW. Thanks for sharing!
I immediatedly thought of Dunkirk and their claims ... and how zealously Nolan propagated that claim
@@AkahigeNoAmo yeah it’s a matter on how you look at it. If you make a miniature photograph it and digitally put it into a live action plate and enhance it with further digital elements is it CG? It’s definitely not all computer generated but it’s also definitely not all practical. But in my opinion you can’t say it’s all practical.
@@CallousCoder that seems very true from my outsider perspective. It shouldn't really matter anyways if the final product looks amazing.
though, what I saw from historians commenting on the film, there would've been a lot of shots that could've used some CG polish to erase some modern characteristics of the pier and town itself with timely fitting ones amongst other things to increase historical accuracy (would've made the CG use more obvious though)
@@AkahigeNoAmo I believe that pier was actually build as a set piece (could be wrong). So if modern stuff was used it was an oversight - that was actually shot here in the Netherlands on a lake. Not even the North Sea 🤣I don’t know where they shot the opening village scenes.
I was this close to making something like this myself. I'm sick to death of VFX getting shit on when it's used in literally everything these days. I've been creating VFX for over 15 years and it pains me when people talk shit about something they know nothing about. Good Job.
Thanks! Yeah, it's been mentally a long time in the making.
Me too, but mine was going to be more of an angry rant. Its one of those jobs where in order for people to think you did a good job, they can't realize you did a job at all.
It's like with many other things; people who have no clue about the subject matter think they're experts. Especially when it comes to VFX, people are quick to form opinions. For instance, everyone talks about how Star Wars Episode 1 had so much CGI. Yet, that film actually has more practical shots than all three movies of the original trilogy combined.
And it's typically mouth-breathing, walking Dunning-Kruger effects spouting this shit too. They've seen that poo-pooing CGI is something that "film buffs" do, and they want other people to think they're discerning film buffs too.
I think VFX gets a bad rep because when it's bad it's really noticeable.
And as said in the video a practical shot has that external factor where the audience knows they really did it for real.
(ex people love Jackie Chan movies not just because the fight scenes are cool, but there is this external knowledge that Jackie did a lot of the stunts himself and it affects their enjoyment of the movie. Which you can argue that external factors shouldn't really matter in a work of art that is timeless but a lot of people seem to feel that way)
I've never been a practical effects purists but it's incredible how much work they sweep under the rug
I just love the way you politely humiliate them for lying about not using CGI
As a VFX Artist and Supervisor for 30 years, I LOVE THIS VIDEO! Thank you!
Thank you so much for having a specific mini series about this particular problem. 99% of people don't understand how movies get made and vfx has been an easy punching bag. The idea that it's all done practical sells. But it's very frustrating as people don't understand the incredible effort it takes to get something you see in the cinema actually on the screen. Thank you for this=)
what is the quote from the prestige? oh yea, "Now you're looking for the secret… but you're not really looking. You want to be fooled"
That's a good quote, thanks. I may have to use that
this video was intense. Thank you for such and objective view of vfx
@@TheMovieRabbitHole
Loving how many VFX artists are commenting and adding their own insights. Sounds like an interview series waiting to happen.
I'm really looking forward to the stunt related video(s) you have coming!
I don't have more stunt stuff coming up, as I wouldn't call myself an expert on the area, and shouldn't be educating people about it. I just know the "did all their own stunts" is as true as "we filmed everything practically". :) Thanks for watching.
@@TheMovieRabbitHole I loved your video. This makes me think of the Roger Moore quote "As James Bond, I did all my own stunts and told all my own lies!".
The best CGI is invisible - and so are the people who do this amazing work.
Perhaps that is the problem?
Perhaps because good, well done CGI, is mostly invisible that it could cause some CGI artists, fighting for recognition making it less good, so people notice it!
This is very much a "conspiracy" theory, I'm thinking off right now and is very probably not true but in the remote case that it is, then I see that as a double edge sword, yes doing less good CGI artwork makes it more visible but it also damages it's rep, ending hurting the entire process and the job of all CGI artist's, is like a snow ball effect.
yep. "the CGI in She Hulk was terrible" "what the animated character, or the cityscape in the background behind her because her office was a greenscreen set?"
@@rjc0234There are many many problems with She-Hulk, but the CGI wasn’t one of them in the slightest.
Film makers don't praise their work. They call it "green screen nonsense".
@crouchjump5787 Most people talking about CGI or even film making in general often for some reason assume that they know better than professionals.
visual effects folks get blamed for literally everything that goes wrong in a film and never get credit when things go right, great video
I praise contents like this to address the misconception some people have regarding VFX. Nowadays there are some many techniques and tools for VFX and practical FX. Combining both and managing your project wisely with enough available time, is a powerful thing.
Great video! Looking forward to seeing the next part.
thank you been saying this for years , people hate on CGI but when done correctly they won't notice its there .
VFX are like a good magic trick.
Well, that's true of say digital mattes for period films and set extensions and the like, but not for say aliens or magical transformations or superpowers or things that draw attention to themselves by virtue of the very premise being fantastic/unreal. no matter how far things go, you'll still need to suspend your disbelief because a lot of it is intrinsically unrealistic! But hey, that's why we go to the movies and don't just watch documentaries!
@@halfvader8015there should always be practical references, even for those fantastical cgi effects.
@@SafeAtSpeed I agree, when possible. Never said there shouldn't? Did you see what I meant by things that are inherently unrealistic because of the premise? I was just arguing that sometimes due to the story itself the effects can't by nature be 'invisible', that's all. Digital OR practical!
This is one of the best videos I've seen in a while about this whole practical vs cgi debate. As a VFX artist, I really appreciate the amount of thought and care you put into this video. Videos like this do a great job educating the masses about CGI and practical effects and especially what's actually happening behind the scene and how they are being lied to by the production companies at the end.
People are often quick to point out how CGI is ruining movies while simultaneously looking at CGI shots thinking they are looking at all practical stuff. IRONY.
I also love the fact you didn't put yourself at the center of the video but used the rule of 3rds haha, good touch.
I worked on Top Gun: Maverick as an FX Artist at Method Studios, and you've used nearly all the shots I worked on with the breakdowns we weren't allowed to request for, or show on our demo reels. Thank you so much for this in depth video, it actually gives me some peace and closure after having left the industry. Great series!
I had an actor, who shall rename nameless, say the words “And it was all practical!” In an interview - and then it cut to a clip of a set extension I did and some CG gore with fake muzzle flashes that I comped 😂
Thank you for posting this and helping the public become more aware of what we deal with as VFX artists. Also, so frustrating that this narrative contributes to artists often not being able to receive material for their demo reels because the studios don’t want their lies to be revealed!
Why nameless? Probably get sued or somethin'?
@@Nimootthey signed NDA's preventing them from exposing their crap
@@Nimoot It's probably best not burning any bridges in the industry you are currently employed in for the sake of a comment on YT. That would be my guess at least.
Yes, thank you. As a VFX artist it’s frustrating that audiences everywhere think that CGI is ruining movies, when in reality CGI is SAVING movies and improving them immensely in every aspect.
They were fine before.
@@zeltzamer4010 I mean, yes and no, would you duck and hide if you watched a film with a train coming towards the camera?? Tech has advanced and so have the eyes watching it. There will always be great films, and the FX was fine for the era, but some ideas couldn't have been done back then. Scenes and ideas had to be changed to what was possible for the technology, now a lot more is possible. Looking back at old films, 90% of practical effects have dated very badly. They are unconvincing and sometimes sloppy. The lower quality/resolutiuon of the media helped, but now, bigger ideas, a much more astute audience and incredibly high resolutions means the way things are produced has also had to change and become much more advanced.
@@zeltzamer4010they were fined but there were things that you couldn’t do, not because it was impossible, like the CGI we look at and consider “bad,” but because the number of caveats the shot would need makes it unreasonable. CG enhancement of practical effects just allows for those to be done more safely or reliably, allowing for us to get shots that filmmakers previously dreamed of.
There’s a reason Fincher’s movies are some of the most CGI heavy in the biz, despite taking place in the real world with little bombastic action. It allows for his weird shots and camera movements to be done as he and his crew envisioned
@@harrylane4Yeah and that’s part of the reason why Fight Club looks fake as fuck to me
I mean, the real ball blowing through that bus looked 10X better than the fake one.
When something is taken overboard and made too fantastical the audience knows.
Thank you. I am a VES member and I recall as soon as I saw the breakdowns for top gun Maverick, I was like "ugh not again" I was lead to believe the only work they did was stitching the plates and removing reflections and they "Really flew THOSE planes" I believe the general public is so stupid, they cant grasp the difference so the marketing simply puts forth a narrative that they think will sell the most tickets.
It’s not that the public is “stupid,” they just don’t know any better because this is not their expertise. And quite frankly, they’ve seen so much unrealistic VFX over the last 30+ years (which muddies the waters) that when it’s actually done well or “hidden “? They are easily fooled.
The general public is indeed stupid, and that includes you and me. We maybe less likely to be fooled in some aspects of life, but in some we are clueless.
I didnt watch the movie so idk if there was some obviously impossible stunts or something, but if there wasn't, how tf is the general public supposed to know? Or even an experienced VFX artist who didn't work on that movie specifically. Without doing scene by scene analysis, it's indiscernible. Like you said, they lead everyone to believe it was completely practical, besides obvious things like crashes, weaponry, and general touch ups. And for the sequel to a movie as prolific as Top Gun thats genuinely believable. Most people don't even care enough to look into it if you told them, they'd just say "oh that sucks, i thought they said it was real" and move on. It sounds incredibly condescending and pretentious to call the general public stupid for taking the director and actors at their words for something they barely care about. Either that or you're bitter that people agree practical effects look much better, which is ironic, considering you likely agree with that, albiet in a more roundabout way. VFX only ever really look good when they have practical references, and any VFX artist knows this very well.
Don't forget the "No CGI" claims of Fury Road.
TONS of visual effects... but yeah
I do not remember that as I remember an interview with Georg Miller in which he stats that only the sandstorm scene and the Buzzard car hitting the pit are fully CG, the rest is at most enhance, given the general color grading and wire removal
Did they really market it like that? Holy crap that's such a blatant fucking lie. Very well done, but few live action movies have as many visual fx shots as Fury Road does. Same can be said for the Social Network. Literally thousands of individual effects, but you hardly notice.
they tried that with the star wars sequels, too. even tho ep 7 alone had more cgi then all the prequels combined.
@@PUDRETE919 Thats still CGI.
From a member of the TGM VFX team, thank you so much for this man.
Thank YOU. Please spread the word by sharing it to people you know. We need everyone who are not VFX artists to see it, but since only VFX artists are interested in sharing it, we first and foremost have to get VFX people to see it. :D Thanks for watching, and thanks for the support, it means the world.
I'm a VFX student, i've just found your video and thank you for talking about it. I'm definitely for the use of practical and digital effects together, it provides some of the bests results. But they need to stop being ashamed of CGI. The artists work behind it is really amazing and as valuable as practical effects. Can't wait to see your next videos, and well done for this one. I've just subscribed ;)
The truth is some people say “I want to do it practically” but then it falls short of what people are used to seeing with CGI so they have to enhance it digitally which isn’t bad or good it’s just the best of both world so some spokes person speaks on their goal but not aware or try to ignore the VFX additions. Like in stranger things vecna was a fully practical suit but digital movement added and full digital doubles for parts as well. They could have not added the digital vines and it would have worked fine but to make it match digital flexibility they added it. Sometimes I don’t think the team talking on the subject are even fully aware. They wanted it practice & the producer sent it out for VFX additions last minute or the VFX team that was only supposed to do a set extension /wire removal / realized it was easier to just use the digital scan they had to keep the interactive lighting & vine interaction easy to maintain for future notes.
Yup
I love how this guy just came out of nowhere and already has over 10k subscribers off of one really well put together video with only a month with the channel. Well played man. Can’t wait to see you grow further!
This exposé was the best wake-up call I’ve ever seen in this site because I always believed the whole “practical effect superiority” message in some semi-conscious way, but having a reasonable voice on TH-cam informing audiences with factual, direct and blunt honesty with how VFX artists and practical effect artists co-exist to play equally important parts in creating masterpieces is invaluable.
You deserve all the success if you keep this up! Subscribed.
As a VFX artist, I had a lot of fun watching your video, can't wait for more. During my 10+ years in the VFX field, I've seen things, sometimes amazing, sometimes brrr. Thank you so much, Jonas.
One thing is for sure. Since Tom Cruise is executive producer, he knows damn well the "no cgi jets" thing is a marketing lie. Pretty insulting to the vfx team.
no one is saying this but he said no cgi IN the jets.
@@kleanish He actually said "no CGI ON the jets", it's even in the captions/subtitles. There was CGI ON the jets, marketing lie.
@@TheUltimateJay He meant no CGI psychically touched the jets.
I agree. He's not naive to the process of filmmaking.
VFX artist here, this is really fantastic coverage of a very complicated issue that many many people seem to consider themselves experts on. Thanks for all the time you put into this.
My coworkers are some of the hardest working, most talented problem solvers I have ever met. Hearing our work constantly shot down by people who have no idea what they're talking about is really painful. Hopefully a general audience can learn from this.
It's always infuriating when hard-working people are called "lazy" and "talentless" by armchair "filmmakers" on TH-cam.
100% agreed
@@Hykje accurate
I’ve signed NDAs in the past where not only were we allowed to show our shots on our reel, we couldn’t even talk about the shots outside of the studio. So yeah, watching this video makes me understand what those NDAs were for.
Wait, how would you get more jobs if you can't showcase your work?
@@lucasLSD It's a tiny minority of jobs that ask for this. Most people are happy for artists to put work in their showreels.
I'm a member of the Replica Prop Forum, which is a place where people practically worship movie props and costumes, and I ran into a guy there who created a beautiful replica of the Jupiter 2 from the original Lost in Space and filmed a 100% practical crash scene meant to replicate one from the show. In the comments, I complimented his work and we got into a discussion about practical versus CGI effects, and being the old schooler that he is, he insisted that no CGI could ever truly look good. He reacted negatively when I told him that these days you probably won't notice most CGI because CG artists have learned a lot about how to give proper mass to objects and how to animate them convincingly using plugins that help generate realistic effects. It was like I was spitting on the work of visual effects artists in the past in his eyes, and I just couldn't understand that point of view because artists nowadays work just as hard (harder, I would argue, with the high workload in blockbuster movies) as the ILM guys did in Van Nuys back in 1980 for The Empire Strikes Back or the guys at the Howard Anderson Company working their butts off to get the shots for Star Trek ready for Desilu back in 1966, and they're getting better and better at blending practical and CGI effects. They still miss the mark occasionally, but tell me with a straight face that the effects on any pre-CGI film were flawless (the transparent canopies in TESB come to mind).
My buddy did cockpit scenes CGI on Top Gun Maverick. He is very talented and hard working dude.
“No CGI crap, all practical” 🤦♂️
@@alexman378 nope. Camera has to be removed from the reflections. Computer was used for that.
@@TRUTHISABSOLUTE777 I know, I’m mocking the imbeciles who still go with that ridiculous copied opinion to sound smart. I work in VFX as well.
@@TRUTHISABSOLUTE777 cameras have reflections????
@@pomelo9518 jet fighter and simulated jet fighter canopy glass does.
finally. this is the first video where I see how they made it possible top gun maverick. I knew something was wrong even if I fell in the "no cgi" trap. thank you, can't wait to watch others videos!
Thanks for watching, and especially to being open for new information. That's really what this video needs.
Are we really meant to be more astounded by all this than we are by the fact this is your 1st and currently only video? I’m guessing I’m missing something here. Surely this can’t be a debut? It, and you, are just too good.
Thanks! It is my first, but it also took a lot longer than I thought! :D
@@TheMovieRabbitHole yeah I bet. It’s an awesome piece of work. No wonder the algorithm decided to serve it up, unrequested. Even the robots can tell you’re good!
0:10 Lol litterally my shot, there is nothing real about this one, the trees, grasses, mountain, tracks, we all replaced them... Plus the train and smoke as well, sure no CGI...
Thank you for saying this! I have a section in a later episode dedicated to Mission Impossible, and I would love to dig into this scene, but I have no hard data. Is this something you could be able to talk about, incognito or not?
@@TheMovieRabbitHole I would be happy to but not sure about it to be honest, the film is out so it should be safe but I don't want to get in trouble either, I'm still working there
@@AnimationDunk Totally understand this! Stay safe, first and foremost.
Came here from your podcast interview with CG Garage, as soon as I heard you talking about this topic I knew I was going to enjoy the youtube series! It is so important to bring to light what is happening in the Cinema industry, with this current narrative I really worry about the future of VFX and CGI, which is already under appreciated and under rewarded.
We need to keep educating the general public on what "NO CGI" actually means, and change the narrative. We need actors, directors, studio leads to be transparent with what it takes to create these amazing films and tv shows!
Another issue is usually when something needs to be created from scratch by effects artists, directors often want “Hollywood reality” instead of “reality reality”. If you submit a muzzle flash shot with zero muzzle flash to dailies and say “oh actually you rarely see muzzle flashes captured by camera”, definitely prepare for revision notes. I think the reason top gun’s effects look so real is everyone is on the same page about striving for “reality reality”. Practical inspires artists, artists create digital.
This is a significant topic. For instance, animators are well versed in curve, motion, conservation of energy; but if a producer/director wants an impossible animated action to be shown on screen, its going to happen.
million times yes bro! I lost a client because they didn't like the explosion they see in the final shot while I was working as a freelancer. It was a gas explosion. I studied for weeks for looking at references, real explosion footages from real world security cams and created a setup in houdini which exactly works like in the real world. They went with run of the mill gasoline explosion at the end.
Top Gun only looks real if you know nothing about jets and just ignore the huge continuity errors.
So true and indeed It appears like the over the top teenagers movies are what is putting a bad name on the CGI effects, I've never heard anyone complain on The Lord of the Rings CGIs.
So in the end of the day it's all about how the graphic effects should be used for an adult audience rather than if they should be used at all
@@markmuller7962 No one complains but hardly anyone celebrates good CGI either. VFX is always overshadowed by everything like the actors and directors. Imagine if good artists were treated like celebrities instead of just nobodies that worked on 90% of the movie's screen time.
I wish they would market "invisible" CGI a lot more because while I knew the last dog fight sequence in Top Gun was CGI, I had no idea they still filmed real jets for reference, and that interests me 100%. I love really well done CGI and Top Gun Maverick has probably some of the best CGI I've seen for a movie that really marketed itself as "real"
Your life will improve dramatically when you stop expecting entertainment to be honest. That was never their goal. All they want is to make a compelling movie.
Speaking as someone who has worked in Hollywood for my entire career, it's so nice to hear someone actually address the rampant ignorance about the movie making process by laypersons, but also the blatant misinformation by the studios, and happily slurped up by media "journalists". This is the new "its 100% the actor's performance, we didn't animate everything" (1000 underpaid, overworked animators would beg to differ)
I always knew the debate between cgi vs practical was fishy! Thanks for explaining it really well! I think it’s time we appreciate both kinds of artists for their amazing work
that quote about the su57 is fucking golden because it can be easily applied to the actual state of the su57 program
Haha, I can tell from a lot of the comment I should have done more actual aerial research.
@@TheMovieRabbitHole nah, is better to leave it at that since you might invite a political debate if your joke goes that route
"The entire cgi vs practical effects debate is something the audience has invented out of sheer ignorance about how movies are made" THIS
I don't think it's the audience, it's invented by marketing departments because they've got data that shows people have more positive responses when it's practical (or when they say it's practical). We're under NDAs from the studios frequently and we can't even say actually that's not practical.
@@OrangeDrink74 marketing takes advantage of hostile couch experts.
I remember Star Wars: The Force Awakens being one of the first movies where the PR campaign would specifically mention that they were doing the animatronics and puppets, and various other effects practically, and butting heads with people when I'd mention that many of those elements just get enhanced or replaced with CGI in the end, even when the ILM VFX reels would specifically show this.
Normally I'd just chalk these sorts of things to typical PR fluff, but to blatantly lie about the VFX work that the biggest movies rely on to make their money, and involving an industry where a considerable percentage of its workforce doesn't get the pay or benefits they deserve just seems genuinely wrong.
As a long standing VFX hobbyist dork, I really appreciated this video.
I remember people claiming that The Force Awakens had almost no CGI, and that nearly everything was miniatures, matte paintings, and motion control.
The Force Awakens did use a lot of obvious puppets and costumes which gave it a look that fits with the original trilogy. Also lots of location shooting instead of greenscreen. Still when it uses CG it obviously uses CG
It made sense to me recently that as half of a film production budget is marketing that it made perfect sense that we can’t trust “behind the scenes” videos anymore. Likely they will start using cgi in bts videos
You mentioned stunt performers, but even practical effects have this happen to them 😅
When the Fugitive shot their iconic train scene for real, the footage was basically unusable. They redid the entire sequence using miniatures. However, since the studio didn’t want their money on the real train to be wasted, so in marketing they repeatedly said the whole sequence was 100% real.
That is very interesting, I'm going to have to chase down some info on that.
Someone watched the shitshow episode
This reminds me of Jackie Chan. Contrary to popular beliefs, not 100% of the stunts you see are done by him (similar to what the ending note of this video said). He had a team of stuntmen who he collaborated with. Sometimes they would do multiple takes and pick the best shot, which could be done by a stuntman but a lot of times Jackie Chan would do the stunts during filming as well, just that the shot may not make it to the final edit. There's a little bit of "what does doing all your stunts mean" to this but sometimes casual audience get disappointed when they find out the person on screen they see isn't really Jackie Chan. Accented Cinema had a good video on this.
@@andreas4010 Yup, great channel!
The way that people praise how good these things look for being "practical" while not realizing almost all of it is CGI and not giving credit to the incredible effort of the CGI artists that did it reminds me of people going "we'd like to thank God for healing our son, the Lord works miracles!" after a dozen medical personnel spent 20 hours doing surgery on them.
Fantastic. Painted/fixed out so many practical elements in TV and film to read lavish PR coverage of the "real" elements that I totally replaced, that I can't even count anymore. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
Thanks! Yes, I've seen my department's CGI stuff in a puppeteer's reel once, and I was like "didn't anyone tell him"?
Found you via corridor digital/corridor crew... subscribed, hope to see more of your content thank you
Well done! Balanced, factual, and celebrates collaboration... Enormously appreciated! Looking forward to the next one!
As a VFX veteran, thank you for this video. Keep em' coming.
That was one of the most interesting videos I watched on the subject. Conclusion : studios are lying in order to appear to be complying with peoples demands. Personnally, all I care is the final result. CGI or not, I don't care, the movie has to be entertaining, that's all it matters. I don't understand why people are being so dramatic
“Whatever you do, don’t hit like and subscribe.” So guess what I immediately do…..
You could not have chosen any words in any order that would’ve won me over more quickly. I was sold immediately afterwards and would like to thank for being on point, for your accuracy and your articulation. You sir, are a breath of fresh air.
Nolan's "no CGI" claim for _Oppenheimer_ pissed me off beyond expression. Imagine having done digital matte paintings or compositing or color grading or one of a million other ways of _digitally manipulating_ the camera footage to mold it into the finalized product ... to have the director of the project publically *deny* your work on *_his_* movie.
All that, needless to say, after having been ground to the bone in 14-hour workdays without weekends *_or_* overtime compensation, driving the company you work for to the brink of bankruptcy. This stupid _"all practical / no CGI"_ hypocrisy makes me sick.
Subscribed for the next episodes. Keep up the good work!
Christopher Nolan hates workers so not that surprising to be honest. You really expect the dude who made a Batman movie that villified and lampooned the Occupy Wall Street into terrorists as someone charitable?
you get paid to make stuff, not for credit. most people know this.
@@matthewbarabas3052Then how would _you_ feel if _your_ boss denied that you were working for him when customers ask?
Yeah, didn't think so.
@@Noone-of-your-Businessdont assume my response, arrogant person.
id be fine with it, because i genuinely dont care. id at least teach my boss a few things that i do so he isnt completely clueless about it. im just there for money, not credit.
@@matthewbarabas3052 unlike you only a true artist will understand the pain of not getting recognition for something you worked literally day and night and on top of it no artist in this industry is getting paid great salary. Credit on a good project goes long way to secure your next job or recognition in the industry. Again, you wouldn't understand or care about.
It's weird how there was a time when CG effects were practically admired. See: T2, Jurassic Park, The Lord of the Rings (specifically Gollum)... I'm trying to remember when people started disliking CGI so much. Perhaps around the time of Star Wars II + III?
PS. Great video!
Thank you! This very topic is something I'll come back to later.
Well, the assembly line Marvel factory certainly hasn't helped.
Star Wars Episode II was released before Gollum in The Two Towers 😅
@@luttren Oh that's right, I forgot it was the same year. Mind you, I skipped Attack of the Clones in the cinema because Phantom Menace had been such a disappointment and didn't watch it until 2004 (on dvd).
But that just goes to show that it's all about the execution: People were fine with Gollum, while they mocked fake-looking stuff in the Star Wars prequels.
Yeah despite there being more miniatures in TPM alone than the whole of the OT combined, people routinely and ignorantly assuming it was all CG etc. The prejudice has been around for a long time now...
Congratulations on this video. This is hands down one of the best I've seen, and it's exceptionally well explained. I think the reason CGI has gotten such a bad reputation is because of numerous movies that utilize it poorly. I still recall Steven Spielberg stating for the fourth Indiana Jones that he did everything without CGI for the fans. In reality, what matters most is how both practical effects and CGI work in harmony.
I was tought this back when I was still in school that the best VFX or CGI is the ones people don't notice. Great video
Didn't realize this was your first video, this channel is going to be epic I can tell. Congratulations on first video going viral!
Great video. I appreciate you breaking down not just the effects, but how media is unable to verify the information studios release and they become a glorified PR team. Looking forward to the next parts.
Also, TH-cam recommended this video to me and I'm glad it did. But how did you get so many views and subscribers on your first video!?! That's some fast growth.
6th time watching this video and I’ve made sure to show it to all my fellow VFX graduates and current students in the programs I went through during school. Absolutely one of the greatest videos ever done on this topic. Cannot wait for the next part!
Thank you, you have no idea how happy that makes me!
Cannot wait for the next part of the series.
I wasn't confident about starting a video that had (1/4) in the title but I'm hooked. Finally, a sensible attitude towards effects both digital and practical and finally some damn honestly about it!
Excellent work, thank you for making this - looking forward for the next episodes.
Something quite similar has happened to me too, albeit in much, much, much smaller scale. Already in 2007, a Finnish WW2 film I worked on made a big marketing point about using real tanks and real aircraft. They did not mention that the Stuka replica they shot was actually grounded, so it was only used for shots where the pilot climbs in, and some taxiing on the ground. Every flying plane was CGI. Further, even the real plane was modified to match WW2 era paint (you can't have swastikas on planes in Germany). Similar story with tanks - they had two tank replicas, but every time there were more than two, it was CGI (or split screen composite).
Similar story in a more recent film, a period piece about a real life tragedy, an explosion in ammunition factory that shook a small Finnish town in 1977. In the marketing and press interviews, there was a lot of talk bout how they built the set for the interior of the factory, and hauled tons and tons of construction debris to create the aftermath of the explosion - but not a word about the building being 100% CGI in every exterior shot, and of course the big bang itself.
I'm not holding this against the marketing people though. They say what they think needs to be said to get asses to seats in the theatre. But i do think it is a real problem in more general sense, the artists making the often invisible work to make movie magic are themselves made invisible too. Successes are hidden, but the failures get the attention. I do think this needs to change.
Wow, thanks for that story!
In an interview for Thor 4, Taika Waititi made a joke about how the CGI in his own movie didn't look very good in some scenes. It was clearly intended to be self-deprecating, but a lot of people got _really_ mad at him for disrespecting the CGI artists who worked on the movie.
Yet those same people don't get mad at this kind of stuff. Filmmakers disrespecting not only the CGI artists who worked on the movie, but the _entire profession_ of CGI artists. Straight up saying that CGI is inferior, that using it makes movies worse, despite using it extensively in the movie they're promoting.
I honestly don't know why anyone would become a VFX artist these days. Audiences hate you because they only notice your work when it doesn't look perfect, studios overwork you with unreasonable demands, and the filmmakers who rely on your work act like they've never met you.
I feel like the hate against CGI you see on the internet is because some people just love to hate on something and hating on CGI is one of the last things you can be nasty about without people calling you out. From my observations, haters always try to start a hate bandwagon about anything and they sadly succeeded with CGI and others just love to join bandwagons. People like to believe that they have their own opinions, but most people`s opinions are greatly influenced by others. Just reading negative comments about something, can make people more critical about something, which they otherwise might have enjoyed. I no longer read comments about movies, because they suck the joy out of it.
Lord of The Rings, Pirates of The Caribbean, Avatar etc.....there are instances of CGI that are forever touted and praised. If you're gonna throw in backwater work that audiences can IMMEDITEY notice, why should you not be flamed? If a doctor fucks up, he gets flamed, so why would you sitting in front of a computer, drawing on a tablet and producing mediocre work in your field, be exempt from criticism? If 2006 CGI is outclassing you by a mile (not an inch, a freaking mile), then you don't get to feel sorry for yourself.
@@0_iAlmighty_0 Did you reply to the wrong post, or are you just stupid?
You know the problem of a director? wanting to have the top quality FX but not having the funds to pay them...
Is easy to shit on VFX artistis... Little people decides to charge less as director to make sure the movie is 100% what they wanted to be.
historically they are bad at their jobs. If you cut deadlines on a concrete company and the building collapses you will still say the concrete company did a bad job. This is not a difficult concept
Ironically, the same thing happened all throughout the 90s in reverse. CGI was the hot new thing, so every movie that had a little bit of it, drastically overstated how much was actually done with CGI in the marketing, while in reality almost everything was still practical until the early 2000.
It's funny how much criticism The Phantom Menace got for CGI use when it has some of the best model and practical FX work of the franchise.
I don't care for most movies, but I didn't want to know that for top gun. I'm a young pilot and aviation fan and it breaks my heart to know that almost everything is CGI hahaha very good video, truth has been told ;)
It wouldn't be so heartbreaking if studios were honest and not taking advantage of the culture wars people created. As the uploader said, this hatred of cgi vs practical is something people who have no idea what goes in filmmaking created. Sadly, it's now a marketing gimmick to generate sales.
I am a filmmaker and I can confirm this. Excellent video, looking forward to the other three parts^^
This is just brilliant. The most impressive CGI is always the stuff you don't notice - scene expansion, painting out things but I love the "lots of no CGI."
Excellent, thank you for pointing out what is so obvious for VFX connaisseurs and workers, but still not so for regular folks. Looking forward to the other 3 parts!
Lol! Reminds me of that ol' 2010 revelation: "You don't like when girls don't wear makeup, you like when you can't tell girls are wearing makeup!"
I enjoyed this video so much I clicked through to your channel intending to binge every video you've ever made. My disappointment is immeasurable. Please make more soon!
As a VFX artist, I find this situation increasingly frustrating and concerning. Our contributions are sometimes downplayed for marketing purposes. Additionally, we are now pressured to align with actors supporting their strike, and failure to do so may result in job loss. This industry's current dynamics are disheartening
Why would you not want to support the actor strike? What you really need to do is to unionize. VFX people are the only workers in the entertainment industry that didn't unionize. Until very recently when Disney VFX artists voted unanimously to unionize.
Before the strikes, there were plentiful VFX jobs with competitive salaries, which had been on the rise in recent years. It was considered the prime time for VFX professionals. However, when the strikes occurred, many companies shuttered, leading to significant market setbacks. Currently, a majority of my colleagues have been unemployed for several months. In addition, to exacerbate the situation, there is a proposition of someone to unionize and potentially blacklist those who opt out. Personally, I seek no special privileges or residual payments. My primary goal is to continue working and pursuing our passion. of course unions are trying to get more subscribers but causing troubles to give you a solution is a bad practice in my opinion
@@alecosta80 Are we talking about the same industry? VFX artists are the only workers in movies and series crunching and working for so many hours. Even if you personally don't want the lunch breaks, overtime pay, parental leave, etc. that everyone else in the entertainment industry has, many of your peers *do.*
You must be very young and naive to think like that. I suggest that you talk to some of your elder co-workers. Find one that has been burned out, it shouldn't be too difficult.
@@DiThino start your own fucking company cause ANYONE can do it today
Dont need another dumb fucking union
@@DiThito think you’re owed any of that by any company is why you will always just be an employee thats blow with the wind
If you loved vfx than you wouldnt expect a company to owe you anything and you would get it yourself
Let me guess you paid for school to learn vfx too? 😂
As a 3d Generalist, this video made my heart happy. We all know that when they say no CGI, they just mean our work is ADDED to plate photography which is when it's used properly. Strange how our work is best appreciated when you don't see it
As a VFX artist, I take "NO CGI" word as a compliment :D That's how successful and necessary CGI is :D
as a VFX artist you should know by now those kinds of sentiments is how thousands of VFX artists are underpaid and overworked. nothing good comes out of discrediting peoples hard work