Nah sorry cgi in everything still sucks, get over it. This goes very hard also if you're a jaoanese cgi "artist", besides godzilla -1 , and that's being generous, jaoanese film has some of the most horrible cgi and people.who make it should be ashamed.
You should watch some Indian, or Nollywood films. I'll give a pass to industries that don't have a typical Hollywood budget to throw around for all the latest tech, but Hollywood films looking bad today have no excuse.
Thank you for this. It's depressing that an industry relied on so heavily is invisible at best or disparaged at worst. I miss getting to celebrate these accomplishments.
Imagine rotoscoping frame by frame for months only to be told there's no CGI in this movie! It's irritating and only used for promos while downplaying VFX artists' effort.
i was watching something with my cousin and it had a crazy effect in it, i said "how did they do that?" meaning "what vfx techniques, simulations, animation etc. were employed to create this shot?" and she said "probably cgi" meaning "they probably pressed that magic button that makes it look good". people just dont know enough.
How disgraceful. Instead of acknowledging the artists, highlighting their working conditions, raising budgets and loosening deadlines, they just pretend the artists are non existent. Very convenient.
Top Gun: Maverick is a great example. Tom Cruise lied about not having CGI, and the film literally has dozens of scenes with planes entirely generated by computer graphics. Yes, there are some real flying but they lied about the no cgi. 95% of the plane shots in this movie had some CGI . There are loads of animated 3d planes shots in this movie. Anyone can look on google/youtube for the vfx breakdowns posted by the vfx companies and see for themselves. The scenes are so good, made by such talented artists, that people simply believed the PR lie. A film that could be used as a great example of well-used CGI, because it's loaded with CGI, is being used as anti-CGI propaganda. That's the sad part.
Having to continually explain my job to people who shit all over my work and tell me that my art is contributing to "the death of movies" is wild. They don't know what we do, but they're so sure they know how to do it better.
@KillRhythm Okay, the hypocrisy of your statement is what will make the industry worse, not better. You are basically an example of not knowing what these people do. Especially those that have mastered the Hidden CGI you thought were real or so enamorated with the creative visuals that you don't care if its fake or not.
The "No CGI" lie is so annoying. I also think that industry terms get confused when communicated to the public. Like when the director for Alien: Romulus said they were doing practical effects in the film and then had to literally spell out the fact that they are also going to use CGI as well. But it's also really weird for directors to not credit the VFX team, they really need to help contribute to it not being a dirty word.
Glad to see more people talking about this. CGI artists don't get the credit they deserve. People compare the best CGI of 20 years ago and compare it to the worst from today
Thank you so much for making this video We can only change this view about VFX/CGI by making more content that show how hard it is and how much skills it require
you rock mate, as someone who is mentally drained from the excessive work we put into our craft, only to turn around and see big studios blatantly lie and even downright downplay the importance of vfx, a video like this truly echos what many have been feeling. cheers man
CGI in my opinion should only be used when absolutely neccesary, Its not that people in general hate CGI the problem is when it is overused which is unfortunately the case these days and thats why people are getting tired of it because most filmakers dont care anymore about practical effects but just go with CGI for everything without even trying to do practical in first place.
I'm willing to bet you couldn't identify whether something is or isn't cg unless it were absolutely necessarily cgi because it couldn't be done any other way.
@@crafthive Well I can usually tell at least most of the time when somethings feels off or fake it is just something that doesnt look right and you can notice it, anyway the point I am making is that most people still prefer practical methods since those at least exist and are not just some green screen, CGI is a tool that should be used when no other option is available because when people watch a Real-life Movie they expect it to be mostly real I mean the location, The characters and even some stunts they want to see Real-life acting and not just a bunch of animations.
@@maxwellstevens6366 @maxwellstevens6366 what would you define as absolutely necessary? because I think there are times yeah sure this could be done in real life but do to: budget, time safety some weird act of god, CGI is used. i guess its hard to determine what is absolutely necessary because it always depends.
@@thedarkangel613 By absolutely neccesary I mean if there is no other way to do it or if the practical effects look worse than the CGI, Movies back in the 90's normally used to understand when to use CGI and when to avoid it and go practical they had a blend between the two but they mostly kept the Movies as authentic as they could so little to no special effects and Real-life acting and Stunts and most importantly they were interacting with Real objects, Locations or Sets and thats why many movies from the past still hold up even today because they simple put more effort into it and they didn't just CGI the hell out of it as they do it today with most Movies.
Nice essay! I'm wondering when the frak a VFX supervisor or whatever people get awards at ceremonies is gonna kick in the hornet's nest live and get a bit mad/honest on the matter. Or eventually a director rising up and stating some facts about that weird trend.
@8:03 My thought is that one potential reason for the claim that there's no CGI is to placate the on-set workers that are threatening to go on strike. VFX workers don't have any leverage.
Normies don't get excited about action on screen when they know a thing that could be done by a stunt man or set artists is made on computer. That's why they are promoting movies as no cgi. I used to not like cgi until it got to the point where it is invisible. And now days I like it! Not all of it thought, stuff like disneys lion king etc, is way too uncanny . But backgrounds, vehicles, explosion layering. That's good stuff.
Movement and lighting are dead giveaways, if the character moves too smoothly vs natural muscle twitch, and so many CG models have squeaky clean textures or mismatched lighting that make them stick out as unnatural. All of this is instantly resolved with practical props and effects.
Yes, that's the "CGI people notice". That's probably 1% of the CGI you really see. The point is the vast majority of CGI people see is perfectly integrated in realistic camera movies, lighting, lens artefacts, film grain, and people have absolutely no idea it's there, so they'll say "this is good because it's practical", reinforcing their misconception that they can tell the difference.
The amount of VFX shots I turn over to VFX teams on even the most benign shows would blow minds. They do so much incredible work to enhance visuals and help fix production issues outside of all of the set extensions, modelling, animating etc.
More annoying than the big lie is the profoundly apathetic use of the term CGI and how its blanketed onto everything. Most people actors included don't know what is CGI.
brain-dead, ignorant, manipulated people... i'm so glad that this issue is finally getting more attention. i always wonder what will happen when the artists get sick of it at some point and everyone quits their jobs. the industry would be dead from day 1 and i hope it doesn't need this eye-opener
I wish that could work, but there have always been more of us wanting these jobs than there are jobs available. So if we all just quit at once in protest, we would just be vacating our seat for other people who desperately want this "dream job". The quality might suffer, because the more experienced people would be replaced by students, but I don't think the people in charge would notice or care.😔
I see a lot of people here talking about practical effects being superior. What about all the tubes and practical equipment, rigs and dodgy makeup. I say we just stop cleaning all this stuff up from the scans and let people enjoy the "real" practical effects as it was shot.
Literally all that matters: do the effects add to or take away from the shot/scene/overall story? If you’re using the film as a place to experiment fine, but be prepared for a mixed reception.
You make some reasonable points. Digital graphics and animation can accomplish a lot. But it’s often used as a production crutch when a practical approach is visually superior. Prime example is blood hits. Cg blood “squibs” take me right out of the film, it’s so glaringly fake. All to replace something that’s been working perfectly since the 70s. Hollywood needs to have a better eye for quality than the audience.
Thank you for speaking out. The way the media treat us is infuriating. I worked for months on the digital cars for Gran Turismo but here comes Neil Blomkamp, doing the the marketing video for the movie, assuring everyone that all cars are real. I'm sure they wrecked cars that cost $300k for the movie. People who say that VFX suck are oblivious to the fact that technology is being developed to solve existing artistic problems. In the words of George Lucas "you don't develop the technology and then ask what to do with it'
im 25 years deep in practical effects, but both worlds need each other. all of this are just new tools we can work together to make the illusion work. , movie rabbit hole states it really well, that good CGI is invisible. but... you cant have good CGI when the studios want to go cheap and not pay for things or rush things ....
Yes, those were great movies. But having CGI or not wasn't what made them good. A film needs good direction, script, editing, and good actors. And another thing: those movies did use numerous visual effects and tricks in composition. Superman IV, in particular, was a pioneer in several image manipulation and VFX techniques that still endure in modern cinema. Top Gun: Maverick is a great example. Tom Cruise lied about not having CGI, and the film literally has dozens of scenes with planes entirely generated by computer graphics. Yes, there is real planes too but there is heavy CGI in almost all shots. The scenes are so good, made by such talented artists, that people simply believed the lie.A film that could be used as a great example of well-used CGI, because it's loaded with CGI, is being used as anti-CGI propaganda. That's the sad part. This comment just proves that the "CGI is bad" crowd has no idea what they're talking about.
@@Kaz000I absolutely agree with your take on cgi but i think he's poking fun at people who think older movie are better when they some of them are trash.
The studios see all the advancements in CGI as a convenient short-cut tool to micromanage the VFX work, constantly meddling with the artistic process, imposing ever tighter deadlines, since all they understand is that it's a matter of few more click with the mouse until the shot is perfect. This is what spoiled the movie crafting process, as if one more VFX shot on top of the already high pile is to compensate for unimaginative screenwriting, boring dialogs, bland music soundtrack and poor casting in general. The old movies, everyone is referring to, didn't became classics just by the virtue of their "analogue" VFX, but because movie makers knew their priorities being humble enough to make compromises where it was warranted... for far less money on top of that. Pride and hubris, dozed with endless cheap capital has ruined cinema and CGI has become the convenient scapegoat, because those people were pushed at the bottom in the packing order in the movie industry, where their voice is mute enough to have no consequence.
Hi, hello, yes, I would prefer a modern Planet of the Apes movie using practical make-ups over the mocap approach they've been using for the last several years. Flashing very quickly to the make-up effects of the original films ignores the incredible work done by Rick Baker on the 2001 film, as well as the equally incredible spec work Stan Winston did for that same film. To be clear, I think your video overall is very solid and well-argued! But this specific moment gets me on two levels: one, as a low budget practical effects artist myself, I do have a preference for the artistry of analog techniques and being able to tell that something was an actual, physical object in front of the camera. I know I'm super weird for this but I genuinely get more enjoyment out of even mediocre practical effects over the most polished, state of the art CG shots. Two, I very specifically bristle at the idea that Hollywood seems to have forced on most audiences, that cinema is a single forward march of progress from "old and bad" to "new and good," instead of a rich and diverse medium for human expression with an infinite number of permutations in how a film can look. Unfortunately I think a lot of practical vs. CGI arguments immediately fall into this trap, which I think is a huge shame. Like, for me personally, I actively work to make all my films using entirely in camera analog effects, even going so far as to shoot on super 8mm film to take that philosophy even further - but the Wachowski Sisters' Speed Racer is one of my all time favorite movies!
Addendum: all the hype that annoys you also annoys someone like me from the other side. When I'm told a film has no CG or very little, I'm inclined to never believe it.
Back in the day, we used to ask: ''How'd they do that?'' Then you'd watch the making-of and be amazed by the ingenuity. Today, we just go: ''Oh, CGI.'' Just some guy clicking on a mouse 16 hours a day. This is where Hollywood lost it's ''magic''.
Practical FX have a level of unpredictability to their execution. You can set up an effect on set ready to film and have it NOT WORK, either literally not work as planned and/or it doesn't look as good as you hoped. Producers HATE HATE HATE that. CGI allows them more control, they can nitpick it at every stage from the comfort of an air-conditioned office (can you make the alien more green?), and basically know what they are getting. They know that fans of genre films (action and especially horror) hate CGI, so they lie and play up practical in the marketing, but they would NEVER go back to the days of all or even mostly practical. The lure of CGI is too cheap, easy, and convenient. If anything, they are stoked about AI and want even less practical FX than before.
Since the 70s it's obvious applying the use of computers in film isn't just important, it is necessary. Nowadays we no longer give the nod of assurance to good process (remember go motion?) work done with or without computers, but the so called magic of practical effects. When they blend the physics of say dextrous animation (Jurassic Park, The Lion King) as well as anything involving lens work, tracking or special effects with reinforcement of computational work, this is what should be considered the VFX level just on the basis of applied specialisation alone. Practical effects have no such support and seem to work hard to be as worthy in this domain, the results however have been far from magical.
Omg thanks for making this video!! This also goes for the animation community, who equate 2D animation with "good animation" and 3D with "bad", as if a bad 3D movie will be automatically better in 2D. They ignore the bad 2D animation of the past and the beautiful 3D animation of now
The problem is people don't know what technically counts as CGI or how much effort goes into executing it. Accounting for all the little things we take for granted in the visible and tangible world to insert thing A into Scene B convincingly is a level of workmanship most people couldn't even begin to wrap their head around, much less appreciate the need for. Being a VFX artist means taking your experience perceiving the world around you and accounting for it as part of your occupation. Who in the right mind knows what Specular Highlights or Ambient Occlusion even are until you point to things on their kitchen counter and explain it to them? THE 3D WORLD CANNOT SHAKE HANDS WITH OURS, NOW FIX IT. That's the part that's hard to explain without sounding like a broken record.
This is old news. Currently problem is VFX industry is dead and buried. It's not about do we get credit for the movies it's like no one has a job anymore so who cares about what people think its happening in the movies.
@@crafthive I saw that one and it is amazing! I think this one is amazing too I just didn't think this was at the moment that much of a big deal as much as "Are you ok" video :)
The fact we CAN use CG changes the way creators compose their stories. Oh we can show x now because we don’t have to hire/wrangle 1000’s of human actors, but does that shot of copy+paste models in the distance actually add to the scene or are they just a distraction?
Nolan was telling the truth. I can tell you for example that there was no CGI used in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Hell, they even went to Cybertron, to shoot on location, and that's a fact.
Its more impressive for games than movies in a way because games are being rendered at 30 or 60 times a second, movies its 1 time every few minutes or even over an hour
Sometimes we have to use CGI. I get it. But as you say sometimes it's used because of poor planning. Like using CGI for props and costumes. Or changing a car because the prototype wasn't available for shooting on a particular day. Twenty years ago if a prop wasn't on set the director was 'Why the **** isn't it there?' And then you have things like the last Spider-Man which had a shot of a car crashing into some water barrels. This WAS shot practically, however because it wasn't 'perfect' they re-did it, even though they didn't have to
Ironically enough, for all the flak GL's Star Wars EP I-III got for being "CGI heavy", they sure to bloody h3ll used a TON of practical models, sets, pyrotechnics, lighting, etc. Do the research sometime, and you'll understand. However... in 202x, yeah, good luck finding a film that ISN'T CGI-ifying nearly every single shot, layer, effect, etc. There are lighting passes, color passes, contrast & highlight passes, compositing, subtle tweaks you'd never even detect unless you were physically shown the differences, etc. It's just how it goes.
Can you make a video about what these studios want to see in your portfoglio, how to present your work and what exactly makes you a good candidate. Would be greatly benefitial and since may artist want to have a shot i think the video would have many views. I would be very gratful if you do. And about the topic of this video. People just don't have a single clue how those stuff are made. I remembert showing someone a simple animation of a robot just to showcase my work and they telling me there should be explosions and all. First of all you dont know how to make explosions. I do. Thats why i decided to not include explosions on someting i did for practice. they are like the director of cats who wanted a fully rendered shots with furr and everything just to see the animations and say if he like them or he wanted something different. and seeing some shots that showcase how a scene is buit like in 7:25. they think that okay they just add a car on the street and lamps and its all good the lighting is good everything is good looks easy.
My favorite is this new wave of arm chair critics addicited to Coordior Digital picking apart shots that aren’t even vfx shots and accusing them of being bad ones. It’s gotten ridiculous and it’s super rampant.
Honestly cgi and vfx is VITAL to movies to tell more realistic forms of story telling. Take example pacific rim. Its mainly cgi yet it works. Because its realistic and it WORKS with the movie instead of against the movie.
I worked in the industry as a VFX artist and I hate how prevalent CGI is. What's even worse, is instead of limiting the use of it when audiences clearly don't like it as much anymore, they just lie about it instead and throw the VFX artists who slaved away under the bus.
ALL of modern cinema is weak. The composers, the actors, the directors, the writers and the effects are ALL subpar to the past. Proper cinema ended in the 80's. It hasn't been an art form for decades.
Practical effects always hold up better... It's at its best when its unnoticeable, ie looks like practical effects Modern movies are borderline unwatchable nowadays...
There’s a lot of cgi that holds up very well today still. There’s a lot of practical effects that don’t hold up. Theres a lot of cgi that looks much better than the practical counterparts. There’s a lot of storytelling that is impossible with practical effects that just didn’t get written but now can be explored. It’s not always.
the best practical effects look better than the best CGI effects, and the worst CGI effects are worse than the worst practical effects. that's probably why people want practical effects (at least that's how i feel about it). that sucks that people lie about their movies having no CGI even though they do.
pratical effects ARE better. Nothing, no cgi whatso-ever can come even close to a good blood squib or a blank firing machinegun. It is because these things interact with actors in the moment. John Wick's cgi was Baaaaaaaaaad for example. With blanks and explosive squibs, as they used in 80's action movies would have made thst film so much more visceral and epic... so yes...practical IS better.
I think most artists in the industry agree that the best most realistic way is a collaboration of practical effects and VFX. Even if things are practical these things still need a ton of integration and to have the shot material sit into various styles of plates and environments. Even if things are practical those things still need a ton of work and effort to make things seamless. I'm for both.
If I had a penny every time a prop master, a make up fx artist and a pyro technician has approached the vfx supe to save their ass I'd be a billionaire
Nah sorry cgi in everything still sucks, get over it. This goes very hard also if you're a jaoanese cgi "artist", besides godzilla -1 , and that's being generous, jaoanese film has some of the most horrible cgi and people.who make it should be ashamed.
🤣
You should watch some Indian, or Nollywood films. I'll give a pass to industries that don't have a typical Hollywood budget to throw around for all the latest tech, but Hollywood films looking bad today have no excuse.
You clearly don't have a clue about what you are talking 😂
your favorite movie has some sort of cgi or vfx in it, cope hard. Also, godzilla artists were over worked so dont give them the pass.
@@mrstroodle4717 no it doesn't
Thank you for this. It's depressing that an industry relied on so heavily is invisible at best or disparaged at worst. I miss getting to celebrate these accomplishments.
Imagine rotoscoping frame by frame for months only to be told there's no CGI in this movie! It's irritating and only used for promos while downplaying VFX artists' effort.
Technically, Rotoscoping is not CGI. But most people think, VFX and CGI means the same.
i was watching something with my cousin and it had a crazy effect in it, i said "how did they do that?" meaning "what vfx techniques, simulations, animation etc. were employed to create this shot?" and she said "probably cgi" meaning "they probably pressed that magic button that makes it look good". people just dont know enough.
people don't remember bad practical effects and don't notice good cgi.
How disgraceful. Instead of acknowledging the artists, highlighting their working conditions, raising budgets and loosening deadlines, they just pretend the artists are non existent. Very convenient.
Top Gun: Maverick is a great example. Tom Cruise lied about not having CGI, and the film literally has dozens of scenes with planes entirely generated by computer graphics. Yes, there are some real flying but they lied about the no cgi. 95% of the plane shots in this movie had some CGI . There are loads of animated 3d planes shots in this movie. Anyone can look on google/youtube for the vfx breakdowns posted by the vfx companies and see for themselves.
The scenes are so good, made by such talented artists, that people simply believed the PR lie.
A film that could be used as a great example of well-used CGI, because it's loaded with CGI, is being used as anti-CGI propaganda. That's the sad part.
Well he did not lie. When he was on set, I am sure, there was no CGI. :D
Yep. I worked on Top Gun. 90% of plane shots you see in the movie have CGI. Most Cockpit shots replace the planes entirely
Having to continually explain my job to people who shit all over my work and tell me that my art is contributing to "the death of movies" is wild. They don't know what we do, but they're so sure they know how to do it better.
i feel you
@KillRhythm u are br4in d3ad
Iėftism and copied opinions is what’s led to the death of movies
@KillRhythmOK sheep
@KillRhythm Okay, the hypocrisy of your statement is what will make the industry worse, not better. You are basically an example of not knowing what these people do. Especially those that have mastered the Hidden CGI you thought were real or so enamorated with the creative visuals that you don't care if its fake or not.
The "No CGI" lie is so annoying. I also think that industry terms get confused when communicated to the public. Like when the director for Alien: Romulus said they were doing practical effects in the film and then had to literally spell out the fact that they are also going to use CGI as well. But it's also really weird for directors to not credit the VFX team, they really need to help contribute to it not being a dirty word.
The production value of your stuff is top notch. It's great to have the perspective of an insider, especially when it's done in such an engaging way.
Glad to see more people talking about this. CGI artists don't get the credit they deserve. People compare the best CGI of 20 years ago and compare it to the worst from today
Thank you so much for making this video We can only change this view about VFX/CGI by making more content that show how hard it is and how much skills it require
As long as studies continue to assert that there is no CGI, by law, artists should be paid double as compensation.
Right there with you bro - thanks for putting this together. Hope this gets out there and set the record straight.
you rock mate, as someone who is mentally drained from the excessive work we put into our craft, only to turn around and see big studios blatantly lie and even downright downplay the importance of vfx, a video like this truly echos what many have been feeling. cheers man
I blame modern cinematography for some bad visual effects. So many new movies look like TV shows now.
CGI in my opinion should only be used when absolutely neccesary, Its not that people in general hate CGI the problem is when it is overused which is unfortunately the case these days and thats why people are getting tired of it because most filmakers dont care anymore about practical effects but just go with CGI for everything without even trying to do practical in first place.
I'm willing to bet you couldn't identify whether something is or isn't cg unless it were absolutely necessarily cgi because it couldn't be done any other way.
@@crafthive Well I can usually tell at least most of the time when somethings feels off or fake it is just something that doesnt look right and you can notice it, anyway the point I am making is that most people still prefer practical methods since those at least exist and are not just some green screen, CGI is a tool that should be used when no other option is available because when people watch a Real-life Movie they expect it to be mostly real I mean the location, The characters and even some stunts they want to see Real-life acting and not just a bunch of animations.
@@maxwellstevens6366 @maxwellstevens6366 what would you define as absolutely necessary? because I think there are times yeah sure this could be done in real life but do to: budget, time safety some weird act of god, CGI is used. i guess its hard to determine what is absolutely necessary because it always depends.
@@thedarkangel613 By absolutely neccesary I mean if there is no other way to do it or if the practical effects look worse than the CGI, Movies back in the 90's normally used to understand when to use CGI and when to avoid it and go practical they had a blend between the two but they mostly kept the Movies as authentic as they could so little to no special effects and Real-life acting and Stunts and most importantly they were interacting with Real objects, Locations or Sets and thats why many movies from the past still hold up even today because they simple put more effort into it and they didn't just CGI the hell out of it as they do it today with most Movies.
Thank you for making these kinds of videos you guys are awesome!
Fantastic, as always. Thanks for giving us a voice of truth in this industry. Another great reference to send people who don't know any better 🎉
Nice essay!
I'm wondering when the frak a VFX supervisor or whatever people get awards at ceremonies is gonna kick in the hornet's nest live and get a bit mad/honest on the matter. Or eventually a director rising up and stating some facts about that weird trend.
we need more and more people to reveal the truth that modern movies are impossible without cgi and the hypocrisy of Hollywood on this!
But are modern movies good?
@8:03 My thought is that one potential reason for the claim that there's no CGI is to placate the on-set workers that are threatening to go on strike. VFX workers don't have any leverage.
Possibly true but keep in mind that every set worker who works on a set knows that the set is being designed for set extension.
I wanna see people who hates CGI to make movie like Transformers, Avatar, and Avengers without CGI. They are all just talk.
Even Oppenheimer’s nuke looks incredibly small and disappointing, and they had the resources.
Normies don't get excited about action on screen when they know a thing that could be done by a stunt man or set artists is made on computer. That's why they are promoting movies as no cgi. I used to not like cgi until it got to the point where it is invisible. And now days I like it! Not all of it thought, stuff like disneys lion king etc, is way too uncanny . But backgrounds, vehicles, explosion layering. That's good stuff.
Movement and lighting are dead giveaways, if the character moves too smoothly vs natural muscle twitch, and so many CG models have squeaky clean textures or mismatched lighting that make them stick out as unnatural. All of this is instantly resolved with practical props and effects.
What are your thoughts on the Planet of the Apes trilogy and its usage of CGI?
Sadly very true. But its important to spread awareness to change the industry... Very good video
Love the editing and tempo of this. Great information here. Didn’t realize that is happening.
Flying monkeys had me heated as well. Thanks for continuing to make these video essays.
Man, the first sin I notice is the camera moves that could never happen, even with a freaking Cinewhoop.
Yes, that's the "CGI people notice". That's probably 1% of the CGI you really see. The point is the vast majority of CGI people see is perfectly integrated in realistic camera movies, lighting, lens artefacts, film grain, and people have absolutely no idea it's there, so they'll say "this is good because it's practical", reinforcing their misconception that they can tell the difference.
The amount of VFX shots I turn over to VFX teams on even the most benign shows would blow minds. They do so much incredible work to enhance visuals and help fix production issues outside of all of the set extensions, modelling, animating etc.
More annoying than the big lie is the profoundly apathetic use of the term CGI and how its blanketed onto everything. Most people actors included don't know what is CGI.
brain-dead, ignorant, manipulated people... i'm so glad that this issue is finally getting more attention. i always wonder what will happen when the artists get sick of it at some point and everyone quits their jobs. the industry would be dead from day 1 and i hope it doesn't need this eye-opener
The industry will be dead and nothing will come out. People tend to learn things the hard way though so we will what happens in the future.
@@Zaymac_ yup...
I wish that could work, but there have always been more of us wanting these jobs than there are jobs available. So if we all just quit at once in protest, we would just be vacating our seat for other people who desperately want this "dream job". The quality might suffer, because the more experienced people would be replaced by students, but I don't think the people in charge would notice or care.😔
Why would it be dead from day one?
I see a lot of people here talking about practical effects being superior. What about all the tubes and practical equipment, rigs and dodgy makeup. I say we just stop cleaning all this stuff up from the scans and let people enjoy the "real" practical effects as it was shot.
Literally all that matters: do the effects add to or take away from the shot/scene/overall story? If you’re using the film as a place to experiment fine, but be prepared for a mixed reception.
Fincher is a great example of someone who know how to integrate CG into his work.
Collaboration of practical and digital is the key
You make some reasonable points. Digital graphics and animation can accomplish a lot. But it’s often used as a production crutch when a practical approach is visually superior. Prime example is blood hits. Cg blood “squibs” take me right out of the film, it’s so glaringly fake. All to replace something that’s been working perfectly since the 70s. Hollywood needs to have a better eye for quality than the audience.
Thank you for speaking out. The way the media treat us is infuriating. I worked for months on the digital cars for Gran Turismo but here comes Neil Blomkamp, doing the the marketing video for the movie, assuring everyone that all cars are real. I'm sure they wrecked cars that cost $300k for the movie. People who say that VFX suck are oblivious to the fact that technology is being developed to solve existing artistic problems. In the words of George Lucas "you don't develop the technology and then ask what to do with it'
im 25 years deep in practical effects, but both worlds need each other. all of this are just new tools we can work together to make the illusion work. , movie rabbit hole states it really well, that good CGI is invisible. but... you cant have good CGI when the studios want to go cheap and not pay for things or rush things ....
Remember, Jaws 3D and Superman IV were practical effects.
Yeah and they were great
How can you not mention _Jaws: The Revenge?_ Joseph Sargent didn’t blow up a six-inch bath toy for you to ignore him!
Exactly.
Yes, those were great movies. But having CGI or not wasn't what made them good. A film needs good direction, script, editing, and good actors.
And another thing: those movies did use numerous visual effects and tricks in composition. Superman IV, in particular, was a pioneer in several image manipulation and VFX techniques that still endure in modern cinema.
Top Gun: Maverick is a great example. Tom Cruise lied about not having CGI, and the film literally has dozens of scenes with planes entirely generated by computer graphics. Yes, there is real planes too but there is heavy CGI in almost all shots.
The scenes are so good, made by such talented artists, that people simply believed the lie.A film that could be used as a great example of well-used CGI, because it's loaded with CGI, is being used as anti-CGI propaganda. That's the sad part.
This comment just proves that the "CGI is bad" crowd has no idea what they're talking about.
@@Kaz000I absolutely agree with your take on cgi but i think he's poking fun at people who think older movie are better when they some of them are trash.
Some CGI looks bad but CGI is not a bad technology. It is not bad on its own. Bad is just a consequence of misusing CGI.
The studios see all the advancements in CGI as a convenient short-cut tool to micromanage the VFX work, constantly meddling with the artistic process, imposing ever tighter deadlines, since all they understand is that it's a matter of few more click with the mouse until the shot is perfect. This is what spoiled the movie crafting process, as if one more VFX shot on top of the already high pile is to compensate for unimaginative screenwriting, boring dialogs, bland music soundtrack and poor casting in general. The old movies, everyone is referring to, didn't became classics just by the virtue of their "analogue" VFX, but because movie makers knew their priorities being humble enough to make compromises where it was warranted... for far less money on top of that. Pride and hubris, dozed with endless cheap capital has ruined cinema and CGI has become the convenient scapegoat, because those people were pushed at the bottom in the packing order in the movie industry, where their voice is mute enough to have no consequence.
Hi, hello, yes, I would prefer a modern Planet of the Apes movie using practical make-ups over the mocap approach they've been using for the last several years. Flashing very quickly to the make-up effects of the original films ignores the incredible work done by Rick Baker on the 2001 film, as well as the equally incredible spec work Stan Winston did for that same film. To be clear, I think your video overall is very solid and well-argued! But this specific moment gets me on two levels: one, as a low budget practical effects artist myself, I do have a preference for the artistry of analog techniques and being able to tell that something was an actual, physical object in front of the camera. I know I'm super weird for this but I genuinely get more enjoyment out of even mediocre practical effects over the most polished, state of the art CG shots. Two, I very specifically bristle at the idea that Hollywood seems to have forced on most audiences, that cinema is a single forward march of progress from "old and bad" to "new and good," instead of a rich and diverse medium for human expression with an infinite number of permutations in how a film can look. Unfortunately I think a lot of practical vs. CGI arguments immediately fall into this trap, which I think is a huge shame. Like, for me personally, I actively work to make all my films using entirely in camera analog effects, even going so far as to shoot on super 8mm film to take that philosophy even further - but the Wachowski Sisters' Speed Racer is one of my all time favorite movies!
Addendum: all the hype that annoys you also annoys someone like me from the other side. When I'm told a film has no CG or very little, I'm inclined to never believe it.
Back in the day, we used to ask: ''How'd they do that?'' Then you'd watch the making-of and be amazed by the ingenuity. Today, we just go: ''Oh, CGI.'' Just some guy clicking on a mouse 16 hours a day. This is where Hollywood lost it's ''magic''.
Practical FX have a level of unpredictability to their execution. You can set up an effect on set ready to film and have it NOT WORK, either literally not work as planned and/or it doesn't look as good as you hoped. Producers HATE HATE HATE that. CGI allows them more control, they can nitpick it at every stage from the comfort of an air-conditioned office (can you make the alien more green?), and basically know what they are getting. They know that fans of genre films (action and especially horror) hate CGI, so they lie and play up practical in the marketing, but they would NEVER go back to the days of all or even mostly practical. The lure of CGI is too cheap, easy, and convenient. If anything, they are stoked about AI and want even less practical FX than before.
Since the 70s it's obvious applying the use of computers in film isn't just important, it is necessary. Nowadays we no longer give the nod of assurance to good process (remember go motion?) work done with or without computers, but the so called magic of practical effects. When they blend the physics of say dextrous animation (Jurassic Park, The Lion King) as well as anything involving lens work, tracking or special effects with reinforcement of computational work, this is what should be considered the VFX level just on the basis of applied specialisation alone. Practical effects have no such support and seem to work hard to be as worthy in this domain, the results however have been far from magical.
Omg thanks for making this video!! This also goes for the animation community, who equate 2D animation with "good animation" and 3D with "bad", as if a bad 3D movie will be automatically better in 2D. They ignore the bad 2D animation of the past and the beautiful 3D animation of now
So true ✅
The problem is people don't know what technically counts as CGI or how much effort goes into executing it. Accounting for all the little things we take for granted in the visible and tangible world to insert thing A into Scene B convincingly is a level of workmanship most people couldn't even begin to wrap their head around, much less appreciate the need for. Being a VFX artist means taking your experience perceiving the world around you and accounting for it as part of your occupation. Who in the right mind knows what Specular Highlights or Ambient Occlusion even are until you point to things on their kitchen counter and explain it to them? THE 3D WORLD CANNOT SHAKE HANDS WITH OURS, NOW FIX IT. That's the part that's hard to explain without sounding like a broken record.
This is old news. Currently problem is VFX industry is dead and buried. It's not about do we get credit for the movies it's like no one has a job anymore so who cares about what people think its happening in the movies.
feel free to refer to my other video, VFX r u ok!
@@crafthive I saw that one and it is amazing! I think this one is amazing too I just didn't think this was at the moment that much of a big deal as much as "Are you ok" video :)
The fact we CAN use CG changes the way creators compose their stories. Oh we can show x now because we don’t have to hire/wrangle 1000’s of human actors, but does that shot of copy+paste models in the distance actually add to the scene or are they just a distraction?
FYI: CGI don't knock at the studio door and ruining their films volunterily,
Nolan was telling the truth. I can tell you for example that there was no CGI used in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Hell, they even went to Cybertron, to shoot on location, and that's a fact.
There is malicious intent. On set, vfx crews are treated terribly, not even included in group pictures and mostly left out of the credits.
*No CGI was used in the making of this video.*
Keep making these videos 👌🏾
Its more impressive for games than movies in a way because games are being rendered at 30 or 60 times a second, movies its 1 time every few minutes or even over an hour
Amen! Thank you making this.
At least I haven't been flimflammed.
bad cgi is owed to underpaid rushed workers, all cgi is good
Sometimes we have to use CGI. I get it. But as you say sometimes it's used because of poor planning. Like using CGI for props and costumes. Or changing a car because the prototype wasn't available for shooting on a particular day. Twenty years ago if a prop wasn't on set the director was 'Why the **** isn't it there?'
And then you have things like the last Spider-Man which had a shot of a car crashing into some water barrels. This WAS shot practically, however because it wasn't 'perfect' they re-did it, even though they didn't have to
Subscribed!
Ironically enough, for all the flak GL's Star Wars EP I-III got for being "CGI heavy", they sure to bloody h3ll used a TON of practical models, sets, pyrotechnics, lighting, etc. Do the research sometime, and you'll understand. However... in 202x, yeah, good luck finding a film that ISN'T CGI-ifying nearly every single shot, layer, effect, etc. There are lighting passes, color passes, contrast & highlight passes, compositing, subtle tweaks you'd never even detect unless you were physically shown the differences, etc. It's just how it goes.
Thanks for saying the truth
Can you make a video about what these studios want to see in your portfoglio, how to present your work and what exactly makes you a good candidate. Would be greatly benefitial and since may artist want to have a shot i think the video would have many views. I would be very gratful if you do. And about the topic of this video. People just don't have a single clue how those stuff are made. I remembert showing someone a simple animation of a robot just to showcase my work and they telling me there should be explosions and all. First of all you dont know how to make explosions. I do. Thats why i decided to not include explosions on someting i did for practice. they are like the director of cats who wanted a fully rendered shots with furr and everything just to see the animations and say if he like them or he wanted something different. and seeing some shots that showcase how a scene is buit like in 7:25. they think that okay they just add a car on the street and lamps and its all good the lighting is good everything is good looks easy.
My favorite is this new wave of arm chair critics addicited to Coordior Digital picking apart shots that aren’t even vfx shots and accusing them of being bad ones. It’s gotten ridiculous and it’s super rampant.
Honestly cgi and vfx is VITAL to movies to tell more realistic forms of story telling. Take example pacific rim. Its mainly cgi yet it works. Because its realistic and it WORKS with the movie instead of against the movie.
Unionise.
CGI is not making films worse, bad generic and often unoriginal storytelling is what is making a majority of films forgettable today.
The answer to this its unionize
I worked in the industry as a VFX artist and I hate how prevalent CGI is. What's even worse, is instead of limiting the use of it when audiences clearly don't like it as much anymore, they just lie about it instead and throw the VFX artists who slaved away under the bus.
ALL of modern cinema is weak. The composers, the actors, the directors, the writers and the effects are ALL subpar to the past. Proper cinema ended in the 80's. It hasn't been an art form for decades.
OK boomer
Cgi is a blessing! I cringe watching old movies, not the good ones but every other crappy rubber and wood thing.
this video needs to reach more people💯
She hulk is a show
As popular as JLo 😂😂😂😂😂
Practical effects always hold up better...
It's at its best when its unnoticeable, ie looks like practical effects
Modern movies are borderline unwatchable nowadays...
There’s a lot of cgi that holds up very well today still. There’s a lot of practical effects that don’t hold up. Theres a lot of cgi that looks much better than the practical counterparts. There’s a lot of storytelling that is impossible with practical effects that just didn’t get written but now can be explored. It’s not always.
it is hard to follow your rapper sytle of narration . please slow down so we the foreign English learners can follow you .
you can turn on subtitles or slow down the video
the best practical effects look better than the best CGI effects, and the worst CGI effects are worse than the worst practical effects. that's probably why people want practical effects (at least that's how i feel about it). that sucks that people lie about their movies having no CGI even though they do.
The best CGI is absolutely impossible practically. There’s nuance.
@@thornnorton5953 you are confusing the quality of an effect with its impracticality
Ehhh i mean this video is just a “my job is more important” forget about the rest of the crew.
You feel gatekept don't you... Just do your best
Nope, sorry, you're wrong.
pratical effects ARE better.
Nothing, no cgi whatso-ever can come even close to a good blood squib or a blank firing machinegun.
It is because these things interact with actors in the moment.
John Wick's cgi was Baaaaaaaaaad for example. With blanks and explosive squibs, as they used in 80's action movies would have made thst film so much more visceral and epic...
so yes...practical IS better.
Eh
no
you evidently seemed to have missed the point
I think most artists in the industry agree that the best most realistic way is a collaboration of practical effects and VFX. Even if things are practical these things still need a ton of integration and to have the shot material sit into various styles of plates and environments. Even if things are practical those things still need a ton of work and effort to make things seamless. I'm for both.
If I had a penny every time a prop master, a make up fx artist and a pyro technician has approached the vfx supe to save their ass I'd be a billionaire