@@mikechris2012g The problem with corridor crew is that they really too much on jokes and stuff. I love they leave the jokes to rest and Nico starts to take it seriously but it's just a glimpse, really.
@kishenkoolskills90 prolly didnt even go to college i mean why go to college if u already know how to plus getting a job would be pretty easy seing that he worked on a pioneer of a movie for its time
Went to a vfx talk last year where I was told how hard it is to break into the industry by a guy who got offered a job at DNEG right after finishing university. In that moment I seriously wanted to throw my notebook at him...
The only part that looked off was when they jumped into the river. It just didn't look right at all, in fact it was pretty bad, but that doesn't make the movie bad.
Honestly, the VFX on Star Wars looked very generic, nothing that you have already seen on the Marvel Universe, or Jurassic World. Even Game of thrones looked more interesting. The previous SW trilogies were always groundbreaking for their times, even if some of its VFX didn’t aged well. But this one had nothing really new.
@@adembayraktar3860 Yeah, when I saw that bit before I saw the film I immediately said that was digital. Looking at it over and over I can't quite pick out what it was, but I think having the virtual camera locked on to the digital double so they "fell" at the exact same rate in the second or so before they hit the water was a big part of it. Humans are instinctually good at throwing things, so that means we know what objects look and move like coming down. At the start of that shot the camera is looking up, then starts panning down, then falls at nearly the same speed. The only thing is, that's impossible; he started coming down first and the camera starts panning down before it starts moving down, based on the background, so if the camera was in freefall as well, there's no way it could "lock on" to him and fall at the same speed. He'd always be going faster over that relatively short distance, unless the camera accelerated downward faster than it would under pure gravity. I think the shot would have looked better if the virtual camera was slightly further away and didn't match his falling speed at any point, instead continuing to pan downward as if a real camera was trying to keep him in frame. That would have allowed the digital character to be subject to motion blur, not just the background, which would have helped hide imperfections. The other option was to keep the camera looking up so it hit the water first, as if they were falling at the same rate with the camera starting to fall at the same moment he started coming down. That would have felt more realistic, because that's how falling objects really move.
I don't understand why everyone praises CGI in the Irishman. Sure thing, it's incredibly time-consuming but it doesn't look good at all. These blurred-out faces were taking me out of the movie all along.
Well The Irishman it was so bad it was distracting. Most of it looked silly. They should have went with talented younger actors and made them look old. More believable to the eye and they would have saved a ton of money.
I feel like people say that far too often. Doctor Strange (for example) had plenty of scenes that everyone knows are mostly digital, but we can still all agree on them looking great. Similar to what was said in the video, the best digital effects are the ones that help the audience engage in the movie. There are plenty of digital and practical effects we can tell aren't "the real thing", but are still good, because they aren't distracting.
For some reason I believed them when they said they wouldn’t have her in this movie out of respect, since they didn’t have all the footage they’d need.
well at least she asks those questions. asking questions is how you learn stuff. always be curious. my parents just take stuff for granted and do not think about how it is done at all.
Seeing and hearing the way they recreated Carrie Fisher got me. I lost it. Art is so powerful, man. So freaking powerful. We are all blessed just to witness.
“It might look too much like a video game” Well that’s kind of what modern video game companies are aiming for nowadays, is the inability to consciously tell that it’s fiction all of the time. Video games are getting preeeetty realistic.
I'm a deep learning/ computer vision researcher in a completely different field and it's breathtaking to see how much our techniques overlap and how much software engineering goes into this craft! Amazing video, WIRED!
This is one of the best of these professional breakdowns I've seen. He is extremely engaging and clearly passionate and knowledgeable about his trade/art!
The de-aging for the Irishman was so good I actually thought in scenes where the actors played their real age, that they were made up to look older. The younger versions looked so realistic, I was surprised to see how old their faces are in real life.
ActuallyAwesome part was he started 3D rendering way back in early 90’s with a fellow classmate Ryan T. So awesome that they kept passion and love for conjunction of art and technology.
@@CurtisD01 I was pointing it out because it's an interesting movie mistake and it happened to be shown right when he said "so groundbreaking". Nothing against the movie. Just a fun coincidence.
Although I like some of the other movies more, I think the Irishman probably deserves to win, because they actually invented a new pipeline for facial capture without using markers - a custom camera rig with 2 infra red cameras attached to sense depth, and some serious coding to reverse engineer the facial expressions. No one has done that before, and it’s probably a game changer for future movies with face capture
I was not interested with 1917 being nominated but when you said something about it being seamlessly stitched together now it got my attention. A good VFX looks invisible and natural to the eye
Just saw 1917. Very intense. On the big screen I could tell the dead animals were fake and could see the overdubbing because the lips were off sync sometimes. I'll be interested to see what it's like when I view it again on Blu-ray.
Also when the actor made the jump into the river, it looked so fake and the explosions when he's doing the sprint at the end you could tell that many of them were CGI. Can't understand how this film get nominated for best VFX?
Thanks for this Wired. Always loved TV & films. I'd been wasting my life in drink & drugs and went back to college to learn about cartoon films, I didn't have to pay, learning was for free then. I got a grant for 2 years to learn about cartoons & film. At the end I asked my teacher when I'd get my 1st good job, ''About 5 years'' he said with a smile and he was right. Kevin was so fortunate to get that job at 18, my big break came aged 29 getting getting a job with Disney in London making Roger Rabbit and working with ILM. I got into both jobs without qualifications but could draw cartoons and copy any drawing ok. Being in the right place at the right time, no planning and not drunk. Everybody has an ability, the trick is to do it well and to be open to almost anything.
Great video! Loved seeing what went into making the wonderful visual effects for all of these movies! I would personally love to see Endgame or Star Wars take the Oscar, but I wouldn’t be surprised if 1917 wins because the academy loves the “invisible” VFX. And I honestly wouldn’t be to mad about that because that movie is really great!
The only problem with the reverse aging tech is that it cant fix the way they move. There were parts in the Irishman where Pesci called DeNiro "kid" but he looked 45 and moved like he was 65.
Goes to look at the comments to see people talking about the wonderful visual effects of these movies and, oh what a surprise, the first one I see is someone hating on Star Wars for something so small and unnoticeable unless you are looking for it to find something to complain about🙄
Star Wars is the best example for the ethical concerns about this technology. They've already decided to resurrect two dead people for the screen rather than recasting. No matter how amazing the technology is and no matter what possibilities it offers up, this is deeply disconcerting. I wish he would have engaged with that criticism a bit more rather than glossing over it by using a (relatively) benign example like the Irishman. Still, interesting video.
There is no ethical concerns stop moaning the only way they can ‘bring back characters’ is if they consent for the studio to use their face and likeness
Every actor signs a waiver when the production starts, one thing it states is incase of death they can do these kinds of things. I think its okay as they write the character to minimum screentime anyway and then do whats necessary.
@Tommy Salami Agreed. When a purple-skinned alien and an 8 foot tall green rage monster have more realistic looking faces, then something's wrong. I suspect it was because of the limit of the technology they were using. I don't think that technique is up to snuff yet and they were hampered by Scorsese being puritanical about his filmmaking. If they had been wearing facial-capture gear, I'd give good odds it would have been near-perfect.
I would agree for like half the scenes. Sometimes it looked great and other times it rough. The high quality storytelling made it worth it for me though. The ending especially got to me. A friend of mine described it as beautifully depressing and I would agree.
Wow I could not tell Carrie Fisher was entire digital. I kinda forgot she had passed. Or I maybe subconsciously thought it was a look a like with some digital help on the face. You know it's good when you can't tell
The example he used for 1917 (jumping into the river) was one of the only effects shots I noticed. Not that it was bad, I was just aware it wasn’t real. Great movie though Great vid too
a very common say regarding special fx is "the best special effects is the ones you can't see" and it is completely true,if you don't realize that something is computer made then it is made correctly
considering the lion king is completly build digitally, it should win the oscar for best visual effects. 1917 is a great contender too, but i feel like best film or best cinematography are better suited for that film.
I haven't seen 1917, but Baillie mentions at the beginning that he has worked a lot with Zemeckis... and 1917 seems like the kind of movie Zemeckis would have made or at least enjoyed watching, reminds me of similar "invisible" effects in movies like Forrest Gump, Contact, What Lies Beneath, etc.
i'm young and i've never seen a godfather in theaters ... i want that Irishman technology in a godfather 4 with Andy Garcia to see the Corleone family's outcome
And thats yet another snub for avengers at the oscars. I have lost faith in them in recognising true brilliance in comic book movies. Even the de-aging effect that I first saw was in a marvel movie. But im sure the irishman will get the oscar here just because of the stars involved.
In my opinion, Alita Battle Angel deserved an Oscar nomination for special effects. It was one of the best films last year when it comes to the audiovisual experience.
Just saying for the avengers lovers and irishmen haters, uncanny valley only exists if you are trying to mimic reality. You will never have that feeling for a big purple or green dude or a giant walking tree. Your brain requires less when the visual effects are for fantastical things.
It's likely a budget thing but Marvel is much better at deaging actors than what we see in the Irishmen. Samuel L. Jackson 's deaging in Captain Marvel was nearly flawless. I'd rather that movie had gotten the nomination over The Irishman.
@@tiawilliams5690 deaging in Captain Marvel and the time when they deaging Downey jr is not as great as The Irishman, they look doughy since how lights touch their faces doesn't look right. The details of The Irishman really match with how the lights should've look like.
It's because the digital effects just erased the wrinkles of the actors mantaining the old facials structure. On aging it's not just the wrinkles that arouses, the ears and nose get biggers, the skin becomes flatter, the lips thinner and so on, this details have been forgotten.
Great job Wired. This guy seems like he knows his stuff.
I'd hope so considering he has been in the business since 18..
@@peachylady lmao what, do you expect wired putting someone who doesnt know anything on youtube?
he worked with Star Wars....
it's kinda his job
He working on Star Wars movies since the first came out.
wait a minute this isn't corridorcrew
a little better, IMO... carridor is gonna have to switch it up or something... they're getting a little bland
@@mikechris2012g A little better he says. Kevin Baillie focuses on the facts, less of the puns and jokes.
For good reason too, they don't really know what they're talking about
@@mikechris2012g The problem with corridor crew is that they really too much on jokes and stuff. I love they leave the jokes to rest and Nico starts to take it seriously but it's just a glimpse, really.
*Sigh* 🙄
"I got started at 18 on STAR WARS" BRUH
*cough * cough and it was The Phantom Menace shhhhhhh dont tell anyone lol
Just like David Fincher
@kishenkoolskills90 prolly didnt even go to college i mean why go to college if u already know how to plus getting a job would be pretty easy seing that he worked on a pioneer of a movie for its time
Purefoldnz wdym phantom menace is the best Star Wars movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nowadays you need 20 years experience to get an entry level job lmao
We NEEED Erik Singer to do a whole episode on the accents of Knives Out. The voices were so strong in that movie, I want to learn more about them!
" I got my start at 18 working on Star Wars"...hold up WTF...how did we just gloss over that huge detail. talk about hitting the ground running
Went to a vfx talk last year where I was told how hard it is to break into the industry by a guy who got offered a job at DNEG right after finishing university. In that moment I seriously wanted to throw my notebook at him...
@@nathalie9329 Not really, if you go to the right school its easy to get into the industry. You only need the right contacts.
Not to mention all how hyper competitive the industry is
@@humanoid9787 eventually the studio will train you to make scenes that they will approve later on.
Working on The Phantom Menace isn't what I'd call a running start. I'm just glad this young man turned his life around.
Everybody talks about actors but doesn't appreciate thousands of hours put on by digital artis
And there's this narrative that CGI gets worse or makes movies worse nowadays
CGI has gotten better, studios just decided to be lazier and cheaper with them
Except for Keanu Reeves. That guy'll give the whole crew the Oscars, and then take them all out for ice cream.
there are whole channels in youtube about cgi, i follow quite a few, and their job is very appreciated
@@maxwedewferg you know that what you see on TH-cam is not necessarily reflected in real world?
Wired watching Corridor Digital
“...write that down, WRITE THAT DOWN”
Sadly we won't have Clint doing the siren sound
@FilmGamer that's why they invite professionals
“Look how the pores stretch!”
@@missvness730 😂!
@FilmGamer YES! THANK YOU. Stop comparing him to TH-camr vfx creator. Its an insult!
I was really impressed by 1917, it’s the sort of movie where you can’t look away and it keeps you on the edge of your seat
@kishenkoolskills90
Deserves to be repeated. The visual effects in Ex Machina, 1917, etc. Are much better than stsr wars and "theme park" movies.
Kev Low how though? how are they “better”?
The only part that looked off was when they jumped into the river. It just didn't look right at all, in fact it was pretty bad, but that doesn't make the movie bad.
Honestly, the VFX on Star Wars looked very generic, nothing that you have already seen on the Marvel Universe, or Jurassic World. Even Game of thrones looked more interesting. The previous SW trilogies were always groundbreaking for their times, even if some of its VFX didn’t aged well. But this one had nothing really new.
@@adembayraktar3860 Yeah, when I saw that bit before I saw the film I immediately said that was digital. Looking at it over and over I can't quite pick out what it was, but I think having the virtual camera locked on to the digital double so they "fell" at the exact same rate in the second or so before they hit the water was a big part of it. Humans are instinctually good at throwing things, so that means we know what objects look and move like coming down.
At the start of that shot the camera is looking up, then starts panning down, then falls at nearly the same speed. The only thing is, that's impossible; he started coming down first and the camera starts panning down before it starts moving down, based on the background, so if the camera was in freefall as well, there's no way it could "lock on" to him and fall at the same speed. He'd always be going faster over that relatively short distance, unless the camera accelerated downward faster than it would under pure gravity. I think the shot would have looked better if the virtual camera was slightly further away and didn't match his falling speed at any point, instead continuing to pan downward as if a real camera was trying to keep him in frame. That would have allowed the digital character to be subject to motion blur, not just the background, which would have helped hide imperfections.
The other option was to keep the camera looking up so it hit the water first, as if they were falling at the same rate with the camera starting to fall at the same moment he started coming down. That would have felt more realistic, because that's how falling objects really move.
Thank you wired, not only for putting a pro in front of camera, but also bringing all these nuances of movies I've enjoyed last year..
I love that he's so into The Irishman vfx, i know it has some flaws but it takes the way the industry works to another level. Truly underrated.
That's tu
@Funk O'Matic No.
I don't understand why everyone praises CGI in the Irishman. Sure thing, it's incredibly time-consuming but it doesn't look good at all. These blurred-out faces were taking me out of the movie all along.
Vfx are iffy, but it's still a good movie. Definitely worth watching.
After watching this and realizing how many digital effects I couldn’t catch in 1917, I believe it deserved the Oscar
91% contains digital effects. It was incredibly well done.
Logically I knew they had to use a lot, but visually I couldn't catch it at all.
Who else initially thought they were clicking on a Corridor Crew video ?
Precisely!
I was thinking that myself. They've been killing it lately
me
Lol, I thought Wren would be narrating again.
Everyone is going to jump on their bandwagon.
please make this guy do other videos about this topic!
Check out corridor crew channel, they do this weekly
Honestly this guy made the Transformers really appealing! But he can't change the bad story line
yeah but i never got to see the robots for more than half a second at a time..quick cuts ruined those films.
and starwars
yOuR a SoLdiEr NoW
Was that a JoJo reference?
The best digital effects are the ones you can’t see
Well The Irishman it was so bad it was distracting. Most of it looked silly. They should have went with talented younger actors and made them look old. More believable to the eye and they would have saved a ton of money.
Ed Jackson No one can pull out an act that was merely close to those men.
^^ DeNiro and the rest of the cast are amazing, it’s hard to find actors as good as them 🥱
@@edjackson4389 No.
I feel like people say that far too often. Doctor Strange (for example) had plenty of scenes that everyone knows are mostly digital, but we can still all agree on them looking great. Similar to what was said in the video, the best digital effects are the ones that help the audience engage in the movie. There are plenty of digital and practical effects we can tell aren't "the real thing", but are still good, because they aren't distracting.
As a visual effect, working Carrie Fisher into TROS works. But every time she was onscreen, all it did was make me sad.
Same with cats. The VFX weren't bad, the art direction was.
For some reason I believed them when they said they wouldn’t have her in this movie out of respect, since they didn’t have all the footage they’d need.
My grandma thought the animals in the Lion King were real, she said “I wonder how they got those lions to do that” 😅
The lions were clearly cats in mocap suits.
Same with my mother 😂
aww that was cute!!
well at least she asks those questions. asking questions is how you learn stuff. always be curious. my parents just take stuff for granted and do not think about how it is done at all.
Reminds me of the film "The Congress" where they only digitalize an actor once and then pay them to use their digital copy for films.
Hmm, good movie.
great film
soon...
A great movie. Watching this shows that indeed it is plausibel.
there's also the Film called "Simone" with a film star that only exists digitally
Seeing and hearing the way they recreated Carrie Fisher got me. I lost it. Art is so powerful, man. So freaking powerful. We are all blessed just to witness.
IN FCKING STAR WARS AT 18 YEARS OLD.
THIS GUY HAD TO HAVE THE HIGH GROUND AND UNLIMITED POWER
@Umbrella Corporation Not a clue.
Great way to describe what goes on with the visual effects. Personally I think smart hulk was the best visual effect and captured awesomely.
Random Rangoon The close up was amazing
Random Rangoon simpleton
It is usually the simpleton that throws names and stuff around on the internet lol.
same thing with thanos but well in infinity war where he hade more closeups but he well he look just as great in endgame
Corridor Crew, should have this dude on the VFX Artist React
“It might look too much like a video game”
Well that’s kind of what modern video game companies are aiming for nowadays, is the inability to consciously tell that it’s fiction all of the time. Video games are getting preeeetty realistic.
I think video games scripts are even getting better than movies and graphics are getting believable day by day.
you’re telling me his first job in the field was working on star wars
YES
I'm a deep learning/ computer vision researcher in a completely different field and it's breathtaking to see how much our techniques overlap and how much software engineering goes into this craft! Amazing video, WIRED!
The posture and movement were my only issues with The Irishman. When Deniro is kicking someone on the ground, we was moving like an older man.
3:03 *hulk with a pout face exists*
me: i see this as an absolute win
This is one of the best of these professional breakdowns I've seen. He is extremely engaging and clearly passionate and knowledgeable about his trade/art!
The background score when he was talking about DeNiro was perfect.
Hope to see more of Kevin in the future. This was very engaging. Great job Wired !
The de-aging for the Irishman was so good I actually thought in scenes where the actors played their real age, that they were made up to look older. The younger versions looked so realistic, I was surprised to see how old their faces are in real life.
@Funk O'Matic i've seen that but it doesn't look better since the lights don't match and the skin looks doughy.
@Funk O'Matic It is aftwards to do some polishing on such kind scenes. Here in this video you got a better idea of the real effort behind that.
@Funk O'Matic but does it run on 4k? I think not
@La Señora Tortuga Exactly, it still looks very artificial.
It looked horrific and they weren't believable to be that age.
Kevin casually downplaying himself as a vfx artist while at the same time being the founder of one of the best vfx vendors out there :D
Great to see one of the artists behind the epicness!
1917 won the VFX Oscar for that year.
ActuallyAwesome part was he started 3D rendering way back in early 90’s with a fellow classmate Ryan T. So awesome that they kept passion and love for conjunction of art and technology.
Yoo is he one responsible for us being able to see thru Liam Neeson during that final fight with Maul?
You saw through Liam Neeson? Good for you...
@@skycat04 well I couldnt qui gon sooo ya
The spelling...yikes.
nora 노라 the grammar, yikes.
nora 노라 there is no point I’m joking
0:19 ... Kylo has no cape reflection in the water. "So groundbreaking".
lol true
yup the one mistake means it's all bad....
@@CurtisD01 You're really good at analyzing comments. You saw right through me!
@@cyanidex why are you even pointing that out tho like come on... vfx bad guys!
@@CurtisD01 I was pointing it out because it's an interesting movie mistake and it happened to be shown right when he said "so groundbreaking". Nothing against the movie. Just a fun coincidence.
So much to appreciate when it comes to modern films, wow.
Props to WIRED, they always find the best specialists working in their field.
I just got a 20 second long ad..... Where is this going TH-cam?
thought this was going to be a Corridor Digital video at first
The Singlenator right!
13:41 I found this bit of performance capture totally unconvincing. I just snapped me out of the scene.
Such a cool video!!! I would love to see more with him and have him explain more of the technique
15:48 and that is exactly what's wrong with this movie
this movie exists is what's wrong with this movie.
Are we going to mention this movie
Whyd they even need to make it
The movie is bad but we got to admit that the real cameras in a virtual world are pretty awesome
Imagine what they can do with that technology
Although I like some of the other movies more, I think the Irishman probably deserves to win, because they actually invented a new pipeline for facial capture without using markers - a custom camera rig with 2 infra red cameras attached to sense depth, and some serious coding to reverse engineer the facial expressions. No one has done that before, and it’s probably a game changer for future movies with face capture
Thomas Flight's analysis on each Best Editing nominee is amazing as well
I was not interested with 1917 being nominated but when you said something about it being seamlessly stitched together now it got my attention. A good VFX looks invisible and natural to the eye
Just saw 1917. Very intense. On the big screen I could tell the dead animals were fake and could see the overdubbing because the lips were off sync sometimes. I'll be interested to see what it's like when I view it again on Blu-ray.
Also when the actor made the jump into the river, it looked so fake and the explosions when he's doing the sprint at the end you could tell that many of them were CGI. Can't understand how this film get nominated for best VFX?
Thanks for this Wired. Always loved TV & films. I'd been wasting my life in drink & drugs and went back to college to learn about cartoon films, I didn't have to pay, learning was for free then. I got a grant for 2 years to learn about cartoons & film. At the end I asked my teacher when I'd get my 1st good job, ''About 5 years'' he said with a smile and he was right.
Kevin was so fortunate to get that job at 18, my big break came aged 29 getting getting a job with Disney in London making Roger Rabbit and working with ILM. I got into both jobs without qualifications but could draw cartoons and copy any drawing ok.
Being in the right place at the right time, no planning and not drunk. Everybody has an ability, the trick is to do it well and to be open to almost anything.
i would love to see a version of The Irishman with the original faces.
Great video! Loved seeing what went into making the wonderful visual effects for all of these movies! I would personally love to see Endgame or Star Wars take the Oscar, but I wouldn’t be surprised if 1917 wins because the academy loves the “invisible” VFX. And I honestly wouldn’t be to mad about that because that movie is really great!
"Invisible" VFX are also the most impressive.
Like last year how First Man beat out Infinity War.
Awesome! Shows the importance of all those names at the end of movies. We appreciate you!
1917 absolutely deserved that visual effects win. What a gorgeous film that was!
The visual effects in the lion king were just outstanding and the best since avatar and Jon Favreau did a terrific job doing it
The only problem with the reverse aging tech is that it cant fix the way they move. There were parts in the Irishman where Pesci called DeNiro "kid" but he looked 45 and moved like he was 65.
This video is beyond amazing !! Thank you a zillion times for bringing this to us !!!
I absolutely loved this video! Please bring him back again
Goes to look at the comments to see people talking about the wonderful visual effects of these movies and, oh what a surprise, the first one I see is someone hating on Star Wars for something so small and unnoticeable unless you are looking for it to find something to complain about🙄
Hey! You were interviewed by Mark Christiansen on the VFX for Motion podcast by School of Motion! :D I edited your voice. Great to see you here!
Just amazing what they can do now. Kevin shows he really knows his stuff. Thanks for a great video, it is just fascinating to see how they do it.
Very nice touch on the caption placement to not block the words appearing
This guy is great. Please have him on again
Star Wars is the best example for the ethical concerns about this technology. They've already decided to resurrect two dead people for the screen rather than recasting. No matter how amazing the technology is and no matter what possibilities it offers up, this is deeply disconcerting. I wish he would have engaged with that criticism a bit more rather than glossing over it by using a (relatively) benign example like the Irishman.
Still, interesting video.
There is no ethical concerns stop moaning the only way they can ‘bring back characters’ is if they consent for the studio to use their face and likeness
I thought they had the families blessing.
Every actor signs a waiver when the production starts, one thing it states is incase of death they can do these kinds of things. I think its okay as they write the character to minimum screentime anyway and then do whats necessary.
We need more videos with this guy
He is so informative
1917 is not only my favourite film of the year but along with end game is in my top 10 all time favourite movies
Such an immersive content , thanks :)
I thought the de-aging effects on Irishman looked terrible, totally distracting
I would agree with you
@Tommy Salami Agreed. When a purple-skinned alien and an 8 foot tall green rage monster have more realistic looking faces, then something's wrong. I suspect it was because of the limit of the technology they were using. I don't think that technique is up to snuff yet and they were hampered by Scorsese being puritanical about his filmmaking. If they had been wearing facial-capture gear, I'd give good odds it would have been near-perfect.
I would agree for like half the scenes. Sometimes it looked great and other times it rough. The high quality storytelling made it worth it for me though. The ending especially got to me. A friend of mine described it as beautifully depressing and I would agree.
The advanced technology that we have today is just so amazing. Movie magic just became more magical over the years.
I really liked The Irishman BUT the De Aging effects looks pretty bad, I know it took a lot of effort but the results were not convicing
Wow I could not tell Carrie Fisher was entire digital. I kinda forgot she had passed. Or I maybe subconsciously thought it was a look a like with some digital help on the face. You know it's good when you can't tell
The example he used for 1917 (jumping into the river) was one of the only effects shots I noticed. Not that it was bad, I was just aware it wasn’t real.
Great movie though
Great vid too
1:01 “I like him”
This is an awesome resource. Great job, Kevin. Totally helpful.
a very common say regarding special fx is "the best special effects is the ones you can't see" and it is completely true,if you don't realize that something is computer made then it is made correctly
The way this was explained…I toddler would understand it 🤌🏽 perfection
Would like to see him talk more about working on Episode 1! Sounds like he'd have interesting stories...
considering the lion king is completly build digitally, it should win the oscar for best visual effects. 1917 is a great contender too, but i feel like best film or best cinematography are better suited for that film.
Salaam. I've got a simple word " BEAUTIFUL"
I haven't seen 1917, but Baillie mentions at the beginning that he has worked a lot with Zemeckis... and 1917 seems like the kind of movie Zemeckis would have made or at least enjoyed watching, reminds me of similar "invisible" effects in movies like Forrest Gump, Contact, What Lies Beneath, etc.
Going to college for 3D animation and this is so inspiring!
i'm young and i've never seen a godfather in theaters ... i want that Irishman technology in a godfather 4 with Andy Garcia to see the Corleone family's outcome
imo Godzilla King of the Monsters should've been nominated for Best Visual Effects
And thats yet another snub for avengers at the oscars. I have lost faith in them in recognising true brilliance in comic book movies. Even the de-aging effect that I first saw was in a marvel movie. But im sure the irishman will get the oscar here just because of the stars involved.
In my opinion, Alita Battle Angel deserved an Oscar nomination for special effects. It was one of the best films last year when it comes to the audiovisual experience.
but it was pretty much a cartoon
@@CoolGobyFish Alita was much more photorealistic than Avengers or Star Wars and look better as animation than Lion King. Alita's face look like real.
This was one the best videos on wired so far
Loved this video, Wired
But why no Alita: Battle Angel thou? Wouldn't you say the method used for Rosa was even more advanced?
5:35 they went to huge lenghts to pay respect to the original movies.... proceeds to force heal
Just saying for the avengers lovers and irishmen haters, uncanny valley only exists if you are trying to mimic reality. You will never have that feeling for a big purple or green dude or a giant walking tree. Your brain requires less when the visual effects are for fantastical things.
It's likely a budget thing but Marvel is much better at deaging actors than what we see in the Irishmen. Samuel L. Jackson 's deaging in Captain Marvel was nearly flawless. I'd rather that movie had gotten the nomination over The Irishman.
@@tiawilliams5690 Have ou seen Samuel today and in the 90s, and Joe Pesci today and in the 80s?
@@tiawilliams5690 deaging in Captain Marvel and the time when they deaging Downey jr is not as great as The Irishman, they look doughy since how lights touch their faces doesn't look right. The details of The Irishman really match with how the lights should've look like.
Totally loved the idea to mimic camera movements like it would be filming Lion King for real.
Great break down Kevin.
I love 1917 but the scene where he jumps off the bridge seemed a bit rushed imo
my cousin worked on the vfx for the irishman.
It's really weird that he doesn't mention the old captain America scene in endgame
I didn’t even realize that DeNiro and the rest were younger in the movie..
Time to visit your eye doctor
I think it’s because of the usual hair and makeup we see them in that we forget that they are older than how we remember them being
It's because the digital effects just erased the wrinkles of the actors mantaining the old facials structure. On aging it's not just the wrinkles that arouses, the ears and nose get biggers, the skin becomes flatter, the lips thinner and so on, this details have been forgotten.
I thought it was all makeup, lol.
why didnt they just use younger actors?
Tutorial is fantastic ,thank you
The moment he said 18 on Star Wars man I'm just really jealous right now
Honestly, *Alita* *Battle* *Angel* should've been nominated for Visual effects oscar
its a joke.
not just should been nominated, SHOULD BEEN ALSO WIN.
I love learning about these things, this is so interesting!!
How bout aquaman ? Those visual fx bro 🤤