Cameron Effect: Saving Planet of the Apes from Disney+ Volume

[@FrameVoyager]

VIDEO NOTE: The Leah chase scene was filmed on location, just badly haha. So please ignore that reference, but the one of Obi-Wan chasing her is correct. Sorry about that!

[@CK-ceekay]

Sad how this incredibly impressive technology is utilised to make some of the flattest, darkest, most boring looking scenes in TV

[@FrameVoyager]

It's just not being used well and often wayyyy too much

[@coinopanimator]

​@@FrameVoyageryeah very few shows light the stage in the volume properly. Though lighting dark sets properly is becoming a lost art, it seems.

[@daviduribe5897]

They’re too cheap to go for ultrabright LED’s with an AI-assisted rotoscoping tool for CG compositing in post, or simply very bright OLEDs and a custom UE5 rig designed to render more realistic raytracing with more accurate depth of field

[@Fafhrd42]

@@daviduribe5897 It's literally none of these things. Strong directional light sources cause reflections off the darker panels, which breaks the whole illusion. It causes problems when using the Volume purely as lighting and comping the practical elements into a offline rendered final scene (which is generally how the Volume is used. They dynamically place tightly bound greenscreen elements behind the actors and remove the entire Volume scene for the final product), and also doesn't work in cases where the Volume is used as a fully in-camera effect. You have to have a fairly uniform level of brightness across the whole thing to keep the reflections from becoming apparent, which means you get flat lighting.

[@michaelwilliams949]

You definitely hit the nail on the head with the “hanging out” paradox. I think and I feel as someone studying filmmaking that your story is as good as poo in the toilet if it doesn’t have any “being in the moment” scenes. Studio Ghibli does this with masterful precision. Those are moments which draw deeper into the movie. I remember watching 12 Years a Slave and there was a scene where for two mins or something straight he was sat in a field in just grief and loneliness. I remember wondering if something was going to happen and when the scene ended it impacted me deeply. These are moments when you can actually get access to the psychology of the character and the state of mind they are in. Studios in Hollywood are obsessed with constant motion to keep audiences in the adrenaline rush, problem with that is it can eventually get boring. But with “rest moments” you can do them in a million ways and each way can draw the audience in far deeper than an explosion ever could.

[@justdannyquinn]

I think one of my main problems with filmmaking nowadays is that it's all about the plot. Everything has to be about the plot and how each scene connects to the next, and on some level, I get that, but I feel like people care too much about plot and not so much about story, almost to the point where if there's a scene or even a bunch of scenes that feature characters just feeling things or living in the moment but these scenes don't necessarily move the plot forward, people will just complain that it's all filler. It's why I really like James Cameron as a writer and director. As a storyteller, his main priority seems to be the characters and feeling above all else. Even in the Avatar films, I like that he spends so much time showing the Na'vi just living their lives before the RDA comes in to wreck everything. As somebody who's also constantly learning about filmmaking and storytelling, I much prefer to prioritise feeling, character and emotion over whether or not a scene progresses the plot because without those three factors, I just feel like films will end up looking more like a Wikipedia synopsis. Even a scene as simple and as silly as that bit in Hellboy II where Hellboy and Abe Sapien are drinking beer and singing Barry Manilow goes a long way in both getting you attached to these outlandish characters and also just really illustrating their emotional states.

[@michaelwilliams949]

@@justdannyquinn I completely agree! It's important to have foreshadowings and stuff, but it's better to just have fun. People nowadays are being too "careful". People will get offended if a fart sounds too white or black. Maybe we'll work together one day in which case I'm very much looking forward to making movies that aren't a bore and is made with pure love by nerdy people such as ourselves 🤝

[@justdannyquinn]

@@michaelwilliams949 Don't misinterpret me. I'd definitely make sure to have those little bits of foreshadowing and reversals and all that craic (because I do love that), but my main priority would be all about the characters and the feeling above all else.

[@michaelwilliams949]

@@justdannyquinn Agreed!

[@josephwallace202]

Ozu called those "pillow shots" and they're utterly, utterly absent from all franchise films. It's part of what makes them so inhuman and cold.

[@Carlo_ReNews]

As the Co-creator of the volume Greig Fraser (cinematographer of Dune, the Batman and the pilot of the manderlorian) said it can only be used under certain lighting conditions like a sunset (the Batman rooftop) or very dark scene. If it’s used under other circumstances it will look fake

[@FrameVoyager]

Yep, you really need dark lighting situations. I love the use for the cockpit scenes though

[@TroyUlysses]

The Volume combined with practical effects, which can, if needed, be augmented with added CGI, great, yeah. Volumes's tech is nothing more than an upgrade of Backscreen Projection, which was never meant to replace location shooting.

[@FrameVoyager]

Agreed. I honestly don't hate it for some "location" replacement on the small scale like how The Batman used it. But they do so many other things in that film well, especially the cinematography and style, you just don't notice the few use cases of it.

[@TroyUlysses]

@@FrameVoyager Exactly. As you say in the video. It is one tool. One of many and has the possibility to work in certain scenarios. The Mandolrian worked for me because it was mostly deserts. But more complex visuals, that also once captured 'in-camera' are going to be very expensive to edit, need far more work.

[@merlin5662]

personally, the problem with the volume isn't the technology itself but who uses it and how it is used. if you look at mando season 1 and 2, it looks pretty flawless. but when you look at mando season 3 there was a noticeable drop in visual quality. i think the volume is still a new technology that needs to be used in moderation and developed, not thrusted into every show it can. i think the volume has a place to be one of the greatest tools for visual storytelling, but it needs time to be optimized before going on to have more use. from what i seen, the volume works best if props are on stage, it adds a more natural feeling and detail (something that i remember in season 1 and 2 but absent in season 3) that makes it seem like it was actually shot in a real place.

[@GEMINIEARTHWALKER]

If you watch the last two seasons of Star Trek Discovery, you can see the downgrade of effects when they went full digital production with the last season. They have a 180⁰ video screen stage with a video ceiling, where they film 90% of the show. . I hate the new look, there's a lack of tangibility with the effects. Like the bridge of the Discovery, previously they had a full set with green screen accents to accentuate the set. Now the entire bridge is a background screen with foreground props. . They used to travel around the world to film in real locations, like when they filmed the opening scene of the Pilot in the Jordan desert. . Now it's all on their 180⁰ VR Screen, and there is a piece of the magic that is missing. . I believe that in Sci-Fi and Fantasy having tangible practical effects, props and sets adds to the believability of the universe, when everything feels fake, the universe loses its tangibility, and the audience loses their investment.

[@CoNiCuZn]

I agree. The Batman used the volume and it is a flawless looking movie. Disney’s complacency has just gotten out of control.

[@noobbotgaming2173]

But i think that's the problem with The Volume. Good situations are too limited for it to look good. Normal composting is so much versatile than The Volume.

[@CNC-Time-Lapse]

Whenever I see an Avatar scene, I picture the Corridor Crew's version of the characters now. lol

[@FrameVoyager]

😅😅😅 that was some fever dream

[@igorbondar723]

Volume in Mandalorian was used primarily to avoid rendering of reflections on main character in post-production. Also green screen allows to get better flexibility in post. Some scenes from Volume were taken as "final" without tweaking background. This made production cheaper but removed option to make it better.

[@ironcladnomad5639]

The real problem isn't just how the tech is being used, but also what world is being developed. I have creative issues with the world Cameron designed for Avatar, but there's no denying that he put the work into it. A lot of people tend to see stories as comprised of characters and plot, but an equally important yet unsung third pillar is worldbuilding. And I can pretty much guarantee that, not matter the tech being used, if the world being presented doesn't look all that great, it's because the work hasn't been put into the worldbuilding.

[@FrameVoyager]

For sure! And there have been examples of the volume being used well to help that world building!

[@BankMoviegoer]

I really liked how Wes Ball approached the Maze Runner movies. They were decent and more competently directed than most of the other YA attempts. I'm looking forward to seeing his take on the Apes franchise.

[@FrameVoyager]

Same! Honestly a miracle that series did as well as it did. We are doing a video next week on Wes Ball and covering his whole career and why he seems to be stuck in Franchise Film hell haha

[@musstakrakish]

I love Kong Skull Island because of its hangout scenes.

[@stephencox4556]

That last quote is weird to take out of context because Wes Ball also said over 30 minutes of Kingdom is entirely CGI, no background plates, no “real” locations, entirely digital characters in digital environments.

[@monkeys7187]

I can’t tell if you’re complaining or not but 30 min of a 2 hour and 30 min movie is quite impressive. I’m assuming the things they couldn’t film in real life was the towering dilapidated skyscrapers in one of the first scenes, the burning fort scene near the middle, the large secret military bunker scene and the enormous fort constructed by the apes over generations next to humungous rotting metal ships. I’d say that’s pretty fair my guy.😅

[@stephencox4556]

⁠@@monkeys7187 not complaining at all. Just weird to take a quote out of context in the last minute to say “only a fraction of KINGDOM was shot on blu screen, most was on location” when a quarter of the movie is 100% CGI. Blue screen and mocap volume is different, I know. Wes Ball is very open about that and while shooting on location is great, complete cgi environments were needed. He could have used that point to show how similar KINGDOM is to AVATAR, rather than using misinformation to try to say that they’re different?

[@monkeys7187]

@@stephencox4556 not trying to be a dick but you are complaining about the way he worded something. avatar is almost 100% CGI and I don’t think anyone can deny that nor has an issue with that. Kingdom has 30 min of a 2 hour and 30 min movie being full CGI, which is 1/5 of the movie… avatar is 3 hours of full cgi.. no matter which way you crack it that’s a fraction homie. Wes innovated and learned off of what James Cameron did and pushed the technology into new boundaries that Cameron couldn’t push it to.

[@stephencox4556]

@@monkeys7187 i agree with you and you are correct, I am disagreeing not only with the wording but the context in which he is using the quote, especially given the point of this video.

[@rossramirezfilms]

Really great video!!

[@dirtcreature3d]

For some reason KZbin stopped recommending your videos to me wtf! I love your channel man, commenting so they pop up more

[@FrameVoyager]

haha well glad you're back! KZbin seems to be changing around the algorithm here lately

[@swthelostarchives]

The volume looked great in mandalprian. It looked terrible in Kenobi especially during that hallway scene with 50 stormtroopers jammed in this tiny volume

[@cipangoreng]

If they ever make an adaptation of Horizon Zero Dawn, Wes Ball seems like a good fit. Seriously, his Ape movie seems so similar to it.

[@FrameVoyager]

Yeah! I think he would be. He seems kinda stuck in this franchise film world right now, but I really like some of his ideas. We are doing a whole video on Wes Ball that should come out next week

[@BurritoKingdom]

Matt Reaves directed Dawn and War of the Planet of the Apes. He would do a great Horizon movie. Can't really judge the new Ape movie since it hasn't come out yet.

[@cipangoreng]

@@FrameVoyager Great! Looking forward to that.👍

[@itsluek]

What they don’t tell you about filming on the volume, is that although you have the sets and other assets prebuilt for filming, a lot of the time it’s usually replaced with VFX in post anyways. As for The Batman, my biggest gripe with its use in that film, was the reflections in the water bouncing off the screens were producing far from accurate reflections. This is especially noticeable in the high rise sequences where a building or light supposedly 100’s or even 1000’s of meters away is reflected in the puddle or glass as if it’s just meters away.

[@christheghostwriter]

The Volume has worked well in Star Trek: Strange New Worlds. Traditionally, the original series and Next Generation used a constantly-redressed "Planet Stage" that was a physical space. It was a low budget way to get the crew out of the ship, and it worked fine decades ago. The Volume is like a 21st century version of the Planet Stage. Strange New Worlds is doing character-driven standalone episodes, so they're only spending a few minutes at a time on a planet. By limiting it, there's not as much time to start seeing the limitations of the Volume, and it's easier to get away with portraying an "alien" world than it would be to recreate a wide-open physical space on Earth. Used sparingly, the Volume can be a great tool

[@MartinPittBradley]

I’m old and still rewatch Aliens. I miss analog Cameron.

[@deadstar44]

Wait what? Wes Ball is the director of Ruin that was all the shit on the internet among CGI students circa 2008?! How didn't I make the correlation until today that it was the same Wes Ball! MIND BLOWN.

[@FrameVoyager]

Yep! We are actually in the process of making a video on him that should come out on Friday.

[@Kevin_Street]

Thank you for this video! You really cover the subject well. I"m gonna try to not see that roundness when looking at Disney Productions, because I just want to enjoy the shows and movies. But now you've pointed it out I'll probably see it everywhere.

[@FrameVoyager]

Haha sorry about that 😅

[@gloriathomas3245]

The whole purpose of the volume aka LED walls is to eventually replace the need for green/blue screens and it's something I can personally get behind especially when you hear about actors speaking about how frustrated they get working with the green screens. With the volume an actor can focus more on giving a performance rather than worrying about what they have to inteact with onscreen. Another value of the volume is that it cuts down on cost when it comes to set construction and also post.

[@Mammothsaber-4457]

Hopefully Kingdom of the planet of the Apes success shows the need for traditional filmmaking techniques. That being said the volume does have a lot of value and while it’s definitely had its ups and downs and it’s misusess it’s miles ahead of green screen in-terms of helping an actor on set since Green screens can be madding to work on I think that some of the issues with the volume can be overcome with bigger stages as well as just being smarter about how one uses them we shouldn’t just reject a new and promising technology just because it isn’t always used correctly.

[@YodaOnABender]

I’m not sure how Cameron is to thank for this. None of the Apes trilogy was filmed on a stage (unless absolutely necessary) Pretty much everything was always filmed on location

[@adambustin6190]

Yeah this video is confused. The thing the Apes trilogy and the next film owe to Cameron is the development of the performance capture technology (specifically the facial capture rig) and the simulcam.

[@insidemymindinc]

Volumes are so cool. It reminds me of how old films would use paintings to get a special background. It has this quaintness too it. However, I had no idea quantumania was shot with them. Man I thought it was horrible cgi it was awful. You hit the nail on the head. It’s a tool, and you should only use that tool for specific scenes like the Batman, and even some scenes in mandolin

[@FrameVoyager]

I love Volume tech! But it's definitely been used in a lot of uninspired ways. And even though Quantomania wasn't fully shot on the volume, you can see some of the similar issues that's plagued other MCU shows. It really comes down to using it creatively and having vision, if you have none of those things you can end up using tools in terrible ways

[@insidemymindinc]

@@FrameVoyager whole heartily agree!!

[@Mammothsaber-4457]

The volume was used well in Percy Jackson as well

[@billelliott3507]

Once I found out they were using it in the Batman it was a little more noticeable. But given the more limited budget, it's definitely a worthy trade-off. I'm sure they will get a bugger budget in the sequel

[@alexboyajian2096]

Its crazy how good the mandalorian season 1 and 2 look vs ahsoka, mando season 3, and Ant man 3. I think greg Fraiser has a lot to do with that

[@jurgenmathiae6682]

Volume Problem is not only light it’s also space, if you shoot outside you see the bigger space

[@BlackEagle352]

The problem is they used the volume. It probably amazed them so much. It made them lazy and relied on it too much. Instead of adding value to the production it adapted the volume's limitation, influencing the story, art, environment. A big deciding factor. -edit spelling

[@FrameVoyager]

That's a large part of it. A lot of uninspired use

[@NoSuRReNDeR001]

Lighting volumes is tough but the big issue the MAJOR GLARING issue... in Green screen its easy to change things later EVEN IF ITS ROTOSCOPED anyway... you need all the (backgrounds assets etc... AHEAD and they cant be changed EVEN If you rotoscope because the REFLECTIONS Are real. Volumes ONLY benefit filmmakers that are HEAVILY into pre-production and pre-visual heavy.

[@PanteraRossa]

Interesting that after all the R&D of Lucasfilm developing the volume, the best implementations have still come from DPs and directors that were trying to solve a SPECIFIC problem as opposed to doing the whole film this way. Gravity and Oblivion were some of the first times I heard LED walls and CG backgrounds being deployed in relatively modest budgets compared to some of these new shows and Disney movies. Look up the MrX breakdown of their work on Roma for a great breakdown of a director using a lot of invisible post FX to enhance real life cinematography. Fincher also does this a lot.

[@Jonahcp]

If your main characters are CGI, then there’s little point using the LED wall technology. I’m sure however many of the stagecraft’s realtime features were utilised for motion capture playback purposes.

[@FrameVoyager]

The only thing I could really think of is maybe like instead of just being in a warehouse room, like some of the mocap shoots do, could pre-visualize stuff for the actors. But honestly, a bit over kill for that haha

[@anneboyer6359]

Can you make a video detailing video editing suites and asset packs you use? And what techniques you use for editing. Would be appreciated.

[@FrameVoyager]

Which ones are you interested in? I've thought about doing like a patreon or something like that at some point

[@anneboyer6359]

@@FrameVoyager well if you're gonna do patreon, no worries, you may get better replies from patreon crowd about this by doing a poll. If you do it here, I was asking about what you use, not what someone wants to see.

[@FrameVoyager]

@@anneboyer6359 well I mean to do videos about how I edit and make content. I do a lot of different things 😅

[@anneboyer6359]

@@FrameVoyager thats why I didn't say breakdown a whole video. I said about listing assets, skills you need, or where you learned from, etc.

[@resilienceandflow3095]

It's a different approach to sci-fi than the creator model. Definitely better suited to TV production than Movie. I would love to see the volumes have a bit more depth with more set production in side of it. Kinda like the Gotham back drop. Have characters in a really built set/ room and then looking out of the window/doors you can see the setting in the volume. And then chase seems need to be shot like they do the motor/car stuff. Putting actors on treadmills etc. It's not good or bad it is always time money creativity equations.

[@FrameVoyager]

It's still kind of weird to me from a "cost" perspective because they are still fairly expensive to use and the assets collected for it are expensive as well. But it's interesting to me that a lot of the Disney+ shows that shy away from using it, have been the better ones. Like Andor, which used it but very limited use of it, was their best start wars show. Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't use it, best Marvel movie of 2023. In some ways I feel like maybe they were just lazy using it for some things? I'd agree with the creative equations and taking time to make it work. You can see some of that play out for The Batman film how they used it.

[@resilienceandflow3095]

@@FrameVoyager Andor was Great. But it felt more like a mini-series than a TV show. Almost like the wire vs friends. So maybe there is a bit of a Star Wars bar-based show, almost a space sitcom, like Cheers, then there are HBO-style shows like The Wire and Andor, then there are the movies which are a bit different. These are production-side buckets But as audience members, this is not so clear, and the expectations and delivery mismatch suffer for it?

[@johntheanimator4317]

underated channel

[@FrameVoyager]

Appreciate it!

[@johntheanimator4317]

@@FrameVoyager no problem!

[@bemboing4338]

With Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes, the negative comments were mostly that the environment looked fake like it was shot in a studio, which it was.

[@FrameVoyager]

Yeahhhh, that one was such an odd Tim Burton film. I always forget that he made it

[@bigginsd1]

That wasn’t the main problem people had with that film. Although I actually kind of liked it in an odd way. Maybe I was just happy there was finally another Planet of the Apes film after many years hiatus. But the film left nowhere to go in a sequel. It had no depth and profundity like the original film or the sequel trilogy that came years later. The Apes films are a commentary on the human condition and are very much not just spectacle for its own sake.

[@SuperMyckie]

More technologies to help filmmaking yet most rent movies are completely trash...thanks to the makers of Dune, one of the very few out there keeping the visual quality

[@kelownatechkid]

It's crazy to me that they aren't rendering this film in stereo. Weta has the best 3D talent and technology on the planet...

[@DFMoray]

The Mandalorian volume is just green screen part 2. Or rear projection plus parallax. Motion capture or performance capture as they're now calling it is a totally different thing.

[@1378N]

Directing style is crucial. The better lightsaber duel? That's George Lucas at the helm. 7:37

[@liampugh]

The volume can look incredible when used by people who understand it’s strengths and weaknesses. It’s the reason The Batman looked amazing and Thor LoT looked terrible.

[@adny02]

ZELDA??? wait... now i can't finish this video until I find out about this ZELDA reference.

[@Vegan_Photographs]

The reason why Disney isn’t as good as it could be, it’s about budgets and mainly time We al know VFX artists are over worked, that reason is because of the likes of Disney and also directors that doesn’t understand VFX work as well as they should do

[@FrameVoyager]

Yeah for sure. The use of Volume tech is only a piece of it

[@mattisimo]

Great video!

[@FrameVoyager]

Appreciate it!

[@JediTridae]

honestly cant say I've ever noticed the volume .

[@javebjorkman]

I honestly am not film literate enough to hate on the "volume look" because I don't notice it. I also have not watched any of the Disney+ shows so I guess I wouldn't know. I will trust that everyone who doesn't like it is probably right lol

[@iv0rysh0es39]

Planet of the Apes open world rpg inbound

[@FrameVoyager]

Honestly, sounds like a sick game.

[@iv0rysh0es39]

@@FrameVoyager and the same team that made Horizon Zero Dawn could develop it. But implement more of a morality choice system with how the world and the relation between ape and human unfolds.

[@Godzilla-jr5gi]

Godzilla Minus One will always remain as the best looking movie of the 2020s!

[@bricewgilbert]

is the Obi Wan forrest scene everyone makes fun of even in the volume? It doesn't look like it is. It looks like it was shot on location. I mean all the real on location parts in Obi-wan kind of look bad too. I just don't think I buy that the volume used in scenarios that normally would have been either a green screen or a California desert makes the shots any worse. It's just a different tool that has the same problems that green screen has always had, and people who know how to use either can make you not even realize. The difference now is that the volume allows television to have visual effects they never could have had in the past because it would have cost an insane amount to do more than 8 episodes with near movie quality effects. Now those shows can afford to do it, and yeah they are going to overuse it because they can't afford to go to a location that would look any good. But the alternative is the effects you saw in television pre 2016. Do we want to go back to that? This all just reeks of people who know just enough about how movies are made coming up with a half-baked critique, and everyone is just jumping on the bandwagon.

[@FrameVoyager]

Missed on that one. But the city one with obi wan was volume. Got some conflicting reports on that woods one, my bad! But yeah, I think a lot of it is laziness and a lot of uninspired uses of it. Seems to be people who use more props on set with it have better results But like I said, it's a tool. And it has been used well, but it's clearly not been used well or people wouldn't be saying anything. Planning on doing a longer video here soon on Volume tech

[@brianstorm5488]

IMO Andor is vastly superior overall to Mandelorian despite looking more stagey, because the human characters and momentum of the dramatic intrigue. Well crafted Western gunslinger tv series tropes with a gimmicky fan service baby character (even this lead character’s appeal cruises on never having seen Bobby Fett used well) is not as engaging as Andor’s incredible world building. Whatever limits the volume has visually is unimportant when the writing is so damn good. Traditionally the limits of TV budgets makes it clear writing takes precedent. Story still makes or (mostly these days) breaks Star Trek. Great extended storytelling arcs are 100x more interesting to me than TV effects expected to look like blockbuster movies. When I saw little Leia scampering around like SW’s version of Muppet Babies, I knew Kenobi was a non-starter, I couldn’t even look at it. 😢

[@SiliconRiot]

Great so we've arrived at Volume Bashing instead of VFX bashing... It's a tool, with specific uses... It came into its own during covid, that's why The Mandalorean uses it but they also use Backlot locations, its not all volume work....

[@FrameVoyager]

We didn't bash the volume. We said exactly what you said, it's a tool that has specific uses and some people who just don't use it well.

[@HigherQualityUploads]

They really shouldn't be comparing themselves to Avatar so long as they're still filming in 2D and 24fps in 2024.

[@kenny_dreadful]

Flash frame at 7:22

[@FrameVoyager]

What do you think about ILM's Volume tech?

[@tronam]

It’s almost never the tool, but who’s wielding it that matters.

[@CNC-Time-Lapse]

I think it's great for specific applications. It is definitely innovative and solves some problems in film, but the problem is, many who use it, think that it solves ALL the problems... it's good for specific things. A hand saw is useful, but it's not a good hammer.

[@tronam]

@@CNC-Time-Lapse Probably the best use of it in recent years, at least to me, was Matt Reeves' The Batman.

[@hdeditor]

Like with all tools in filmmaking it certainly has its place but it is certainly not the one shoe fits all solution. Just as you would use different cameras in different situations you'd go on location or greenscreen for some shots while others might work better in a volume. Just because it's new doesn't mean it can replace everything.

[@andybrice2711]

It was conceived as a better alternative to green-screen. But instead it's being used as a cheap alternative to locations and sets. That's potentially good for TV and smaller productions. But it can feel lacklustre when it's relied upon on too much in a big-budget movie.

[@Thunderpuddle]

How much of this is imagined though? Because you know its on the Volume? Andor was filmed on as many sets as possible, yet we all know that?

[@czdot]

Again, Avatar 2 made ALL the money of 2022 but I can't find anyone who talks, cares, or thinks about it. The visuals are stunning, the story is better, but the movie still could have been 40 minutes shorter and no one would bat an eyelash.

[@FrameVoyager]

Maybe we hang out in different circles? That movie is referenced a lot. But it has been 2 years since it came out and a lot of other films have come out, so it's a bit of recency bias. Everyone will be talking about it again when we ramp up to AVATAR 3

[@czdot]

@@FrameVoyager I believe Avatar 1 and 2 are stunning visual masterpieces. Cameron is a true pioneer of technological advances. My gripe with these movies is the predictability of both films. I can tell the story is secondary. I have never seen them in a movie theater. That's why I wasn't as impacted as others. I will gladly watch Avatar 3 when it comes out. :-)

[@jkentrrtainment]

@@czdotplease do it hits differently on a big screen. Very immersive!!!

[@kurtnelle]

That hair has a lot of volume. Also, purest will always do things one way. That volumetric strategy adopted by the Mandalorian is just a cost saving avenue for making visually stunning pieces quickly and inexpensively. Just another tool in the arsenal of the story teller.

[@FrameVoyager]

Haha my hair is suffering from the high almost summer humidity 🥲 But actually, big misconception is that the volume is inexpensive. It's actually very expensive to not only build and use but the assets to put on the wall itself can sometimes cost even more.

[@somethingtojenga]

You can totally tell when they're using a volume... the black level is NEVER right

[@UniversalOpera]

It’ll get there, we are still in the first ten years of LED walls, will be quite interesting to see it in another 10. Check out CGI in the very early nineties if you see what I mean. We’re just hitting the Jurassic Park levels now, and it’s going to be rare to see people using it very well (The Batman, for example) for a while.

[@srb2834]

I would’ve sworn the new Indiana jones movie used the volume. The scenes with the Tuk-tuk chase were awful looking

[@FrameVoyager]

I honestly feel like it's conditioned us to think Disney films use it haha. But yeah, I thought so as well until I found that clip. Because early on they reported that they did use it, only for the director to say they didn't

[@robert-brydson-1]

I lost all interest in Planet of the Apes when they went CGi

[@kayzee3595]

I never heard about this guy behind the Kingdom of the Apes, but I ultimately respect him so much.

[@MatthewPalanca]

PAPYRUS!

[@octopusvulgaris2410]

👍👍👍

[@ezy.doesit]

papyrus?1?!?!?!?! 🤣

[@FrameVoyager]

PAPYRUS 🤬🤬🤬

[@chasm9296]

Papyrus!!!!!!!!!!

[@FrameVoyager]

PAPYRUS!!!!???? 🤬🤬🤬

[@andybrice2711]

I think volume technology will be short-lived. It won't be long until we have software which can automatically and seamlessly replace backgrounds. At which point we'll only need much cheaper lighting to match the digital environment.

[@gloriathomas3245]

The volume won't be short-lived because it's being adopted everywhere now. You local TV news studio is probably now using a LED wall on their set. I know because my local TV station just installed theirs

[@andybrice2711]

@@gloriathomas3245 Sure. I don’t mean they’ll literally all vanish. But I think there are already emerging technologies which will supersede them for most use cases.

[@johntnguyen1976]

This video getting ripped apart over on TwitterX by actual industry veterans, bro. Some of whom worked on the films you're talking about.

[@FrameVoyager]

Well I saw the tweet you're talking about. Doesn't mention who he's talking about, but messaged him to find out. We're not above taking criticism if we got stuff wrong

[@teslafudge1585]

“avatar feels real and lived in” bro, wtf are you talking about? perfect digital light interaction with actual physical objects works in mandalorian as a serial show. sure, black widow is trash, there is no stagecraft being used. there is no substitute for practical effects. obvious cgi characters never “work”… avatar, comics, & talking monkeys require fandom. in camera effects are king, effective artists are still limited by the stories.

[@FrameVoyager]

Never said anything about the mandalorian series being bad. We're not saying stagecraft is bad, but it's a tool that requires you to know when and how to use it. Just like green screen, just like CGI, just like practical effects. All tools that you need to know when to utilize. But most things that are dubbed "practical effects" have a lot of CGI work accompanying them. And yeah, the latest avatar film had practical effects involved at times. All of it comes down to vision, planning, and understanding how to utilize all of these tools of cinema to their best effect. Obvious CGI characters obviously work, Avatar doesn't have a "fandom" yet it's blown out the box office in historic fashion both times. And even if you think the second one had a fandom, the first one is based on an original script and not on a franchise and still is the highest grossing film of all time. 🤷‍♂️

[@Vegan_Photographs]

I’m going to rebuttal your comment about Rebel moon for the simple fact is that we’ve only seen the cut down version, not the full versions that explores the worlds even more I’ve spoken with the creators and I can tell you as a fact that they care about these things There is literally a bible that was created even to the point of mentioning what the generals stick was made out of

[@FrameVoyager]

I'm not saying they aren't at all, I'm saying in the product they put out, you can tell it's not the main focus. Also, not making a film that works as a full version first is weird. They didn't need extended versions of LOTR to help with world building, people just loved the world already and wanted more. But I also get your point of view! Thanks for the rebuttal!

[@mortenjensen946]

It has nothing to do with the volume. It’s because the The movie you mentioned that uses the volume, has weak stories.. it’s only a tool

[@FrameVoyager]

It has weak stories absolutely, but it was also criticized for having very uninspired visual effects. And I'd agree with you, it's just a tool but people can be lazy with that tool

[@andybrice2711]

Yeah, but Avatar arguably has a weak story and script, yet is still engaging through its visuals.

[@rayname908]

Avatar is an ugly cartoon just like all CGI

[@afonsopiresdelima]

Womp womp

[@WAG-kg8ys]

Hey, hi, I've been trying to contact James Cameron for weeks to tell him that I'm making a film about him. Does anyone know his phone number or email address?