5:47 Removing bluescreens from behind the scenes footage is just *wild* 😂
@florianwiedner9 ай бұрын
No matter what Video it is on KZbin, if it mentions CGI or Blender, you comment
@fortissimoX9 ай бұрын
@@florianwiedner Well, he's the guy who got a LOT of people into 3D with his free online tutorials. So, that's a kind of his job, to be active part of this community. And also, he seems to be quite nice. So, you shouldn't be annoyed by him.
@florianwiedner9 ай бұрын
@@fortissimoX okay, my comment was a little misleading. He's the one who got me into 3d and I'm not annoyed he comments. It was just a funny thing I noticed and I wanted to point it out.
@Chrisp.Visualz9 ай бұрын
you taught me how to make a 3D donut long ago! nice seeing your comment here.
@oldcowbb9 ай бұрын
god, i feel really bad for the CGI studio
@pobbityboppity11109 ай бұрын
Turns out “every frame a painting” was actually just a true statement
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Ha, accurate
@EbonyPope9 ай бұрын
He also completely missed the point that paintings unlike CG are tangible, real objects. He was creating a complete strawman.
@thewrongvine9 ай бұрын
@@EbonyPope And uh, what exactly is YOUR point?
@potatoz12959 ай бұрын
Every Frame Is A Painting is a KZbin channel
@EbonyPope9 ай бұрын
@@thewrongvine Exactly the one I pointed out. He is missing the point. When people say they prefer real things they don't mean they don't want to see special effects. That is a strawman he is implying here. Nobody cares if you use effects. And in the example he chose there is also another aspect that isn't comparable to CG used in movies. Yes matte paintings were used. But unlike CG matte paintings is real art. You know it was painted by someone with very special fine motor skills very few people possess. You don't need special skills apart from a little bit of creativity and dedication to make a 3D model. I hope you get it now.
@22carmoon9 ай бұрын
God this is another slap in the face for VFX artists. "We're gonna get you to work overtime 7 days a week and then we're going to give your credit to the practical effects team"
@its_clean9 ай бұрын
"And then we're gonna use your own work to erase any evidence of your existence from promos and BTS footage"
@zeronightex9 ай бұрын
Being a VFX artist has to be so demoralizing. I don't know how people do it.
@henriklarsson52219 ай бұрын
@@zeronightex Probably for money.
@thewrongvine9 ай бұрын
@@henriklarsson5221 Oh do I have news for you... 😃 there is no money in VFX sadly. That's why you hear so much about overworked and underpaid employees around the world.
@OverJumpRally9 ай бұрын
That's one of the reasons why I moved to game development.
@justmoritz9 ай бұрын
Removing the blue screen from the b roll footage is ... insane.
@ArifRWinandar9 ай бұрын
That's like showing a slaughterhouse and replacing cows with cow-shaped sausages.
@itsd0nk9 ай бұрын
They used VFX... to hide the VFX from the b roll... demonstrating how they didn’t use VFX. 🤯
@potatopotatow9 ай бұрын
It’s insulting honestly. Studios are crazy
@StickHits9 ай бұрын
@@ArifRWinandar Except there are reasonable explanations for why someone would want to conceal elements of a slaughterhouse lol
@mak_attakks9 ай бұрын
Criminal, even
@techmast69209 ай бұрын
I was NOT ready for the altered BTS footage to hide Blue screens. That is wild!
@deadstar449 ай бұрын
It's a whole new level of VFX hatred performed by the studios themselves to placate ignorant nerds worshipping practical effects.
@TrunkyGurden9 ай бұрын
im shocked! I was a lead artist on Barbie, and im blown away by that.
@tiburc109 ай бұрын
That is so fucking awful from Warner Bros, holy shit.
@tiburc109 ай бұрын
People don't care if it was filmed in a studio or not. AVATAR IS ALMOST 100% CGI and are the two biggest box office hits of literally all time. Stop worring about showing blue screens and just make good movies.
@RaptorNX019 ай бұрын
To me, that is the most horrid thing in all of this. spending the time and money to digitally alter your behind the scenes footage just to lie to people about not using digital footage. and in the process attacking the work of thousands of real artists.
@CorridorCrew9 ай бұрын
So many amazingly researched moments and insights. You’re crushing it with this series!
@IonSnake9 ай бұрын
I've watched your VFX reacts so much that this series gives me chills when he mentions any technique or concept also brought up in VFX react. It kind of feels like I didn't fail Corridor Crew in learning all these knowledge. While this series is fantastically insightful, I still want to express my appreciation for everything Corridor Crew has taught me.
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Thank you! Bummed you beat me to Barbenheimer by 5 days, loved that video 😬
@DanBerglund9 ай бұрын
You should invite him to your sofa, get even more exposure onto this "no cgi"-BS.
@JasonEllins9 ай бұрын
@@IonSnake ikr!
@kuldan58539 ай бұрын
@@TheMovieRabbitHole I wanted to say - I found your channel when you had barely 4k subscribers and the first video of this series was just posted - you are doing amazing work, have an extremely nice and likeable on screen persona, and your visual work to underscore what you are talking about - plus your research - are top quality. I wish you a lot of success!
@folarinosibodu9 ай бұрын
Those matte paintings are so seamless. It boggles the mind.
@wiredforstereo9 ай бұрын
When I watched those old movies when I was a kid, I used to think "wow, they had to build all those sets." But no, turns out they didn't.
@g1zm02k9 ай бұрын
They certainly were! I think the older films were framed better for those long shots with matte paintings so they were literally background and tended to blend in. A lot of films today are CUT, CUT, CUT, and you don't even have time to notice so they can get away with anything. It also helps that a lot of matte paintings were designed to be shown on the lower resolutions at the time too - it's harder to get away with now when using a lingering shot.
@osmanyousif78499 ай бұрын
I kind of wish movies today would actually go back to that type of effect more.
@wiredforstereo9 ай бұрын
@osmanyousif7849 Matte paintings don't work nearly as well in crystal clear high definition. They worked so well back then because it was filmed on celluloid which has its own grain. Even then, it wasn't invisible. Today's compositing is miles ahead of what they had back then.
@osmanyousif78499 ай бұрын
@@wiredforstereo, what about miniatures? As I feel like those type of effects don’t get talked about as much today (even though the video here does mention Oppenheimer using miniatures). Especially since I always think about what some action scenes could look like, if CGI wasn’t used, but neither was practical, and the studio used miniatures.
@emillinnebach9 ай бұрын
18:09 There is not a single word in this sentence that was not cut together by the editor 😂😂
@Excelcior589 ай бұрын
Good ear buddy! So funny! It's like a sound board!
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Accurate
@mak_attakks9 ай бұрын
Wow I didn't catch that at first, but now I can't unhear it lol
These videos should be automatically linked on every social media post talking about CGI.
@2006man9 ай бұрын
It should automatically be the first thing people see when they turn on their computers.
@danrandlehandle9 ай бұрын
We have a duty brothers and sisters
@belldrop73659 ай бұрын
It should be the first 30 minute segment of every movie. Automatically makes movies better when you think "those ain't real, ain't it?" on every scene.
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Lol thanks, people
@PrograError9 ай бұрын
INB4 automated Community Notes with this
@reddcube9 ай бұрын
I wish the dumb headlines like ‘No CGi’ and ‘Film Practically’ could extend to other parts of filmmaking. “New Tron movie shoot without any lighting” “Dune Part 3 principle photography completed with only stand-in actors” “Deadpool 3 required no color grading” “Actor makes a statement about post production that they weren’t involved in”
@DoubLL9 ай бұрын
To be honest, I think "no color grading" *would* sell tickets as a marketing line, regardless of whether it was true or not. People generally like seeing their favorite actors in a movie so bragging about not having actors sounds horrible, but if you tell them that all the beautiful shots really looked like that when they were shot? Sounds good. Of course, that would require a general audience to know what color grading even is.
@EbonyPope9 ай бұрын
It is understandable though. Would you admire someone who said he made a magic trick and then goes to show you footage where he digitally removed the coin? Or would you rather be impressed by someone who made the coin disappear in your own hand while you stand there and watched? I think the answer is obvious. CG evolved from a tool to an outright cancer. People are just thirsty for authenticity. I get that.
@DanLynch28149 ай бұрын
“Actor makes a statement about post production that they weren’t involved in” HA sooo many times.
@miguelvelez72219 ай бұрын
People get outraged by this but close to twenty straight years of "CGI IS BAD/OVERDONE" or "PRACTICAL EFFECTS ARE ALWAYS BETTER" becoming the defacto opinions of film fans online, well... Of course studios are going to play to an audience making it's druthers loudly known.
@Cladius769 ай бұрын
@@DanLynch2814 Oh really!! I didn't notice that scaning a actors body or face or lead actors mocap performance is a principle photography!!🤦♂
@Ko_kB9 ай бұрын
This is a must watch series for cinephiles
@jackiemortes9 ай бұрын
It should be eye-opening for some people. And it's long overdue, the "practical is better" narrative went too far.
@MarcMcKenzie-qb6or9 ай бұрын
Completely agree.
@alexman3789 ай бұрын
@@jackiemortesYup, a copied opinion they uphold like they came up with it completely on their own
@Groffili9 ай бұрын
With the millions of dollars spend for movie productions, perhaps some of this money could be spend to replace advertisments before movies with this series. Wouldn't even be tpo dissimilar: it IS a fantastic advertisment for the genius of filmmaking.
@khymaaren9 ай бұрын
And "CGI" haters.
@vossity9 ай бұрын
I have been a matte painter and 3D environment artist for film for just over 7 years and I work at Framestore. It makes me happy to see more more exposure to this craft. It really is an invisible art and there are so many incredible artists that do amazing work that dont get the credit they deserve.
@admiralhyperspace00159 ай бұрын
wow, I commend your guys work man. Many older movies are masterpieces because you guys exist.
@arjun2209 ай бұрын
As for Tom Cruise you dont exist, no cgi! no cgi!
@halfvader80159 ай бұрын
Maybe a few more decades of stuff like this and screaming morons like @EbonyPope will start to diminish. In their myopic, ignorant, hilariously and publicly embarrassing view you're not an artist. Because, y'know, digital.
@cryoboy9 ай бұрын
Okay using cgi to make your behind the scenes footage look like they didn't use cgi is a whole new level of insane. And I think you're way too lenient when giving all these people who worked on those films the benefit of a doubt that they just didn't realize how many digital effects these movies used.
@noisycarlos9 ай бұрын
In fairness, people from production like the costume designers, set builders, and even actors (who are not also producers) don't usually get told when their work is replaced in post. They saw the costumes and sets being used during filming. Also, a lot of those BTS interviews are shot while they are filming the movie, when they might still think no VFX will be needed in post
@Outstralian9 ай бұрын
It sounds like an Onion headline
@Ugly_German_Truths9 ай бұрын
How much is the interviewee not knowing things and how much is the Studio binging them contractually to PRETEND they don't know things? Instead of them investing the money into positive press for "invisible" CGI and slowly killing the ridiculous stigma of even good effects being used, they play around the stereotypes and try to hide how much effects contribute to their approved movies. THAT is insanity... Let's be honest. WHO cares if it's CGI or SFX or "done in camera"?? A director and editor has many tools and they should as many of those as necessary to deliver great and enjoyable entertainment. If they save money by using artificial fibers for the stand in or stunt double uniforms instead of silk and wool but it looks convincingly enough on the Silver Screen... good. Movies are expensive and everything that makes that more manageable is a good idea. As long as the product does not suffer under shoddy work. I'd rather have them use 200 more digital effects shots and the actors and crew get paid decently than the other way round, starving your employees to pay for "real effects"...
@jasons59169 ай бұрын
There are blue screens around the set and they still say "we're not using CGI." Like do they expect to see a big blue screen in the finished movie?
@jasons59169 ай бұрын
@@Ugly_German_Truths Years of bad CGI have ruined the reputation of CGI so much that no one wants to say they use it even if they do it well. They could try and rehabilitate that reputation by saying "yeah our CGI is awesome, bet you can't tell it's there," but it would probably lower their box office even if it was the best effects ever. I think most audiences want a movie to look good and don't care how that happens. Easier to lie to them so they don't avoid a movie because they think all CGI will look bad.
@DoubLL9 ай бұрын
What I really love about this series is that it's not a debunking or a takedown of misinformation but instead a celebration of the amazing achievements which made all these movies possible.
@KTSpeedruns9 ай бұрын
It's kind of both, actually.
@TheMovieRabbitHole8 ай бұрын
@@KTSpeedrunsIt is
@dgoberna9 ай бұрын
as a former mattepainter, this episode was a delight to watch. Thanks for puting it all together!
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Awesome! I love matte paintings (if it wasn't clear already). Did you do anything we might have seen?
@EbonyPope9 ай бұрын
@@TheMovieRabbitHole You made up a strawman with that argument though. Matte paintings are a real thing after all. It's authenticity and dedication what people crave not that you don't use any visual effects whatsoever. That is a complete strawman. Nobody says this. Unlike CG though matte paintings are real art made by a real artist.
@NukeMyHouse9 ай бұрын
@@EbonyPope Are computer generated sets not "real art"? What about art being made in computer suddenly makes it *less* than so-called "real" art?
@dgoberna9 ай бұрын
@@EbonyPopeit's true that a computer can help you a lot to create an image, but at the end of the day it is another tool, the same art basics and foundations apply in both media. I don't think it's fair saying one is real art by a real artist and the other is not.
@rano123219 ай бұрын
@@EbonyPopelmao are you really saying that matte painting in physical form is real art but in cg it's not art? Are you being serious? Why dont you go back and use rocks and colors from trees and plants to draw on the walls of cave, I only consider that's true art. Anything that's made with human manufactured tools are fake art. Photography, digital 2D art, painting brushes and colors made by combining chemicals, not real enough for me.
@juanvelez12089 ай бұрын
lol this is crazy, im actually a vfx artists and i worked on barbie , i actually worked in some of the shots you mention and i can confirm the barbie beach shots 100% blue screens, a lot of set extentions used in the barbie land , its outrageous to see how studios take it so far as to not credit vfx artists, even more limiting the number of credit spots for vfx studios to credit theyr artists.
@cjboyo9 ай бұрын
I tend to find heavy use of vfx in movies really distracting and I barely noticed with this movie. Congratulations on being part of such a fantastic project!!!!
@christianbarnay24996 ай бұрын
Thanks for your amazing work. And shame on the producers for going so far as badly editing BTS footage to deny your existence.
@folarinosibodu9 ай бұрын
Wow Colbert‘s sound effects for nuclear explosion was better than most movies.
@JaximusDecimus19 ай бұрын
They must have CGI'd those sound effects in.
@moorebid_9 ай бұрын
@@JaximusDecimus1 They CGI'd Stephen Colbert in.
@tiburc109 ай бұрын
It fits that small and awful looking "nuclear explosion" very well
@jmalmsten9 ай бұрын
What I love about it is that we can so clearly picture the visuals, even down to the guy on the bicycle getting caught by the blast in its own micro scene.
@paulfoss53859 ай бұрын
Although his sound effects were based on the sound effects from those movies. The actual sound of nuclear detonation is much closer to that of a gun firing, but that's not very climactic. Movies do the same thing with bald eagles, replacing their calls with that of red tailed hawks.
@KoolAidManOG9 ай бұрын
In Oppenheimer the image of the water ripples on the table was also done with a video projector, same as the room vibrating during Oppenheimer's speech.
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Thanks! Where did you get this info?
@oceanfraser22289 ай бұрын
i know the shaking wall projector was shown in a behind the scenes footage@@TheMovieRabbitHole
@KoolAidManOG9 ай бұрын
@@TheMovieRabbitHole From crew members at a guild screening. :)
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
@@KoolAidManOG Ohhhh nice.
@KoolAidManOG9 ай бұрын
@@TheMovieRabbitHole Terrific series btw, thank you for your work!
@Schizm19 ай бұрын
As video game concept artist - Your videos are what I want to scream in people's faces when they tell me about "CGI is crap!" or "CGI is cheap way of making things!" Thank You!
@nathangracia17349 ай бұрын
This series really opened my eyes of how pivotal "CGI" is to filmmaking. So many people shit on "CGI" without understanding that it is responsible for making everyone's favorite shows and movies a possibility.
@2006man9 ай бұрын
And sometimes the very same people who shit on CGI are the same people who feel pity and bad for CGI artists, thinking they are abused and suffering within the filmmaking industry and therefore need justice done for them. Weren't those people just mocking those CGI artists for having no skills and doing a terrible job and therefore deserving of the insults? And now they're putting on a mask to look innocent. What hypocrites!
@goodial9 ай бұрын
watching behind the scenes footage (if not altered like for Barbie) and vfx breakdowns can be really insightful in modern filmmaking. They are especially mind-blowing on movies we think are mostly shot "practically" like the recently uploaded vfx breakdowns by ILM for MI7 and Napoleon or the vfx breakdowns and behind the scenes for the John Wick movies. Yes these movies do impressive things in camera, but the other stuff is just as incredible. You can find a lot here on KZbin. And it's never the big shots that are the most impressive, it's the ones you'd never think were done this way. There is also Final Destination 5. You can find here on KZbin a video that puts the "What was shot" and the final output of the bridge collapse scene side by side, truly eye opening. Even smaller movies use CGI these days. For exmaple: this video mentions the company DNEG. They have a vfx breakdown for Nyad, not the movie I expected to be there
@saintsalieri9 ай бұрын
Maybe that's true for some people. There are others who are consistently skeptical of digital effects and feel they diminish filmmaking, both by looking quite poor in many instances and also by changing the types of stories told. (For example, there could be an interesting movie about Napoleon, but the temptation for Scott to show big battles was so great we didn't get that movie that takes place in government buildings, bedrooms, carriage interiors, and streets). I genuinely don't like modern blockbusters as a rule, and I don't think I'm alone in this. And it has to do with how studios use CGI, and how they specifically hire filmmakers who will be push overs in relinquishing the visual identify of the film to VFX artists and studio suits. Marvel is the worst example of this. You can even like a lot of modern films that have a definitive VFX pass over almost every image, but still be skeptical of the way the industry is headed in terms of which scripts are sold, how shooting budgets and schedules presuppose that nothing will be done in camera, and how the wonderful skills of miniatures artists, matte painters, and stunt supervisors are being lost in favor of computer graphics. There is absolutely no hypocrisy to any of this.
@wombat45839 ай бұрын
@@2006man Both can be true. CGI has varience in quality and a fair amount of that can be attributed to time crunches and endless forced overtime. That or poor communication or poor leadership from production management so that things aren't cohesive enough.
@gondoravalon75408 ай бұрын
@@2006man *And sometimes the very same people who shit on CGI are the same people who feel pity and bad for CGI artists* I mean, that's not a contradiction **IN OF ITSELF** , you can dislike something (even if based off of (in part or whole) any kind of misunderstanding, and not like feelike like the people doing something get mistreated. You can dislike a genre of music without having to think it needs to be eradicated, you can think an ideology is misguided, but should be allowed to exist so long as it doesn't harm people, why should a POV on the use of CGI preclude any sort of empathy? IMO the implied requirement doesn't seem like something that is actually mutually inclusive at all.
@Hykje9 ай бұрын
The term "Practical Effects" is something that originates from the theater and it doesn't mean what they think it means. A practical effect is a stage effect that is not handled by somebody behind the curtains but by an actor on the stage. If a character has a hat that suddenly flies off his head because the actor can release compressed air into the hat by pushing a hidden button, it's a practical effect.
@RyoMassaki9 ай бұрын
That is more or less what it means in film-making, - some effect that happens and is captured in camera. The "practical" denotes that it is done in physical reality and "on stage", only the distinction of who does it went away (as it is irrelevant). Practical effects stand in contrast to optical and digital effects, everything that happens "on stage" and before the light gets captured in the camera is practical.
@abefroman.9 ай бұрын
As a VFX artist on a lot in Hollywood, I can't thank you enough for putting a spotlight on this topic! I also love your presentation, and just want more, More, MORE!! I truly hope you have many more of these types of videos on your to-do list!!
@MulvDulv9 ай бұрын
Absolutely love this series
@AlbertBalbastreMorte9 ай бұрын
The Oppenheimer explosion was saved by the fact the sound was sublime. But anyone who's seen footage of an A-bomb, and we all have, can tell Nolan's explosion was like fireworks in comparison. All that buildup for that. Thank God the dramatic aspect of the movie was good.
@gurratell73269 ай бұрын
Yeah that explosion was one of the most anticlimactic things I've ever experienced when watching a movie, it was SO lame. He should have used CGI.
@AlbertBalbastreMorte9 ай бұрын
I adored the sound design, so I'll give it a pass. But good heavens, Nolan is so pedantic.@@gurratell7326
@max2themax9 ай бұрын
Yep, probably the only big thing I can point out as bad in Oppenheimer... it truly felt like I saw bigger explosions in Mythbusters, or like a MrBeast video. The final wide shot was just like... a truckload of gasoline exploded.
@EbonyPope9 ай бұрын
The explosion was a letdown but what does not sit right with me that he downplays the achievements with the other effects imo. They looked incredibly and the fact that they were done using stuff like a simple balloon blows your mind. It's this what people crave. The dedication and ingenuity you don't get with CG. There is an element that you cannot achieve any other way.
@itsd0nk9 ай бұрын
Seriously. Why not use some archival footage as elements in Nuke (the software) to stay true to his goal and maintaining the raw, realistic aesthetic he was aiming for? It would’ve looked incredible. And that scene was so expertly edited and directed. Also, the wispy little puff of dust for the shockwave was the cherry on top for how anticlimactic that explosion effect was. “I am become slight warmth, igniter of some drums of gasoline”
@leeorbothma26329 ай бұрын
This series has been one of my favourites regarding the use of VFX & CGI. Sad to see how many artists are completely discredited just because they did their job too well. Can't wait for part 4!
@iau9 ай бұрын
I agree with you that insisting so much on practical effects made the explosions in Oppenheimer less spectacular than they could have been
@tylerjames8059 ай бұрын
It wasn’t meant to be spectacular that’s the whole point. The point wasn’t to glamorize the bomb and the story was more meant to show how the bomb affected the people who made it + the world at large. It wasn’t meant to be glamorous.
@NelemNaru8 ай бұрын
@@tylerjames805Well it certainly wasn't realistic either, using a gas explosion to represent a nuke 😂
@ZachBobBob8 ай бұрын
@@tylerjames805True but also it literally didn't look like a nuclear explosion
@hedgehog31806 ай бұрын
@@ZachBobBob I mean it's not like this movie was ever trying to look realistic.
@Aaaaaaarrrpirate4 ай бұрын
@@hedgehog3180 it's not about realism it's about immersion
@MaxRovensky9 ай бұрын
14:05 I got into VFX around the same time I got into software engineering and for me CGI still means "Common Gateway Interface". I've never heard it used during the few years of my VFX career
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Hahaha I forgot about that. I was also in software engineering before.
@255Jen9 ай бұрын
As a vfx artist who has been one of the many affected by the downturn in work due to the WGA/SAG strikes, this series is a breath of fresh air. Thank you so much for shining a light on these issues in such an engaging way 🙏
@mudumudu96149 ай бұрын
What I love about matte paintings in particular is that they force strong composition upon the directors / DOPs. All you have is a static frame and you're probably going to stay on it for a little while, so you better have something interesting to show.
@ResoluteGryphon8 ай бұрын
Congratulations on your mention by Corridor Crew! You're in the VFX big leagues now. Well deserved. This series has been really eye-opening and expertly crafted.
@rano123219 ай бұрын
not sure why people are so obsessed with seeing real things in movies that are about fake made up fantastical stories, it's a movie, a form of art not a documentary.
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
The nail on the head, yes. Everything is fake in movies, that's why we seem them.
@francesconicoletti25479 ай бұрын
From 25% of the comments on this channel, CGI is used as a proxy for bad movie making. Instead of blaming the director or script or studio for the bad movie, people go with what they directly experience the visuals in front of them. “ if I notice the giant robot is fake that’s why the movie is bad”. Rather then “ this bad movie has destroyed my willing suspension of disbelief and all I can do is sit here and nit pick the visuals “.
@emiliano1089 ай бұрын
I mean, a documentary is still a form of art. But yeah, I get what you mean.
@cjboyo9 ай бұрын
@@francesconicoletti2547Oh wow that’s a great way to explain it
@ZachBobBob8 ай бұрын
It's all about immersion. If you see something that is BLATANTLY fake it breaks your immersion of that fantasy world.
@willienelsongonzalez46098 ай бұрын
Gareth Edwards “The Creator” is a wonderful celebration of VFX/CGI and practical action. He openly acknowledges that it’s pointless to spend ridiculous amounts of money on creating pure CGI shots when it’s better to actually go somewhere on location and create a wonderful merger of the two worlds. Brilliant film with some incredibly inventive VFX and beautiful cinematography!
@nickzardiashvili6249 ай бұрын
What's funny to me is how the same kind of discussion was applied to cinema itself when it was a newcomer to the scene in the beginning of the twentieth century and it was constantly compared to theater. It wasn't real enough, it was just some light projected onto a wall. Nowadays, we view it as real, as if that makes any difference at all. Any story requires suspension of disbelief.
@ashuebot-tabi44499 ай бұрын
Most people who complain about CGI not being real never realize how that argument could be applied to any analog aspect of filming. You can have the most immaculately made set or scale model, but turn the camera far enough and you'll see the plywood and undried paint. This argument would be equally dumb when applied to practical effects.
@hedgehog31806 ай бұрын
It's weird how often people can't let fiction be fiction and must treat it as if it operates in some sort of real world. Like there's so many fan theories that X or Y story is actually just one character having a hallucination to explain like a few inconsistencies instead of just accepting that like it's a fictional story, none of it was real in the first place.
@jayko9459 ай бұрын
This has become my favorite KZbin series
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Then you have become my favorite subscriber!
@TheShornak9 ай бұрын
Speaking of Matt Paintings I remember a scene from the movie The Land that Time Forgot. A movie from 1974 staring Doug McClure. There is a scene in the forground of a group of guys standing and talking, at the upper part of the screen is the painting. In a quick scene the guys are starting to leave and one guy throws his jacket over his shoulder. But for a real brief second his jacket disappears behind the painting. This is so noticable that I noticed it when I was about 11 or 12 when I watched the movie on TV.
@scotta46239 ай бұрын
Just incase anyone missed it... the matte painter at 11:12 was James Cameron
@j.b.c.a.9 ай бұрын
Imagine being the artist who has to remove the bluescreen from the BTS-footage
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
I have thought a lot about that lately
@aGameScout9 ай бұрын
almost have to wonder if it was intentionally done sloppily as a F U to the higher-ups who requested it
@hedgehog31806 ай бұрын
It's honestly kinda hilarious that the studio digitally removed the blue screen from the BTS footage of a movie all about a simulated world that is obviously fake. Like what even is the point of lying about using practical effects in a movie where you're supposed to notice how fake most of the sets are?
@LootFragg5 ай бұрын
Artist: "Will... will I get credited for this?" Man in suit screws suppressor onto his handgun: "Sure."
@kylemcneill57519 ай бұрын
Absolutely THE highest quality series that dives into this topic on the internet right now. It's a privilege we are getting this content for free. Thank you so much for your dedication and passion towards this subject. It makes working in VFX just a lot less depressing than it should be right now.
@faccc9 ай бұрын
Finally! Unprecedented accuracy in explaining what CGI is, flawless wording. Congrats
@wistfulgraph9 ай бұрын
This series is absolutely amazing
@thomashendricks97749 ай бұрын
The whole No CGI craze is just the next level of I did all my own stunts or that important scene was improvised. Its hollywood just telling people what they think they want to hear.
@towaii8 ай бұрын
the whole "using the imprecise term CGI is an indicator that the person doesn't really know what they're talking about" is so real. this whole argument increasingly reminds me of those people who insist it's cheating when artists use reference photos or pose models in order to draw/paint accurately
@TheMovieRabbitHole8 ай бұрын
YES. I had a comment on an earlier video that "reference was the crutch of CG artists because they can't make anything on their own". Like, Michaelangelo and friggin rennaisance painters had reference.
@jeremyvanneman81129 ай бұрын
I absolutely love this series! All the work I've wanted to put in to explain to casual film viewers (and people who quote the set designer/actors that no CGI was used) that they're simply wrong - it's all done right here. Thank you!
@13NickGehr529 ай бұрын
removing green/blue screens from bts shots is actual insanity
@TheVidgamejunkie9 ай бұрын
Lol, the lengths they'll go through to sell a lie.
@eaofdeath1879 ай бұрын
3 months, 3 videos and 44k subs, it's good to see a great creator get traction quickly. As for Oppenheimer I was honestly disappointed there wasn't a fully CG nuke, I wanted to see something like how the nuclear bomb is described in the Tom Clancy book "The Sum of all Fears" which details the detonation process at the nanosecond scale.
@randomguy66799 ай бұрын
Come on buddy.
@omsaxena1166 ай бұрын
That's just not Nolan's style.
@wycliffe_ndiba9 ай бұрын
This series is an absolute treat. It's crazy that Colbert's impression of a nuclear explosion is more to scale and emotionally grounded (the cyclist) than the movie's shot.
@manu9d58 ай бұрын
I'm waiting for part 4....this series is just awesome and informative!
@victort.2489 ай бұрын
Man this is the best gift for every movie lover. Absolutely love this series and I am recommending it to everyone
@zachdk9 ай бұрын
I hope to see you on Corridor one day maybe another "No CGI" episode. Mainstream audience should at least be aware if the VFX Industry doesn't want to step forward when Directors and marketers are constantly putting them down. Can't wait for part 4!
@Bertiebaby9 ай бұрын
I had no idea Oppenheimer was a true (kind of, more or less) 'no CGI' type of movie, as opposed to the usual case of using the notion for marketing when it isn't true at all. Very very cool. For real Trinity test spooks I'll take the Twin Peaks version myself.
@TheVidgamejunkie9 ай бұрын
It's weird that movies are loved for "Movie Magic" and yet the current marketing trend is to deny said makers of magic. I guess people really don't want to see what's behind the curtain.
@l4nd3r9 ай бұрын
Maybe it's just me, but i love to learn this stuff and it actually improves movies to me.
@BadMouse1019 ай бұрын
Thank you for the more bare bones straight to business approach of your videos so far. After seeing an overload of videos with annoying editing styles, filler, and repeating the same stuff uninspired again and again it's very refreshing to see a professional just explaining something in a more novel way.
@ANY3D9 ай бұрын
As a 3D & VFX artist myself, I have to tell you how much I love your series and can't wait for part 4. Hollywood is telling people what they think they want to hear and that is "no CGI". You are doing a very good job at putting a spotlight to the artists that work in the industry. They are giving their best in almost all productions and remain one almost invisible name in the credits, among 1000 others - best case. Their work needs to be valued so much more, which you point out in a very entertaining form. Great work, love it!
@brandon40009 ай бұрын
Honestly, I would love to see a big action movie made with no 'CGI', a true call back to 50-80's cinema, the way people seem to want. But if that happened people would complain and say the movies look bad because now we are used to a sort of homogenous aesthetic where everything is so amped up and glossy that reality looks drab by comparison.
@wiredforstereo9 ай бұрын
I don't know, the bad physics often get me, especially CGI car chases and accidents.
@OhioNPC9119 ай бұрын
Lot risk involved in those types of movies, better to use CGI but bad physics makes it worse
@francesconicoletti25479 ай бұрын
@@wiredforstereobecause the crop duster chase in North by Northwest had such great physics . Or the bat plane machine gunning the bad guys in the second bat man movie had such great physics. Or the spinners in blade runner don’t look like they are on cables.
@wiredforstereo9 ай бұрын
@@francesconicoletti2547 I am not hearing what your point is. Me: "This thing takes me out of the experience." You: "This other thing is also bad!"
@yfrit_gg9 ай бұрын
@@wiredforstereoTheir point is that just like CGI can have bad physics practical effects can too, and that it ultimately just comes down to effort, budget, creativity, and artistic merit. Use or no use of CGI doesn't by itself degrade or improve a movie.
@jimmyju769 ай бұрын
thank god for Kubrick for insisting they film the moon landing on location
@SirWrender9 ай бұрын
Finally got a chance to check out the third episode and loved that you used the segment we did with Todd!! Been really enjoying this series. You’re doing an amazing job articulating what’s happening!
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Thank you! Loved the Todd episode.
@EzraAlexander9 ай бұрын
Absolutely love this series. Been waiting for Oppenheimer coverage since part 1. A movie that seemed to so openly flaunt "no CGI," here I was waiting for that to be torn down but was pleasantly surprised at the nuanced breakdown of what that even means. Brilliant!
@gingersmedia9 ай бұрын
thank God someone addressed the rocket launching shot ion Oppenheimer. Its not even the most questionable "non CGI" shot in the movie and people are swearing on their dead grandmother that it was done with computer graphics lol. I'm also glad that you addressed composting as a visual effect/VFX technique and that combining 2 real images is NOT CGI
@OhioNPC9119 ай бұрын
It can be achieved with cgi as well, that's why
@gingersmedia9 ай бұрын
@@OhioNPC911 well…yeah…lmao. Basically every shot in every movie can be achieved with CGI lol
@lgab9 ай бұрын
I'm so glad you said "I hate CGI", because that word stings every time I hear it, it's been SOO incredibly misused for decades now. I actually think it's important to make a distinction between CG and CGI, ie. Computer Graphics vs. Computer Generated Images. CG is a word you'll actually hear uttered from VFX people. On the digital side, our industry deals with CG tools, and within that realm there are many tools that will generate some set of pixels from some set of input parameters, like a fractal, that's CGI in my book. The amazing end result we see in movies is just VISUAL EFFECTS , which is the umbrella term for everything that has to do with manipulating reality. When the thing you see is an illusion, it's VFX. Gas explosions, forced perspective and miniatures are practical, but still illusions from the correct angle, those elements are practical effects, or SPECIAL EFFECTS which is the correct term, but all that fall in under "movie magic" just like VFX does, it's all just tools, invented by smart people. My definition of VFX is anything you do after the actual image acquisition, optical or digital. If you're talking about a Pixar movie, then it's CG Animation. If you blow some shit up and film it, it's special effects as opposed to a real explopsion which would just be you filming something. If you fly real fighter jets, then it's just film, that's not effects. If you shoot the wrong fighter jet on purpose and replace it in post, then it's VFX. If you shoot a scale model of a fighter jet and try to sell it as a real shot using whatever techniques you have access to, it's VFX, because it's an illusion. If you generate a fractal image using computer code, then you Generated an Image using a Computer.
@testisunus9 ай бұрын
just a regular film fan here, i hope views for these essays skyrocket. so tired of the studios and the media pushing this nonsensical narrative and even more tired of people buying it. ive had people tell me that the last mission impossible used no cgi/vfx after they saw it. like, get your eyes checked. or better yet, check the whole damn head.
@tressagreschak4179 ай бұрын
As someone with an acting background, I would 100% prefer a mostly practical/painted set over blue/green screen. I understand having to use special effects to expand a space, but blue screen is much more difficult to work in than most viewers realize. It’s exhausting to mentally build and maintain an entire set in your mind and it almost never looks the actor’s energy matches the space when they film on a very small blue screen and have the space expanded in post.
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Absolutely. Which is why we have worked hard to decrease the amount of VFX components you have to work with on-set, as described in this chapter: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fZWwcniqgdeDicU
@unclvinny9 ай бұрын
That Colbert segment was perfect.
@jordi-rohtau9 ай бұрын
100%
@SparkyMK39 ай бұрын
They fake and hide behind the scenes stuff in animated movies too. Ive had animator friends tell me that a LOT of the stuff you see in those 90's and 2000's Making Of docs (really Electronic Press Kit fluff) are staged and don't reflect the actual process of creating a hand drawn animated movie. Heck, when Disney World in Florida used to have that massive studio that you could walk around and see animators working (they were real and actually were doing work that went into the movies, but I digress), they had a section dedicated to the ink and paint process, showing an artist hand painting cels for a 90's Disney movie just like they did in the old days...even though Disney's in-house animation had completely switched to using a digital ink and paint system by that point! As far as I know, the only honest Making Of doc about what it was like working in the animation industry of that time was The Sweatbox (which covers the Making Of The Emperor's New Groove and it's painful transformation from Kingdom of the Sun in a brutally honest, un-PR friendly way) and it's not an accident that Disney has gone out of their way to bury it.
@BeAWritter9 ай бұрын
One could argue everything is CGI, just the uploading the footage for color-grading makes the image a generated alteration. I believe is about types: like compositing, grading, generated (2D or 3D) backgrounds / objects / subjects, etc. "We didn't use CGI" - "So you delivered an uncut raw file from your camera to the studio and showed it on cinemas?"
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Thanks for watching! One could, and many people certainly do. It made sense back in the days of The Abyss when the entire workflow was analogue, but the water tentacle was made with pixels. You could literally say "the water tentacle is pixels, therefore it's CGI, everything else is not". But since everything is pixels from camera to projection these days, the term would have no applicable meaning if that's how it was used.
@dunke109 ай бұрын
Honestly, the fact that certain scenes are CG instead of being shot on camera makes them even more impressive to me
@dchang36319 ай бұрын
I’m so glad you held up the “The Invisible Art” book. I love that book and reread it every now and then. I continue to be spellbound by the artistry, years of experience rendered by the nameless talents who remain invisible and uncredited. The same goes with the CG artists who, when doing their job well, leave the audience fooled into thinking: oh, they did that with practical effects. Kudos to the unsung heroes of moviemaking. ❤
@pjetrs9 ай бұрын
Seriously one of the highest quality YT channels out there, can't wait for what's to come!
@176598172657814657819 ай бұрын
Who else is pausing and going forward and backwards frame by frame every few seconds? this is amazing!
@GrandArchPriestOfTheAlgorithm8 ай бұрын
What I find funny about the whole "no CGI" thing is that CGI isn't the problem, bad shot composition is.
@TheViolentPacifist9999 ай бұрын
I love you man. Being a aspiring director, you are the only guy saving the faces of the most important crew members out here. Thanks for that.
@loganseibold50659 ай бұрын
20:33 great catch (the fire tendril being composited and recycled from the main explosion)
@Tymbus9 ай бұрын
I'm a TV and film critic and I just wanted to say how useful your series has been. One of the problems from a writing point of view is knowing who and what deserves praise or criticism in a film. You confirmed my worst problem because even "make-up" has been transformed by CGI so it is very difficult or impossibe for me to tell if I'm looking at prosthetics or CGI
@TiagoNugentComposer9 ай бұрын
Glad to know I'm not the only one who thought that the nuke in Oppenheimer didn't look up to snuff.
@JoeLion559 ай бұрын
100%. I was hoping to see the most magnificent mushroom cloud we’ve ever seen. We have actual footage of real nuclear explosions, and it’s usually grainy and in bad color, etc. But we know what they’re supposed to look look like. The movie didn’t show the most recognizable feature of a nuclear explosion, presumably, because that would be impossible to get without filming a real nuclear explosion, or creating one with CGI. He made the wrong choice there by filming and editing and underwhelming series of practical explosions instead of creating a stunning nuclear explosion with CGI
@Ugly_German_Truths9 ай бұрын
@@JoeLion55 I wouldn't expect the first test explosion to have had any spectacular size or bombastic majesty of the cloud (most of the tests we KNOW footage off were many times larger and that should scale up almost exponentially with such things). But as you absolutely can cause mushrooms to form with conventional explosions, that alone wouldn't have been a hurdle and could have been done properly if Nolan really wanted. It's just expensive to find a remote place where you can blow up enough stuff to make a mushroom that is convincingly sized.
@Sekir809 ай бұрын
@@Ugly_German_Truths Absolutely true, you can make "simple" explosions form a mushroom cloud. My father was an army man and he described the process to me. Unfortunatly, as I'm not native english speaker I can't translate the terms he used. But you can do it, and that's what matters!
@trolleriffic9 ай бұрын
@@Ugly_German_Truths Here's colorised footage of the actual 1945 Trinity test to see how it compares kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2m9d4h5hLlrjsUsi=slBiQT0U8WV3jdd7 The fire tendrils in the Oppenheimer version are pretty decent recreation of so called "Rope Trick" effects caused by the surface of guy wires vaporising in the intense heat from the fireball. I don't think there's any footage of this happening from the Trinity test and the archive film used by the filmmakers was from a 1955 test kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnawh32kZZV_pKssi=Z2B8a8tP0a4zLOep Probably the most amazing footage I've ever seen is from these 1953 tests which show how the shockwave bounces off the ground in a way that I'd imagine would be very hard to replicate with practical effects. Test 1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/nIHWmZmCpN2KoK8si=lQqKdi7CljgbmB70 Test 2 showing the sheer scale of the blast kzbin.info/www/bejne/mpfPfXl8j8iNZtksi=QGFCEKYsZtgEbwb8
@1NightInParisOfficial9 ай бұрын
lol people who hate on cgi have no idea what they are talking about. Thanks for making this vod.
@Kacz9 ай бұрын
So glad you mentioned the lackluster Oppenheimer explosion at the end...Love Nolan, but being in the industry myself, I can't help but feel if he had embraced "CGI" in this film than he might have contributed to some of the coolest shots in cinema (like he already has with DNEG in other films). I was so excited to see an insane DNEG Nuke blow my pants off, but instead got hit with a cute little gas fart. Great video and excited to for the finale (I will be sharing it with all of my friends and family for education purposes).
@Excelcior589 ай бұрын
My thoughts exactly so glad he mentioned it!This is not discussed enough. Now all we hear about this movie is no CGI.... that explosion really could have used some more cowbell 🎉😢
@marthein79 ай бұрын
That gasoline nuke was a lesson on what audience gets if movie makers refuse to embrace CGI effects.
@EskoLuontola9 ай бұрын
The explosion was an example of _what a nuke really sounds like,_ instead of what the average movie makers imagine it to sound like. For a comparison to the real thing, go listen the nuke test recording "Atom Blast, Yucca Flat, Nevada, 03/17/1953".
@DavidBeaumont9 ай бұрын
This is a truly excellent series, and thank you for doing it. My father worked in the film industry and was lucky enough to work on some classic visual effect scenes (e.g. the shuttle landing on the moon in 2001). The idea that any modern "big budget" film can be made without the help of digital VFX is just absurd and people who cling to this idea are deluding themselves. Film making is all about using the best techniques to fake things and we should celebrate the VFX involved, so it is deeply troubling to me that studios would fake their behind the scenes footage like this.
@motifstudios38749 ай бұрын
So fun to see some of our work on Mad Max Fury Road showcased in this and the last episode. You’re doing fantastic work with this series. Well done!
@ppd84729 ай бұрын
I totally agree with you on the Oppenheimer explosion. It just felt flat compared to the real world videos of the Trinity test. Some CGI would've been welcome.
@Leprutz9 ай бұрын
Even silent cinema era used a lot of matte apintings. The first real VFX movie was Melies 1902 a trip to the moon. You could make a breakdown of that as a special episode and an homage to the beginning of cinemas movie magic for VFX. Love your Invisible VFX series. It is amazing and your touch of humor is great.
@aarkproductions9 ай бұрын
Unfortunately people who talk about visual usually don't understand visual effects, Loved this video by the way, Clearing everyone's perspective
@jnltt9 ай бұрын
I don't want this series to ever end
@umey34456 ай бұрын
The sentence at 18:09 is insane. It sounds like they’ve cobbled together 5 or 6 different sound clips to make him say what they want him to
@CinemaBear9 ай бұрын
I love this series; it's calling out BS beautifully.
@nathanrussell-raby54609 ай бұрын
I think what often gives away the CGI is the impossible camera moves. Just because you can have the camera hanging off a ravine and moving at lightning speed with the stampede, doesn't mean you should. The static shots of a hand-painted ravine, even if equally implausible, draw attention to themselves a lot less.
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Accurate! This was my point in the beginning of the first part kzbin.info/www/bejne/baXXeGxmp8Z2hNE
@vtrip_9 ай бұрын
the nuke explosion in Oppenheimer was such a letdown that it nearly ruins the movie. and just to think that back in 1991 they made it look more real in T2.
@summerlaverdure9 ай бұрын
tbf i used to be like the "no cgi" kind of person but i admit, you did convince me in the first 50 seconds, you should probably make that a youtube short
@TheGoncas29 ай бұрын
I wish the Oppenheimer explosion had some kind of CGI. It looks so obviously like a miniature in the movie.
@rubenlevisznajderman62849 ай бұрын
This series is amazing. Could be 20 stand alone youtube videos.
@JohlBrown9 ай бұрын
sub'd. love to stumble on a man talking positively about barbie movie. i get a sense of honesty and integrity from you. congrats on almost 45k, you definitely seem to deserve it on initial viewing. here's to enjoying more of your content! cheers!
@TheMovieRabbitHole9 ай бұрын
Love Barbie, love Greta. Not so happy about Warner :D
@MorriganJade9 ай бұрын
When you showed that matte painting breakdown, my mind immediately went to the restored version of Metropolis (1927). Those city shots are SO INSANDELY IMPRESSIVE, and then seeing small breakdowns around the 8 minute mark makes me realize how clever those shots were!
@edczxcvbnm9 ай бұрын
This is the first video of yours that I have seen and despite your warnings, I have subscribed and will watch the next video. But before I go to the back catalogue, I wouldn't be surprised if in the earlier parts of this series you used a David Fincher movie. He does a ton of subtle CGI. I specifically remember how much they used when filming Zodiac to get the cars on the street right, the time of day, and other period specific stuff instead of going all Tarantino and having Hollywood Blvd recreated as it was 60 years ago. I love both directors but when I first saw Zodiac in the theater, it didn't look like they did anything and I think that is the mark of good use of CGI. Just like Matte Paintings before, just make them as invisible as possible and no one will care. Now to the back catalogue!
@sinnadone9 ай бұрын
Four minutes in and I am Simply In Physical Pain. In Agony. In the Throes!!! I'm a hobbyist at 3D, and I can't imagine how hearing these things feels like for the people who actually work in the industry, and the people who worked ON THE MOVIE...
@sinnadone9 ай бұрын
Took me an hour to get through the video because I kept having to pause every three minutes to work through the Rage asdfghsdfg
@virtualbri9 ай бұрын
LOL the historical coverage is especially great. Thank you!
@alexandrecardoso77359 ай бұрын
This is the first video of the series I´m watching and I´m so glad I´ve stumbled upon this content. As a video editor and an admiror of everything related to film making, this is pure gold content. Gotta make some popcorn to watch the other three parts right now!
@RafaelSegnini9 ай бұрын
Man, that Warner Bros removing the blue screen from behind-the-scenes shots got me hard.... That's stupid AF. BTW, once again a great video and always on spot.
@ML_VFX9 ай бұрын
I work at one of the major VFX studios mentioned in this series and just want to thank you for making these videos. I'm not an artist, on the business side, but I can say it takes an incredible amount of work with near impossible timelines and heavy levels of stress for the talented artists who end up getting overlooked. It's a shame.
@RNNNPTH9 ай бұрын
Great work/great series. I completely agree about the recreation of the Trinity test in Oppenheimer. It was a good film, one of Nolan's best (I'm not the biggest Nolan fan for the record), but that sequence was one of the most underwhelming in the film. It's interesting that Nolan was recently praising "The Curse" and comparing it to "Twin Peaks", which means he has almost certainly seen Lynch's 100% CGI recreation of the Trinity test from Season 3. Only Nolan grovelers would argue Nolan's recreation did a better job capturing the terrifying power of a nuclear explosion.
@RyoMassaki9 ай бұрын
What really puzzles me is why didn't he just use original footage for the wide shot of the nuke and just ran it through modern upres and denoising software? It's a cheap method, absolutely real - therefore powerful, authentic and frightening. Nobody would have blamed him for using original footage. For the closeups, rather than using a big fuel explosion, they should have looked at high speed footage of a real (miniature) explosions (using real explosives not just fuel) like The Slow Mo Guys are doing regularly. These look awesome and very detailed even in smaller scales and zoomed in. Not only was the nuke underwhelming, the shock-wave afterwards was also kinda lame.
@l4nd3r9 ай бұрын
The TV show Manhanttan did a much better job on it too.
@l4nd3r9 ай бұрын
@@RyoMassaki Because by that point is that even the original footage? Any upres software is artificially improving something, it just uses math to do so.
@GrandHighGamer9 ай бұрын
@@RyoMassaki Upscales don't tend to look that good (yes, I think all those Peter Jackson upscales look rubbish) . I think they should have just used the real footage and framed it as seeing what the camera in the scene was recording (because that's how that footage actually was captured). Because that's what the footage needed the most: the actual 'money shot' fireball.
@RyoMassaki9 ай бұрын
@@GrandHighGamer It's 2024 and we don't even have a proper machine learning/AI driven upscale algorithm that can take old footage and make it look like brandnew? It's a shame actually, but with or without, original footage would have been much better.
@shannonpotratz4898 ай бұрын
I LOVE this series! I can't tell you how often I've been in a discussion (argument) with someone wildly proclaiming how much better "practical" effects are vs digital effects without even being able to tell the difference between the two most of the time. I use Road to Perdition as a frequent example.
@lukesnyder56379 ай бұрын
I can't wait for the next episode, these are some of the best video essay's i've ever watched. Incredible work. Also, the "Nolan did stuff in practical no one's ever seen before" belies the fact that Aronofsky did it better in The Fountain. 18 years ago.
@SibusisoBiyela9 ай бұрын
These videos are a formative part of my understanding of film making and the concept of "CGI". Thank you so much for making them and having them available for all of us to see. Good on you, sir!