Our thanks to Tested members Ryan S., Mike R. and Dori Ownbey for their questions and support! Join this channel to support Tested and get access to perks, like asking Adam questions: kzread.info/dron/iDJtJKMICpb9B1qf7qjEOA.htmljoin Like Linda's Etsy: www.etsy.com/shop/LikeLinda Watch Adam Savage's One Day Builds: EPIC Spacesuit (Part 1): kzread.info/dash/bejne/Ynp_2q9mqrHAcs4.html Cinema Tyler: kzread.info/dron/7GV-3hrA9kDKrren0QMKMg.html Slicing Adam Savage's Nose - Can VFX Beat Doing it for Real? kzread.info/dash/bejne/k4J-s8arpaqnktY.html

@eldenringer6466

9 ай бұрын

Danny Glover?

@elcorado83

9 ай бұрын

Not to be picky, but Im pretty sure the fx in Blade Runner were often 4th, 5th and even 6th generation-specifically the cityscapes that had many many passes. Learned this from the official documentary that accompanies the biggest re-release of the movie, "Dangerous Days". For the record, I prefer physical fx.

@ukusagent

9 ай бұрын

I would have said though not His most favorite,Adams most obsessed has to be His Blade Runner PKD 😉

I'm a digital VFX artist and to add to what Adam has said, it all comes down to how much did the director plan before shooting. All the great directors Adam mentioned have one thing in common, they did epic amounts of pre-production until they got something they were proud of, the directors that make crappy cg effects now would have made crappy practical effects back then too because they don't put in the work beforehand. Planning is everything. I also want to add that digital artists almost completely love practical effects as well, that's what made a lot of us get into the business. Every episode of the Starfield build is blowing my mind.

@FunZack11

9 ай бұрын

From another VFX artist, I 100% agree! Good pre production done with the VFX pipeline in mind can make all the difference, and if the director can marry practical and digital together, even better!

@benhobson3084

9 ай бұрын

With volume screen technology blending practical and digital effects into the same shot, pre-production must be more important than ever.

@ezrarichardson279

9 ай бұрын

Completely agree!

@Lent00n

9 ай бұрын

vfx artist also, totally agree. One thing to consider is that cg is infinitely art directable.. which a lot of the time is the issue. The number of times i felt like shots were ruined with terrible unrealistic notes, it happens every day. Where a director can’t tell a practical explosion it needs to do this and that, with CG we iterate on it until it looks so dumb that people watch it and go “wtf was that”. 90% of the time terrible cg had terrible notes, and it took a very long time to make it as bad as it is. Sometimes you get people who give good feedback and allow for things to remain physically possible, and sometimes you don’t.

@jcaesar19871

9 ай бұрын

Another good example will be Lord of the Rings. Great camera shots and some trickery in the film.

My favorite part about Adam is that he somehow always comes up w the classiest way to answer questions. He just has so much love and respect for everything, that instead of saying one thing sucks in comparison to another, both things are actually equally awesome, but one works better in situation X.

@gustavofigueiredo1798

9 ай бұрын

Empathy, kindness and respect.

I find that using CG to add things to the practical prop that would otherwise be impossible to make is where CG can enhance the prop. Plus having something physical to look at and react to really sells the scene.

@SAOS451316

9 ай бұрын

Me, asked to add simple lights to a sci-fi gun: >:/ Me, asked to make a laser sword glow: >:3 They really do make us do the most menial tasks and end up spending more money than they would if they just used us where appropriate and hired an actual prop department.

@AutismusPrime69

9 ай бұрын

​@@SAOS451316us? Who are you?

@SAOS451316

9 ай бұрын

@@AutismusPrime69 I'm a CGI artist that sometimes works on movies. :)

@brolohalflemming7042

9 ай бұрын

Agreed. I think it's one of those uncanny valley things. Sometimes CG just looks wrong, or too clean. I think 2 examples.. Bladerunner: The vehicles looked real. Terminator 2: When the truck crane truck exploded, it looked unreal. I think with T2 (or was that 3?) it jarred because it went from practical crane cable to CG, the transition looked obvious and the explosion just looked wrong. I've seen exploding trucks. I've watched Mythbusters. Then again, it can also be obvious when they're exploding miniatures, and I guess its really hard to make scale-sized fireballs and flames. But I think that's where the beauty of using the best of both worlds comes in. Make a practical mode, and enhance the effects with CG. But I guess that also comes down to budget, ie constructing a digital model detailed enough to be exploded, then the compute time to apply physics to every element and render it. But I think it's a great part of the movie magic when I don't know and I just stay immersed in the story.

Cinema Tyler is an amazing channel. His Apocalypse Now series is continued proof that the "making of" story is just as impressive as the film itself.

@ethansloan

9 ай бұрын

I just found his channel a few weeks ago and it truly is amazing. You may think that Hearts of Darkness told you everything you wanted to know about Apocalypse Now. You'd be wrong.

It's always reassuring to see how high the demand for practical effects remains in the industry. You will almost never see people frustrated with the choice to use practical effects meanwhile complaints for overused CG is at an all-time high thanks to marvel's rapid-fire schedules. I think both CG and practical have a place, and neither are going anywhere anytime soon.

@AutismusPrime69

9 ай бұрын

Why is it reassuring?

@TukaihaHithlec

9 ай бұрын

It never fails to surprise me how often scenes criticized for bad CG were actually practical, while scenes praised for being practical were actually CG. Both have their places, and both can be done well or poorly, but unfortunately good CG and bad practical do not receive their warranted recognition.

@Fractured_Unity

9 ай бұрын

Here’s a complaint about practical effects. I’m sick of the public praising their use, it’s leading to some crappy behavior by producers. A lot of productions now implement them in an incredibly lazy way now. They think they can get away with not trying their absolute hardest for photo-realism, the most effective way to use effects for immersion, because it’s cheaper to just half-ass some practical effects and then deflect criticism because it’s ‘giving the people what they want’. People don’t actually hate CGI, they hate low budget CGI. The exact same thing is true for practical, take of the rose tinted horse blinders.

@poopfartlord9695

9 ай бұрын

​​@@Fractured_Unity lots of actors hate CGI. Not only do practical effects look better on screen (when done well), the actors and their interactions with them always look better. I think we all saw the benefits of CG and practical in the collaboration with corridor digital.

@ouaisetalors

9 ай бұрын

I love practical effects but as a VFX artist you wouldn’t believe how many times we just end up completely replacing them with CG. But the promo material will say it’s all practical. Having practical on set is usually better for the actors/director/cinematographer because they have something physical to work with. But it has limitations that CG doesn’t. They’re both great in their own way and both are needed.

Seeing passionate artists at the top of their game is always amazing, whether those artists are working on physical or digital creations! It’s just crazy to see what their minds are able to conjure into reality…

The problem with CGI is that we see the bad CGI. We don't see the good CGI because we can't tell the difference between real life and CG. But practical has its place too.

@DoubleSupercool

9 ай бұрын

Exactly. One of my mates is a senior compositor at Weta. At the same time they were doing The Hobbit, they were also doing Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. One was a complete mess of a production with instructions changing daily and complete lack of of time and vision. The other, they were allowed to finesse everything and it still looks amazing. As an ex compositor and avid model maker, there is absolutely a place for both, but a weak director/production without a clear vision of what they want will inevitably say "just fix it in post", imagining that VFX artists can create miracles.

@Sintonizarproductions

9 ай бұрын

@DoubleSupercool that's really cool! Also, yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I think that's a big reason why many newer projects have percievably bad CGI. It's a shame all these compositors and CG artists are being strung out with unrealistic deadlines and changing ideas constantly. That's got to be a burnout inducing horror show.

@FortyHurts

9 ай бұрын

100% - there is far more CGI in films than most people realize, and in films where you wouldn't think there would be any at all. It's another example of survivorship bias.

@DoubleSupercool

9 ай бұрын

@@FortyHurts Exactly. For the movie "Australia", there was a couple of scenes where we completely removed mountains, I repeat MOUNTAINS that the cast were galloping directly in front of (ie horses with manes and tail hair flying everywhere), and replaced them with sweeping plains. "Hey, remember that shot where there were no mountains?" "No." "Uhhhh, yeah, well, ummmm, anyway, we did that." "Cool. I guess." :(

@FortyHurts

9 ай бұрын

@@DoubleSupercool "Remember all of those shots in The Great Gatsby that were 100% green screened?"

Adam. Your enthusiasm for your craft and all of it's intrinsic methodologies are awesome & inspiring. Sincerely. I appreciate your efforts!

Dr. Oct’s tentacles were physical puppets on set (sometimes) and the rods and puppeteers were digitally removed

I love how measured Adam’s response is; he has a clear love of physical/practical effects, but acknowledges the merits of CG and the benefits of using them in tandem.

The issue of practical vs CGI is solved by remembering they are both useful tools with different strengths, but shouldn't be crutches.

Love that Linda, his go-to specialist for gloves, even nails the multi-layer look and not just the outer layer.

One thing that happens a lot with CG is too much art direction. With a practical explosion for instance, what you see is what you get, while with CG you can bend the laws of physics to make the shot how you want, and sometimes that can remove the randomness of the physical world.

@kaitlyn__L

9 ай бұрын

Yeah a lot of CG explosions look way too "perfect", especially with Meaningful bits of ship debris conveniently being blown past the camera and so on. Of course it's not like models were only one take, sometimes model destruction involved many dozens of takes. But you're right, there's always a realism to the way the explosions move through and affect the model, which don't often happen with the CG ones. I love it when parts of a model direct an explosion out of a weak point such as a porthole cutout or an engine port. Where the CG ones often make it explode like a balloon.

@StraightOuttaJarhois

9 ай бұрын

That goes for designs too. You often see character/vehicle/weapon designs done entirely in CG that would never be possible to do with practical models, simply because they would never work in reality. Practical models may help keep designers honest to some degree, and keep things from getting too videogamey.

Adam, I've watched you for years on tv, and now i get to enjoy so many more different things that you do here and share with us. What you do is awesome, and I thank you so much for being here on KZread for us to enjoy and learn from. I would love to meet you even if only to shake your hand and tell you in person how much enjoyment your videos bring to me. Everything is always interesting to me. Im 55 and love doing the type of things that you do. I haven't been able to for the last year and a half due to a back and leg injury, but hey, life goes on, right. I hope you never get tired of making these great videos. Thank you so much. CJ from KANSAS.CITY-MO.

Great to hear you're a Cinema Tyler fan too! A splendid channel, with thorough and deep dives into the making of some of my favourite films.

It is so cool seeing your excitement for showing everyone your things. You are like a kid whom has been asked about hus favorite toy and has been waiting forever to share their excitement.

Many thanks for your channel. I think you occupy the space between art and science. You are gifted to understand both sides AND able to translate/interpret/educate both sides so they can figure out a way to find a collaborative solution. We need more folks like u in this world. Thanks!!!

I was wondering what happened to those suits after G4 failed and went off the air. Awesome to see they're still in good shape

@dsnein

9 ай бұрын

Same lol. I remember the tested about him being super excited at the commission

@sixoffcenter80

9 ай бұрын

I had thought the new G4 was online only, and didn't find out it was on cable too until it was being taken off cable. Not sure who thought it was a good idea to go back to cable when their primary demographic consist almost exclusively of cord-cutters.

I recently learned that for the original Alien movie that the wide shots of the interior of the Alien spaceship, the director used kids in space suits to increase the perceived size of it. To achieve the same scale using the adult actors the set would have to have been at least twice the size and therefore twice as expensive.

Adam is the modern day embodiment of adorable and amazing! He genuinely had to run off screen to go get one of his favorite things, remembered who made it and has a story to share. He can talk about anything, make anything and regularly makes mistakes only to create the most wonderful and perfect things. A true hero, someone to aspire to. It’s amazing that there is so little content with this much technical prowess and love made here. His friends are also exceptional, but only Adam can do what he does. I wish I could leave a Yelp review; this is content I will show my children.

I think a good example of a marriage between CGI and practical effects is Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. The CGI of Davy Jones’s face makes it look like he’s a creature of the sea. And the practical effects of the fights, like the water wheel, are phenomenal. There are other examples, I’m sure, but it’s the one my mind decided to remember at this time

Somebody said this before, but hearing Adam towing and tugging his treasures into frame is priceless and comforting!!

Speaking of gloves, I saw casts of Apollo 11 crew's hands, and a cutaway suit at the US Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville. Among all the other amazing stuff, it was incredible.

I wonder whatever happened to his "The Martian" space suit. We never really saw anything about it after the initial episode.

Mr Savage reminds me of the father of a good friend. He taught us much about construction, but whenever he had a new thing to teach us, it involved him diving into trunks, boxes or shelves, throwing things around and making horrendous crashing noises. Learning from him involved these stages: ask a question; watch him leap into action; hide while much crashing occurs; ask anxiously if he's ok; wait for him to emerge with great tools and then spend hours learning wonderful things.

There will always be a balance between CG and real props / scenes. For me it's the flow of the moment and the believability of it. True art of cinematography lies in many hands but ultimately it's at the directors discretion of what makes the final cut and what doesn't.

Not only is “glover“ a real word in the English language (and a not-uncommon surname; think Danny Glover), but the entire glovemaking industry in the United States used to be centered in a single town in upstate New York: Gloversville! Indeed, the social hierarchy there in the 19th century rested on where you and your family stood in the industry, from the makers of cheap work gloves at the very bottom to the specialists in the little zigzag seam at the base of the thumb in a lady’s opera glove at the very top. You want to talk about institutional knowledge: there was a whole lot of that lost when glovemaking became mechanized in the 20th century.

Thanks, Adam. Plain and simple.

Thanks Adam and the Tested team.

Adam's reaction to "glover" was hilarious. It seems so innocuous having grown up watching Danny Glover. I'd never have thought about the sound of it.

@Sharklops

9 ай бұрын

Especially since "glover" is the correct term for someone who crafts gloves, and the origin of the actor's surname

So interesting to listen to you. Thank you. Keep up the good work.

I have the Blade Runner anniversary DVD. I should have kept count how many times I've watched it...Rutger Hauer was such a powerful presence.

“Built this a couple years ago for the G4 Network- for a thing.” That was way funnier than sit should have been.

Love to see a video on the gloves some day. Will keep an eye out in case you do

I have tried several bags and my favorite so far is the Filson Workshop Weatherproof Leather Field Bag. I think you might like it too.

Can't wait for another CG and Practical project with Corridor Crew. That was so much fun!!!!!

I would say yes, I've always found practical effects and physical props to be more realistic than computer generated.

@TimCortesi

9 ай бұрын

Just saw Oppenheimer, and man that practical "nuclear explosion" is bad. It looks like they set a bunch of propane and gasoline on fire -- most likely because that's probably what they actually did. I'm all for practical effects, but the computer rendered black hole in Christopher Nolan's Interstellar looked amazing and the nuclear bomb in Oppenheimer looked awful. I love practical effects as much as the next guy, but both of those would have been unequivocally better with CGI. (Unless they could actually film a real nuclear explosion or get up close to a black hole, in which case definitely go with that).

@Bwalston910

9 ай бұрын

@@TimCortesi Agreed, obviously there are situations where CGI is better by leaps and bounds, it really depends on the films budget and time crunch IMO.

That is a terrific spacesuit. Love it.

Someone who makes gloves is indeed a glover. The trade is where we get the surname too.

Nothing looks more real than real. I LOVE models and practical effects. Always a builder at heart I guess.

Glad you found CinemaTyler. That guy's got a great channel.

I feel like i need a compilation of Adam excitingly running off camera to find some goodie to show us.

A nice discussion of Practical vs CG. No tool is right for 100% of the needs. I DO like practical effects better (re: Orcs in LOTR vs Orcs in The Hobbit), but there are times CG is ABSOLUTELY necessary...and VERY effective.

The fact that you have a knights of the round table armor set from EXCALIBUR is AMAZING. That may be my single favorite movie. Except maybe Dragon Heart 1.

That space suit is amazing!

The G4 Suits are definitely two of your best props, I understand why you want to have yours on display. Are you familiar with Media Division on KZread? As a fan of Ridley Scott, I believe you would enjoy their Scope Anamorphic Lenses and Canon FD & K35 episodes.

I'm curious about that spacesuit design; specifically, could a person get in and out of it on their own, or would they need another person to open/close the back?

Cinema Tyler got an immediate subscribe lol

Another good channel for deep diving into movies is The New Rockstars: Deep Dive, absolutely wonderful people over there doing all the research

I would like for studios to stop asking us in the CGI department to do things that practical effects, props, set decorating, and costuming do best. I don't want to make an actor more muscled, create even a simple set entirely digitally, enhance props with lights, or do ten thousand gun-related explosions. Give me something to do that is best done with CGI. We're unionizing and on strike not just for ourselves but for everyone in the film industry. Apes together strong. 🤝

I like the Mercury Suit (You did make one right?) maybe I am crazy. This one is nice too.

physical props and prosthetics/makeup are almost always going to look better as the focal point of a shot, but CG can create a level of scale and fantasy that is totally impractical with just physical props. Mad Max Fury Road is a great examples of using both to spectacular effect.

So happy to hear a shout out to Cinema Tyler! I thought I knew everything about 2001: A Space Odyssey until I saw that series. Regarding the CG vs Practical, I feel like a nice middle-ground is practical model digitally shot and composited in order to reduce generational loss. But I'm just talkin' out my ass.

Human brains are really good at knowing when something is slightly off. I think with CG vs practical, for the time being, there will subtle, almost imperceptible differences in how light and color are rendered that you may not be able to point out, but your brain reads as different.

I love hardsuites ( diving sutes)because of my early love of the b movie deepstar six. (basically aliens under water) But those sutes were so cool . So i totally get your love of space sutes . But your design just reminds me of a hardsute

Fun fact about the moon: the dust is super *sharp* because there is no erosion, and its attracted via static electricity to you and whatever you are wearing, so it gets all over you stuff and grinds it to shreds pretty quick. Future moon suits may have an electrical layer to repel the dust!

Wasn't the Tyrell approach in Blade Runner filmed several times over on the same film to get the flames superimposed over the scale model?

Because Adam can play with them!

If that Hod in the background (flat tray) is not holding mail it is misuse of government property.

As much as I love practical effects, there are certain things that can't happen with models. Let's just say that certain actions a certain starship did in season 3 of ST: Picard would have been almost impossible if not impossible with a model. So a mix of both, as you've said, is probably the best answer.

IMHO, the best practical effects that have "worn well' over time have been those found in "Forbidden Planet". 'The great machine' look has been copied so much and yet watching a good HD release the effects stand up well given it is pre 1960. When I think about how subdued those effects are compared to present day CG effects I am glad. Exploding heads, random guts and lens flare are effects but seem to be there for the shock value than to enhance the imagination.

I agree, because a practical shot is using a physical model a non virtual camera will always pick up more detail in a physical object than something that is virtual 3d no matter how good it is but it’s also very dependent on the lighting as well / if cg is trying to mimic practical methods of shooting and camera work it can look very good / I refer to Howard days Star Trek shorts made with Mya

Wow never caught a fresh upload before❤

@tested

9 ай бұрын

Welcome!

In regards to the practical vs. digital model debate, I have to quote director William Friedkin (R.I.P.). He stated when it came to the iconic bridge crossing sequence in Sorcerer and how they were done practically using the actual trucks for the film, he stated, “In that time, when you wanted to show something extraordinary, you had to do extraordinary things.” To me, using practical models with the advancements in technology can make it possible for the extraordinary be possible and have a sense in realism. Now, that doesn’t mean I’m anti-CG. I think CG is still just as useful for sequences that call for it.

Cinema Tyler’s series on 2001 is a great into to his channel

I think the biggest thing that people miss is how many are able to appreciate practical effects because we grew up on them without CGI. We didn't know or expect anything else. And when we would find out how the magic was created. We still were in disbelief that models were used.

Cinema Tyler is great!

I don't know why but the opening of this video feels very cartoon mad scientist. Like when the scientist realizes they have just the tool they need but they have to get it from storage and you hear offscreen shuffling, a cat screech, and see a kitchen sink thrown from somewhere

Thanks sir

I hope Linda is ready for a busy September

Question, I had heard that Babylon 5 was the first (or very early) shows to do everything CG because they couldn't afford the practical models? They did everything on an AMEGA computer with a video toaster. At least that is the story I had heard. The effects were pretty cool for the time.

"Spacesuits in the future" heheheheheheh. I don't know why but that tickled me.

It is pretty hard to beat a realtime raytracing 3D engine with nearly infinite rays that you can easily control the camera, animation and models, that even a kid can make realistic materials for it. An 3D engine so good that it don't get massive slowdowns with things such as caustics or have storage issues, and you can get it for a lot less than a massive supercomputer farm.

The best effects on a movie is Mad Max: Fury Road. It's the perfect blend of CGI and practical effects. If it can be done in camera safely it should be done in camera safely. If not then it should be CG.

One of the all time all practical effects films has to be Team America World Police 😂

Hi Adam! I got a idea recently. What do you think of a live action remake of The Iron Giant? I'm thinking that would be epic, with practical effects and CGI done right, and perhaps even with the exact same screenplay! What do you think? Also in regards of practical effects, what do you think about the movies F/X and F/X2? I think they're fantastic and am surprised that yet another sequel hasn't been done, as the lead actor AFAIK is still alive, let alone a reboot done. Those two are of my all time favorite action comedy films ever done. What do you think? Have you ever seen those films, let alone in a while? They're so much fun to watch. If Quentin Tarantino could be bothered, that'd be a epic sequel or reboot. Otherwise what, Netflix or AppleTV or PrimeVideo or HBO or whichever? What do you think?

Look, if you want to get gold, you have to sift a little dirt Glover might not be the best term, but it makes the glove recipient a glovee, and I find that word delightful

I love CGI, Avatar blew my mind and made me seriously consider pursuing a career in computer graphics. I really miss the old ways though, it looks way better when it's mostly practical effects with small doses of very well done CGI. My favorite 80s practical effects were from The Thing, my goodness they must have had some fun making some of the set pieces and whatnot lol. We got some really good practical/cgi combos from the 90s though, Jurassic Park was simply jaw dropping as a kid lol. But I Gotta hand it to Dune 2021, that glorious cgi worm gave me the t-rex goosebumps.

Great video

@Bwalston910

9 ай бұрын

lol

I can't figure out how to request one of the gifted memberships. Could someone point me in the right direction please?

I am not a movie person, and I am not a fan of Hollywood. I am a big fan of Adam, his passion for what he does is incredible.

Did you get to keep the titanium armor?

As a vfx artist (CGI) I totally agree with your standpoint, it should be a combination of both. And frankly most vfx artists I know would prefer to have proper filmed plates to work from, with sets and props (done right obviously, a poorly thought out shoot is a nightmare regardless), I find it incredibly annoying when something is entirely cg because there's no clear reference point to work from.

That a fantastic answer! I do think that a lot of movies today use CGI as a crutch, but to say it's not an effective tool is so limiting. It can create worlds that have simply never been seen before, but the reason it starts to look bad is because artists just don't have the time that they need anymore. They have to juggle several different projects at once, and need to accept them at the lowest price possible or else the entire film gets pushed back. Look at Avatar 2, did it take WAY too long to make: yes. Does it look great? Absolutely.

Not to be picky, but Im pretty sure the fx in Blade Runner were often 4th, 5th and even 6th generation-specifically the cityscapes that had many many passes. Learned this from the official documentary that accompanies the biggest re-release of the movie, "Dangerous Days". For the record, I prefer physical fx.

I agree. All you have to do is watch the original Star Trek opening scene with that amazing ship model and contrast it with the revised, digitally created ship in the remastered version. The cgi ship flyby takes us out of the willing suspension of disbelief.

You should put some protection over the helmet to protect from dust and other floating debris lest it get scratched.

On the last segment, I had a photo professor who hated CG and said that those of us (and I mean us because I at least was a CG artist) who do CG aren't artists. Baha. YOU make a CG scene then oh wise guy. Dropped out of that major because he was the major head at the time. I think practical effects are amazing, but they do not over-all-trump CG effects.

The problem with CGI is that it hasn’t aged well, and many films that used it in its earlier days could greatly benefit from special editions, with updated graphics. The same problem is present in current movies with low budgets.

I completely understand Adam having an "unrealized plan" set aside in a tub - I have more of those set aside as LEGO elements in Ziploc-equivalent bags than I can count 😅 On a related note, even movies that are completely CGI sometimes rely on practical prototypes: take, for instance, The LEGO Movie, which owes its existence to the ability to 3D-scan actual LEGO elements as part of the process - some of the elements in the movie even have bite marks, and who can forget Benny's cracked helmet?!?

“Glover” is a fairly common surname. It’s an important craft!

Bladerunner one of Ridley Scott's holy trinity

Fun Fact: When it comes to NASA's Gemini Project, Gemini isn't pronounced Gem-In-Eye. Someone at NASA had decided the pronunciation was Gem-in-E. Pretty sure that also applies to the suits since it was that era of NASA's history.

I love the purity of the model shots in Star Wars. The movie was incredible. Then I watched the behind the scenes and thought it would ruin it's magic. But how they achieved the final film was just as good. I wish I was that creative. One scene I wish they'd dome with models rather thaan CG was in the first Matrix when they blew up the elevator. The doors looked so wrong. I do thing CG geets overused today. The glass matt paintings in Star Wars were just incredible. Plus, at the end there's a heap of really cool models and props to display.

I still hold the first Jurassic Park as the prime example of how CGI and practical should be used together. Animatronics and practical effects for close ups, relatively static scenes, and anything the actors need to interact with. Also for certain kinds of vehicle designs (including spaceships). Digital for everything else that's flat out impossible to get practically. You'll need a practical raptor head that bites an actor, but good luck trying to make practical shot as simple as the same velociraptor just running towards the camera. Your only options are either a guy in a suit or stop motion, both will look crappy or unrealistic - even if you'll drag in absolute masters of their craft like Phil Tippett.

Open drink containers in the shop always make me nervous. I'm always paranoid about getting something in it or spilling it on something.

Ok Adam you walked into this one Coke or Pepsi ?

@DarthBiomech

9 ай бұрын

Dr. Pepper, obviously. =P

Wait wait... You have suits from Excalibur?!? THE SUITS AND I ARE ONE!

Adam, can you please talk about the Oscar statuet you have in your office. It apears on the "Tour of Adam Savage's Home Office" video and i´m surching to buy a replica cuz i wanted a display in my home cinema of every major award and complete an "EGOT" wich is Emmy Grammy Oscar and Tony. I´m surchuing everywere i can for an oscar replica but i can´t find it.