the problem isn't CGI, so much as it is CGI being used as a crutch to mask abysmal writing with some flashy shot. The only thing is when you've seen one giant set-piece CGI shot (think anything Marvel), you've seen them all. Combined with how everything is lit these days, and the obsession with 20K ultra super mega hyper high resolution at 4000 fps, it just makes everything feel way more fake than it used to. The call for more practical effects is really just people wanting a return to there being constraints that forced directors and writers to be creative. Now, it's just "let's stick in explosions and a wide pan shot of a CGI city" in basically every single movie, and it gets old.
@SRLStud9 сағат бұрын
I really wish people like critical drinker and all those armchair movie critics would see this video. They rant about filmmaking and often "CGI" and it's so evident they have no clue what they're talking about. Their confidence while spewing misinformation with such arrogance is really cringy
@easyyuun17 сағат бұрын
I sort of like the crappy no cgi in old movies
@charlesroch946117 сағат бұрын
Top
@ProfessorRatiganКүн бұрын
“Whatever you do, don’t hit like and subscribe.” So guess what I immediately do….. You could not have chosen any words in any order that would’ve won me over more quickly. I was sold immediately afterwards and would like to thank for being on point, for your accuracy and your articulation. You sir, are a breath of fresh air.
@berserkasaurusrex4233Күн бұрын
Are you saying that people can't tell these films are full of CGI, or are you just saying that Hollywood studio marketing is full of lies about how practical the effects are? If it's the latter, everyone already knows Hollywood lies. And if it's the prior, you can absolutely tell when films are using a lot of CGI. That bear in the Revenant looks expensive, but it's obviously CGI, the hair doesn't move right and it doesn't move quite like a real animal does. It's well done, but it's not exactly fooling anybody. Most CGI, even really good CGI, is still easily identifiable, especially if it involves a living creature or a human face. The real issue is that most modern films use CGI where a practical effect is both possible and would look better, and in some cases would probably prove cheaper and faster as well. People generally don't mind CGI when it's used to show something that simply can't be done any other way, like half the stuff in superhero films; but it takes you out of the film to see obviously fake muzzle flashes or CGI fire and explosions that all be done practically easily enough. Or fake blood splatter when squibs look a hundred times better.
@oscarsoto8428Күн бұрын
I think he missed a chance to tell us whether the big pile of shit was CGI…
@private1177Күн бұрын
The part with all the tweet's praising alien for no VFX just shows how braindead and gullible people have become. Just think for half a second, there is not a single movie or series that's without any VFX or CGI. How are you supposed to make a sci-fi movie all practical, oh yeah you can't. You either need to resort to matte painting and other VFX tricks or CGI.
@berserkasaurusrex4233Күн бұрын
I've never seen people complain about VFX or matte paintings being used in films. They complain about CGI because it often looks worse and cheaper than something like a matte painting or a miniature, and obvious greenscreens break immersion far more than even a cheap matte painting does. And far too often CGI is used where it isn't necessary or where it is worse looking than a more practical effect would've been, like squibs versus CGI blood splatter.
@nicksterj20 сағат бұрын
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 You've never seen people complain about (practical) VFX? You must not have lived through the '70s and '80s then. :)
@berserkasaurusrex423314 сағат бұрын
@@nicksterj People complained about terrible and cheap VFX effects in old films when those effects were genuinely badly done, but you really don't see people today complaining that some film has matte paintings or compositing miniatures instead of CGI. I've never seen anyone attack LOTR for using miniatures, for example, or films in the 90's that used foreground miniatures like the Brosnan Bond films and ID4, or Star Wars for its compositing and matte paintings and use of handpuppets/stop motion. People do complain about films having too much CGI today, however, even when the CGI is very high quality. The MCU mostly has decent CGI, and people complained about the films overusing computer graphics all the time, because eventually it just makes every film look the same and most effects shots are too busy with detail because CGI doesn't restrain the director like having to rely on practical effects would. And obviously people complain even more when the CGI is very badly done, like most modern Disney projects. But it's really only the absolutely best quality CGI that earns any praise and even that ages badly after just a few years, while practical effects look just as impressive decades later. The stuff that aged the best in Jurassic Park are the animatronic dinosaur scenes, not the CGI, and those are probably the CGI effects that have aged the best of any film. Matte paintings and similar practical VFX stand the test of time far better than CGI does. Greenscreen especially ages poorly, and anything that involves digital faces and digital animals, like the terrible looking Revenant bear he brags about in this video.
@nicksterj14 сағат бұрын
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 Sure, but a lot of people who complain about bad CGI forget how bad some miniature and matte work could be. Why single out CGI? Bad VFX are bad no matter how they're achieved. Take for example the creature in Alien 3. That was all practical and it looked terrible (the puppet shots, not the close-ups). In fact a lot of people think it's CGI because of it! A big FX budget helps but it's no guarantee.
@nicksterj13 сағат бұрын
I think the biggest favor CGI did for VFX was to replace stop-motion. Even the best stop-motion techniques aren't 100% convincing. They were going to use it for Jurassic Park until Steve 'Spaz' Williams showed them what the computer could do. I can barely watch the original "Terminator" stop motion because it looks so dated! kzread.info/dash/bejne/c5iZ2KiHh8uapNI.html
@Rutherfordium20232 күн бұрын
Well pretty much everything in top gun is CGI because the only plane that actually flies in top gun are the f18's
That was an eye opening phenomenal series. I hope you come up with more videos. I predict the next buzzphrase: "no AI"
@berserkasaurusrex423314 сағат бұрын
Already a thing. Cameron started using AI for his recent remasters to save a buck and ruined the Aliens remaster. People are already wanting "no AI" in future remasters and to stick with the tried and true methods of remastering films directly from the original film stock. You can't just give a cheap DVD to AI and have it clean up the image by inventing data that isn't there, no matter how much cheaper that would be for the studio.
@Bauzi13 сағат бұрын
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 yeah that's truely some bs AI use
@kevinbrown73063 күн бұрын
There's another possible explanation to yours.... simply, that the hollywood buzz machine needs predictable conversations that can be easily amplified for marketing. Simply put, the "no CGI" bit can be just because they must talk about *something* easy to understand to the lowest common denominator, and which online bot farms and SEO attempts can work with easily. This is a constant story because it is *simple*, not because it is desired.
@ytjoemoore943 күн бұрын
Yes but “invisible CGI” is really just good CGI
@danfu62803 күн бұрын
14:57 Okay, you got me. Only around 70% CGI was spotted by me right away. Which means I can not spot all the CGI.
@ineptwizzard4 күн бұрын
I'm not opposed to CGI as I'm not an idiot. However I will maintain that the Hobbit movies and the special editions and prequels of Star Wars look bad and part of that is due to CGI and the specific ways they used it on those movies.
@philm0graphy4 күн бұрын
Wow, look at all these liars!!!! Makes you realize how rare the true, real, practical filmmaking with none of that computer shit is rare. At least Top Gun: Maverick brings back the glory days with no cgi. Phew!!
@cheetor59234 күн бұрын
The thing is. Nobody spots good CGI, only bad CGI.
@konflict12315 күн бұрын
and this is exactly why i can't be bothered to watch anything released within the past 10 years.
@c0mmanderKeen5 күн бұрын
What a fantastic series! Can't wait to see what you do next (well I def. can but, you know)
@philm0graphy5 күн бұрын
Like that one guy said: "The best looking effects are a mix between the two" (practical and digital)
@Peter-ff1tp6 күн бұрын
What people really mean when they say no more CGI is actually “STOP SHOVING COMIC BOOKS, REBOOTS AND BS STAR WARS RIPOFFS DOWN MY THROAT. WRITE A DAMN STORY”. You know what all the recent examples you used have in common? They’re shit. I’ve never heard anyone complain about the obvious VFX in LOTR. Why? Because it’s beautiful and well crafted. The Hobbit? No, not so much. Film making has objectively gotten worse and audiences relate that to the proliferation of VFX and an inability to relate to any of the nonsense happening on screen. Film and Television peaked in the early 2000s and we need to step back. Being able to do anything at the drop of a hat is not necessarily conducive to creativity.
@tchitchouan6 күн бұрын
I only watch movies that make extensive use of visible CGI
@godzillasaur67426 күн бұрын
13:40 one of my favorite debunks of this is Transformers, Revenge of the Fallen. Devastator crash their computers when trying to render him.
@DavidJG2426 күн бұрын
War of the Worlds has crazy visual effects
@B---tw3kh6 күн бұрын
I think overworked and underpaid CG artists should strike and run with the "No CGI" mantra. If there's no CGI in these big blockbusters, then them striking shouldn't be an issue, right?
@Reishira-ln73ks7 күн бұрын
Why is he giving the movie away.. your destroying the plot i mean trap
@donnydarko76247 күн бұрын
I'll say when I found out that the exterior surface of the planet in Prometheus they went to wasn't a filming location whatsoever and that anything that's not a built piece of the set was basically a Photo mapped 3D environment I was impressed, and then again impressed when I found out that the helmets weren't always real.
@donnydarko76247 күн бұрын
Giving 3D artists a reasonable amount of time so we don't have to watch god awful CG would be my wish.
@BrandonAaskov7 күн бұрын
This video was incredible. It grabbed me better than the majority of content out there, not just KZread.
@NoWay-hp5km8 күн бұрын
"CG is worse than practical" "animation is just for kids" what kind of live-action favoritism is go'in on in the film/TV industry? what ever it is, I HATE IT!
@lordneojacks8 күн бұрын
i've re-watch these vidoes like 15 times
@TheMovieRabbitHole7 күн бұрын
Thank you, I appreciate it!
@munjatkumo19298 күн бұрын
Scary how malleable our perception of reality is. I never realized that the beautiful blue sky at the end of the first Terminator is a matte painting!
@munjatkumo19298 күн бұрын
Tom Cruises pants are on fire! Somebody help him!
@theonemacduff9 күн бұрын
I came here via corridor crew. FANTASTIC SERIES!! Thank you so much for all the hard work that went into this, and the clear, concise story-telling that makes it easy to follow. I'm a long-time movie fanatic (all sorts) and some of this I already knew - especially about matte paintings; big Ellenshaw fan - but the amount of detail you provide is on a whole 'nother level. Again, thank you, and I look forward to your next series. Editing might be a good next subject. In a film class once, we were shown a sequence which added a few black frames between each edit, which revealed just how many edits you really don't notice when the film is flowing past you.
@petersolomon52279 күн бұрын
The foolishness in any industry actively hoodwinking its consumers makes like sense.
@Petch859 күн бұрын
If you don't like CGI, go to the theater 🤣.
@anothergol10 күн бұрын
12:41 "how could there be CGI during filming" well that's kinda the idea behind StageCraft, which also goes along with "no green screen" since it's CGI without a green screen, with numerous advantages. And it's not just about green spill, it's CGI that kinda counts as practical effect since it's there for the actors to see and they can well, act better
@muleFUEL111 күн бұрын
18:09 the amount of cutting together they did for that audio should have been a dead giveaway
@raphaelprotti553611 күн бұрын
Life of Pi took Rhythm and Hues into bankruptcy, and that movie made nearly a billion. The VFX industry has never been able to earn respect and proper compensation for their contribution to today's films.
@flatliner6011 күн бұрын
Loved the honesty of this video, but I don't feel enough emphasis was put on the damage this "No CGI" garbage is doing to the VFX industry and the artists. Make no mistake, the studios use this to devalue the importance VFX has on their final product. It's about keeping CGI cheap.
@mcapps111 күн бұрын
FYI, WE KNOW IT'S CGI.
@martymccafferty751012 күн бұрын
I think some movies get lost in CGI effects instead of good story telling.
@martymccafferty751012 күн бұрын
Less slow motion CGI in movies please.
@nicksterj9 күн бұрын
The opening credits of _Deadpool_ get a pass. 😁
@gingganggoolie12 күн бұрын
It's quite sickening the way studios and directors refuse to credit the people that actually made their film, from matte painting to digital artists. This was really eye opening. I must admit, before you made this series, I was one of those "practical effects are better" people, and now I'm a bit embarrassed. It's not really an opinion I can justify. I think the reason miniatures and puppets appeal to me is because I have a sense for how easy or hard it is to build something or paint it. Although I have no doubt it takes great craftsmanship, I have no sense for how difficult it is to animate a 3D model of a character or location. If I'm taken out of a film by noticing the effects, it's nice to feel the people behind them. Like "oh that's a puppet, they must be crouching down there" or "that miniature must've taken hours to build." I can't feel that with digital, because even though I have a rough idea the stages an effect goes through, I don't see that when I see the effect. It's definitely not because I think it looks better. That would be ridiculous. There was a recent episode of Doctor Who, where a big fluffy creature called The Meep shows up. And it looks great! They built an animatronic, with a bit of facial articulation, which was then animated over to give it a full range of facial expressions. Obviously this looks better, and is more realistic (whatever that means for an alien) than the animatronic. But I would love to see a version of the episode without the facial animation. I want to see that beautiful puppet you built! I know it will look "worse" but i just find it charming
@nicksterj12 күн бұрын
Excellent presentation, but I'm sorry to say your toupée is not fooling anyone! 🧑💼
@LavaHead6414 күн бұрын
insane video mate, well done
@emmae1168514 күн бұрын
i think cgi has just gotten good enough that most people can't tell something is cgi unless it's done poorly and since it's not as obvious as it used to be they just think "oh there's no cgi"
@JustinRoby931115 күн бұрын
Watching this makes me really miss Cinefex. A fantastic magazine that went in depth on the hows and whys. I still have the issues that did "The Fifth Element," "2001", the Lord of the Rings films...
@TheMovieRabbitHole15 күн бұрын
YES. Corona killed them, so sad. Might I recommend Befores and Afters who picked up the mantle. They also have a print issue. beforesandafters.com/
@MrJonBertsch16 күн бұрын
All cgi is needs is slide whistles and nobody would really care.
@theonlyegg16 күн бұрын
And in 5-10 years this will swing back the other way and people will say, "all those puppets look so fake!"
@berserkasaurusrex4233Күн бұрын
Puppetry has been popular and effective for over a century in film, and more like a few millennia before that on stages going back to the Hellenic era. I doubt puppets will ever fall out of favor for some CGI effects, no matter how expensive the CGI gets in the next few decades.
@mammajamma439716 күн бұрын
The lying is so unnecessary! Why must everything be misinformation?!?!?
Пікірлер
the problem isn't CGI, so much as it is CGI being used as a crutch to mask abysmal writing with some flashy shot. The only thing is when you've seen one giant set-piece CGI shot (think anything Marvel), you've seen them all. Combined with how everything is lit these days, and the obsession with 20K ultra super mega hyper high resolution at 4000 fps, it just makes everything feel way more fake than it used to. The call for more practical effects is really just people wanting a return to there being constraints that forced directors and writers to be creative. Now, it's just "let's stick in explosions and a wide pan shot of a CGI city" in basically every single movie, and it gets old.
I really wish people like critical drinker and all those armchair movie critics would see this video. They rant about filmmaking and often "CGI" and it's so evident they have no clue what they're talking about. Their confidence while spewing misinformation with such arrogance is really cringy
I sort of like the crappy no cgi in old movies
Top
“Whatever you do, don’t hit like and subscribe.” So guess what I immediately do….. You could not have chosen any words in any order that would’ve won me over more quickly. I was sold immediately afterwards and would like to thank for being on point, for your accuracy and your articulation. You sir, are a breath of fresh air.
Are you saying that people can't tell these films are full of CGI, or are you just saying that Hollywood studio marketing is full of lies about how practical the effects are? If it's the latter, everyone already knows Hollywood lies. And if it's the prior, you can absolutely tell when films are using a lot of CGI. That bear in the Revenant looks expensive, but it's obviously CGI, the hair doesn't move right and it doesn't move quite like a real animal does. It's well done, but it's not exactly fooling anybody. Most CGI, even really good CGI, is still easily identifiable, especially if it involves a living creature or a human face. The real issue is that most modern films use CGI where a practical effect is both possible and would look better, and in some cases would probably prove cheaper and faster as well. People generally don't mind CGI when it's used to show something that simply can't be done any other way, like half the stuff in superhero films; but it takes you out of the film to see obviously fake muzzle flashes or CGI fire and explosions that all be done practically easily enough. Or fake blood splatter when squibs look a hundred times better.
I think he missed a chance to tell us whether the big pile of shit was CGI…
The part with all the tweet's praising alien for no VFX just shows how braindead and gullible people have become. Just think for half a second, there is not a single movie or series that's without any VFX or CGI. How are you supposed to make a sci-fi movie all practical, oh yeah you can't. You either need to resort to matte painting and other VFX tricks or CGI.
I've never seen people complain about VFX or matte paintings being used in films. They complain about CGI because it often looks worse and cheaper than something like a matte painting or a miniature, and obvious greenscreens break immersion far more than even a cheap matte painting does. And far too often CGI is used where it isn't necessary or where it is worse looking than a more practical effect would've been, like squibs versus CGI blood splatter.
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 You've never seen people complain about (practical) VFX? You must not have lived through the '70s and '80s then. :)
@@nicksterj People complained about terrible and cheap VFX effects in old films when those effects were genuinely badly done, but you really don't see people today complaining that some film has matte paintings or compositing miniatures instead of CGI. I've never seen anyone attack LOTR for using miniatures, for example, or films in the 90's that used foreground miniatures like the Brosnan Bond films and ID4, or Star Wars for its compositing and matte paintings and use of handpuppets/stop motion. People do complain about films having too much CGI today, however, even when the CGI is very high quality. The MCU mostly has decent CGI, and people complained about the films overusing computer graphics all the time, because eventually it just makes every film look the same and most effects shots are too busy with detail because CGI doesn't restrain the director like having to rely on practical effects would. And obviously people complain even more when the CGI is very badly done, like most modern Disney projects. But it's really only the absolutely best quality CGI that earns any praise and even that ages badly after just a few years, while practical effects look just as impressive decades later. The stuff that aged the best in Jurassic Park are the animatronic dinosaur scenes, not the CGI, and those are probably the CGI effects that have aged the best of any film. Matte paintings and similar practical VFX stand the test of time far better than CGI does. Greenscreen especially ages poorly, and anything that involves digital faces and digital animals, like the terrible looking Revenant bear he brags about in this video.
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 Sure, but a lot of people who complain about bad CGI forget how bad some miniature and matte work could be. Why single out CGI? Bad VFX are bad no matter how they're achieved. Take for example the creature in Alien 3. That was all practical and it looked terrible (the puppet shots, not the close-ups). In fact a lot of people think it's CGI because of it! A big FX budget helps but it's no guarantee.
I think the biggest favor CGI did for VFX was to replace stop-motion. Even the best stop-motion techniques aren't 100% convincing. They were going to use it for Jurassic Park until Steve 'Spaz' Williams showed them what the computer could do. I can barely watch the original "Terminator" stop motion because it looks so dated! kzread.info/dash/bejne/c5iZ2KiHh8uapNI.html
Well pretty much everything in top gun is CGI because the only plane that actually flies in top gun are the f18's
Accurate. See: kzread.info/dash/bejne/aaioqZtposSpftI.html
Don't forget Tom's P-51. :)
That was an eye opening phenomenal series. I hope you come up with more videos. I predict the next buzzphrase: "no AI"
Already a thing. Cameron started using AI for his recent remasters to save a buck and ruined the Aliens remaster. People are already wanting "no AI" in future remasters and to stick with the tried and true methods of remastering films directly from the original film stock. You can't just give a cheap DVD to AI and have it clean up the image by inventing data that isn't there, no matter how much cheaper that would be for the studio.
@@berserkasaurusrex4233 yeah that's truely some bs AI use
There's another possible explanation to yours.... simply, that the hollywood buzz machine needs predictable conversations that can be easily amplified for marketing. Simply put, the "no CGI" bit can be just because they must talk about *something* easy to understand to the lowest common denominator, and which online bot farms and SEO attempts can work with easily. This is a constant story because it is *simple*, not because it is desired.
Yes but “invisible CGI” is really just good CGI
14:57 Okay, you got me. Only around 70% CGI was spotted by me right away. Which means I can not spot all the CGI.
I'm not opposed to CGI as I'm not an idiot. However I will maintain that the Hobbit movies and the special editions and prequels of Star Wars look bad and part of that is due to CGI and the specific ways they used it on those movies.
Wow, look at all these liars!!!! Makes you realize how rare the true, real, practical filmmaking with none of that computer shit is rare. At least Top Gun: Maverick brings back the glory days with no cgi. Phew!!
The thing is. Nobody spots good CGI, only bad CGI.
and this is exactly why i can't be bothered to watch anything released within the past 10 years.
What a fantastic series! Can't wait to see what you do next (well I def. can but, you know)
Like that one guy said: "The best looking effects are a mix between the two" (practical and digital)
What people really mean when they say no more CGI is actually “STOP SHOVING COMIC BOOKS, REBOOTS AND BS STAR WARS RIPOFFS DOWN MY THROAT. WRITE A DAMN STORY”. You know what all the recent examples you used have in common? They’re shit. I’ve never heard anyone complain about the obvious VFX in LOTR. Why? Because it’s beautiful and well crafted. The Hobbit? No, not so much. Film making has objectively gotten worse and audiences relate that to the proliferation of VFX and an inability to relate to any of the nonsense happening on screen. Film and Television peaked in the early 2000s and we need to step back. Being able to do anything at the drop of a hat is not necessarily conducive to creativity.
I only watch movies that make extensive use of visible CGI
13:40 one of my favorite debunks of this is Transformers, Revenge of the Fallen. Devastator crash their computers when trying to render him.
War of the Worlds has crazy visual effects
I think overworked and underpaid CG artists should strike and run with the "No CGI" mantra. If there's no CGI in these big blockbusters, then them striking shouldn't be an issue, right?
Why is he giving the movie away.. your destroying the plot i mean trap
I'll say when I found out that the exterior surface of the planet in Prometheus they went to wasn't a filming location whatsoever and that anything that's not a built piece of the set was basically a Photo mapped 3D environment I was impressed, and then again impressed when I found out that the helmets weren't always real.
Giving 3D artists a reasonable amount of time so we don't have to watch god awful CG would be my wish.
This video was incredible. It grabbed me better than the majority of content out there, not just KZread.
"CG is worse than practical" "animation is just for kids" what kind of live-action favoritism is go'in on in the film/TV industry? what ever it is, I HATE IT!
i've re-watch these vidoes like 15 times
Thank you, I appreciate it!
Scary how malleable our perception of reality is. I never realized that the beautiful blue sky at the end of the first Terminator is a matte painting!
Tom Cruises pants are on fire! Somebody help him!
I came here via corridor crew. FANTASTIC SERIES!! Thank you so much for all the hard work that went into this, and the clear, concise story-telling that makes it easy to follow. I'm a long-time movie fanatic (all sorts) and some of this I already knew - especially about matte paintings; big Ellenshaw fan - but the amount of detail you provide is on a whole 'nother level. Again, thank you, and I look forward to your next series. Editing might be a good next subject. In a film class once, we were shown a sequence which added a few black frames between each edit, which revealed just how many edits you really don't notice when the film is flowing past you.
The foolishness in any industry actively hoodwinking its consumers makes like sense.
If you don't like CGI, go to the theater 🤣.
12:41 "how could there be CGI during filming" well that's kinda the idea behind StageCraft, which also goes along with "no green screen" since it's CGI without a green screen, with numerous advantages. And it's not just about green spill, it's CGI that kinda counts as practical effect since it's there for the actors to see and they can well, act better
18:09 the amount of cutting together they did for that audio should have been a dead giveaway
Life of Pi took Rhythm and Hues into bankruptcy, and that movie made nearly a billion. The VFX industry has never been able to earn respect and proper compensation for their contribution to today's films.
Loved the honesty of this video, but I don't feel enough emphasis was put on the damage this "No CGI" garbage is doing to the VFX industry and the artists. Make no mistake, the studios use this to devalue the importance VFX has on their final product. It's about keeping CGI cheap.
FYI, WE KNOW IT'S CGI.
I think some movies get lost in CGI effects instead of good story telling.
Less slow motion CGI in movies please.
The opening credits of _Deadpool_ get a pass. 😁
It's quite sickening the way studios and directors refuse to credit the people that actually made their film, from matte painting to digital artists. This was really eye opening. I must admit, before you made this series, I was one of those "practical effects are better" people, and now I'm a bit embarrassed. It's not really an opinion I can justify. I think the reason miniatures and puppets appeal to me is because I have a sense for how easy or hard it is to build something or paint it. Although I have no doubt it takes great craftsmanship, I have no sense for how difficult it is to animate a 3D model of a character or location. If I'm taken out of a film by noticing the effects, it's nice to feel the people behind them. Like "oh that's a puppet, they must be crouching down there" or "that miniature must've taken hours to build." I can't feel that with digital, because even though I have a rough idea the stages an effect goes through, I don't see that when I see the effect. It's definitely not because I think it looks better. That would be ridiculous. There was a recent episode of Doctor Who, where a big fluffy creature called The Meep shows up. And it looks great! They built an animatronic, with a bit of facial articulation, which was then animated over to give it a full range of facial expressions. Obviously this looks better, and is more realistic (whatever that means for an alien) than the animatronic. But I would love to see a version of the episode without the facial animation. I want to see that beautiful puppet you built! I know it will look "worse" but i just find it charming
Excellent presentation, but I'm sorry to say your toupée is not fooling anyone! 🧑💼
insane video mate, well done
i think cgi has just gotten good enough that most people can't tell something is cgi unless it's done poorly and since it's not as obvious as it used to be they just think "oh there's no cgi"
Watching this makes me really miss Cinefex. A fantastic magazine that went in depth on the hows and whys. I still have the issues that did "The Fifth Element," "2001", the Lord of the Rings films...
YES. Corona killed them, so sad. Might I recommend Befores and Afters who picked up the mantle. They also have a print issue. beforesandafters.com/
All cgi is needs is slide whistles and nobody would really care.
And in 5-10 years this will swing back the other way and people will say, "all those puppets look so fake!"
Puppetry has been popular and effective for over a century in film, and more like a few millennia before that on stages going back to the Hellenic era. I doubt puppets will ever fall out of favor for some CGI effects, no matter how expensive the CGI gets in the next few decades.
The lying is so unnecessary! Why must everything be misinformation?!?!?