"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI (1/4)
Summary
TLDRThe video script delves into the dichotomy between practical effects and CGI in Hollywood, challenging the notion that modern films are using less CGI. It scrutinizes movies like 'Top Gun: Maverick' and 'Stranger Things', which are praised for their practical effects, yet heavily rely on CGI. The script exposes how studios and media often omit CGI involvement, despite it being integral to the final product. It also highlights the collaborative nature of practical and digital effects, suggesting that the industry's marketing of 'no CGI' is misleading and that a blend of both is crucial for creating realistic and impressive visuals.
Takeaways
- 🎬 Despite claims of using less CGI, Hollywood films still rely heavily on computer-generated imagery to create impressive visuals.
- 🌟 'Top Gun: Maverick' was praised for its practical effects, but many of the aircraft seen in the film were actually CGI replacements.
- 🔍 The film industry often emphasizes 'practical' filming to give an impression of authenticity, even when significant CGI is used.
- 🚀 In 'Top Gun: Maverick', real jets were used for filming, but many were later replaced with CGI in post-production for various reasons.
- 🤡 For 'Stranger Things', Vecna's practical makeup was complemented by CGI to enhance the character's appearance.
- 🏆 The film 'Blade Runner 2049' used a mix of miniatures and CGI for its cityscapes, showing the synergy between practical and digital effects.
- 🏎 The 'Fast & Furious' franchise, while promoting practical stunts, has increasingly used CGI for complex car scenes and environments.
- 🤹♂️ Practical effects provide a valuable reference for CGI, helping to maintain realism in digital enhancements.
- 🎭 The debate between practical and CGI effects is often overstated; both can be used effectively in combination to create compelling visuals.
- 🎥 Studios and filmmakers may downplay the use of CGI in marketing to appeal to audiences who prefer the perception of 'real' stunts and effects.
Q & A
What is the general perception of CGI in Hollywood films according to the script?
-The script suggests that despite the increasing length of visual effects credits, filmmakers claim to use less CGI than before, and there is a strong emphasis on practical filmmaking.
Why is practical filmmaking considered important by some filmmakers as mentioned in the script?
-Some filmmakers believe that practical filmmaking is important because it can provide a level of realism and authenticity that CGI may not be able to replicate, and they want audiences to recognize the effort put into creating such scenes without digital enhancements.
How does the script describe the approach taken by 'Top Gun: Maverick' in terms of visual effects?
-The script highlights 'Top Gun: Maverick' as a film that used a practical approach to filming dogfights, with the filmmakers working closely with aerial photographers to capture real footage, but also notes that many of the aircraft seen in the film were replaced with CGI in post-production.
What is the significance of the statement 'no CGI on the jets' in the context of 'Top Gun: Maverick'?
-This statement emphasizes the filmmakers' intention to use practical effects for the jet scenes in 'Top Gun: Maverick'. However, the script reveals that this claim is somewhat misleading as many of the jets shown in the film are actually CGI creations.
How does the script challenge the idea of 'no CGI' in the making of certain films?
-The script challenges this idea by providing examples where practical effects were used during filming but were later replaced or enhanced with CGI in post-production, suggesting that the final product is a combination of both practical and digital effects.
What role does the practical footage play in the visual effects process as discussed in the script?
-The script explains that practical footage serves as a valuable reference for lighting and movement, helping to ground the CGI elements in reality and ensuring that the final visual effects are convincing.
Why might studios and filmmakers downplay the use of CGI as suggested in the script?
-The script suggests that studios and filmmakers might downplay the use of CGI to appeal to audiences who prefer practical effects, to create a sense of authenticity, or to avoid criticism that their work relies too heavily on digital enhancements.
How does the script address the collaboration between practical and digital effects in filmmaking?
-The script emphasizes that the best effects in modern filmmaking often result from a close collaboration between practical and digital effects, where each complements the other to create a more believable and immersive experience.
What is the significance of the phrase 'grounded in reality' mentioned in the script?
-The phrase 'grounded in reality' signifies the importance of basing visual effects in real-world references, which helps in creating more convincing CGI by using practical elements as a foundation for the digital work.
How does the script view the public's perception of CGI versus practical effects?
-The script suggests that the public's preference for practical effects over CGI is often based on a misunderstanding of how movies are made, and that the debate between the two is often overstated, as many films use a combination of both to achieve the best results.
Outlines
🎬 The Illusion of Practical Effects in Hollywood Films
This paragraph discusses the perceived contradiction in Hollywood where filmmakers claim to use less CGI despite the increasing length of visual effects credits. It highlights the case of 'Top Gun: Maverick', which was praised for its practical filming approach, yet relied heavily on CGI for aircraft and environments. The paragraph challenges the notion that practical effects are inherently superior to CGI, suggesting that the combination of both can create a more realistic and impressive final product. It also critiques the marketing of films as 'no CGI' when in fact, significant digital manipulation is involved.
🔍 The Subtlety of Visual Effects in Modern Cinema
Paragraph 2 delves into the subtle use of visual effects in films like 'Top Gun: Maverick', where real jets were used for filming but later replaced with CGI in post-production. It discusses how visual effects are used to enhance safety, create formations of jets that would be impossible with real aircraft, and modify cockpit scenes. The paragraph also addresses the marketing of 'Stranger Things', specifically the character Vecna, which was claimed to use practical effects but was actually a combination of practical makeup and CGI. The theme is the blending of practical and digital effects to create a seamless and realistic viewing experience.
🏎️ The Myth of Practical Stunts in Action Films
This paragraph challenges the idea that action franchises like 'Fast & Furious' have returned to practical effects. It points out that despite claims of practical stunts, many elements in the films are digitally enhanced or entirely CGI, such as car chases, traffic, and destruction scenes. The paragraph discusses the 'Fast X' film, which used a real one-ton metal ball for a stunt but replaced it with a CGI ball in the final edit. It argues that while practical effects provide a valuable reference for CGI, the final product often relies heavily on digital enhancements, calling into question the authenticity of claims about practical effects.
📰 The Misrepresentation of CGI in Media and Film Promotion
The final paragraph addresses the issue of studios and media misrepresenting the use of CGI in films. It criticizes the tendency to downplay or omit mention of CGI, even when it plays a significant role in the final product. The paragraph discusses how this practice misleads audiences and undermines the work of visual effects artists. It also touches on the broader issue of media reporting on films without a full understanding of the production process, leading to the perpetuation of myths about practical effects. The paragraph concludes by suggesting that the dichotomy between practical and CGI effects is often overstated and that both are integral to modern filmmaking.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Practical Effects
💡CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery)
💡Top Gun: Maverick
💡Visual Effects (VFX)
💡Miniatures
💡The Fast and the Furious Franchise
💡Stunt Performers
💡Marketing
💡Oscar Nomination
💡Reality vs. Perception
Highlights
Filmmakers claim to use less CGI than ever before despite longer visual effects credits.
Practical filmmaking is highly valued by studios and audiences alike.
Top Gun: Maverick was praised for its practical approach to filming dogfights.
The film used real aircraft for filming, but many were replaced with CGI in post-production.
The F14 and enemy's fifth-generation fighters in Top Gun: Maverick were entirely CGI.
The film's editor confirmed that the entire dogfight sequence was edited with practical jets to be replaced with CGI.
Cockpit scenes were filmed practically but still underwent CGI changes.
Practical effects are often used as a reference for CGI, enhancing realism.
Stranger Things used practical makeup for Vecna, but the character was mostly CGI in the final product.
Blade Runner 2049 used miniatures, but the majority of cityscapes were digital.
Fast Five and subsequent films in the franchise advertised a return to practical effects, but still relied heavily on CGI.
Fast X used a practical bomb for filming, but the final film used a completely CGI ball.
Studios and filmmakers often emphasize practical effects in marketing, despite significant CGI use.
Media sometimes misreports the extent of CGI use in films, perpetuating the practical vs. CGI debate.
The collaboration between practical and digital effects is key to achieving realistic visuals in films.
The Fast Saga's focus on actors' work in stunts overlooks the contributions of stunt performers and CGI artists.
The debate between practical and CGI effects is often based on a misunderstanding of filmmaking processes.
Transcripts
Despite the visual effects credits on Hollywood films being longer than ever before
If you are to believe the filmmakers they're also using less CGI than ever before.
"No one else in the world is doing this level of practical film making
and it may never be done again."
Everybody loves practical film making, so that's what the studios are giving you
"Aviation film like this has never been done
and chances are it will never be done again." "It's very important to me that it be practical"
One of these days they're going to put "no CGI was used in the making of this
film" in the credits right above "no animals were harmed in the making of
this film" because that's how important it is for them that you know that they used no CGI.
Hi there, my name is Jonas and I have been making visual effects
for film and TV for 18 years, and in this 4-part video series we'll
be taking a look at all the no CGI there is in Hollywood films today,
and that is A LOT of no CGI. So stick around it'll be a lot of fun and I'm saving the best for last.
Before we start let's get one thing straight it's fairly easy to agree
we all like practical better isn't it? Ignore the music and take a look at these car stunts.
Now compare them to these car stunts
These car stunts are meant to be impressive because the car jumps a really long distance
but the two bridge stunts were real and the two building to building stunts were CGI so
what's impressive about that? A CGI car can jump as far as you want it to - it can jump from house
to house, from skyscraper to skyscraper, from city to city, hell it could even fly into space.
But that doesn't impress me because I know CGI cars can do anything. So practical is better,
right? It's not so simple, hang on.
Top Gun: Maverick blew people away with
its practical approach to filming dog fights where everyone else uses CGI.
Tom Cruise, director Joseph Kosinski, DOP Claudia Miranda worked closely with aerial photographer
Kevin LaRosa to film everything for real. "Ground photography, mounted camera platforms
whether they're internal external on the F18s we used both, it's helicopter and it's jet to jet"
And this is crazy stuff, it has never been done before and it looks amazing
"Top Gun is a movie about getting it in-camera" And there is not a single mention of CGI or visual
effects in any of these documentaries. "This is not just green screen nonsense"
And why would there be? Tom himself said in a 2015 interview:
"A possibility of a Top Gun 2 am I hearing this?" "We got to do all the jets practical. No CGI on
the jets. I'm saying right now no CGI on the jets" That's it. No CGI on the jets. Social media was
flooded by people raving about the complete absence of CGI in such a major spectacle film.
News outlets and media like IGN were quick to pick up the story and report on it like this:
"In an age where computer generated special effects reign supreme in cinema,
Top Gun Maverick is a Mach 10 breath of fresh air" Production company Skydance even tweeted:
"no CGI here" to confirm, I presume, that there is no CGI in the film.
But with 400 VFX names in the credits that's a lot of no CGI isn't it it?
Turns out a lot of the aircraft they filmed practically were not the aircraft you see in the
final film. Instead they filmed these L39 standin jets, painted them gray and added tracking markers
so they could be used for lighting reference and tracked, essentially using them as a flying
Andy Serkis to be completely replaced with CGI. So how many jets are CGI and how many are real?
The Dark Star was made available to the production as a fullsize mockup,
but it didn't fly, so it's completely CGI, either tracked onto a standin jet or animated by hand.
The good old F14 doesn't fly anymore, it's all CGI The enemy's fifth generation fighters, they don't
exist, they're all CGI either tracked onto other standin jets or animated by hand, which means that
in the entire dog fight at the end of the movie you're watching 100% CGI airplanes because none
of these planes exist. "No CGI on the jets"
There's no information about this in the bonus material on the Blu-ray or in any
of the online documentaries about the film, but the film's editor Eddie Hamilton has uploaded a
walkthrough of the film's timeline on YouTube and he's pretty open about the visual effects:
"The edit notes track is something where I put a subcap on and I type in useful things that
the VFX department might need to know" And there you have it -- the entire dog
fight at the end of the film is filmed and edited exclusively with these gray L39 jets
with notes from the editor to the VFX team about which CGI jets to replace them with.
"You know there's a lot of visual effects in this movie and you may not realize what the visual
effects are because they're kind of invisible" The F18s were made available to the production
from the Navy and they are somewhat real in the film but VFX supervisor Ryan Tudhope
would say in an interview with VFX voice: "Typically we shot those with one or two F18s
and added the other F18s in those formations" That means that in all these shots you're
watching some real F18s and some CGI F18s and I can't tell you which is
which because you can't tell the difference. "In the shot where they all come through the
valley and the vapor trails are going off and rush under the camera, that was one jet,
and we added multiple jets doing the same thing" They also used CGI jets for safety reasons when
jets get too close to each other. Tudhope would also explain to
Ian Failes from Befores and Afters: "We determined early on through various
tests that adding other jets in formation out of the canopy windows was something we could do
convincingly in VFX", further reducing the already very small amount of real jets left in the film.
But what about the cockpit scenes, they're real we saw them film that, didn't we?
Yes they filmed all that stuff for real and it's amazing,
it looks great and they got some g-force stuff that they couldn't have gotten any other way.
But they still did CGI changes to those shots, on the interior, the exterior,
the canopy, the environment leaving some shots with the pilot as the only practical element
left in the shot and everything else as CGI. You'll notice in the documentaries that they
say they don't use CGI they just keep repeating that they filmed everything practically which they
did so it's technically not inaccurate "So what I told you was true from a certain point of view"
But why? Why go through all this trouble of filming the most elaborate and amazing aerial photography ever
filmed only to use it as essentially the world's most expensive animatic for what ends up being
nearly entirely digital aerial scenes? The phrase is "grounded in reality". By filming real aircraft
from real aircraft not only do you have great lighting reference for the CG aircraft you're
going to insert they also move like the real thing unlike these clips from the movie Stealth which
has great CGI for being almost 20 years old, it's just pretty obvious that no real aircraft actually did this.
You could certainly call this overkill because animators and CG artists can create shots
like that without the practical photography. But by filming the entire film practically and
editing it like that you're forcing the cinematic language of aerial photography to persist through
the entire post-production and it definitely shows in the final film because all the scenes
feel real even when they're 100% CGI.
Strongly conflicting with the all practical marketing approach
"And everything you see in this film obviously it's it's for real"
"All of the flying that you see in this picture - everything is is real"
Top Gun: Maverick earned an Oscar nomination for its 2,400 visual effect shots
and the only guaranteed real airplane left in the film is the one with the Lady Gaga song
[Music]
It's no secret that stranger things uses a lot of CGI but for the season 4 villain Vecna,
according to the official Netflix Geeked Twitter account they used no CGI his look was all practical
as demonstrated in this video that shows the very time consuming process of applying the makeup to the actor
This makeup looks fantastic and when people see that video they'll say "that's it, no CGI --
-- case closed, I can see it right there, it's all makeup"
As usual people raved in the comments that Vecna looked great because he was practical and that CGI could never look this good
And they encouraged other studios to "take note" so we could have more practical effects like Vecna
But take a look at Rodeo FX's visual effects breakdown from Stranger Things season 4 because Vecna is CGI
Now the cool part about filming the actor in full makeup as opposed to a gray mo-cap suit in is that
1) the VX artists can decide on a shot per shot basis how much of the original they want to keep and how much they want to replace with CGI
2) even the parts that are completely replaced with CGI they have great lighting reference for exactly
what it's supposed to look like. You can see they keep as much of the practical footage as possible
replacing as little as they have to in order to maintain the actor's performance. But since his
body is covered in slithering snakes at the end of the day most of him is CGI. You'll think by
now there's some kind of a trench warfare going on between practical effects and digital effects but
this isn't the case. Here is Vecna's makeup designer Barry Gower: "As a practical effects department we tend
to work very closely with digital effects. A lot of the best effects achieved now in TV and film are
a combination of the two". Smart guy. The entire CGI versus practical debate is something the
audience has invented out of sheer ignorance about how movies are made. Netflix Geeked has
since taken their nonsensical tweet down but the story still lives on media out there like Unilad:
"Stranger things team confirms no CGI was used to create Vecna's full body".
"It would be easy to assume the stranger things creators had used the magic of CGI to create the villain Vecna but they have
since confirmed his look was entirely practical" "The creators assured computer generated imagery
AKA CGI wasn't necessary for Vecna's look". That's a lot of no CGI in Rodeo FX's breakdown reel.
"The original Blade Runner is is an absolutely pivotal film in the history of visual art". For Blade Runner
2049 Weta Workshop build these fantastic bigatures. "The idea of being able to use miniatures in this
modern context that's very exciting". If you think he looks familiar it's because geeks like you
remember him from the bonus material for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which he earned two Oscars for
"The complete set of Mina's Tirith was 7 m tall and 6 and 1 12 met in diameter. It's an enormous structure"
Miniatures are awesome! Visual effects people love to work with plates that have miniatures
in them. We love miniatures and the work here is amazing. But, by including only the documentary
about the model work in the bonus features of the film's releases the studio is forgetting to
tell you that the majority of the cityscapes in this film are digital, like all these shots of Los
Angeles. This is the digital Las Vegas. Every single shot in Las Vegas is just mind-blowingly beautiful
and the attention to detail here is just as good as on the miniatures. Even the scrapyard
also shown as a miniature was digital in a lot of the film and it looks just as good. Once again
collaboration between practical and digital is key here. The digital scrapyard may look
just as good as the practical scrapyard but probably only because they had the practical
scrapyard as reference. So how much in the final film is digital and how much is practical of the
scrapyard? I don't know because I can't tell the difference.
Fast Five is often described as the film that brought the fast franchise back back to his practical routs with the Vault Heist.
And if you look at the number of VFX artists on the film they did dial back a little bit from the
fourth film even though the 400 vfx artists did a fair share of CGI on the film including the
vault chase. Since then every film in the franchise has advertised itself as the return to practical
effects even though Fast 7 and 8 passed more than 1,000 visual effects artists containing more
CGI cars than the actual Pixar movie Cars. "You gotta be kidding me". If you still think the
Fast franchise favors practical action over CGI here's a quick checklist of the kind of digital
effects you'll find in a Fast film: Anything cars do with cables. Dense traffic - it's easier
to shoot without it and add it in post. Actors in cars are on blue screen. Cars that flip in weird
ways. Anything silly. Small scale destruction. Large scale destruction. And just... cars, really.
Fast X was no different. "The heart and soul of The Fast and Furious franchise is boots on the ground on location"
With Screen Rant reporting that "Fast X returns to practical after ridiculous F9". "Fast X director Louis Leterrier
confirms the franchise will return to practical action". "To push the envelope that meant going
practical the streets of Rome with that ball, that ball was was built practically it was a 1.2 ton
metal orb that we roll down the streets" And you know what they really did that they rolled a one
ton bomb through the streets of Rome and the result is amazing. And you should know by now this
is the part where I'll tell you about the CGI. You see how the prop bomb is rigged so it rolls nicely
around this axis but the one in the film is always tumbling in funnier angles? And also side by side
the one in the film doesn't actually look like the prop. Yes DNEG completely replaced the ball
with a CGI ball and every set piece in the film has great visual effects by multiple VFX
vendors and even though they certainly dialed it down since F9 there's still more than 600
artists and 1,000 effect shots in Fast X. "I'm so impressed with how much practical stunt work
goes into this film" That's right and you should be because no matter how much of the practical work
was completely replaced with CGI this is another great example of practical and digital working
together, special effects and visual effects. By filming every scene with a practical bomb not
only did everybody on set, actors and the DOP etc have something actual to react to, but more
importantly, the editor had the ball in all shots so the editor could completely time the entire
sequence without having to wait for every single shot to go to the visual effects department for a
temp animation. And also the practical footage provided a perfect lighting reference for DNEG
for the CG Ball but when you have an action sequence that relies on VFX just as much as
it relies on practical and there's not a single pixel of the original practical prop left in the
film because it's been all replaced with CGI and all the director can say is this: "Everything is
done for real it's a one ton metal bomb that we roll keep it real keep it practical and what we
did actually we did this for real" I think that's a problem. I think the studios are contractually
if the studio is holding you hostage. The problem is the media catch up on these stories and they
report them back to you. Here is YouTube tabloid Ossa having no clue what they're talking about: "They
make the impossible things possible by using practical effects for example the sequence
where the bomb rolls through the bus on the street had little to no CGI"
So what's going on? Why are studios covering up their use of CGI as if it was Mafia money? Stunt performers
will know exactly what I'm talking about as they constantly have to read in the news that
some actor they just doubled on an action movie apparently "did all their own stunts"
The Youtube channel the fast Saga published this video about the epic fight between Cypher and Letty in Fast X
focusing entirely on the actors' work
(vfx by Belo VFX) Thereby simultaneously overlooking the stunt people that worked on the scene and the CGI people that put the CGI faces on the stunt people
If you thought watching directors and actors dance around the topic of CGI as if it was cursed was toe
cringing and embarassing, whatever you do don't hit Like and Subscribe because
what I have in store for the next three videos is much worse. Thanks for watching
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
Графика в кино, которую вы не заметили — лучшие спецэффекты
I Learned How To Fake Water Exactly Like Hollywood
The evolution of CGI
How does Ray Tracing Work in Video Games and Movies?
The Elements Of Sound Design
Radio Tokyo announcer Iva Toguri D'Aquino talks about her life in America and Jap...HD Stock Footage
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)