"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI (1/4)

Summary

The 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

00:00

🎬 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.

05:03

🔍 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.

10:03

🏎️ 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.

15:07

📰 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.

Keywords

💡Practical Effects

Practical effects refer to the physical effects created during the filming of a movie, such as real explosions, miniatures, or makeup effects. These effects are tangible and do not rely on digital manipulation. In the video's context, practical effects are contrasted with CGI, with the filmmaker Jonas highlighting the resurgence of practical effects in Hollywood films as a way to achieve a more authentic and impressive visual experience. The video discusses how filmmakers are emphasizing the use of practical effects over CGI to enhance the audience's perception of realism, as seen in the discussion of 'Top Gun: Maverick' and its aerial sequences.

💡CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery)

CGI is the application of computer graphics to create or contribute to images and videos in art, printed media, video games, films, television programs, commercials, simulators, and simulation. In the video, CGI is often portrayed as a tool that can be used to enhance or replace practical effects, leading to debates about the authenticity and visual impact of practical versus digital effects. The video script discusses how some films market themselves as having minimal CGI, yet still rely heavily on it, as exemplified by the 'Top Gun: Maverick' case study.

💡Top Gun: Maverick

Top Gun: Maverick is a 2022 American action drama film that is a sequel to the 1986 film Top Gun. In the video, it is used as a prime example of a film that has been heavily marketed as using minimal CGI and focusing on practical effects, particularly in its aerial scenes. The video script delves into the reality of the film's production, revealing that while some practical footage was indeed filmed, much of the final product relied on CGI, challenging the film's marketing claims.

💡Visual Effects (VFX)

Visual effects, or VFX, is the process of creating or enhancing imagery in films that cannot be achieved through live-action filming alone. This includes the integration of computer-generated imagery (CGI) with live-action footage. The video discusses the role of VFX in modern filmmaking, often highlighting the collaboration between practical effects and VFX to create seamless and realistic visuals, as well as the challenges in distinguishing between what is real and what is digitally enhanced.

💡Miniatures

Miniatures are small-scale models used in film and television production to depict large objects or environments. They are often used for scenes that would be too expensive, impractical, or impossible to create full-scale. In the video, miniatures are mentioned as a form of practical effects, with the example of 'Blade Runner 2049' showcasing the use of bigatures (large-scale miniatures) to create realistic cityscapes. However, the video also points out that even with the use of miniatures, digital effects are often employed to enhance or replace the practical elements in the final film.

💡The Fast and the Furious Franchise

The Fast and the Furious is a popular film franchise known for its high-octane action sequences involving cars. The video script uses the franchise as an example of a series that has been marketed as returning to practical effects, yet still heavily relies on CGI for many of its stunts and car scenes. The discussion highlights the franchise's tendency to emphasize practical stunts while also acknowledging the significant contribution of CGI to the final product.

💡Stunt Performers

Stunt performers are professionals who perform dangerous stunts and动作 sequences in place of actors. The video touches on the issue of stunt performers' work being overshadowed by the focus on the actors themselves, particularly when it comes to the use of CGI in action scenes. It points out the irony of actors being credited for 'doing their own stunts' when much of the work is actually performed by professionals and enhanced with CGI.

💡Marketing

In the context of the video, marketing refers to the promotional strategies used by film studios to advertise their movies. The video discusses how studios may emphasize the use of practical effects over CGI in their marketing to appeal to audiences' preferences for realism and authenticity. However, it also critiques this approach as misleading, given the extensive use of CGI in the final films, suggesting a disconnect between marketing claims and the actual production process.

💡Oscar Nomination

An Oscar nomination is a recognition given by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to films and individuals that have demonstrated excellence in various aspects of filmmaking. The video mentions 'Top Gun: Maverick' earning an Oscar nomination for its visual effects, highlighting the film's success in blending practical effects with CGI to create a visually impressive end product, despite the film's marketing suggesting a minimal use of CGI.

💡Reality vs. Perception

This concept refers to the difference between what is actually happening in a film's production (reality) and what the audience perceives or is led to believe (perception). The video explores this theme by examining how films are marketed as using practical effects while still heavily relying on CGI, creating a perception of authenticity that may not align with the reality of the production process.

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