I linked to this in a previous post along with my hot take about general things (https://hachyderm.io/@maegul/112132220413742000).
But really, if you’re into films, into VFX/SFX/behind-the-scenes stuff, and find the state of VFX in the film industry interesting (I’m constantly amazed at the size of the VFX credits in films) …
… then this is really worth a watch.
I found part 3 particularly enjoyable as it looks at the history of using matte paintings for what CGI is often used now … and also looks at oppenheimer to, in the end, illustrate that the term “CGI” and the CGI v practical divide are not really useful.
This is an excellent video series. Really changes the way you think about this recent trend of “no” CGI movies. Maverick was especially egregious.
Yea. With the Maverick thing, I think the reality that comes out of it is that it’s never one or the other (practical v CGI), or even a “blend” or “balance” but literally both at the same time … practical to aid filming/acting and to act as a reference and then VFX, whenever desirable, using the practical effects as references, lighting cues and even elements to be copied/modeled etc. The dichotomy being presented or pedaled is dumb because in the end it’s “movie magic” which entails a whole industrial scale raft of tricks and processes that will do what they need to deliver the look they want, in which VFX is just one tool amongst many.
