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.
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.