39 ms·

The bullet effects in Terminator 2 weren’t CGI

899 points by zdw 5y ago

themgt 5y ago
Wait until you hear about how Cameron filmed the scene with a helicopter going under a highway overpass. https://filmschoolrejects.com/terminator-2-helicopter-stunt/ https://filmschoolrejects.com/terminator-2-helicopter-stunt/
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jandrese 5y ago
  That is an incredible feat of flying. I would be terrified of some kind of reverse ground effect from the road overhead. It's basically a 1990s version of barnstorming.
  - lisper 5y ago
    From TFA: "I was curious about how the overpass would affect the ground effect of the helicopter. Tragically, I have no brain for physics. But I do know a helicopter pilot, so I asked him. Apparently, at 60 kts, there wouldn’t be significant ground effect because the down flowing air off of the rotor disk would mostly be tailing off of the helicopter. Had Tamburro taken the stunt slower, the down flowing air would be more directly underneath the helicopter, creating an (obviously undesirable) effect."
    - jandrese 5y ago
      That part was talking about the traditional ground effect. There isn't much study about what happens when you have a ceiling over a helicopter because that doesn't happen very often in real life. Note the discussion of the air flowing off of the blades. I was thinking more of the low pressure zone above the helicopter being disrupted by the overpass. Apparently it wasn't too bad since the pilot managed the stunt twice without injury, but it's a possibility that would have had me crapping diamonds if I were asked to pull it off.
      - lisper 5y ago
        I feel an aircraft-on-a-conveyor-belt moment coming on. So first of all, GE in a rotorcraft is different from GE on a fixed-wing aircraft. The fundamentals are the same, of course, but in a rotorcraft the relative velocity of the blade/wing isn't connected to the velocity of the airframe the way it is in a fixed-wing aircraft. In a fixed-wing aircraft the velocity of the wing and the velocity of the airframe are the same, of course. But in a rotorcraft things get very complicated. The upshot of all this complication is that the GE effect is reduced as the rotorcraft's airframe starts to move. The faster it goes, the less GE you have. So you might notice some differences while hovering under an overpass, but shooting through at 60 MPH the GE is effectively a no-op. If you really want to know the gory details you'll have to read up on helicopter theory. It's way too complicated for an HN comment.
        ambicapter 5y ago
        He's not talking about ground effect, he's talking about the overpass above the blades "cutting off" available air for a second.
        lisper 5y ago
        Yes, I get that. "Reverse ground effect" was how the OP phrased it. What exactly do you think would happen in that case? Suppose the available air were "cut off" by the overpass (it wouldn't be, but let's suspend disbelief for a moment). What would be the result?
        jandrese 5y ago
        Loss of lift due to the interruption of the airflow causing the helicopter to crash into the ground at speed? Or suddenly lower pressure above the helicopter causing it to be "sucked up" into the ceiling. I think the pilot is probably correct that the stunt could only be pulled off at a higher speed where you can outrace the low/high pressure zones the blades are creating.
- coldcode 5y ago
  If people survive such a crazy stunt, you congratulate them, if not, you bury them and the director. Risking people's lives for a few seconds of film is not worth it.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    I'm fairly sure the people doing these stunts do them because they love doing them, not because they are being forced to perform them. If people want to risk their lives for a few seconds of film, why stop them? People are into all kind of weird stuff, as long as they don't hurt others, I don't see what the problem is.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Reality is far more complex than that. Yes, stunt people tend to be a risk seeking crowd. But there’s also the risk of losing their livelihood if they refuse a director’s demands. Film business is a precarious way to make a living, and the power gulf between the director and the stunt person is massive. History is full of “I think this is a bad idea, but I’ll do it” accounts in the after-disaster reports. People can and regularly do dangerous things against their better judgement because they were ordered to do it or otherwise pressured into it. Saying that they volunteered is to drastically over simplify the situation.
      - capableweb 5y ago
        So again, they chose between doing stunts or doing something else. You don't work to do the stunts in the movie? Fine, don't work on the movie, it's not essential to life anyways so continue on with your life.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        Continue with your life, and risk losing your career. I think if you’re not accounting for this risk in how people think, then you are absolutely misunderstanding what motivates people to do what they do. Again, people regularly do things against their best judgement because of social and economic pressure. Stunt people are not magically excluded from this process.
- russdill 5y ago
  Seems like if you just wanted the side shot and not the straight on shot as well, you could of just pulled the helicopter on a low trailer using the median partition to block. The straight on shot would of required deleting the trailer which may have been difficult but certainly would look better than any CGI attempt
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Or just CGI. But as Cameron himself puts it (copied from the article linked in parent): > we could’ve run a CG helicopter under the freeway overpass, but it was so much more fun to do the real thing. I'm guessing the same applies from pulling a helicopter on a trailer. It's simply not fun.
- ghoward 5y ago
  As an aspiring helicopter pilot, I am both awed and repulsed. Vietnam was something else for helicopter pilots. That level of skill would be hard for a perfectly-programmed autopilot to do. With regards to Vietnam, a legend that I was told (but cannot confirm) was that Hueys had such bad tail rotor authority that they would take off straight up with the whole airframe spinning. Once high enough, the pilot would start the helicopter moving forward, which would allow the tail rotor to bite more, and the helicopter would stabilize. Crazy if true. And after seeing a stunt like that by a bona fide insane and top-tier veteran pilot, I believe the legend.
  - naikrovek 5y ago
    literally any Vietnam documentary would prove that wrong. what does "moving forward" even mean when you're spinning? also, forward movement doesn't give the tail rotor any more "bite" ... if anything, it would get less. moving in a consistent direction would tend to orient the body of the helicopter to face into the wind because of the wind vane effect.
    - nwallin 5y ago
      While hovering, the tail rotor is pushing air into a dirty vortex. A small amount of speed, even just 20kt, will clear that vortex and give more authority. Even today helicopters will begin pitching nose down immediately on takeoff to get airflow cross both the main and tail rotor to clear those vertices. That being said, I've talked to a few Vietnam helicopter pilots and all of their stories were ... well, exaggeration is a common theme.
      - naikrovek 5y ago
        pitching the nose down certainly does one thing: it pushes air backwards, meaning the helicopter starts moving forwards. the air moving across the body of the helicopter, rather than down it, is what starts the wind vane effect. if the pilot tipped the helicopter to the right after leaving the ground, and then continuously held the control stick in the direction of the movement of the helicopter, the body of the helicopter would begin to face the direction of travel unless the pilot actively countered that turn via the tail rotor.
- marcodiego 5y ago
  Something a bit crazier was performed in Brazil in the 60's for a film: https://youtu.be/rSH3FVzcDSo?t=519 https://youtu.be/rSH3FVzcDSo?t=519
- chrisgd 5y ago
  Not too long after two children and an adult actor were killed on the set of the twilight zone movie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident
- felipelemos 5y ago
  This reminds me the 1968 Brazilian movie "Roberto Carlos em ritmo de aventura" when a pilot flow an helicopter inside the 250m (~ 820 feet) long Túnel Novo (New Tunnel) connecting the neighborhoods of Copacabana and Botafogo. https://youtu.be/ab8bVouGtwU https://youtu.be/ab8bVouGtwU Minute 0:57 to be more precise. Also, you can enjoy Rio de Janeiro from above in the 60s.
  - daverol 5y ago
    There is a blog article about filming this (google translate available): http://culturaaeronautica.blogspot.com/2011/06/roberto-carlos-em-ritmo-de-aventura-o.html http://culturaaeronautica.blogspot.com/2011/06/roberto-carlo...
  - rasz 5y ago
    What is funny you could still buy this helicopter, Schweizer 300, brand new up to 2002 as it was designed in 1955! ~Same carbureted engine with zero automation and 40L/h fuel consumption. No engine governor means pilot manually controls engine rpm, you are the ECM having to correct for air temp and pressure altitude, worry about icing and manifold pressure. All thanks to stupid US aviation policies - recertification is so expensive nobody does it and everyone flies dangerous shitboxes despite >50 years of innovations.
- muzani 5y ago
  This thread fills me with horror. I admire that movie, it's incredible, especially when I know it's just safe reenactment of a scene. But it's an uneasy feeling to know that there's some serious risk involved.
protomyth 5y ago
On the same vein, I am do glad John Carpenter used practical effects when doing The Thing.
h2odragon 5y ago
I recall debating this with a dude who was into makeup and masks; he pointed out the blooms moved like rubber as the character runs; seemed pretty conclusive. I love how prosaic and simple some of their practical effects are; but the real accomplishment to me is how hard it is to pay attention to those details, to notice them; when everything flows so smoothly into captivating scenes.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  I remember rewatching T2 on computer after seeing stan winston studio showing props. The movie shows a lot of these physical props for very small frame numbers. Very hard to notice if you slow things down but at normal speed it just flows through the context of the scene. It's a minimal amount of detail that your brain needs to have to accept continuation. Probably a byproduct of the time.. can't CGI all the things so you have to optimize and find the best bang for your bucks in every dimension.
- jonathanlydall 5y ago
  Reminds me of one New Years Eve party where Aliens was playing on the TV and a friend walks past and says "Watch Bishop's severed body now as he grabs Newt to stop her getting sucked out the air lock...", and clear as day you can see the lower part of the actors body come out a hole in the ground when he grabs Newt. I had probably seen the movie a dozen times before but never noticed it. In a similar vein, just after having watched X-Men 2 in a cinema a (different) friend who did CGI animation for a living pointed out that during the scene where Magneto moved the bridge, you can see that the shadows on the water don't move with the bridge. His theory was that the special effects team were likely completely aware, but looked at the amount of effort required and hoped no one would notice. I never noticed the problem myself until it was pointed out. I guess back then when special effects were monumentally difficult and computers weren't as capable as they are now, directors often relied on the audience's attention being elsewhere at that moment and thus being less likely to notice.
  - noja 5y ago
    > and clear as day you can see the lower part of the actors body come out a hole in the ground Screencap: https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs?file=A2blactorholep1.jpg https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs?file=A2blactorholep... (fixed in the bluray) from https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs
beebeepka 5y ago
Duh. There were just tinfoil. Watch the incredible rescan from a few years ago. You can clearly see them. Still one of the best movies ever. I watched dune recently and while very well done, it felt more like theatre than a movie. Cameron and Verhoeven are my directors. They know how to do action
- dllthomas 5y ago
  They were metal plated rubber.
  - h2odragon 5y ago
    I'll argue that finish was the truly artistic part; the foam trick had probably been done before to "make meat pop out". It's a beautiful finish on film and survives the packing and unpacking and some rough motion. That's nothing to sneeze at. I'm sure someone with more experience could go into more detail, and would appreciate more education on it myself.
ksec 5y ago
I sometimes wonder if these "tricks" are still better than CGI. A bit like using LED wall with Unreal Engine as Hybrid rather than everything CGI. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/spotlights/unreal-engine-in-camera-vfx-a-behind-the-scenes-look https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/spotlights/unreal-engine-...
- __s 5y ago
  I've been watching a lot of films recently. Films started getting better during the 80s, leading to a golden era from 90s to 2000s, I feel CGI has contributed to a drop in quality. Especially in action films I've also tried to avoid selection bias: I've seen bad (& not funny B-movie bad) films from the 90s Death Proof is a masterpiece discarding CGI This isn't to say there aren't good films anymore, there definitely are, CGI isn't what makes them good tho
  - pm90 5y ago
    Hah, Death Proof is a classic, there’s the scene in Texas Chilli Parlor where Stuntman Mike talks about how CGI is replacing what he did… was that the scene you’re referencing? Or is it that the movie itself is made with no cgi? Those last scenes couldn’t have been easy.
    - __s 5y ago
      The movie itself is made with no cgi. Helps when the cast is made up of stunt actors Tarantino on JRE described how the car crash scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS39s9DKtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS39s9DKtQ) was done by pulling the two cars together with a wire & dummies for the gore
  - rectang 5y ago
    I still remember seeing Tron as a 11 year old with my Dad. His reaction as we left the theater: they spent millions of dollars on special effects and a couple thousand on plot.
  - kzrdude 5y ago
pm90 5y ago
Fascinating stuff. I guess CGI probably killed all the creative ways you had to work with materials to get the effects you need like this one.
tyingq 5y ago
Interesting they went with mud. I'd be curious what it would look like if you shot a block of gallium. I couldn't find that, but did find a video of someone shooting a block of lead(Pb): https://youtu.be/lCMUrp58cPg?t=325 https://youtu.be/lCMUrp58cPg?t=325
kadoban 5y ago
If you're into this kind of thing, the Corridor Crew youtube channel will likely be right up your alley: https://m.youtube.com/c/corridorcrew/videos https://m.youtube.com/c/corridorcrew/videos They have a long running series of "VFX Artists React" that are fun and lightly educational.
- not1ofU 5y ago
  Reminded me of this (not sure if the channel is related or not) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3RIHnK0_NE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3RIHnK0_NE ^ you want skynet, because this is how we get skynet. :-)
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Yeah, that is their "main" channel, same group of people. The "Crew" one started as like a behind-the-scenes I believe.
  - anonymfus 5y ago
    > not sure if the channel is related or not YSK that you can click on the Channels tab of both of these YouTube channels and see interlinks that they added.
  - jedimastert 5y ago
    It's the same guys. They're an indie vfx/short-film production house.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- breakingcups 5y ago
  Do note that while some of them go into quite a lot of detail with good visual explanations, quite some videos have also become watered down and light on the technical content, weighing much more heavily on the "react" aspect than the "VFX Artists" aspect.
- jedimastert 5y ago
chrisseaton 5y ago
> Those Bullet Effects in Terminator 2 Weren’t CGI The film came out in 1991… they obviously didn’t have anything like the tracking to do effects like that as CGI back then.
- rasz 5y ago
  Yes, they actually had to kill one of the twin actors, melt his corpse and then project it in reverse for this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXsyn-9VLVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXsyn-9VLVA practical effects ftw!
  - knorker 5y ago
    I'm not an expert, but it's not obvious that the camera angle actually changes (as opposed to postprocess movement) in the one shot where the camera actually moves. This one was probably much more effort: https://youtu.be/6z9qws7M8q8?t=275 https://youtu.be/6z9qws7M8q8?t=275 You're not contradicting the parent comment though. It's not obvious that they had tracking back then. I wouldn't be surprised if they did it all manually, frame by frame. I'd say not a chance in hell they'd be able to do a good job in 1992 doing effects on a running Robert Patrick while the camera is on a vehicle. It was cutting edge back then, but not that cutting edge.
- jandrese 5y ago
  Digital morphing was introduced to the public in that film. It's not out of the realm of possibility that they could have done the splash effects using a similar technology.
  - pierrec 5y ago
    > Digital morphing was introduced to the public in that film. As someone who grew up watching Willow (1988), I beg to differ... Note the box office was about 1/4 that of Terminator 2, so you could say it reached the public pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKzbsDG58pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKzbsDG58pc
not1ofU 5y ago
I remember watching [0]"Asterix at the Olympic Games [2008]" at the cinema while on acid. The CGI was quite obvious. Should probably watch it again and compare. [0] -https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463872/?ref_=kw_li_tt https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463872/?ref_=kw_li_tt
knorker 5y ago
Yeah that was completely obvious. Check out the scenes that actually were CGI. They are trivial to spot, with a 2021 eye and DVD level quality media or better. The whole shot that "went through the computer" has a completely different feel to it than scenes that don't. Compare 3:38 and 3:44 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhL8WlDHKaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhL8WlDHKaY. It looks like it was shot with a completely different camera, or going into a mini-dream state. I mean it's extremely well done. It holds up so well even... jesus christ 30 years later?! But it's extremely obvious which scenes got the CGI treatement. Oh, and if this is one of those "once you can see it, you can't unsee it" things: Sorry about that.
- sneak 5y ago
  We're all on this website reading this comment because doing it all inside the computer in software is simply... easy money.
- bhaak 5y ago
  I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. I'm looking at the still frames in 1080p. I see the bullet holes absolutely don't match up. At 3:38 they are not as deep and wide as in 3:44. But also the actors position is different especially the mouth (closed in the first, open in the other). Continuity errors. The morph effect is somewhat cringy but to be fair, they always were. At least in DS9 and Terminator 2 there were in-universe explanations why they existed. There's also something weird going on with the eyes to the T-1000 after the morph effect has finished. Not sure if that was intentional.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    The part that jumped out to me in that CGI was the mannequin. The bullet hole morphing is so obvious that in a way it's less objectionable.
  - knorker 5y ago
    100% of the frame has a different quality in the clip that went through the computer. Like they smeared something over the lens. Also check out the "goes through the bars" shot. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Look at things like color grading, and things that look like "upscaling" (but aren't).
girishso 5y ago
Whatever I was clearly “stunned” after watching the movie the movie in a theater. That’s what counts.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  We went to see it by accident. I saw that movie half a dozen time over a few years, every time it was in theaters I bought a ticket. Such a pivotal moment in my life.
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
A heck of a lot of the famous ILM Star Wars effects were old-fashioned models, stop-motion, and matte paintings.
- weare138 5y ago
  None of the original movies used CGI. It was insane what they did to produce the effects in the original Star Wars movies.
  - agumonkey 5y ago
    Hey ! except the simulation before the battle. Wireframe but done on computer IIRC.
    - weare138 5y ago
      Oh yea I almost forgot about that.
the_af 5y ago
The most fascinating non-CGI effect from Terminator 2 is a cut scene which can be seen in the director's cut, where they use Linda Hamilton twin sister in a surprising way: to fake a "mirror" scene where Sarah is operating on the Terminator's head. They are in front of a mirror. They wanted to actually use Arnie in the reflection to show his face; they wanted a dummy for the head closest to the camera, to show the surgery inside the head. So they used a window in the wall instead of a mirror! Linda Hamilton and her twin sister are mimicking each other's movements to make it seem it's a mirror image. (The other use of Linda's twin sister, the scene where the T-1000 fakes being Sarah, is better known)
- fennecfoxy 5y ago
  Why not just use a half silvered mirror, that way you don't need the twin
  - simonh 5y ago
    If you could see the reflection of Linda Hamilton in the mirror, wouldn't you also see the reflection of the Terminator dummy?
- LaserDiscMan 5y ago
  "Oh boy!" The same technique of using an extended set to fake a mirror was frequently used on Quantum Leap.
  - klodolph 5y ago
    Or in Airplane! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D-n0yctyGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D-n0yctyGY
    - dtgriscom 5y ago
      It was at least the third or fourth watching when I noticed that one. One of the densest movies I've ever encountered.
    - 5y ago
ourmandave 5y ago
Here's the two minute Pepsi commercial featuring the effect. https://youtu.be/bhL8WlDHKaY?t=158 https://youtu.be/bhL8WlDHKaY?t=158
dariosalvi78 5y ago
the device they used is visible in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHwRI0dHqps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHwRI0dHqps
- pimlottc 5y ago
  One of the sequences is at 1:05:25 - https://youtu.be/QHwRI0dHqps?t=3930 https://youtu.be/QHwRI0dHqps?t=3930
29athrowaway 5y ago
The effects in Terminator 1 were very creative. In one scene they used smoke from cigarretes.
MarcScott 5y ago
OT a little, but I learned today that the scene from Live and Let Die where Bond runs across the back of a bunch of crocs wasn't faked. As a child I'd always been told that the stuff you see in movies is not real, but it turns out that sometimes it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDeUzB12ln8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDeUzB12ln8
- capableweb 5y ago
  Well, not sure you can call it "real" really, the crocodiles were kept in that specific place, it was attempted many times and so on. What people wanted to convey is not that it's not actually real life, but it's most likely faked real life, just like that Bond stunt.
ashtonkem 5y ago
Related, Hollywood used to intentionally use real ammunition in order to make scenes more immersive. The Captive (1915) had the director “encouraging” extras to use real bullets resulting in one death. Angels With Dirty Faces (1938) had a planned scene with live ammo where a ricochet almost killed the main actor.
trueman3 5y ago
LOL
trueman3 5y ago
"you are posting to fast, trash!"
b0rsuk 5y ago
Another movie with very good practical effects is Return of the Living Dead. A successful blend of action horror comedy, with punks in a graveyard. It's the only zombie movie I enjoy, and it's really well done - pacing, action, the zombies, humor - it all fits together.
sakopov 5y ago
There is YouTube channel called Corridor Crew which tried to use new technology available to film makers to reproduce the scene in Terminator where T-1000 (played by Robert Patrick) walks through metal bars of a jail cell. To their surprise, the results they got were pretty underwhelming and worse than what digital effects artists were able to come up with decades ago. Highly recommend to watch their video. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXehBx0Yc_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXehBx0Yc_w
WalterBright 5y ago
In the movie The War Lover, Steve McQueen (well, the actual pilot) pilots a B17 bomber "cutting the grass", i.e. flying low with the gear up. The stunt was to be done with models because it was too dangerous. My dad was in the AF at the time, and was assigned to the movie as a consultant on AF trivia. He convinced them that the stunt could be done safely, and explained how to do it. And so it was done. My dad got in trouble, because if the B17 had crashed doing the stunt, the AF would have looked bad. But it didn't crash, and the stunt was a big deal to the movie crowds, so he was forgiven. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGynxYbA48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGynxYbA48 It's still freakin' impressive today. His other contribution to the movie was the mission briefing wall maps.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Here's how it was done: 1. do it at dawn, when the air is the stillest 2. have the pilot make pass after pass, each time a bit lower 3. have a ground observer in constant contact with the pilot giving the clearance from the ground
  - wiz21c 5y ago
    Still, I wouldn't like to be in the plane when at point 2. That's really low !
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      Planes are that low twice every flight.
      - ArnoVW 5y ago
        Yes, but with their wheels down and at a much lower speed =)
        jacquesm 5y ago
        Iirc ground effect is going to help a lot during such low level flight, in fact there was a plane conceptualized (and trialed) to never be flown out of ground effect. That's why it has such stubby wings, the ground effect itself makes up for the absence of lift area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan That's not to belittle the capabilities of the pilots flying in these takes, it's a very well executed maneuver and certainly not entirely risk free (assurances aside, such stunts have also gone horribly wrong). But it's not quite as hard as you might think because the ground helps to 'push back' in case one of your wings gets too low. The bigger risk is probably from cross wind, which would affect the plan asymmetrically.
k_sze 5y ago
1. Equip your soldiers with body armor with these bullet effect trapdoors. 2. Freak out your enemy. 3. Win your war. ??? 5. profit
dusted 5y ago
T2 is one of my absolute favourite movies, but those bullet marks always looked to me like they were tacked on..
margofx 5y ago
That's a great improvised way to have an alternative way to create bullet effect rather than to stick with CGI.

899 points by zdw 5y ago

Wait until you hear about how Cameron filmed the scene with a helicopter going under a highway overpass. https://filmschoolrejects.com/terminator-2-helicopter-stunt/ https://filmschoolrejects.com/terminator-2-helicopter-stunt/

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jandrese 5y ago
That is an incredible feat of flying. I would be terrified of some kind of reverse ground effect from the road overhead. It's basically a 1990s version of barnstorming.
- lisper 5y ago
  From TFA: "I was curious about how the overpass would affect the ground effect of the helicopter. Tragically, I have no brain for physics. But I do know a helicopter pilot, so I asked him. Apparently, at 60 kts, there wouldn’t be significant ground effect because the down flowing air off of the rotor disk would mostly be tailing off of the helicopter. Had Tamburro taken the stunt slower, the down flowing air would be more directly underneath the helicopter, creating an (obviously undesirable) effect."
  - jandrese 5y ago
    That part was talking about the traditional ground effect. There isn't much study about what happens when you have a ceiling over a helicopter because that doesn't happen very often in real life. Note the discussion of the air flowing off of the blades. I was thinking more of the low pressure zone above the helicopter being disrupted by the overpass. Apparently it wasn't too bad since the pilot managed the stunt twice without injury, but it's a possibility that would have had me crapping diamonds if I were asked to pull it off.
    - lisper 5y ago
      I feel an aircraft-on-a-conveyor-belt moment coming on. So first of all, GE in a rotorcraft is different from GE on a fixed-wing aircraft. The fundamentals are the same, of course, but in a rotorcraft the relative velocity of the blade/wing isn't connected to the velocity of the airframe the way it is in a fixed-wing aircraft. In a fixed-wing aircraft the velocity of the wing and the velocity of the airframe are the same, of course. But in a rotorcraft things get very complicated. The upshot of all this complication is that the GE effect is reduced as the rotorcraft's airframe starts to move. The faster it goes, the less GE you have. So you might notice some differences while hovering under an overpass, but shooting through at 60 MPH the GE is effectively a no-op. If you really want to know the gory details you'll have to read up on helicopter theory. It's way too complicated for an HN comment.
      - ambicapter 5y ago
        He's not talking about ground effect, he's talking about the overpass above the blades "cutting off" available air for a second.
        lisper 5y ago
        Yes, I get that. "Reverse ground effect" was how the OP phrased it. What exactly do you think would happen in that case? Suppose the available air were "cut off" by the overpass (it wouldn't be, but let's suspend disbelief for a moment). What would be the result?
        jandrese 5y ago
        Loss of lift due to the interruption of the airflow causing the helicopter to crash into the ground at speed? Or suddenly lower pressure above the helicopter causing it to be "sucked up" into the ceiling. I think the pilot is probably correct that the stunt could only be pulled off at a higher speed where you can outrace the low/high pressure zones the blades are creating.
coldcode 5y ago
If people survive such a crazy stunt, you congratulate them, if not, you bury them and the director. Risking people's lives for a few seconds of film is not worth it.
- capableweb 5y ago
  I'm fairly sure the people doing these stunts do them because they love doing them, not because they are being forced to perform them. If people want to risk their lives for a few seconds of film, why stop them? People are into all kind of weird stuff, as long as they don't hurt others, I don't see what the problem is.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Reality is far more complex than that. Yes, stunt people tend to be a risk seeking crowd. But there’s also the risk of losing their livelihood if they refuse a director’s demands. Film business is a precarious way to make a living, and the power gulf between the director and the stunt person is massive. History is full of “I think this is a bad idea, but I’ll do it” accounts in the after-disaster reports. People can and regularly do dangerous things against their better judgement because they were ordered to do it or otherwise pressured into it. Saying that they volunteered is to drastically over simplify the situation.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      So again, they chose between doing stunts or doing something else. You don't work to do the stunts in the movie? Fine, don't work on the movie, it's not essential to life anyways so continue on with your life.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Continue with your life, and risk losing your career. I think if you’re not accounting for this risk in how people think, then you are absolutely misunderstanding what motivates people to do what they do. Again, people regularly do things against their best judgement because of social and economic pressure. Stunt people are not magically excluded from this process.
russdill 5y ago
Seems like if you just wanted the side shot and not the straight on shot as well, you could of just pulled the helicopter on a low trailer using the median partition to block. The straight on shot would of required deleting the trailer which may have been difficult but certainly would look better than any CGI attempt
- capableweb 5y ago
  Or just CGI. But as Cameron himself puts it (copied from the article linked in parent): > we could’ve run a CG helicopter under the freeway overpass, but it was so much more fun to do the real thing. I'm guessing the same applies from pulling a helicopter on a trailer. It's simply not fun.
ghoward 5y ago
As an aspiring helicopter pilot, I am both awed and repulsed. Vietnam was something else for helicopter pilots. That level of skill would be hard for a perfectly-programmed autopilot to do. With regards to Vietnam, a legend that I was told (but cannot confirm) was that Hueys had such bad tail rotor authority that they would take off straight up with the whole airframe spinning. Once high enough, the pilot would start the helicopter moving forward, which would allow the tail rotor to bite more, and the helicopter would stabilize. Crazy if true. And after seeing a stunt like that by a bona fide insane and top-tier veteran pilot, I believe the legend.
- naikrovek 5y ago
  literally any Vietnam documentary would prove that wrong. what does "moving forward" even mean when you're spinning? also, forward movement doesn't give the tail rotor any more "bite" ... if anything, it would get less. moving in a consistent direction would tend to orient the body of the helicopter to face into the wind because of the wind vane effect.
  - nwallin 5y ago
    While hovering, the tail rotor is pushing air into a dirty vortex. A small amount of speed, even just 20kt, will clear that vortex and give more authority. Even today helicopters will begin pitching nose down immediately on takeoff to get airflow cross both the main and tail rotor to clear those vertices. That being said, I've talked to a few Vietnam helicopter pilots and all of their stories were ... well, exaggeration is a common theme.
    - naikrovek 5y ago
      pitching the nose down certainly does one thing: it pushes air backwards, meaning the helicopter starts moving forwards. the air moving across the body of the helicopter, rather than down it, is what starts the wind vane effect. if the pilot tipped the helicopter to the right after leaving the ground, and then continuously held the control stick in the direction of the movement of the helicopter, the body of the helicopter would begin to face the direction of travel unless the pilot actively countered that turn via the tail rotor.
marcodiego 5y ago
Something a bit crazier was performed in Brazil in the 60's for a film: https://youtu.be/rSH3FVzcDSo?t=519 https://youtu.be/rSH3FVzcDSo?t=519
chrisgd 5y ago
Not too long after two children and an adult actor were killed on the set of the twilight zone movie. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Zone_accident
felipelemos 5y ago
This reminds me the 1968 Brazilian movie "Roberto Carlos em ritmo de aventura" when a pilot flow an helicopter inside the 250m (~ 820 feet) long Túnel Novo (New Tunnel) connecting the neighborhoods of Copacabana and Botafogo. https://youtu.be/ab8bVouGtwU https://youtu.be/ab8bVouGtwU Minute 0:57 to be more precise. Also, you can enjoy Rio de Janeiro from above in the 60s.
- daverol 5y ago
  There is a blog article about filming this (google translate available): http://culturaaeronautica.blogspot.com/2011/06/roberto-carlos-em-ritmo-de-aventura-o.html http://culturaaeronautica.blogspot.com/2011/06/roberto-carlo...
- rasz 5y ago
  What is funny you could still buy this helicopter, Schweizer 300, brand new up to 2002 as it was designed in 1955! ~Same carbureted engine with zero automation and 40L/h fuel consumption. No engine governor means pilot manually controls engine rpm, you are the ECM having to correct for air temp and pressure altitude, worry about icing and manifold pressure. All thanks to stupid US aviation policies - recertification is so expensive nobody does it and everyone flies dangerous shitboxes despite >50 years of innovations.
muzani 5y ago
This thread fills me with horror. I admire that movie, it's incredible, especially when I know it's just safe reenactment of a scene. But it's an uneasy feeling to know that there's some serious risk involved.

protomyth 5y ago

On the same vein, I am do glad John Carpenter used practical effects when doing The Thing.

h2odragon 5y ago

I recall debating this with a dude who was into makeup and masks; he pointed out the blooms moved like rubber as the character runs; seemed pretty conclusive. I love how prosaic and simple some of their practical effects are; but the real accomplishment to me is how hard it is to pay attention to those details, to notice them; when everything flows so smoothly into captivating scenes.

agumonkey 5y ago
I remember rewatching T2 on computer after seeing stan winston studio showing props. The movie shows a lot of these physical props for very small frame numbers. Very hard to notice if you slow things down but at normal speed it just flows through the context of the scene. It's a minimal amount of detail that your brain needs to have to accept continuation. Probably a byproduct of the time.. can't CGI all the things so you have to optimize and find the best bang for your bucks in every dimension.
jonathanlydall 5y ago
Reminds me of one New Years Eve party where Aliens was playing on the TV and a friend walks past and says "Watch Bishop's severed body now as he grabs Newt to stop her getting sucked out the air lock...", and clear as day you can see the lower part of the actors body come out a hole in the ground when he grabs Newt. I had probably seen the movie a dozen times before but never noticed it. In a similar vein, just after having watched X-Men 2 in a cinema a (different) friend who did CGI animation for a living pointed out that during the scene where Magneto moved the bridge, you can see that the shadows on the water don't move with the bridge. His theory was that the special effects team were likely completely aware, but looked at the amount of effort required and hoped no one would notice. I never noticed the problem myself until it was pointed out. I guess back then when special effects were monumentally difficult and computers weren't as capable as they are now, directors often relied on the audience's attention being elsewhere at that moment and thus being less likely to notice.
- noja 5y ago
  > and clear as day you can see the lower part of the actors body come out a hole in the ground Screencap: https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs?file=A2blactorholep1.jpg https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs?file=A2blactorholep... (fixed in the bluray) from https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs https://avp.fandom.com/wiki/Aliens_goofs

beebeepka 5y ago

Duh. There were just tinfoil. Watch the incredible rescan from a few years ago. You can clearly see them. Still one of the best movies ever. I watched dune recently and while very well done, it felt more like theatre than a movie. Cameron and Verhoeven are my directors. They know how to do action

dllthomas 5y ago
They were metal plated rubber.
- h2odragon 5y ago
  I'll argue that finish was the truly artistic part; the foam trick had probably been done before to "make meat pop out". It's a beautiful finish on film and survives the packing and unpacking and some rough motion. That's nothing to sneeze at. I'm sure someone with more experience could go into more detail, and would appreciate more education on it myself.

ksec 5y ago

I sometimes wonder if these "tricks" are still better than CGI. A bit like using LED wall with Unreal Engine as Hybrid rather than everything CGI. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/spotlights/unreal-engine-in-camera-vfx-a-behind-the-scenes-look https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/spotlights/unreal-engine-...

__s 5y ago
I've been watching a lot of films recently. Films started getting better during the 80s, leading to a golden era from 90s to 2000s, I feel CGI has contributed to a drop in quality. Especially in action films I've also tried to avoid selection bias: I've seen bad (& not funny B-movie bad) films from the 90s Death Proof is a masterpiece discarding CGI This isn't to say there aren't good films anymore, there definitely are, CGI isn't what makes them good tho
- pm90 5y ago
  Hah, Death Proof is a classic, there’s the scene in Texas Chilli Parlor where Stuntman Mike talks about how CGI is replacing what he did… was that the scene you’re referencing? Or is it that the movie itself is made with no cgi? Those last scenes couldn’t have been easy.
  - __s 5y ago
    The movie itself is made with no cgi. Helps when the cast is made up of stunt actors Tarantino on JRE described how the car crash scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS39s9DKtQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imS39s9DKtQ) was done by pulling the two cars together with a wire & dummies for the gore
- rectang 5y ago
  I still remember seeing Tron as a 11 year old with my Dad. His reaction as we left the theater: they spent millions of dollars on special effects and a couple thousand on plot.
- kzrdude 5y ago

pm90 5y ago

Fascinating stuff. I guess CGI probably killed all the creative ways you had to work with materials to get the effects you need like this one.

tyingq 5y ago

Interesting they went with mud. I'd be curious what it would look like if you shot a block of gallium. I couldn't find that, but did find a video of someone shooting a block of lead(Pb): https://youtu.be/lCMUrp58cPg?t=325 https://youtu.be/lCMUrp58cPg?t=325

kadoban 5y ago

If you're into this kind of thing, the Corridor Crew youtube channel will likely be right up your alley: https://m.youtube.com/c/corridorcrew/videos https://m.youtube.com/c/corridorcrew/videos They have a long running series of "VFX Artists React" that are fun and lightly educational.

not1ofU 5y ago
Reminded me of this (not sure if the channel is related or not) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3RIHnK0_NE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3RIHnK0_NE ^ you want skynet, because this is how we get skynet. :-)
- kadoban 5y ago
  Yeah, that is their "main" channel, same group of people. The "Crew" one started as like a behind-the-scenes I believe.
- anonymfus 5y ago
  > not sure if the channel is related or not YSK that you can click on the Channels tab of both of these YouTube channels and see interlinks that they added.
- jedimastert 5y ago
  It's the same guys. They're an indie vfx/short-film production house.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
breakingcups 5y ago
Do note that while some of them go into quite a lot of detail with good visual explanations, quite some videos have also become watered down and light on the technical content, weighing much more heavily on the "react" aspect than the "VFX Artists" aspect.
jedimastert 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

> Those Bullet Effects in Terminator 2 Weren’t CGI The film came out in 1991… they obviously didn’t have anything like the tracking to do effects like that as CGI back then.

rasz 5y ago
Yes, they actually had to kill one of the twin actors, melt his corpse and then project it in reverse for this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXsyn-9VLVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXsyn-9VLVA practical effects ftw!
- knorker 5y ago
  I'm not an expert, but it's not obvious that the camera angle actually changes (as opposed to postprocess movement) in the one shot where the camera actually moves. This one was probably much more effort: https://youtu.be/6z9qws7M8q8?t=275 https://youtu.be/6z9qws7M8q8?t=275 You're not contradicting the parent comment though. It's not obvious that they had tracking back then. I wouldn't be surprised if they did it all manually, frame by frame. I'd say not a chance in hell they'd be able to do a good job in 1992 doing effects on a running Robert Patrick while the camera is on a vehicle. It was cutting edge back then, but not that cutting edge.
jandrese 5y ago
Digital morphing was introduced to the public in that film. It's not out of the realm of possibility that they could have done the splash effects using a similar technology.
- pierrec 5y ago
  > Digital morphing was introduced to the public in that film. As someone who grew up watching Willow (1988), I beg to differ... Note the box office was about 1/4 that of Terminator 2, so you could say it reached the public pretty well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKzbsDG58pc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKzbsDG58pc

not1ofU 5y ago

I remember watching [0]"Asterix at the Olympic Games [2008]" at the cinema while on acid. The CGI was quite obvious. Should probably watch it again and compare. [0] -https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463872/?ref_=kw_li_tt https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0463872/?ref_=kw_li_tt

knorker 5y ago

Yeah that was completely obvious. Check out the scenes that actually were CGI. They are trivial to spot, with a 2021 eye and DVD level quality media or better. The whole shot that "went through the computer" has a completely different feel to it than scenes that don't. Compare 3:38 and 3:44 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhL8WlDHKaY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhL8WlDHKaY. It looks like it was shot with a completely different camera, or going into a mini-dream state. I mean it's extremely well done. It holds up so well even... jesus christ 30 years later?! But it's extremely obvious which scenes got the CGI treatement. Oh, and if this is one of those "once you can see it, you can't unsee it" things: Sorry about that.

sneak 5y ago
We're all on this website reading this comment because doing it all inside the computer in software is simply... easy money.
bhaak 5y ago
I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to. I'm looking at the still frames in 1080p. I see the bullet holes absolutely don't match up. At 3:38 they are not as deep and wide as in 3:44. But also the actors position is different especially the mouth (closed in the first, open in the other). Continuity errors. The morph effect is somewhat cringy but to be fair, they always were. At least in DS9 and Terminator 2 there were in-universe explanations why they existed. There's also something weird going on with the eyes to the T-1000 after the morph effect has finished. Not sure if that was intentional.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  The part that jumped out to me in that CGI was the mannequin. The bullet hole morphing is so obvious that in a way it's less objectionable.
- knorker 5y ago
  100% of the frame has a different quality in the clip that went through the computer. Like they smeared something over the lens. Also check out the "goes through the bars" shot. Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Look at things like color grading, and things that look like "upscaling" (but aren't).

girishso 5y ago

Whatever I was clearly “stunned” after watching the movie the movie in a theater. That’s what counts.

agumonkey 5y ago
We went to see it by accident. I saw that movie half a dozen time over a few years, every time it was in theaters I bought a ticket. Such a pivotal moment in my life.

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

A heck of a lot of the famous ILM Star Wars effects were old-fashioned models, stop-motion, and matte paintings.

weare138 5y ago
None of the original movies used CGI. It was insane what they did to produce the effects in the original Star Wars movies.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  Hey ! except the simulation before the battle. Wireframe but done on computer IIRC.
  - weare138 5y ago
    Oh yea I almost forgot about that.

the_af 5y ago

The most fascinating non-CGI effect from Terminator 2 is a cut scene which can be seen in the director's cut, where they use Linda Hamilton twin sister in a surprising way: to fake a "mirror" scene where Sarah is operating on the Terminator's head. They are in front of a mirror. They wanted to actually use Arnie in the reflection to show his face; they wanted a dummy for the head closest to the camera, to show the surgery inside the head. So they used a window in the wall instead of a mirror! Linda Hamilton and her twin sister are mimicking each other's movements to make it seem it's a mirror image. (The other use of Linda's twin sister, the scene where the T-1000 fakes being Sarah, is better known)

fennecfoxy 5y ago
Why not just use a half silvered mirror, that way you don't need the twin
- simonh 5y ago
  If you could see the reflection of Linda Hamilton in the mirror, wouldn't you also see the reflection of the Terminator dummy?
LaserDiscMan 5y ago
"Oh boy!" The same technique of using an extended set to fake a mirror was frequently used on Quantum Leap.
- klodolph 5y ago
  Or in Airplane! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D-n0yctyGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D-n0yctyGY
  - dtgriscom 5y ago
    It was at least the third or fourth watching when I noticed that one. One of the densest movies I've ever encountered.
  - 5y ago

ourmandave 5y ago

Here's the two minute Pepsi commercial featuring the effect. https://youtu.be/bhL8WlDHKaY?t=158 https://youtu.be/bhL8WlDHKaY?t=158

dariosalvi78 5y ago

the device they used is visible in this documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHwRI0dHqps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHwRI0dHqps

pimlottc 5y ago
One of the sequences is at 1:05:25 - https://youtu.be/QHwRI0dHqps?t=3930 https://youtu.be/QHwRI0dHqps?t=3930

29athrowaway 5y ago

The effects in Terminator 1 were very creative. In one scene they used smoke from cigarretes.

MarcScott 5y ago

OT a little, but I learned today that the scene from Live and Let Die where Bond runs across the back of a bunch of crocs wasn't faked. As a child I'd always been told that the stuff you see in movies is not real, but it turns out that sometimes it is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDeUzB12ln8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDeUzB12ln8

capableweb 5y ago
Well, not sure you can call it "real" really, the crocodiles were kept in that specific place, it was attempted many times and so on. What people wanted to convey is not that it's not actually real life, but it's most likely faked real life, just like that Bond stunt.

ashtonkem 5y ago

Related, Hollywood used to intentionally use real ammunition in order to make scenes more immersive. The Captive (1915) had the director “encouraging” extras to use real bullets resulting in one death. Angels With Dirty Faces (1938) had a planned scene with live ammo where a ricochet almost killed the main actor.

trueman3 5y ago

LOL

trueman3 5y ago

"you are posting to fast, trash!"

b0rsuk 5y ago

Another movie with very good practical effects is Return of the Living Dead. A successful blend of action horror comedy, with punks in a graveyard. It's the only zombie movie I enjoy, and it's really well done - pacing, action, the zombies, humor - it all fits together.

sakopov 5y ago

There is YouTube channel called Corridor Crew which tried to use new technology available to film makers to reproduce the scene in Terminator where T-1000 (played by Robert Patrick) walks through metal bars of a jail cell. To their surprise, the results they got were pretty underwhelming and worse than what digital effects artists were able to come up with decades ago. Highly recommend to watch their video. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXehBx0Yc_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXehBx0Yc_w

WalterBright 5y ago

In the movie The War Lover, Steve McQueen (well, the actual pilot) pilots a B17 bomber "cutting the grass", i.e. flying low with the gear up. The stunt was to be done with models because it was too dangerous. My dad was in the AF at the time, and was assigned to the movie as a consultant on AF trivia. He convinced them that the stunt could be done safely, and explained how to do it. And so it was done. My dad got in trouble, because if the B17 had crashed doing the stunt, the AF would have looked bad. But it didn't crash, and the stunt was a big deal to the movie crowds, so he was forgiven. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGynxYbA48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGGynxYbA48 It's still freakin' impressive today. His other contribution to the movie was the mission briefing wall maps.

WalterBright 5y ago
Here's how it was done: 1. do it at dawn, when the air is the stillest 2. have the pilot make pass after pass, each time a bit lower 3. have a ground observer in constant contact with the pilot giving the clearance from the ground
- wiz21c 5y ago
  Still, I wouldn't like to be in the plane when at point 2. That's really low !
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Planes are that low twice every flight.
    - ArnoVW 5y ago
      Yes, but with their wheels down and at a much lower speed =)
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        Iirc ground effect is going to help a lot during such low level flight, in fact there was a plane conceptualized (and trialed) to never be flown out of ground effect. That's why it has such stubby wings, the ground effect itself makes up for the absence of lift area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lun-class_ekranoplan That's not to belittle the capabilities of the pilots flying in these takes, it's a very well executed maneuver and certainly not entirely risk free (assurances aside, such stunts have also gone horribly wrong). But it's not quite as hard as you might think because the ground helps to 'push back' in case one of your wings gets too low. The bigger risk is probably from cross wind, which would affect the plan asymmetrically.

k_sze 5y ago

1. Equip your soldiers with body armor with these bullet effect trapdoors. 2. Freak out your enemy. 3. Win your war. ??? 5. profit

dusted 5y ago

T2 is one of my absolute favourite movies, but those bullet marks always looked to me like they were tacked on..

margofx 5y ago

That's a great improvised way to have an alternative way to create bullet effect rather than to stick with CGI.