4 ms·
Why can't this be? Lot of FX can be done without CGI. The director says there is no CGI, why would he lie?
by xeyownt 3y ago
Why can't this be? Lot of FX can be done without CGI.
The director says there is no CGI, why would he lie?
- senectus1 3y agoI think maybe he was overstating.. Like the world in flames "visions" he was having have to be CGI..
- anshumankmr 3y agoYeah the only way Nolan could have done that practically, is if he nuked the whole world. /s But I am eagerly awaiting the BTS to see how he pulled off that one without CG. I am planning a rewatch very soon in the hall to see if I can figure it out.
- rurban 3y agoNo CGI. He did shoot and edit on film, without any digital conversion. You can do a lot of things with normal film editing tricks
- anshumankmr 3y agoHow would he specifically show a hundred ICBMs being launched and a vision of a world being engulfed in fire.
- wodenokoto 3y agoFor the same reason why 90s directors would lie about miniatures being CGI.
- dclowd9901 3y ago> Last year, Top Gun: Maverick took a similar approach and it paid off I’m inferring from this statement that the movie was somehow more successful due to its reliance on practical effects. That seems like a pretty good incentive to lie.