3 ms·

This was the argument about Fury Road (mostly real) Fury Road is pure wall to wall CGI. People keep pointing to it as some example of doing things with live ac

This was the argument about Fury Road (mostly real) Fury Road is pure wall to wall CGI. People keep pointing to it as some example of doing things with live action when the entire movie is soaked with CG and compositing. https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/ https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual...

fwip 10mo ago
It's a lot of CGI, but done in realistic ways. A lot of the examples from the article (which is a very good article, thank you for linking it) were mostly about paint-outs, color grading, or background elements. There's a good chunk of modern blockbusters that will CGI everything in a scene except the lead actor's face - and sometimes that too.
- CyberDildonics 10mo ago
  It's a lot of CGI, but done in realistic ways. The person I replied to said it was "mostly real". Lots of CG is done in realistic ways but people pick and choose what they decide is good based on the movies they already like. Fury Road has somehow become an example of "doing things for real" when the whole movie is non stop CG shots. A lot of the examples from the article (which is a very good article, thank you for linking it) were mostly about paint-outs, color grading, or background elements. No they weren't, there are CG landscapes, CG mountains, CG canyons, CG crowds, CG storms, CG cars, CG arm replacements and many entirely CG shots. It's the whole movie.
- troupo 10mo ago
  > There's a good chunk of modern blockbusters that will CGI everything in a scene except the lead actor's face - and sometimes that too. Like Top Gun: Maverick, Ford vs. Ferrari, Napoleon, The Martian, 1917, Barbie, Alien: Romulus... to name just a few: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46238167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46238167
  - phantasmish 10mo ago
    Are you suggesting it's not noticeable in those movies? I found it distracting several times in I think every one of those (maybe the least in 1917? And I haven't seen Ford vs. Ferrari, but I have all the rest). A few entire scenes or sequences in TG:M look awful, and it's usually the mundane ones that wouldn't even have been effects in a pre-CG movie, not the aircraft action stuff. Alien: Romulus looks fake practically the whole movie (that one didn't ruin it for me or anything, but it had an effect like the Riddick movies, of being obviously mostly a cartoon, though of course not as awful about it as those were). Well, I guess it wasn't exactly distracting in Barbie because that's practically a marionette movie a la Thunderbirds, so it's not really trying not to look off.
    - troupo 10mo ago
      > Are you suggesting it's not noticeable in those movies You can check the youtube link I posted. You'd be hard pressed to notice the good CGI in those movies. > I found it distracting several times in I think every one of those Honestly, I really doubt you noticed that much CGI. Well, unless you go in already primed to discount everything as CGI (whether or not it's actually CGI).
- mikkupikku 10mo ago
  > paint-outs Predates computers, they used to paint out wires and whatnot by hand and it usually looked just as good. > Compositing Predates computers. They've been doing it since forever with miniature overlays, matte paintings, chromakey, double exposures, and cutting up film negatives with exacto blades. > color grading Literal cancer which ruins movies every goddamn time. The fact that they shoot movies with this kind of manipulation in mind changes how they use lighting and makes everything flat with no shadows, no depth, everything now gets shot like a soap opera. This also applies to heavy use of compositing too. To make it cheaper to abuse compositing, mostly so the producers can "design by committee" the movie after all the filming is done, they've destroyed how they light and shoot scenes. Everything is close up on actors, blurred backgrounds, flat lighting, fast cuts to hide the lazy work. Cancer. I'm talking about Fury Road too BTW. It's crap. Watch the original Mad Max, not Road Warrior, then watch Fury Road. The first is a real movie with heart and soul, the world it depicts feels real. The latter feels like a video game, except it somehow comes out looking even less inspired and creative than the actual mad max video game that came out at the same time. But yeah, they made some real weird cars for the movie. That's fine I guess. The first movie didn't need weird cars, it had this thing called characters. Characters who felt like real people, not freaks from a comic book.
  - fwip 10mo ago
    Exactly - they've been doing paint outs and composite shots forever! It doesn't feel fundamentally different to do it "on a computer," to me. They aren't using it to show off, just to make the scene look how you'd expect it to. They've also been doing color grading forever - digital just makes it way cheaper and easier. Before, you'd have to do photochemical tricks to the film, and you would use different film for different vibes. I'd argue that the ease of digital manipulation has led some studios to do what you say - postpone creativity until after the movie is mostly shot, which leads to that design-by-committee feeling. That sense of 'don't worry, we'll fix the lighting it the editing room' is the same sloppiness as 'and then the big gorilla will use his magic attack and it will look really cool,' without any thought given to it's actually going to look like. But that's not really a failure of CGI itself - that's a failure of vision, right? If you procrastinate making artistic decisioms for long enough, there's not actually going to be any art in the movie once it's done. I have watched the original Mad Max, and it was pretty alright. If I had watched it at the right age, I probably would have imprinted on it.

fwip 10mo ago

It's a lot of CGI, but done in realistic ways. A lot of the examples from the article (which is a very good article, thank you for linking it) were mostly about paint-outs, color grading, or background elements. There's a good chunk of modern blockbusters that will CGI everything in a scene except the lead actor's face - and sometimes that too.

CyberDildonics 10mo ago
It's a lot of CGI, but done in realistic ways. The person I replied to said it was "mostly real". Lots of CG is done in realistic ways but people pick and choose what they decide is good based on the movies they already like. Fury Road has somehow become an example of "doing things for real" when the whole movie is non stop CG shots. A lot of the examples from the article (which is a very good article, thank you for linking it) were mostly about paint-outs, color grading, or background elements. No they weren't, there are CG landscapes, CG mountains, CG canyons, CG crowds, CG storms, CG cars, CG arm replacements and many entirely CG shots. It's the whole movie.
troupo 10mo ago
> There's a good chunk of modern blockbusters that will CGI everything in a scene except the lead actor's face - and sometimes that too. Like Top Gun: Maverick, Ford vs. Ferrari, Napoleon, The Martian, 1917, Barbie, Alien: Romulus... to name just a few: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46238167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46238167
- phantasmish 10mo ago
  Are you suggesting it's not noticeable in those movies? I found it distracting several times in I think every one of those (maybe the least in 1917? And I haven't seen Ford vs. Ferrari, but I have all the rest). A few entire scenes or sequences in TG:M look awful, and it's usually the mundane ones that wouldn't even have been effects in a pre-CG movie, not the aircraft action stuff. Alien: Romulus looks fake practically the whole movie (that one didn't ruin it for me or anything, but it had an effect like the Riddick movies, of being obviously mostly a cartoon, though of course not as awful about it as those were). Well, I guess it wasn't exactly distracting in Barbie because that's practically a marionette movie a la Thunderbirds, so it's not really trying not to look off.
  - troupo 10mo ago
    > Are you suggesting it's not noticeable in those movies You can check the youtube link I posted. You'd be hard pressed to notice the good CGI in those movies. > I found it distracting several times in I think every one of those Honestly, I really doubt you noticed that much CGI. Well, unless you go in already primed to discount everything as CGI (whether or not it's actually CGI).
mikkupikku 10mo ago
> paint-outs Predates computers, they used to paint out wires and whatnot by hand and it usually looked just as good. > Compositing Predates computers. They've been doing it since forever with miniature overlays, matte paintings, chromakey, double exposures, and cutting up film negatives with exacto blades. > color grading Literal cancer which ruins movies every goddamn time. The fact that they shoot movies with this kind of manipulation in mind changes how they use lighting and makes everything flat with no shadows, no depth, everything now gets shot like a soap opera. This also applies to heavy use of compositing too. To make it cheaper to abuse compositing, mostly so the producers can "design by committee" the movie after all the filming is done, they've destroyed how they light and shoot scenes. Everything is close up on actors, blurred backgrounds, flat lighting, fast cuts to hide the lazy work. Cancer. I'm talking about Fury Road too BTW. It's crap. Watch the original Mad Max, not Road Warrior, then watch Fury Road. The first is a real movie with heart and soul, the world it depicts feels real. The latter feels like a video game, except it somehow comes out looking even less inspired and creative than the actual mad max video game that came out at the same time. But yeah, they made some real weird cars for the movie. That's fine I guess. The first movie didn't need weird cars, it had this thing called characters. Characters who felt like real people, not freaks from a comic book.
- fwip 10mo ago
  Exactly - they've been doing paint outs and composite shots forever! It doesn't feel fundamentally different to do it "on a computer," to me. They aren't using it to show off, just to make the scene look how you'd expect it to. They've also been doing color grading forever - digital just makes it way cheaper and easier. Before, you'd have to do photochemical tricks to the film, and you would use different film for different vibes. I'd argue that the ease of digital manipulation has led some studios to do what you say - postpone creativity until after the movie is mostly shot, which leads to that design-by-committee feeling. That sense of 'don't worry, we'll fix the lighting it the editing room' is the same sloppiness as 'and then the big gorilla will use his magic attack and it will look really cool,' without any thought given to it's actually going to look like. But that's not really a failure of CGI itself - that's a failure of vision, right? If you procrastinate making artistic decisioms for long enough, there's not actually going to be any art in the movie once it's done. I have watched the original Mad Max, and it was pretty alright. If I had watched it at the right age, I probably would have imprinted on it.