Reading this after seeing the film gives me a different lens to analyze it. I'm writing my own review of it today, but I was going to be critical of the visual effects, even without really hearing some of the buzz mentioned in this article about the reactions to trailers etc. I agree that much of the visual feel of the film mirrors what we saw in Fury Road, and therefore likely falls into the camp of Invisible VFX that you mention, but unfortunately there are some visual effect elements that were glaring when I watched the film. I still enjoyed it, but I took note of those little visual missteps, something I don't remember doing with Fury Road.
Thanks! I'd say the CG effects of Furiosa have never distracted me from the experience. In fact, the film has arguably one of the coolest digital changes ever: apparently Alyla Browne's face was altered to include traits of Anya Taylor Joy's appearance, something I don't think anyone notices in the course of viewing.
I've never actually thought about that. Maybe? I haven't really believed in the Oscars for years, but I do think Fury Road is still a brilliant technical achievement.
Bluntly, this article would work better without the butthurt.
Audiences are really tired of entirely 'faked' Marvel Movie magic, especially because Disney would pop a blood vessel before letting animators put in the work for Transformers-level quality. Sorry CGI means something different in the public discourse than its' technical definition. Welcome to the world of every other technical discipline.
Mad Max is the quintessential old-school motorhead series. Real steel matters. The film would be vastly less impressive if any one of these cars were just polygons: https://youtu.be/-FzcO3utFY0?si=0GMUP09GT02CY9tH.
CGI and green screen get a bad rep because Moore's Law is not a substitute for taste. When a CGI-heavy scene is boring or looks shoddy, it's a sign the directors either didn't have the time or interest to plan ahead. "Fix it in post" has become a meme even beyond Hollywood that's so obvious in bloated Marvel pieces. But even post is getting crunched to meet dates, and nobody seems capable of saying "this isn't good enough to ship". Conversely, Invisible FX is much more intentional in what images it wants to capture and how. It's so clear that Cruise and Miller both had visions for how their films should be, and it's reflected in the practical and digital work. I would throw Godzilla Minus One's stunning visuals here too, accomplished on a shoestring budget, because they knew exactly what they wanted going into it.
Exactly. I want to be surprised something was digitally altered, accepting it was necessary for filming (Fury Road's weather, The Citadel), or wow'd because it is obviously CGI like Transformers.
Marvel killed CGI's respectability as a point of public discourse. It doesn't invoke Lord of the Ring's impossible-to-film armies & shot of Minas Tirith. It invokes a bunch of people sleeping in their cubicles for a noticeably faked shot.
With all due respect, I think this article is somewhat missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't simply that 'Furiosa' (seemingly) utilizes 'more' CGI, but it's *incredibly poor CGI*, full of overly diffuse lighting and off-kilter compositing that screams 'green screen.' Honestly, 'Furiosa' looks as ugly as the worst the MCU has had to offer (i.e., 'Black Panther'). It's an ugly, ugly film, practical or CGI or otherwise.
My article responds specifically to comparative evaluations that position Furiosa as worse than Fury Road due to it being far heavier on CGI. The 'visibility' of its VFX and its 'quality' are distinct issues. In fact, I state that I think what actually bothered most people making the comparative claims is that "the CGI seen on-screen is more visible and perceptible." In that sense, the thought was that because DVFX in the Furiosa trailer was more visible, then it clearly must have had a lot more CG than its predecessor.
Having watched the film in full multiple times, I don't think it's an ugly film at all. I find it to be beautiful and its exaggerated, sometimes artificial imagery completely in line with what story the movie is telling. And this argument still stands:
"The mistake, however, is to automatically think that when CGI is noticeable, then it means the visibility is unintentional and thus a sign of low quality. This overlooks the possibility that CGI is meant to intentionally distort and exaggerate what we see on-screen. Indeed, to me the Furiosa trailers suggest a prequel that is less grounded yet more mythic and abstract than Fury, even though the two movies share a great deal of continuity both in terms of story and production"
There is also plenty of digital manipulation in the film that is subtle and invisible, like the way the movie blended together the faces of Alyla Browne and Anya Taylor Joy.
For sure! I found Jonas' videos mindblowing and think they belong in film studies classes. Imo, the situation really goes back to George Lucas' SW prequel trilogy and then Chris Nolan, who started doing Invisible FX Blockbuster stuff with Batman Begins.
Zodiac is a really good example. Honestly, now that I think about it, even Panic Room was a lot like that. I remember being really caught off-guard about how much CGI there was in that film when I got the DVD.
Reading this after seeing the film gives me a different lens to analyze it. I'm writing my own review of it today, but I was going to be critical of the visual effects, even without really hearing some of the buzz mentioned in this article about the reactions to trailers etc. I agree that much of the visual feel of the film mirrors what we saw in Fury Road, and therefore likely falls into the camp of Invisible VFX that you mention, but unfortunately there are some visual effect elements that were glaring when I watched the film. I still enjoyed it, but I took note of those little visual missteps, something I don't remember doing with Fury Road.
Thanks! I'd say the CG effects of Furiosa have never distracted me from the experience. In fact, the film has arguably one of the coolest digital changes ever: apparently Alyla Browne's face was altered to include traits of Anya Taylor Joy's appearance, something I don't think anyone notices in the course of viewing.
Do you think the myth of practical effect usage is why "Fury Road" won so many Oscars in the technical categories?
I've never actually thought about that. Maybe? I haven't really believed in the Oscars for years, but I do think Fury Road is still a brilliant technical achievement.
I have not read or heard anything about Furiosa, and I've paused the movie and googled to find this article.
The sad fact is Furiosa's CGI is noticeable and distracting compared to other movies.
Bluntly, this article would work better without the butthurt.
Audiences are really tired of entirely 'faked' Marvel Movie magic, especially because Disney would pop a blood vessel before letting animators put in the work for Transformers-level quality. Sorry CGI means something different in the public discourse than its' technical definition. Welcome to the world of every other technical discipline.
Mad Max is the quintessential old-school motorhead series. Real steel matters. The film would be vastly less impressive if any one of these cars were just polygons: https://youtu.be/-FzcO3utFY0?si=0GMUP09GT02CY9tH.
Agree with everything here. I honestly thought 'Furiosa' was as ugly as the worst the MCU has had to offer. Tremendously disappointing.
CGI and green screen get a bad rep because Moore's Law is not a substitute for taste. When a CGI-heavy scene is boring or looks shoddy, it's a sign the directors either didn't have the time or interest to plan ahead. "Fix it in post" has become a meme even beyond Hollywood that's so obvious in bloated Marvel pieces. But even post is getting crunched to meet dates, and nobody seems capable of saying "this isn't good enough to ship". Conversely, Invisible FX is much more intentional in what images it wants to capture and how. It's so clear that Cruise and Miller both had visions for how their films should be, and it's reflected in the practical and digital work. I would throw Godzilla Minus One's stunning visuals here too, accomplished on a shoestring budget, because they knew exactly what they wanted going into it.
Exactly. I want to be surprised something was digitally altered, accepting it was necessary for filming (Fury Road's weather, The Citadel), or wow'd because it is obviously CGI like Transformers.
Marvel killed CGI's respectability as a point of public discourse. It doesn't invoke Lord of the Ring's impossible-to-film armies & shot of Minas Tirith. It invokes a bunch of people sleeping in their cubicles for a noticeably faked shot.
With all due respect, I think this article is somewhat missing the forest for the trees. The problem isn't simply that 'Furiosa' (seemingly) utilizes 'more' CGI, but it's *incredibly poor CGI*, full of overly diffuse lighting and off-kilter compositing that screams 'green screen.' Honestly, 'Furiosa' looks as ugly as the worst the MCU has had to offer (i.e., 'Black Panther'). It's an ugly, ugly film, practical or CGI or otherwise.
My article responds specifically to comparative evaluations that position Furiosa as worse than Fury Road due to it being far heavier on CGI. The 'visibility' of its VFX and its 'quality' are distinct issues. In fact, I state that I think what actually bothered most people making the comparative claims is that "the CGI seen on-screen is more visible and perceptible." In that sense, the thought was that because DVFX in the Furiosa trailer was more visible, then it clearly must have had a lot more CG than its predecessor.
Having watched the film in full multiple times, I don't think it's an ugly film at all. I find it to be beautiful and its exaggerated, sometimes artificial imagery completely in line with what story the movie is telling. And this argument still stands:
"The mistake, however, is to automatically think that when CGI is noticeable, then it means the visibility is unintentional and thus a sign of low quality. This overlooks the possibility that CGI is meant to intentionally distort and exaggerate what we see on-screen. Indeed, to me the Furiosa trailers suggest a prequel that is less grounded yet more mythic and abstract than Fury, even though the two movies share a great deal of continuity both in terms of story and production"
There is also plenty of digital manipulation in the film that is subtle and invisible, like the way the movie blended together the faces of Alyla Browne and Anya Taylor Joy.
For sure! I found Jonas' videos mindblowing and think they belong in film studies classes. Imo, the situation really goes back to George Lucas' SW prequel trilogy and then Chris Nolan, who started doing Invisible FX Blockbuster stuff with Batman Begins.
Zodiac is a really good example. Honestly, now that I think about it, even Panic Room was a lot like that. I remember being really caught off-guard about how much CGI there was in that film when I got the DVD.