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.
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.
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.
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.