Well said! Those series of video essays you cited, “No CGI” Is Really Just Invisible CGI, are excellent and should be required viewing for any serious cinephile.
This hard sell of movies that use practical effects is a backlash to the CGI-heavy MCU movies and other ones as well, but as you say, it is covering up the fact that even films using practical effects incorporate CGI, some are just better at hiding it than others. I think David Fincher is one of THE best directors of incorporating invisible CGI. I was staggered by how much he used in ZODIAC, for example. I think that by overemphasizing the practical effects and downplaying the use of CGI in press junkets does a great disservice to all the hard work on these movies by all of these talented visual effects artists.
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.
Good call. I remember PANIC ROOM wowing me when I first saw it but revisiting it now, the CGI does look a little obvious. There are camera shots that would just be impossible to do practically that do draw attention to themselves. Obviously, CGI has come a long way since then.
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.
Well said! Those series of video essays you cited, “No CGI” Is Really Just Invisible CGI, are excellent and should be required viewing for any serious cinephile.
This hard sell of movies that use practical effects is a backlash to the CGI-heavy MCU movies and other ones as well, but as you say, it is covering up the fact that even films using practical effects incorporate CGI, some are just better at hiding it than others. I think David Fincher is one of THE best directors of incorporating invisible CGI. I was staggered by how much he used in ZODIAC, for example. I think that by overemphasizing the practical effects and downplaying the use of CGI in press junkets does a great disservice to all the hard work on these movies by all of these talented visual effects artists.
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.
Good call. I remember PANIC ROOM wowing me when I first saw it but revisiting it now, the CGI does look a little obvious. There are camera shots that would just be impossible to do practically that do draw attention to themselves. Obviously, CGI has come a long way since then.
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.
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.