"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI (2/4)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 чер 2024
- This version is a re-upload with better audio than the last version! Enjoy.
Legacy version, kept for comments:
• "NO CGI" is really jus...
Timecodes:
0:00 - Intro
1:23 - Ford V Ferrari
2:59 - Napoleon
8:02 - Journalism
11:55 - CGI is invisible on set
18:28 - Christopher Nolan - Фільми й анімація
"The witcher used no CGI to make the boar-man" ah yes they hired a real life boar-man to play the character
Some of my best friends are boar-men
To be honest, them not employing more real-life boar-men wasn't a political thing. Boar-men just suck at acting.
How CGI artists get hired these days- „As always, should you or any of your CGI Force be caught or killed, the Studio will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This disc will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck.“
“Your mission; should you choose to accept it, involves a spaceship. This spaceship will be going whoosh or something, we’ll figure it out in post. You’ll be given some really bad plate footage with lighting that contradicts the visual effects we need. Also, be warned: lens flares will be involved! We do not know how many lens flares there will be on this mission, but it’s the trademark of this particular director. As always, should you or any…”
Edit: I can’t spell…
@@DanteYewToobJJ has entered the chat.
@@DanteYewToob "This is a fixed bid..."
Here from the Corridor Crew 😊
Yep! And grateful to them for it.
same
Same
Me too😂🔥
Same
Imagine he reveals at the end of episode 4 that he was CGI the entire time
Releasing part 2 after part 3 twice?
Nolan would be proud.
LOL!
Seriously temped to upload it in reverse now
@@TheMovieRabbitHolePincer movement
@@TheMovieRabbitHole Heads up - Episode 1 still links to the old unlisted version of Episode 2 in its description. I only realized by accident when I went back to share your channel URL with friends before starting on 2.. :P
@@MotoCat91Thanks! Fixed
As in the prestige - Michael Kane said - “no one cares about the other bird, they want to be fooled”
This series is like explaining a 4 year old exactly _how_ dad gets dressed up as Santa, and still I want to see more of it.
Are you sure youre not just a CGI bot
8:32 still hats off to Keanu Reeves for giving a shout out to his stuntman who makes his movies possible. A real class act.
He's the man for realz
"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI (5/4) (damaged audio) (circa 2024)
Part 5? Wow. I think the Nolan aspect got out of hand.
"_new_final_final2"
@@TheMovieRabbitHole(for real this time)
@@NithinJune sdhkshdksha
are you a programmer, because that happened to me all the time 🤣@@TheMovieRabbitHole
The overarching themes of Nolan's _The Prestige_ (2006) are essentially an analogy of his use of CGI in his films
as a filmmaker, to me, what you've done here is a hidden gem; you've managed to couch a masterclass on the art and history of cinema, as well as visual literacy and media literacy of the BS "news" industry, with the premise of a CG/No-CG rant.. as audiences we've been tricked each decade by dominant opinion leaders telling us how to understand film and entertainment and what we should expect from film.. ultimately, we forget that we're watching ALWAYS a highly edited/orchestrated piece of art and art is labor, mostly by those unseen.. keep this series going!
"Art is labor". I love that.
Makes me think of how upset "people" were when they found out that housewife Susan Boyle, before appearing on Britain's Got Talent, had actually learned how to sing opera. Imagine that: she had actually practiced singing before. That's cheating!
We want things to be natural, so we want that amazing singer who has never sung before. Knowing about people who worked hard just confirms that movies don't make themselves, magic isn't real, and Santa doesn't exist, and that breaks our collective hearts.
Im enjoying these videos so much. I think the most frustrating thing about this misinformation and stigma is how it devalues and erases the tremendous artistry and skill of digital artists. The idea that someone just pushes the "insert vfx button" and the computer fills in the rest is so ignorant. Its kind of heartbreaking how hard the artists work, often as a labor of love due to poor industry standards only to be reviled by the audiences who keep coming to see their work.
All of this is part of why i decided not to pursue this career.
The more important factor is how CGI’s uses he affects the performance. Actors’ ability to perform and interact with their environment is drastically changed when constrained in a greenscreen set.
14:13 That moonfall clip was hilarious. There's no way the vfx supervisor was present during filming there
If you actually want to see No CGI example and full practical then re-watch Dunkirk and check the scenes where supposedly "400.000 soldiers are on the shores" which shows a few hundred people scattered around the vast beach of Dunkirk.
Nolan's movies are a great example of how the hatred for CGI can really hinder the experience sometimes. I've seen tons of people complaining about how the explosion scene in Oppenheimer was such a let-down visually and it would have been better if he just used CGI instead.
He also used cardboard cutouts without a shed of movement and didnt bother removing those obviously 21st century shipping cranes in the background.
Or the entirety of baby Yoda action scenes. Where CGI would've enhanced the performance
@@AbhiMoz That was an intentional callback to the OT Yoda puppet, not stubbornness to be practical
@@laurencsikistvan6630 couldn't they give the man a nuke ? They got plenty lying around.
Legendary series dropped out of nowhere. Hopefully no studio comes to silence you 😭
I have worked in the movie industry for over 30 years and always shocked by how many people who work in this 'creative' industry cannot imagine stuff without it actually being there!! Mindboggling!!
Bruh, that Barbie article on The Guardian literally has a blue screen in the picture of the set in front of the camera 😂
It does! Please watch episode 3 for a follow up on that
But when they say “no green screen”… they’re not wrong. Shhh. Don’t tell anyone.
it's like those no sugar labels.
"Where does this nonsense come from?"
Brilliant
It's just crazy to me how they don't even bother trying to craft a convincing lie or tell partial truths. They just straight up lie to you and say there's no CGI when there's plenty.
“It isn’t CGI, it’s just digital wire removal.” 🤦♂️
A simple tactic of keep telling the lie enough til it becomes the truth. For the delusional at least.
it's not the filmmakers themselves, it's the media
Everytime I see the reupload on my feed i think part 4 is released, got baited 2 times now :D
I'll make it up to you
@@TheMovieRabbitHole Legend, keep up the great work!
@@danc42421 Reminder: Three Hours left🗣️🗣️🗣️
CGI is just icing on the cake. If the cake tastes terrible, CGI (or its absence) will not make it taste better.
Its how it should be and how it has been done in the beginning of it. Completely CGI scenes were left for Pixar movies only.
You don't need to compare uncomparable to paint yourself smart, also that just not true.
Since comparisons only partly similar to the subject and not identical, they only good for basic education of six years kids.
"300", "Transformers", "Jurassic Park", "Avatar", "The Irishman", "Godzilla Minus One" and many more films are exist solely because of CGI.
This is exactly what these videos about, you don't need to trivialize something you don't understand.
"Nothing is CGI,"
No, I don't love hearing that. Every time I hear Hollywood say that I can feel they are lying. I love being enthralled by movie magic crafted by skillful hands of artists but I don't have any love for the sweet sweet words coming out of the mouths of promotional spin doctors.
Wake up babe, the No CGI is Really Just Invisible CGI fixed audio version just dropped
Your babe was busy with me last night. Let her sleep, bro
Being a CG art instructor for 20+ years, this is my fave content I think I've ever come across on youtube. Thank the maker. It gets so tiring reading online how CGI is destroying the world from people who are completely clueless on how these films and shows are constructed.
"Mark Hamill confirms BB-8 is practical"
You mean Mark Hamill who's in one scene of that movie (2014 interview, so Force Awakens) and who I don't believe shares the screen with BB-8 in the entire trilogy?
Also, I just really appreciate the "Hey if you don't like what you've seen you can just move on with your life" at the end of the video. It's a little joke, but it's a refreshing reminder.
Haha lol yes
There is a practical BB-8, though. Multiple ones (most obviously one that genuinely balances and another with a green exterior arm), which Hamill has seen. I’ve met the people behind them, and they’re lovely.
That there’s *also* a fully VFX one for other shots isn’t something an actor should be expected to know. And yes, the VFX people are also lovely and talented as well.
When people who don’t know the full workflow see a practical element on set, it’s totally reasonable they think what ended up on screen was practical. They’re not lying, they’re just wrong.
@@IainLambert @12:22 Accurate, and exactly my point. Except the fully CG BB8 wasn't just for "other shots", as you see - the practical was largely replaced with CGI.
@@IainLambert Yes, completely true, I was just noting the video's overall point of articles liking to take any indication that no CGI was used and run with it, even if it came from a person who ultimately wouldn't know.
@@IainLambert This comment needs to be pinned in the main thread. Yes, practical “stand ins” are seen on sets and actors may interact them intimately, even establishing an affection for these physically animated “co-stars”.
Sure, there were practical effects and animated “stand-ins” on set. But an actor can’t be expected to know what decisions the director, DP, Set Directors, Effects Supervisors, etc…will make weeks or months down the line. And an actor may have already moved on to other projects even before actually seeing the finish film in a theater or screening. Even press junkets involving interviews of the stars can occur before the release date. One can’t assume everyone involved in the production has seen the finished product when they are interviewed about their involvement. Give the actors a break. It’s like expecting a plumber to know how all the electrical work went during construction of a building. They can only address the part of the project they personally were involved in.
What a fantastic video. Movie "journalism" has really gone to hell in a handbasket. Thanks for setting the record straight!
“Movie” journalism? All journalism has been relegated to paid fan fiction about real life. One of the most undignified professions out there.
You think this only applies to movies? Movie journalism is not even near the worst of the worst, game journalism and paleo journalism is full of a lack of competency
Movie journalism has always had a smidge of propaganda and obfuscation, gossip and drama. So this smear campaign against cgi isn’t unusual. It’s just so focused I’m sure it’s purposeful. Pointed. Useful to oppress cgi workers and subcontractors, keeping them working long hours without union representation and protections. Useful for keeping contracts prices low.
@@alexman378Maybe in the US.
@@Martin-wx8gd No man, it’s wider than that. Maybe it originated there, but it’s certainly not alone.
John Wick 3 has a perfect example of 'invisible CGI' during the knife fight scene, all the glass that was being broken in the cabinets was all CGI. Its a perfect effect and a perfect use of CGI.
"Now, you're using a lot of cameras in the field rather than relying on CGI for everything. Why did you make that choice?" Good lord. If someone had asked me that, I would have probably blurted out "Because it's a live-action film, ya daft bint! If 'everything' was CGI, it'd be a cartoon!"
But Disney said they made a "live action" remake of lion King. With a straight face no less. It is basically double speak.
Problem is that Journalism is now just "publish the Press Release".
Ridley shouldn't lie like that. It's disrespectful toward the audiences and even more disrespectful to the artists and technicians who performed the work.
I don't think he did, i think the interview video just edited the interview to seem like he was talking about something he wasn't. Because in ither interview he shows to not have a problem saying he used cgi. Atleast that's what i got from this video
@@ferociousrazordino3581 God, it should be illegal to do that. Splicing different clips together or mismatching questions and answers to blatantly misrepresent what they actually said.
The fandom of film in general but especially genre film fandom, has been overrun with very loud and very Reactionary sentiment for two decades now.
It seems this channel is doing its best to help balance that out.
The great CGI artist deserve more credit.
Invisible CGI is really just phenomenal CGI. Great series. Thanks for sharing your experience with us!
I just discovered your channel and really enjoyed the perspective you brought.
To be honest, especially because of the guys of Corridor, I've been aware that a good mix of computer VFX and in-camera photography can give amazing results.
That said, I didn't know how much old cinema relied on matte paintings.
So I guess the issue "normies" have is not CGI in and of itself, but badly integrated VFX. Which would suck whether in-camera or not.
(I mean I already saw it that way, that invisible CGI was not a problem, hence the issue is not from the computer graphics themselves.)
Cheers from France! 🍻
As long as cgi is used well, it is a great thing. It is the overuse of cgi, especially bad looking cgi, that has given it a bad name. Whoever signed off on those no cgi lists should be demoted if not fired along with whoever wrote it.
3:30 I love this mythbusting of marketing lies!
I really love this series. marketing made it so hard to talk objectively about digital effects and their up and downsides. It also shines a good light on an industry that without no modern movie would work, yet that gets scolded and hated all the time while also overlocked for a lot of its great achievements, but also big problems.
No man, "nothing is CGI" is not what I want to hear. I want to hear "CGI is top notch".
I worked on Napoleon as an FX artist. My small contribution was to take a shot of a wagon exploding, which was a practical wagon, and fireball and actors, and add dust kicking up from the ground, and have one of the wagon wheels shatter and splinter. Essentially crank the on set special effects stuff to 11. Probably would have been too dangerous to actually blow up the wagon wheel on set with shrapnel going everywhere.
The plate included a spring board for one of the stunt guys to fly in the air from the explosion and a huge red crane and camera team behind the explosion, probably for a second angle. I'm not sure how the compositors got rid of that spring board, crane, and crew with no green-screen. Those guys are miracle workers.
I could watch 10 hours just of the breakdown of the vfx in Inception
Huzzah! It's the "audio and title card fixed", ultra special edition of part two! 😀👍
I have always resented Nolan for his anti-CGI stance ever since TDK, the Batmobile ejection sequence is full CGI and the bike flipping is a full animated CG double including Batman and its cape. It's a constant slap in the face of Double Negative artists busting their asses off to make those CGI as invisible as possible for Nolan to brag about practical effects all day long but they don't seem to mind as long as their managers get their checks...
Nolan is not anti-CGI. He even points out here that he's one of the filmmakers most dependent on CGI out there. He does like to emphasize the use of practical effects because not only do they have a certain punch that CGI still has a hard time replicating, but they give the VFX artists so much more to work with as opposed to just green screens. Look at Disney's approach to using CGI in the past decade as opposed to Nolan's, and tell me which one delivers better results. The answer is obvious on the screen. The press has a tendency to sensationalize Nolan's emphasis on practical effects and make it appear as if he hates or never uses CGI, and it seems you've fallen for it.
Also, you may resent Nolan's preference for emphasizing practical effects, but filmmaking is like a magic trick or illusion. The point is to immerse people into the film as much possible, to blur the lines between reality and fiction, to make your audience forget that they are watching something that is in reality, extremely fake. Part of the magic of film is often not fully knowing what was and wasn't real/done on camera. That ambiguity fundamentally makes it easier for audiences to buy into the world presented in your film. When you go around telling everyone that all of the coolest stunts in your film were done in a computer, it does inevitably break the illusion at least a bit. This doesn't just apply to VFX. I remember watching a video of David Leitch breaking down how they did the fight scenes in Atomic Blonde, and one of the top comments at the time was along the lines of, "wow, so this whole time, making fight scenes in movies have been the equivalent of quicksaving in a video game every 3 seconds. :/" Sometimes, being very upfront about how movies are made does come at the expense of your audience's immersion, even if it is informative.
@@windowsVD Great comment
@@VivekReddyMedapati-jj1hq He does. Just watch this video.
he is NOT an anti cgi filmmaker
@@blue_ig1 Nolan is castigating CG and fostering an anti-CGI sentiment in the medias that studios spread to please the internet whether he intends it or not.
As an Australian, it was honestly brilliant for you to use a clip from the 7:30 Report to example how terrible film journalism can be, especially when talking to a legend like Ridley Scott. For reference, the 7:30 Report on ABC is seen by many as a reputable in-depth current affairs program akin to what 60 Minutes used to be. They have some notability and standing in Australian journalism, however their bias has shown horrifically in recent years and now it has become totally detached from the common man in my country. The fact that she said "you filmed this all with cameras instead of CG" made me laugh. Shows how poorly they run their show when that question is seen to be appropriate and logical to ask one of the greatest filmmakers alive.
I thought it was part 4/4 and was Like WOW already! But Love this remastered version ;)
Congratulations for reaching 50,000 subscribers milestone Jonas!
This series manages to be both the most righteous rant against anti-vfx bullshittery, and the best showcase for brilliantly integrated vfx and sfx I've seen.
Part 2 is really fantastic! Honestly this whole series is a super important. Cant wait to see what youre saving for the finale!!!!!!
That was the best outtro. Wish more people did this
So glad to learn Buster Keaton didn't use CGI and actually drop the side of a house on himself.
This video series is genuinely amazing!
Also, what a sh tty job to be a VFX artist, LOL. You get poopooed by almost everyone you worked with (mostly because you're not on set and even catering gets more respect than you do) in exchange for a very decent salary, the chance to see your name in a sea of names, and that sweet IMDb profile, of course.
VFX artist is a thankless job. You get pooped by everybody above the line from the inside berating your hard work to the outside (Ignorant morons crapping on CGI because PrAcTiCaL Fx RuLeS!" like trained seals by the medias).
Great work, it's amazing to see how good CGI has come so far that we think movies are shot without it.
I think the best filmmaking is when you use CGI and practical effects as a tool in combination with many aspects. From Miniatures and stop motion to claymation and practical in camera visual effects to CGI and AI and practical effects. They all work best when used to accent each other to tell an amazing story. Here's the thing. There's bad practical effects that look horrible just like bad CGI. When you see the good CGI and visual effects? It's art of the highest quality
These videos are super interesting, thanks so much for breaking it all down!
The most interesting thing is Matt Damon just constantly lying for months. Lmao.
As a VFX Artist... thanks for this.
this is one of my favorite video series in ALL youtube
I’ve been really enjoying your video series.
I love the way you credit lots of departments while making your point
Watched again just because you had to reupload. Found myself as amused as the first time.
What doing those battles in Napoleon without CGI would entail: Getting an actual army to recreate it for you - literally what they did in Bondarchuk's Napoleon from 1970. Cold War madness. :)
Apparently no CGI was used in Jurassic Park, but after seeing your videos, now I'm thinking they were lying.
Lol jurassic park was literally the movie that pioneered modern cgi
Ian Fucking McKellen thought he should stop acting. Let that sink in. That's bonkers.
I don't mind watching again. Especially as I have now seen some of those scenes.
BACKUP NOW! The movie rabbit is a maniac that keeps removing and re-uploading his videos with slight changes in the audio and the beard CGI.
So this piece you are watching is unique.
What’s being highlighted is that it’s not a difference of method - it’s a difference of craftsmanship. A great craftsman has a concept that they wish to communicate, and selects the best tool and medium to express that. CG used by a bad craftsman sticks out like a sore thumb, and because it wasn’t in films 50 years ago, people point to that as the issue, when they just saw a bad choice made in a film
Ty for putting these phonies on blast.
Came from CorridorCrew I love this indepth look is awesome
LOVING THIS CHANNEL
This channel is amazing. :O
Keanu Reeves has huge respect for the stun t guys, in the Matrix movies, he brought them all Harley Davidsons. In John Wick interviews he makes a point of saying where the stunt guys take over. He is too nicer guy to take credit for doing all the stunts. His freaking director is a stunt guy for F's sake!
Brilliant vids. So where is part 4?
I don't care if this is a reupload, I'm still rewatching it.
Thank you so much for this.
This is fascinating. I watch very few new movies, maybe one per year on average, so I don't follow the reporting at all. I had no idea that this "no CGI"-thing existed. Is it ignorance or stupidity that makes people think CGI isn't used?
I love how Scott says "nooooo".
Even with the CGI for Napoleon the battles still felt small scale
excellent work!
lol! Christian Bale's reaction at 2:55 says it all 🤣
He's like : waaa??? 😂
Seeing those bat-copters mounted on trucks, diving through Pittsburgh was one of the most bizarre and cool things I’ve seen during a movie being filmed.
Watched the original, fantastic work
When the Corridor Crew send you here by interest.
Also amazing video my eyes have been opened❤❤❤
"CGI" in press terms is, "a bluescreen box with only actors in it, all elements to be added later," so any time a movie is shot on location or even built on a stage, so long as there are significant practical elements, actors/directors say, "there is no CGI." It makes a certain logical sense in that framing, but it's still a dumb thing to crow about.
Live action boxes are the only boxes I expect to see at the cinema.
I consider all compositing artists, wizards. They can somehow make multiple elements become a cohesive frame. And their tools are only becoming more powerful.
Based on how good "AI Rotoscoping" has become, most movies will ditch green/blue screens.
Superb video. I'm less concerned with extensive CGI than I am with the current trend for shit writing and storytelling
If the story is well told I’m accepting a lot if it isn’t too crappy, you know …. Suspension of disbelief. Sure Harryhausen times are over, but if the story isn’t captivating, your focus starts wandering and you notice bad cgi.
Some low cost Indy movies with a fresh story can get away with optics that aren’t optimal at least when I’m watching.
No CGI is really just no CGI
These are really fantastic videos, especially the part about film journalism going to shit.
11:42 sadly Casino Royale was not nominated for a single Oscar which is a shame really. It was nominated for a whole lot of BAFTAs however.
You are right, my bad. I was too quick finding it on the list, to realise it was a finalist, not a nominee. Thanks for watching!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Visual_Effects
CGI is just a tool a filmmaker can use to tell his/her story. Nothing inherently wrong with it.
this series should be a bible for every aspiring film makers and CGI artist
I subscribed because of this video ❤
Lovely video
Just finsihed part 1 and now here. You are doing God's work. Keep it up!
22:20 He's saying Elliot :D She was Ellen back then bruh
He knows he wouldn't find any work in Hollywood if he said that, it would amount to blasphemy if he were to utter the wrong words about their new religion.
Great video
reupload number two, upload number three!
I'm only human :D
@@TheMovieRabbitHole and an amazing one!
I have already seen it, time for a second viewing
Where the heck do you get all of these movie reference clips that you insert? Also, great channel so far!
Amazing video! Just an observation: actually, Casino Royale was not nominated to Academy Awards for Best Visual Effects, but it was nominated in the category at BAFTA and won at Visual Effects Society Awards for Outstanding Special Effects in a Motion Picture. Greetings from Brazil.
Correct, I've been made aware. An embarrassing oversight on my part.
Love from Corridor!