That was great. I love this content that you'd never dream about looking up otherwise. Hundreds of names in the credits of any given movie and how many of those jobs do we actually know anything about? One more now. Great job.
i realize this recently when i saw devinsupertrump video of the backstage of assassin creed, for one scene that had three people there where hundreds of people in the set try to make it
Well, you'll certainly be weirded out if you ever come to Australia and see a TV left showing The ABC's broadcasts. 100% government-funded, so no ads. And no, they don't give the government an easy time. They're equally tough on politicians from all sides.
We actually built a handful of commercials for Anchorman 2. We had the hardest time getting decent looking commercials from around 1980 that we could get the clearance rights too. So we built a bunch of our own. They were on some of the back screens here and there.
To display commercials in movies they'd need the rights to do so, and have to make a deal with the copyright owner and for historical content it's often multiple rights because when an ad is created for let's say - pepsi, the actors, and the ad agency give their consent as part of the price paid to them for the ad to be used for a limited portion of time, e.g. for one year, after that a contract would need to be re-negotiated with the client, pepsi; and that's if pepsi wanted to even do that - so getting an ad in a movie without all this deal in place, on a time schedule and within budget - is often not in the cards.
Not all, but a lot of it is really bad, especially when it comes to hacking in movies. But I feel like it's getting better. Just look at Steve Jobs movie or Mr. Robot, it could not be more realistic than that.
We often do that for because it's quicker than getting a named "cleared" by the studio's legal clearances department. We know we can use our names without a problem. And.... we do it sometimes just for fun too.
Also I like to do cameo's in the films too. You can see me briefly in, Point of No Return, The Net, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Miss Congeniality (1 and 2), Date Night, Anchorman 2 (I'm actually in the trailer as well - when Linda punches Ron, and a brief few shots in Steve Jobs).
For the record, we almost never do this anymore. Essentially all of the TV screens you see on TV or in movies these days are visual effects shots. (I just spent this past summer doing that job on Westworld, for instance. Last year it was 11/22/63 for Hulu. Even going back as far as some episodes of the West Wing, which also did some "real" on-set screen work, you'll find digital screen burn-ins.) There's a number of reasons for that, some are better than others, but the "real" reason is the way deadlines and project timelines work now (release date announced before the script has been written, editing shows until three days before air, etc.) combined with the filmmakers' desire to have as much modularity and changeability as possible until the very last minute possible (so they can change the content of what's on the screens, or even simply adjust the timing of what's on the screen, to their hearts' content), means they're massively incentivized to plan on doing the screens in post, so they can delay making decisions as long as possible. To use an analogy: we rarely use on-set screens like this anymore for the same reason we rarely have an actor actually play an instrument onscreen and use the audio from it anymore; it's simply a million times more convenient to have them *mime* playing the instrument so we can jiggle things around later if we want to. There's always a physical monitor on the set, of course - we rarely completely add a CG television - but they're almost always 1) turned off or 2) showing a trackable pattern. Very rarely, you might see 3) actual prepared content on the screen, which often ends up getting painted over. This happened a lot on Westworld, for instance. There actually was great "stuff" on those monitors on set, and reviewing the raw footage you'd see that stuff on the screens... but we just ended up replacing most of it, and because that always happens, most shows don't bother to create the screen graphics in advance. *Most*-most. Like... essentially zero shows do that, in my experience. (Because it means they're paying for the content of the same monitor twice. If they put something on the screen in advance, but it turns out they need to adjust it later, they've broken the "putting something on the screen" process into two big unrelated stages, where the first stage was redundant.) I've done monitors for maybe two dozen shows, I've encountered pre-made graphics once. It happens in movies a bit more, but... frankly, truly, this isn't much of a thing that we do at all anymore. And just to preempt the inevitable "but everything was so much better when we didn't half-ass everything in post using CG!" mumbling... I mean, yeah. I completely agree, and so would most of my colleagues. Most CG *artists* have essentially the same opinion of bad CG (and unplanned filmmaking) as you do. Alas. The Industry above us decided (easily) that complete tweakability until the very last possible minute was the most important thing. This guy in the video seems awesome, I like him personally a great deal; people who painted mattes on glass so we could film the glass plates in front of the locations we're shooting at were awesome, too. We just don't *do* it anymore, is all. (We also don't let John Williams sit and write music for a locked edit for six months the way we used to, either. The use of music in giant blockbuster films has been modularized for essentially the same reason; if you have Johnny craft a perfect ten-minute cue that follows and reacts to and builds on a scene with perfect, specific moment-to-moment orchestral stuff [as in Jurassic Park, Journey to the Island, for instance] that means you had to have locked your edit a long time ago, and we just *don't* lock edits eight months in advance like that anymore. [Hollywood would argue 'we can't,' because Hollywood is like that.] So you're left with a bunch of "suites" that aren't written *to* a particular edit, but instead are meant to be more or less library music that the edit can be changed around on top of. This way, you can keep editing until the last minute.) That said, this video as it is - focusing on this one guy's work - is great. Just don't get the impression it's a big part of the industry anymore.
Seconded. And, the bit about music, if I understand it right, is pretty distressing. Some of the most iconic instrumental music of all time comes from big-budget films - like the music from LoTR and Harry Potter. If movie composers are forced to focus on that which is easily editable, it seems like it would stifle quality and creativity.
That's a sad tale to hear. All the best techniques sitting by the side of the road because nobody knows how to plan any more. I have to wonder how much more cost gets added by all this indecisiveness.
I'm glad you made a video about this! I've always wondered about that ever since I got more into movies and movie making in general. I remember Avatar was the first movie that made me wonder how they made all those computer interfaces and how much time did it take, and barely anyone would notice. Jobs like these are so weird. You work your ass off and nobody'll notice it, but if it's not there or poorly done, people will notice.
So cool to see a really talented person at work and appreciate something like this! It's amazing how obvious it is when something isn't convincing - like when a mouse pointer moves waaaaay too slow across a screen (looking at you, Humans) - but it must be a thankless job to only be noticed when you're doing it badly!
Thank you. I have done my share of "moving the pointer across the screen to click on a button", or "click and drags" for load of inserts. It's rather stressful when you're doing it for camera. Yeah, all those close up shots of things happening on the computer screens are typically filmed after the actor has left the set (unless you see them doing it in the shot), It can make for some very long days.
One thing about movie UIs is how big the elements are. Often the character boots the PC and there is a huge button in the middle like "TOP SECRET PHOTOS" that just makes them appear. I've never seen Harrison Ford have to comb through C:\Users\Documents\Work directory to find what he's looking for.
1. Visually interesting. ✓ 2. Conveys the message. ✓ 3. Plausable. 𝗫 Sorry but 99% of what is happening on computer screens in movies and TV usually makes anyone who has even stood near a computer for more than 5 minutes of their entire life, cringe and facepalm so hard.
If i had a penny for every time I've seen a hacker attempting to hack the government without a CMD window open... Better yet if i had a penny for every time a hacker attempted to hack the government and it shows a progress bar, while a robot voice says "Hacking 33%...59%...89%!"
Just awesome! Like, I'm one of the few people who (when watching a movie on DVD or OnDemand ) I pause and repause at the end credits to read and research each person(s) who created the casting, lighting, graphics, etc. I've come to realize just how amazing (geniuses) behind the scenes operators really are! My respects to them
This video WAS MADE for me. Fake computer graphics and fake TV images within movies are a strong interest of mine for many years. Thank you for making this.
Great piece. Can't imagine what it's like creating screen content for stuff in superhero or "futuristic" movies that simply doesn't exist I.e. Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers, etc.
speaking of screens in screens, i absolutely LOVE the screens in Westworld, i pause everytime a techie's controller thingamajig is in close up , the details are just fascinating
Gal Gadot was in that scene in Date Night. She was an ex-Israeli Army soldier who came down the stairs in her lingerie, looked at Tina Fey and Steve Carell's characters and said, "They look weak" in Hebrew :D
mourizze jesus not for one second did I think west world was realistic. it was just pretty. West world is almost fantasy sci fi. Black Mirror far superior and realistic in every way. But then Black mirror is set near us, so it has to be more believable...
mourizze Hate to say it but I really did enjoy westworld, not what I expected.... It went full on Blade Runner... very well done with all the WTF reveals in the later episides. I wasn't expecting this level of storytelling.....
Gotta commend this guy, and other's in his field, for doing this "in plainsight" work on films!!!! Having done some silly little short films, it becomes obvious really quickly how small details can make or break a scene
I think it's interesting how many youtube channels are dedicated to the same context of pop culture content, but each one has its own style of presentation.
Most Trek fans know that nearly all the "screens' in the first few seasons of The Next Generation were hand made cutout artwork by Michael Okuda. Eventually most screens that needed animation were replaced with Sony Trinitrons, one of the few flat CRTs made. The rest were either done with process photography or Okuagrams.
When we did Nemesis, we moved the Bridge of the Enterprise from CRTs covered by smoked plexi, to flat panel LCDs and Plasmas. It was quite a battle get them to cut holes in all the smoked plexi so that the LCD screens could be seen clearly. We did some very cool stuff with projection on the Reman Ship's Bridge.
This is why I have always said, making good movies is DAMN hard work. So many different jobs that I will never know about coming together. Thanks Vox for a glimpse into the laborious world of movie making :)
And what would you have if you had a believable world, but nothing to express its impacts and covey its various meanings? Believable worlds are almost pointless (unless we are talking about technological concepts, art) that could inspire change. Otherwise the KEY is what does that new world imply? Actors show us the meaning of those believable worlds. The people in the back, well their job is to stop us from being distracted. It's like saying that cheerleaders are more important than sports players.
also - the creator of star trek TNG's UI (and my avatar) is Michael and Denise Okuda, footnotes in the ST:TNG Technical Manual, detail their process in creating these graphics, dubbed "Okudagrams"
Even I thought the same that who are the creative people working for those screens! I got the answer from this video! Thanks for doing this to us Guys!
Movies/TV shows have some of the coolest looking UI's. I usually use them for inspiration was designing a UI (just less cluttered and more user friendly). WestWorld had some really cool looking UI's.
Whats funny is watching movies pre-internet talk about concepts we would call the internet today. The whole idea was so fantastical back then no one could even fathom such a thing. Might as well be talking about the Jetsons. There are even those who talked about the intellectual revolution that would happen if the whole world gained access to a world wide source of knowledge that would be served on demand, and available to anyone regardless of social standing. The wall between the common man and easy access to cumulative knowledge has served us as a deterrent to chaos, as sad as that seems. As great of a thing that the internet is, it was predicted before its existence that such a thing could cause extreme changes, things that actually affect us today.
This is my dream job. UIs are an obsession of mine and being payed to tinker with old computers and make things look as realistic as possible would be like a dream come true.
Please do one about 'How airline ticket pricing works'. You can also include info about loyalty programs, price changes, overbooking of flights, delays, routes etc) These aspects about flights still make me wonder.
I've noticed that, in TV shows such as NCIS, characters use the keyboard almost exclusively, even when it seems like the mouse would be necessary. Is that because it makes the computer playback supervisors' work much easier? Or is there some other reason?
Usually the graphics are controlled by a keyboard. if a mouse is required ( sometimes it is, for realism) the designer has to program the functional use of a mouse.
It all depends on the needs of the scene, and how interactive we need to make it. We typically build interactive capabilities into the graphics (when needed) to give the actor the ability to interact with the computer. We will instruct the actor on how to operate the software, but we are usually "off camera" with the ability to take over or click on the right thing if the actor doesn't do it correctly. There are certainly some actors who can't use a computer and act at the same time.
Todd Marks Are you the same Todd Marks as the one featured in this video? If so, it's awesome that you took the time to reply to me! Anyway, thanks for that info. It's really interesting; I guess that I didn't realize that a lot of it is actually software programs being used by the actors. For some reason, I thought that it was just video displayed on the screen that is perfectly synced to the typing and clicking of the actors. But it makes much more sense that its software that the actors are interacting with during filming (unless of course it's inserted in post - can you explain a little more about that, like how the actors know what to type, how long it'll need to take them, where on the screen to click, etc. when the graphics are inserted after the fact?). And I also find it fascinating that you are off-camera with the ability to take over if/when needed. Thanks for the reply!
Yes, I am the same Todd Marks. We use a few different programs for interactive software. The primary software tool that has been used the longest is Adobe Director (a product which they barely support anymore!). As far as the actors knowing what to type... well the secret there is that they really can type anything. Each keystroke advances the software one letter, so they can type as slow or as fast as they want, and the right thing comes up. We show them in advance what to do, where to click, etc. As I mentioned before, we typically have a second keyboard and mouse or other input or "triggering" device to advance the action if they don't do it right.
Todd Marks That is actually really awesome! It's so interesting, and frankly quite ingenious, to have any keystroke advance the software. Has it always been that way, or is that a more recent development? Also, I hope for you and your colleagues' sakes that Adobe continues to support Director - or at least that someone else comes up with a similar program if Adobe drops support completely. I actually have Adobe Creative Cloud (mostly for Lightroom Photoshop, and Illustrator), but it looks like Director isn't even a part of that.
For those wanting even more technical information... Here's a very detailed article about the work we did on Anchorman 2. www.local695.com/Quarterly/6-3/6-3-anchorman-2/
Alot of work goes into this stuff and as a movie go-er, i never really pay attention to the tvs on set to an extent. most eyes are on the actor more less. Point being alot of hard work goes unnoticed. That guy dont get much rest, i mean damn just look at him. ol boy works long hours!!
Huds and these things are all part of the hidden world of motion graphics. This is only one part of the world. While other motion graphics arent always interactive, its alot of these people take time to do those three things to be expressive within a couple of sections. Like commercials, VJs, etc. I love it. Reccommend beeple and dlew (tron/going to the store)
Finally the burning question in my head is answered. I've always wondered why when a computer is being used by an actor, they "always" use the keyboard even on graphical stuff being shown on screen. Now I know it's Todd's design. Please utilize the mouse more Todd. :D
I marveled at the screens that were designed for The Martian. I'd really like access to the original files to turn into an elaborate screensaver that makes it look like I work for NASA.
I was thinking about this the other day more along the lines of some of the first screens and communication devices in tv and movies. How they become the mood board to actual inventions in our own history. Like with the pager on star trek being a starting point for flip phones. It just proves we totally draw from our experiences.
It would've been interesting to further explore the process behind designing screens for films set in the future. I always wonder how close sci-fi and spy films are to portraying how real screens will look in the future, especially when set in the near future.
Very cool! Of course computers in movies are kind of absurd - they're a plot device meant to look good when seen from a camera and be more interesting than real computers. You get a button that's the size of a web banner that's labeled "DOWNLOAD DATA" just so the audience can follow what's going on. Like Pepper getting files off Tony's computer in Iron Man, or Mystique in full blue body paint awkwardly clicking around on a computer. A small personal connection to this industry: I know a member of a company who boasted that a Star Wars graphic artist also did graphics for their website (the artist who did the computer console bits like Anakin's podracer, for example). I believe some of them are still there at the time of this writing: www.protectwise.com/ and you can see what a neat style they come up with. Their site has components that look like they came off of a movie because they kind of did.
On the *Patriots Day* trailer shown on TV (which I can't find on UA-cam) the head FBI Guy rotates a military style notebook (Panasonic Tuffbook?) and as it rotates the brilliant color image on the screen seems to have a 180 degree viewing angle without color degradation.
That much work for such a short time, marvelous guys !! Really appreciate it.. !! Geeks !! Any idea what the watched videos on UA-cam get the red bar at the bottom. some time complete and other time it is partially there?? why ??
An odd effect that occurred in the 1960-70s happened because of the way TVs were scanned. When TVs were filmed for the news there would be light or dark bars slowly moving down the screen. After seeing this over and over in places like NASA mission control those bars came to mean "real". If a TV screen in a movie didn't have the bars much of the audience took it as a signal it was fake.
of course it was, RMoribayashi knows that, he's just wondering why the filmmakers don't include it in films. Unless it doesn't happen at slower shutter speeds / 24fps
But... If the bars are an artifact of video to film conversion, the only need to fake them is when a character is watching a video of a film of a monitor. Obviously the screens wouldn't flicker in the control room of Apollo 13, but showing people watching a film of it they would. (Decades ago I superimposed CGI video static on film to imply it was degraded video.)
We have special video scan converters that sync monitors to the frame rate of the film or HD cameras. It is not used as much as when I first got into the business. But since Anchorman 2, and Steve Jobs were period pieces, we used quite a lot of them, along with special customized 24 frame video crystal sync cards. We used a tremendous amount of customized hardware to sync everything together.
"There is a whole world tucked in the bottom right of a screen" Me: looks at bottom right of screen Bottom right of screen: subscribe Me: this guy is smart but I've already subbed
This seems like it takes a lot of time (and effort) to make it work! How do computer playback supervisors get it done for TV shows with all of the time constraints that come with airing a new episode every week?
(Or the fact that they spend most of the year producing it, as the shows only air over a series of weeks, never spending more than half of the year airing, meaning they have half a year, plus the number of episodes behind the one their editing in weeks spare)
We often have very short turn around times, especially for TV shows. I typically focus on features as there is usually a bit more time for design, but not always. We have to build things quicker and quicker these days. But we have better tools than we used to.
The most impressive uses of this for storytelling that I've seen recently have probably been in Black Mirror, Mr. Robot, and Westworld.
Andy Brice, I was thinking exactly the same, Black Mirror is the perfect example of this
yeah I was just thinking I would love to see some behind the scenes design work for black mirror!
That was great. I love this content that you'd never dream about looking up otherwise. Hundreds of names in the credits of any given movie and how many of those jobs do we actually know anything about? One more now.
Great job.
So true! I always think about that during the credits.
i realize this recently when i saw devinsupertrump video of the backstage of assassin creed, for one scene that had three people there where hundreds of people in the set try to make it
Or the credits themselves! They are often UNREAL! The end credits on Captain America and Sherlock Holmes are standout hits.
steprockmedia unreal in what way??
TV screens don't look real because they never have commercials.
Well, you'll certainly be weirded out if you ever come to Australia and see a TV left showing The ABC's broadcasts. 100% government-funded, so no ads. And no, they don't give the government an easy time. They're equally tough on politicians from all sides.
We actually built a handful of commercials for Anchorman 2. We had the hardest time getting decent looking commercials from around 1980 that we could get the clearance rights too. So we built a bunch of our own. They were on some of the back screens here and there.
That is so cool :)
To display commercials in movies they'd need the rights to do so, and have to make a deal with the copyright owner and for historical content it's often multiple rights because when an ad is created for let's say - pepsi, the actors, and the ad agency give their consent as part of the price paid to them for the ad to be used for a limited portion of time, e.g. for one year, after that a contract would need to be re-negotiated with the client, pepsi; and that's if pepsi wanted to even do that - so getting an ad in a movie without all this deal in place, on a time schedule and within budget - is often not in the cards.
Which is why we ended up making our own commercials for Anchorman 2.
All computers in film are incredibly unrealistic. Especially in criminal shows, where they'll just "enhance" a 360p picture to 4K.
Kola2 maybe because it wasn't this guy doing it?
Lol. I love that
And no one ever uses a mouse. Everything is done with keyboard input. Also every windows usually has some audio feedback.
Not all, but a lot of it is really bad, especially when it comes to hacking in movies. But I feel like it's getting better. Just look at Steve Jobs movie or Mr. Robot, it could not be more realistic than that.
Search for the video "Crime Cops"
At 3:08, look at the TV in the background on the right.
The guy they interviewed snuck his name in there!
nice catch, perks of his job description I guess hahaha
We often do that for because it's quicker than getting a named "cleared" by the studio's legal clearances department. We know we can use our names without a problem. And.... we do it sometimes just for fun too.
Also I like to do cameo's in the films too. You can see me briefly in, Point of No Return, The Net, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Miss Congeniality (1 and 2), Date Night, Anchorman 2 (I'm actually in the trailer as well - when Linda punches Ron, and a brief few shots in Steve Jobs).
Hey Todd
Hey. Hope you enjoyed the video and article.
can we take a moment how vox videos are always so well composed and aesthetically pleasing
"Why vox is the best video essay channel" - Vox
For the record, we almost never do this anymore. Essentially all of the TV screens you see on TV or in movies these days are visual effects shots. (I just spent this past summer doing that job on Westworld, for instance. Last year it was 11/22/63 for Hulu. Even going back as far as some episodes of the West Wing, which also did some "real" on-set screen work, you'll find digital screen burn-ins.) There's a number of reasons for that, some are better than others, but the "real" reason is the way deadlines and project timelines work now (release date announced before the script has been written, editing shows until three days before air, etc.) combined with the filmmakers' desire to have as much modularity and changeability as possible until the very last minute possible (so they can change the content of what's on the screens, or even simply adjust the timing of what's on the screen, to their hearts' content), means they're massively incentivized to plan on doing the screens in post, so they can delay making decisions as long as possible. To use an analogy: we rarely use on-set screens like this anymore for the same reason we rarely have an actor actually play an instrument onscreen and use the audio from it anymore; it's simply a million times more convenient to have them *mime* playing the instrument so we can jiggle things around later if we want to.
There's always a physical monitor on the set, of course - we rarely completely add a CG television - but they're almost always 1) turned off or 2) showing a trackable pattern. Very rarely, you might see 3) actual prepared content on the screen, which often ends up getting painted over. This happened a lot on Westworld, for instance. There actually was great "stuff" on those monitors on set, and reviewing the raw footage you'd see that stuff on the screens... but we just ended up replacing most of it, and because that always happens, most shows don't bother to create the screen graphics in advance. *Most*-most. Like... essentially zero shows do that, in my experience. (Because it means they're paying for the content of the same monitor twice. If they put something on the screen in advance, but it turns out they need to adjust it later, they've broken the "putting something on the screen" process into two big unrelated stages, where the first stage was redundant.) I've done monitors for maybe two dozen shows, I've encountered pre-made graphics once. It happens in movies a bit more, but... frankly, truly, this isn't much of a thing that we do at all anymore.
And just to preempt the inevitable "but everything was so much better when we didn't half-ass everything in post using CG!" mumbling... I mean, yeah. I completely agree, and so would most of my colleagues. Most CG *artists* have essentially the same opinion of bad CG (and unplanned filmmaking) as you do. Alas. The Industry above us decided (easily) that complete tweakability until the very last possible minute was the most important thing. This guy in the video seems awesome, I like him personally a great deal; people who painted mattes on glass so we could film the glass plates in front of the locations we're shooting at were awesome, too. We just don't *do* it anymore, is all. (We also don't let John Williams sit and write music for a locked edit for six months the way we used to, either. The use of music in giant blockbuster films has been modularized for essentially the same reason; if you have Johnny craft a perfect ten-minute cue that follows and reacts to and builds on a scene with perfect, specific moment-to-moment orchestral stuff [as in Jurassic Park, Journey to the Island, for instance] that means you had to have locked your edit a long time ago, and we just *don't* lock edits eight months in advance like that anymore. [Hollywood would argue 'we can't,' because Hollywood is like that.] So you're left with a bunch of "suites" that aren't written *to* a particular edit, but instead are meant to be more or less library music that the edit can be changed around on top of. This way, you can keep editing until the last minute.)
That said, this video as it is - focusing on this one guy's work - is great. Just don't get the impression it's a big part of the industry anymore.
Teague Chrystie wow man, that's quite interesting. Thanks for sharing that in such a detail.
Seconded. And, the bit about music, if I understand it right, is pretty distressing. Some of the most iconic instrumental music of all time comes from big-budget films - like the music from LoTR and Harry Potter. If movie composers are forced to focus on that which is easily editable, it seems like it would stifle quality and creativity.
That's a sad tale to hear. All the best techniques sitting by the side of the road because nobody knows how to plan any more. I have to wonder how much more cost gets added by all this indecisiveness.
Teague Chrystie Sad times
I believe the music for LOTR was composed specifically per scene
This is really cool. Thanks for making this! :)
I'm glad you made a video about this! I've always wondered about that ever since I got more into movies and movie making in general.
I remember Avatar was the first movie that made me wonder how they made all those computer interfaces and how much time did it take, and barely anyone would notice.
Jobs like these are so weird. You work your ass off and nobody'll notice it, but if it's not there or poorly done, people will notice.
Most jobs are like that, really.
crew deserve more recognition
Todd Marks! Could not thank you enough. I kinda feel sad how we never talk about these people.
Thank you for your comment. Check our website for more details: www.ImagesOnScreen.com
Thank you Sandra Bullock, for introducing us to the wonderment and joys of Internet.
Stricken by the research and preparation that went into this video, well done team Vox. I hope to create something as inspiring as this one.
This Man is a legend,,,, The success of some movies under the charge of this creative people is truly amazing.., Cheers
So cool to see a really talented person at work and appreciate something like this! It's amazing how obvious it is when something isn't convincing - like when a mouse pointer moves waaaaay too slow across a screen (looking at you, Humans) - but it must be a thankless job to only be noticed when you're doing it badly!
Thank you. I have done my share of "moving the pointer across the screen to click on a button", or "click and drags" for load of inserts. It's rather stressful when you're doing it for camera. Yeah, all those close up shots of things happening on the computer screens are typically filmed after the actor has left the set (unless you see them doing it in the shot), It can make for some very long days.
Vox is so much better when not discussing politics.
NAGULNR2 Ikr. I bet many agree because of the amount of dislikes on the political videos. Not all though.
vox means voice
its a channel to let voices be heard
although i hate politics but surely someone would want it!
I like the political stuff in moderation. if it's quality, do it!
Every video about politics on youtube has lots of dislikes. Not just Vox.
I always think about this stuff and vox tells me more and more. I need vox to make an app for on the go
One thing about movie UIs is how big the elements are. Often the character boots the PC and there is a huge button in the middle like "TOP SECRET PHOTOS" that just makes them appear.
I've never seen Harrison Ford have to comb through C:\Users\Documents\Work directory to find what he's looking for.
you can thank directors for that. It's ridiculous
Go watch mr robot, you will like it
Dammit, I want a whole video about his work on Star Trek :l
same!! I mean, _there are so many computers in Star Trek!_
Damn vox! Back at it again with an awesome video
1. Visually interesting. ✓
2. Conveys the message. ✓
3. Plausable. 𝗫
Sorry but 99% of what is happening on computer screens in movies and TV usually makes anyone who has even stood near a computer for more than 5 minutes of their entire life, cringe and facepalm so hard.
If i had a penny for every time I've seen a hacker attempting to hack the government without a CMD window open...
Better yet if i had a penny for every time a hacker attempted to hack the government and it shows a progress bar, while a robot voice says "Hacking 33%...59%...89%!"
***** that's the same thing >.>
***** Did i miss something?
The screens from Steve Jobs looked pretty real, but that's probably because they were
Just awesome! Like, I'm one of the few people who (when watching a movie on DVD or OnDemand ) I pause and repause at the end credits to read and research each person(s) who created the casting, lighting, graphics, etc.
I've come to realize just how amazing (geniuses) behind the scenes operators really are! My respects to them
This video WAS MADE for me. Fake computer graphics and fake TV images within movies are a strong interest of mine for many years. Thank you for making this.
Do you create graphics as well?
Yasss Vox is back ! No more buzzfeed content please
Yay!
Great piece. Can't imagine what it's like creating screen content for stuff in superhero or "futuristic" movies that simply doesn't exist I.e. Black Panther, Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers, etc.
speaking of screens in screens, i absolutely LOVE the screens in Westworld, i pause everytime a techie's controller thingamajig is in close up , the details are just fascinating
Gal Gadot was in that scene in Date Night. She was an ex-Israeli Army soldier who came down the stairs in her lingerie, looked at Tina Fey and Steve Carell's characters and said, "They look weak" in Hebrew :D
Oh nice! I love finding out that movies I watched a long time ago have actors that I recently discovered!
Never even thought on how to do this or the logisitics behind screens in movies. Fantastic interview.
The west world fake gui was fantastic !
In my opinion it looked bad and very unrealistic, but I really like the ones in Black Mirror.
mourizze
jesus not for one second did I think west world was realistic. it was just pretty.
West world is almost fantasy sci fi.
Black Mirror far superior and realistic in every way.
But then Black mirror is set near us, so it has to be more believable...
Hanniffy Dinn I still think Westworld is a very good show, the special effects look great.
mourizze
Hate to say it but I really did enjoy westworld, not what I expected....
It went full on Blade Runner... very well done with all the WTF reveals in the later episides.
I wasn't expecting this level of storytelling.....
Doesn't look like anything to me.
Gotta commend this guy, and other's in his field, for doing this "in plainsight" work on films!!!! Having done some silly little short films, it becomes obvious really quickly how small details can make or break a scene
I think it's interesting how many youtube channels are dedicated to the same context of pop culture content, but each one has its own style of presentation.
It's so fun listening to your voice! Great video.
I have such respect for this man. Coming from a student in the field of computers. On a nerd level and a passion level.
Thank you. I certainly enjoyed sharing this information with all of you.
Most Trek fans know that nearly all the "screens' in the first few seasons of The Next Generation were hand made cutout artwork by Michael Okuda. Eventually most screens that needed animation were replaced with Sony Trinitrons, one of the few flat CRTs made. The rest were either done with process photography or Okuagrams.
When we did Nemesis, we moved the Bridge of the Enterprise from CRTs covered by smoked plexi, to flat panel LCDs and Plasmas. It was quite a battle get them to cut holes in all the smoked plexi so that the LCD screens could be seen clearly. We did some very cool stuff with projection on the Reman Ship's Bridge.
Can't believe there was no mention of Black Mirror in this.
I only just subbed to Vox, but now they're unearthing some of the biggest questions I've always had
Thank you for answering that at the end there haha, it had been itching at the back of my mind the whole video
This is why I have always said, making good movies is DAMN hard work. So many different jobs that I will never know about coming together. Thanks Vox for a glimpse into the laborious world of movie making :)
See folks, the people behind the camera is wayyyy more important than those in front. And they get to keep their lives private. Just saying.
And what would you have if you had a believable world, but nothing to express its impacts and covey its various meanings?
Believable worlds are almost pointless (unless we are talking about technological concepts, art) that could inspire change. Otherwise the KEY is what does that new world imply? Actors show us the meaning of those believable worlds. The people in the back, well their job is to stop us from being distracted.
It's like saying that cheerleaders are more important than sports players.
TopeA8 The actors can't do much if they don't have a good script
also - the creator of star trek TNG's UI (and my avatar) is Michael and Denise Okuda, footnotes in the ST:TNG Technical Manual, detail their process in creating these graphics, dubbed "Okudagrams"
Yes. We collaborated on Nemesis. It was a bit challenging for both of us as we each had our own ways of doing things.
Even I thought the same that who are the creative people working for those screens! I got the answer from this video! Thanks for doing this to us Guys!
Movies/TV shows have some of the coolest looking UI's. I usually use them for inspiration was designing a UI (just less cluttered and more user friendly). WestWorld had some really cool looking UI's.
Whats funny is watching movies pre-internet talk about concepts we would call the internet today. The whole idea was so fantastical back then no one could even fathom such a thing. Might as well be talking about the Jetsons.
There are even those who talked about the intellectual revolution that would happen if the whole world gained access to a world wide source of knowledge that would be served on demand, and available to anyone regardless of social standing. The wall between the common man and easy access to cumulative knowledge has served us as a deterrent to chaos, as sad as that seems. As great of a thing that the internet is, it was predicted before its existence that such a thing could cause extreme changes, things that actually affect us today.
Vox never stops to AMAZE ME!
Interesting stuff, so much goes into making movies. You usually don't think about these things, nice to know what kind of work goes into it.
I just watched the movie all over again in all its glory.
woooah, those where sport stacking cups. Are you doing a video on Sport Stacking? (1:11)
This is my dream job. UIs are an obsession of mine and being payed to tinker with old computers and make things look as realistic as possible would be like a dream come true.
Please do one about 'How airline ticket pricing works'. You can also include info about loyalty programs, price changes, overbooking of flights, delays, routes etc) These aspects about flights still make me wonder.
Fantastic interview!
hunter x hunter is my fav anime
things like this makes me more appreciate movies details
Always wondered this. Amazing work. Idk why you're channel is so good, but u keep doing good stuff
I've noticed that, in TV shows such as NCIS, characters use the keyboard almost exclusively, even when it seems like the mouse would be necessary. Is that because it makes the computer playback supervisors' work much easier? Or is there some other reason?
Usually the graphics are controlled by a keyboard. if a mouse is required ( sometimes it is, for realism) the designer has to program the functional use of a mouse.
It all depends on the needs of the scene, and how interactive we need to make it. We typically build interactive capabilities into the graphics (when needed) to give the actor the ability to interact with the computer. We will instruct the actor on how to operate the software, but we are usually "off camera" with the ability to take over or click on the right thing if the actor doesn't do it correctly. There are certainly some actors who can't use a computer and act at the same time.
Todd Marks Are you the same Todd Marks as the one featured in this video? If so, it's awesome that you took the time to reply to me!
Anyway, thanks for that info. It's really interesting; I guess that I didn't realize that a lot of it is actually software programs being used by the actors. For some reason, I thought that it was just video displayed on the screen that is perfectly synced to the typing and clicking of the actors. But it makes much more sense that its software that the actors are interacting with during filming (unless of course it's inserted in post - can you explain a little more about that, like how the actors know what to type, how long it'll need to take them, where on the screen to click, etc. when the graphics are inserted after the fact?). And I also find it fascinating that you are off-camera with the ability to take over if/when needed.
Thanks for the reply!
Yes, I am the same Todd Marks. We use a few different programs for interactive software. The primary software tool that has been used the longest is Adobe Director (a product which they barely support anymore!). As far as the actors knowing what to type... well the secret there is that they really can type anything. Each keystroke advances the software one letter, so they can type as slow or as fast as they want, and the right thing comes up. We show them in advance what to do, where to click, etc. As I mentioned before, we typically have a second keyboard and mouse or other input or "triggering" device to advance the action if they don't do it right.
Todd Marks That is actually really awesome! It's so interesting, and frankly quite ingenious, to have any keystroke advance the software. Has it always been that way, or is that a more recent development? Also, I hope for you and your colleagues' sakes that Adobe continues to support Director - or at least that someone else comes up with a similar program if Adobe drops support completely. I actually have Adobe Creative Cloud (mostly for Lightroom Photoshop, and Illustrator), but it looks like Director isn't even a part of that.
Great work man!
For those wanting even more technical information... Here's a very detailed article about the work we did on Anchorman 2.
www.local695.com/Quarterly/6-3/6-3-anchorman-2/
Alot of work goes into this stuff and as a movie go-er, i never really pay attention to the tvs on set to an extent. most eyes are on the actor more less. Point being alot of hard work goes unnoticed. That guy dont get much rest, i mean damn just look at him. ol boy works long hours!!
Yeah, I looked a bit tired in that interview. Of course, it was my mom who first mentioned that too me!
I love Vox channel so much!
Vox is back!
I love the transition 7:20 - 7:22
This is awesome. Something I had always wondered about.
Huds and these things are all part of the hidden world of motion graphics. This is only one part of the world. While other motion graphics arent always interactive, its alot of these people take time to do those three things to be expressive within a couple of sections. Like commercials, VJs, etc.
I love it.
Reccommend beeple and dlew (tron/going to the store)
Unsung heroes. So excited over a little, fairly unknown, even to ST nerds, name plaque among thousands of other names against it.
Pretty amazing. And thanks for the details Todd Marks.
Thanks for teaching me something new Vox:)
Finally the burning question in my head is answered. I've always wondered why when a computer is being used by an actor, they "always" use the keyboard even on graphical stuff being shown on screen. Now I know it's Todd's design. Please utilize the mouse more Todd. :D
This is so cool! I've always paid attention to these things and they can make or break a movie
This guy has such a cool job
Really interesting. This sounds like the guy from Nerdwriter1 and something he might discuss. Awesome video!
Angie C Phil Edwards is the guy who made this film. His (and Joss's) videos are some of best in the channel.
One of the greatest mysteries of my life.
All though this is pointless to watch in my life. I find this pretty interesting just to watch. You learn something new everyday
I marveled at the screens that were designed for The Martian. I'd really like access to the original files to turn into an elaborate screensaver that makes it look like I work for NASA.
I was thinking about this the other day more along the lines of some of the first screens and communication devices in tv and movies. How they become the mood board to actual inventions in our own history. Like with the pager on star trek being a starting point for flip phones. It just proves we totally draw from our experiences.
Great video!
Very creative, Vox!
Thank you, dude. Thank you.
I was just thinking about this the other day! Really interesting!
It would've been interesting to further explore the process behind designing screens for films set in the future.
I always wonder how close sci-fi and spy films are to portraying how real screens will look in the future, especially when set in the near future.
I like these Vox videos
So, that’s been Todd, all along! Gosh!!
I always think about this! cool video
Very insightful! I've ALWAYS WONDEReD ABOUT THIS
would love to see more stuff like this!
That "paste" that makes computers look new, is called RetroBrite if anyone was wondering.
Thanks for this - quality content!
THANK YOU FOR THIS!
I love this! How neat! They're the real MVPs
Thanks!
@@ImagesOnScreen thank you!
Very cool! Of course computers in movies are kind of absurd - they're a plot device meant to look good when seen from a camera and be more interesting than real computers. You get a button that's the size of a web banner that's labeled "DOWNLOAD DATA" just so the audience can follow what's going on. Like Pepper getting files off Tony's computer in Iron Man, or Mystique in full blue body paint awkwardly clicking around on a computer.
A small personal connection to this industry: I know a member of a company who boasted that a Star Wars graphic artist also did graphics for their website (the artist who did the computer console bits like Anakin's podracer, for example). I believe some of them are still there at the time of this writing: www.protectwise.com/ and you can see what a neat style they come up with. Their site has components that look like they came off of a movie because they kind of did.
On the *Patriots Day* trailer shown on TV (which I can't find on UA-cam) the head FBI Guy rotates a military style notebook (Panasonic Tuffbook?) and as it rotates the brilliant color image on the screen seems to have a 180 degree viewing angle without color degradation.
Vox 😍😍 keep up the good work
I knew I would hear this guys voice before I even clicked on the video
Incredibly awesome
0:44 the star trek plaque makes me automatically like him
That much work for such a short time, marvelous guys !! Really appreciate it.. !!
Geeks !! Any idea what the watched videos on UA-cam get the red bar at the bottom. some time complete and other time it is partially there?? why ??
***** Thanks buddy !
An odd effect that occurred in the 1960-70s happened because of the way TVs were scanned. When TVs were filmed for the news there would be light or dark bars slowly moving down the screen. After seeing this over and over in places like NASA mission control those bars came to mean "real". If a TV screen in a movie didn't have the bars much of the audience took it as a signal it was fake.
I'll wager that was due to slight discrepancies between the scanning rate of the screen and the scanning rate of the camera.
of course it was, RMoribayashi knows that, he's just wondering why the filmmakers don't include it in films. Unless it doesn't happen at slower shutter speeds / 24fps
But... If the bars are an artifact of video to film conversion, the only need to fake them is when a character is watching a video of a film of a monitor. Obviously the screens wouldn't flicker in the control room of Apollo 13, but showing people watching a film of it they would.
(Decades ago I superimposed CGI video static on film to imply it was degraded video.)
We have special video scan converters that sync monitors to the frame rate of the film or HD cameras. It is not used as much as when I first got into the business. But since Anchorman 2, and Steve Jobs were period pieces, we used quite a lot of them, along with special customized 24 frame video crystal sync cards. We used a tremendous amount of customized hardware to sync everything together.
wow gentleman you are leading the trend of UI designs
Would love to see an interview with the guy who does this for CSI: Miami
"There is a whole world tucked in the bottom right of a screen"
Me: looks at bottom right of screen
Bottom right of screen: subscribe
Me: this guy is smart but I've already subbed
I've been watching Pure Genius lately, wondering how they pulled off the Star Trek in modern day level tech, so this was particularly timely for me.
This seems like it takes a lot of time (and effort) to make it work! How do computer playback supervisors get it done for TV shows with all of the time constraints that come with airing a new episode every week?
very late nights :)
(Or the fact that they spend most of the year producing it, as the shows only air over a series of weeks, never spending more than half of the year airing, meaning they have half a year, plus the number of episodes behind the one their editing in weeks spare)
or by hiring enough freelancers to help out ;)
We often have very short turn around times, especially for TV shows. I typically focus on features as there is usually a bit more time for design, but not always. We have to build things quicker and quicker these days. But we have better tools than we used to.
That's only if you are doing it in post. Not for onset playback which we mostly do.
"Well I love this rug and I love this...-"
STOP! JUST STOP!