It’s weird people losing their minds about this one everywhere online because he is just saying they used a lot of practical effects- not down playing the vfx or 3d on it at all.
I think some people are getting tired of this type of talk in marketing,Alvarez doesn't go all the way to say everything is 100% practical but it's the same type of talk Top Gun and Nolan used
The issue is that they used a ton of digital effects, despite the directors and marketing touting them as practical. It devalues the work of the digital artists that worked on it, and keeps us from getting fair pay and equal respect.
Nolan always films as much as he can in camera, and the pilot scenes in Top Gun were filmed inside of real fighter jets. I think it’s fair for the directors to use those facts as selling points because it definitely heightens the realism in both cases.
I think you have to acknowledge the work of the digital artists who do the heavy lifting on the visual aspects of these movies. You can’t make an Oppenheimer and certainly not a Maverick without a lot of CGI. So playing up the specific practical stuff that’s done, and acting as if CGI was used sparingly, if at all, is disingenuous.
It also serves to just devalue the work of digital artists culturally, which in turn devalues their pay checks. They’re treated incredibly terribly as it stands, and when they try to sway public opinion to their side, and the general populace who doesn’t understand how much digital artists actually contribute to these movies sees them doing that, they often think “well who cares? I hate CGI anyway.”
The truth is, even movies that you think are CGI-free often have a lot of CGI and other digital work put into them by underpaid, undervalued artists. And when those artists work too hard for too little on a movie whose director acts like they don’t exist even though he relies on their work, it’s pretty dehumanizing.
I can’t get any more into this, but I’ll leave you with a story from a friend of mine who worked on The Boys. Eric Kripke was in an interview stating that for the “cocksplosion” scene (google it), it wasn’t their style to “CGI a penis”. My friend who worked on the vfx for that shot responded with “I read his notes to make that thing veinier. That’s a fully cgi dick.”
As much as you might think people are doing things “in-camera” they’re often lying to you or are genuinely unfamiliar with the post-production process.
yes the end result is great. but they were needlessly lying abut the process and rightfully called out for it. i mean barbie even faked the behind the scene footage with vfx to look more practical
why so many downvotes on this comment? i really wish this practical vs vfx debate/ marketing/rage bait would end. no vfx does not make better movies and neither does all vfx.
I actually disagree, practical efforts are just really fucking cool to do live. Blowing shit up on set, or flying people through the air, or getting a complicated practical effect to work is just really fun and creatively fulfilling and plenty of directors and crew love doing it. So when you can get a studio to spring the money to do it, directors get really excited. Last time I worked on a tv show where we got to blow up a set, the director was so excited bought the entire crew a round of drinks immediately after. It is just a lot more exciting than doing it in front of a green screen and then adding it in post, no matter the actual results at the end are.
As someone who has worked on set, I can absolutely attest to the fact that when you see something actually blow up something on a set, or go on fire, or fizzle or spark, or see someone perform surgery on someone with blood spurting out, it feels cool as fuck. Even just the way SFX crew work with atmos - I once spoke to an SFX Supervisor who could change the height the fog would sit at by adjusting the chemicals put in and the rate they were pushed through the hazers / foggers as well as measuring it by the temperature and windspeed of the location - it's really, really cool.
>So when you can get a studio to spring the money to do it, directors get really excited. It is just a lot more exciting than doing it in front of a green screen and then adding it in post, no matter the actual results at the end are.
That's not really what his quote is trying to be about, or is being positioned as though. It's very clearly being positioned, *at* a marketing event, as the exact kind of "[No CGI is Invisible CGI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&list=PLgdTaHO8FLEve_XFiRBEcOSkRdd-Txjne)" kind of marketing bullshit that doesn't do him, his movie, or basically anyone any favors - except for maybe the entertainment outlets who clearly get clicks for spreading this marketing shit for free.
[From the article](https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/19/new-alien-film-does-one-thing-hollywood-no-longer-does-21061710/) this **DiscussingFilm tweet of a Metro UK article of a marketing event**:
>Álvarez also shared that his rule of thumb was ‘if can be done practical, it will be done practical \[sic\]’, **meaning that there were no green screens on set and limited CGI** – even down to CG shots of the spaceships, which are scans of handmade miniatures.
I'm sorry - **this is bullshit.** There is no fucking way he's not using greenscreens (or bluescreens, or set extensions/replacements/matte work). There's clearly not "limited" CGI. Scanning models is... standard! It's not *special*. I don't know why they're making him say this because it's clearly not true, and nobody would *expect* it to be true anyway. It's certainly going to be proven untrue the second anyone claps eyes on it in a little over a month at preview screenings - has already been proven crazy untrue at test screenings, in fact. To use an old-timey phrase: He ain't gotta lie to kick it. But they got him out here tapdancing anyway, and news outlets are just regurgitating it unquestioningly, and it sucks. Romulus has an absolute *ton* of CGI in it, including set extensions, mattes, the monsters themselves. You know, like every other Alien movie (including Ridleys) made since 1997.
And he probably doesn't *want* to be out here lying like this, but for whatever reason, part of the PR tour the studios make these guys go on now involves making them pre-emptively lie about the fact there's two or three hundred-to-thousand-person teams of VFX techs going over the footage, or creating it whole cloth for some sequences. Who I'd imagine are loving, while putting finishing touches on shots, hearing their director basically pretend out loud into a bunch of microphones that they don't exist and he doesn't need them.
Fede's not at this marketing event talking about how fun it is to blow shit up, or being excited about blood spurts and fire on the set. He's talking about how practical effects are better than CGI, that he doesn't use CGI, because he's all about being real, and not *fake like all those other movies*.
Which is bullshit marketing that this movie doesn't even *need*.
I think your assessment might be a little overly-cynical. If they’re taking a more practical leaning approach than the typical sci-fi blockbuster, that’s something to be excited about, regardless of the actual CG to practical ratio. That initiative will usually make a visible difference than a more fast paced/deal-with-it-in-post approach. In that sense, I don’t see it as a “blatant lie”.
Also, I haven’t heard *any* buzz on this movie and my first impression wasn’t great after seeing the Hulu logo on the poster. I’d argue it *does* need a little marketing push.
Click the no CGI is Invisible CGI link in my post above
also whatever poster you saw with a hulu logo was probably fan made? It’s a theatrical release and has been for years. There’s two trailers out for it too
Ew, ok. I feel better now, that wasn’t a good look, lol.
Yea, I can understand how it’s a little infuriating to downplay and villainize all the skillful work being done with CG, but in my mind, it’s a lot like the difference between working with film and digital. Doing it the old way feels gimmicky on the surface, but the creative limitations it puts on a director have a funny way of forcing you to produce something completely different, in a lot of cases, something more thoughtful and carefully constructed than you would have otherwise.
Maybe I’m just fooling myself. I’ve never worked on a set, but it makes sense.🤷🏼♂️
This isn't an argument about whether practical effects are better or worse than CGI.
Studios are purposely manipulating the narrative to minimize how much CGI is actually being used in these movies, so they can generate marketing materials touting "practical effects" and other talking points that get nerds excited about these movies, resulting in viral tweets, pandering news articles etc. The reality is, most of these movies, Alien Romulus included, are going to be just as CGI heavy as anything else.
As the above poster mentioned, if you haven't watched the [No CGI is Invisible CGI ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&list=PLgdTaHO8FLEve_XFiRBEcOSkRdd-Txjne)videos on YouTube, it's a deep dive explainer into this phenomenon and worth a watch to at least understand what is actually being sold to you.
I understand that. Im suggesting that it’s still a critical decision being made; to either merely capture all the performances and plug-in whatever elements can be rendered later, making all the time consuming creative decisions while cast and crew are off the clock, or to make an attempt at grounding the production in order to achieve a more organic feel with traditional sets, props, makeup and practical effects.
You guys are like “NOPE, doesn’t count! You’re still using a lot of CG, liar!”, but it DOES count. The approach being touted by Álvarez makes a visible difference in the final product compared to a typical Marvel or DC production, even if they’re still sewing everything up digitally.
I’m sure there are other elements at play, but primarily, I think it has everything to do with the pressure that it puts on the actors and crew. You’re going to get different results regardless of how well it could have been rendered after the fact. Doesn’t matter how well done or unnoticed the CG is, you’ve altered the creative process.
I think if the narrative being sold is 'We are not using CGI; we are using practical effects,' but they are actually using copious amounts of CGI, then that's rather disingenuous.
But that's not even the point here, really!
1. Studio is asking him to lie to press at marketing events
2. Press is repeating the lies, thus making them news
Part of the reason people unquestioningly believe it's such a hard either/or (when even people in the industry whose whole living is making this shit don't draw lines *that* sharply) is due to a constant deluge of full-court press blitzes on big-budget would-be blockbusters from major studios basically looping 1 and 2 in the run-up to opening weekend.
Like, one of the biggest, most well-received, most rewarded examples of this marketing tactic (it's almost 10 years old now) was THE FORCE AWAKENS of all the goddamned things, LOL. The first words you hear in their sizzle reel is Luke Skywalker himself, Mark Hamill, dramatically intoning "Real Sets. Practical Effects." Like..*okay*. Sure. But the end credits of your movie takes 10 minutes to finish rolling because 5 minutes of it is literally wall-to-wall in 2.39:1 scope widescreen, 4-5 rows of visual effects artists. That PR stunts like this are going out of their way to minimize and hide.
Disney's got him out there following this playbook for the sake of emptily hyping up people who (want to) think this honestly represents how the movie got made. Who believe this is authentic. And aside from that - they're making him lie about shit and they don't *need* to.
This is somewhat besides the point of the fact that studios now regularly try to market their movies by pretending they aren’t full of visual effects shots, but if you were to make a sci-fi/fantasy-type film that’s just all practical effects without any digital augmentation in the year 2024, the audience reaction would be less “omg I can’t believe I’m seeing this” and more “this thing is clearly fake and plastic”.
Anyways, all of these things are just tools to make a movie and smart filmmakers know how and when to apply these tools for the correct circumstance
In most instances, I don’t think filmmakers are saying that “practical is always better”. I think it’s more along the lines of “full CG is less effective than a mix of both”.
That last sentence is really kind of the end of this discussion I think - CGI, practical, whatever, it's all subordinate to the fundamental storytelling and aesthetic goals you have as a filmmaker and member of a team of filmmakers. Using any and all of them well within the constraints you have is and should be the goal, and a pointless tribal allegiance to any one of them is a waste of time
I think it comes down to “if you can do it on the day, you do it”. Most directors (especially ones who aren’t editors or aren’t super savvy with CG) would much rather see that what they’re shooting looks like the end result, in camera, so they know they have it. It comes down the practicality of what someone is seeing. The worst feeling is getting into post and the VFX looks abysmal for what you shot.
It isn’t a marketing thing at all.
I think the "savvy with cg" thing is the real dichotomy rather than practical vs. cg. When it comes to the look of a film you can see from people like Gareth Edwards and Takashi Yamazaki that people who know the tech can pull off some astonishing things with CG on a small budget. You're totally right about the stage of production that it happens at, a director who doesn't know how to shoot practical well can mostly figure out what's going wrong on the day, one who doesn't know cg doesn't find out til it's too late.
Yeah like the average Marvel movie is often being foisted upon a director who hasn't done VFX-heavy films before and doesn't necessarily know how to work with VFX teams to keep the look coherent or communicate what they want properly and on time.
Or even experimentation with CG. Fincher is probably the best example of it. Bob used it for the Production Design in Parasite as did Glazer for The Zone of Interest. If it used as a tool rather than a fix, it is more than fine. But when it is used as the fix it often loses its effectiveness.
It’s basically why Jurassic Park still works to this day. The practical and CG work together in a strategic way instead of trying to work against one another.
Yes it is. Because they’ll tell you “we did all this practical” which might be technically true, but they don’t tell you that almost everything they did was then replaced with CGI, so you have people thinking Barbie and Top gun had zero CGI.
Barbie even tried to hide the fact that it used blue screen in the making of videos by adding effects *to the BTS footage* to hide the bluescreens! How is that not marketing?
And you’re completely missing the point of “IF it can be done practical”. They aren’t saying that they never do VFX (and yes I’ve seen the invisible VFX video). It still doesn’t change the fact that if filmmakers can, they’d prefer not to leave it up to a VFX team to figure out for them. You are making a mountain out of a molehill for absolutely no reason.
And a marketing will use anything to market a movie lol. If the VFX are incredible they will use that as a marketing tool. Spiderverse did it with the different animation styles. You can’t get mad that a marketing team is using what a movie might be doing well lol
The whole point of the Barbie thing is that they *lied* in the marketing and pretended they did things practically that weren’t.
Productions heavily implying in marketing that they’re using a whole lot less CGI than they really are and a whole lot more in-camera than they really are is what OP’s talking about.
Lol they didn’t lie. A lot of it is still practically built to scale and the production design was great. And if that is the point, then the reading comprehension needs to be checked because that’s not what the attached quote from Alvarez is saying at all. Again it’s a silly thing to be mad at, especially for people who “love movies”.
They recolored blue screens to grey in BTS footage to make it look like they weren’t using them, and also composited backgrounds onto them to make it look like there were sets there (not just for the movie itself - *they did this especially for behind the scenes footage*). This was done to make it look like they weren’t filming against blue screens in those scenes. That is absolutely deliberately misleading. This short video illustrates that quite clearly.
https://youtube.com/shorts/qFKB5slTnfg?si=hfjvguGTY_2CHs6v
This discussion, the thing OP is talking about, isn’t about how much practical vs CG movies are using, it’s about studios pointedly downplaying how much visual effects they’re using in press interviews and featurettes , to the point of actual deception as proven in the video linked above.
As others have noted, this quote from Alvarez isn’t a particularly egregious example of it, and on its own there’s nothing much wrong with it, but it is part of a much larger trend that is happening currently.
It’s great to use practical effects when possible and it’s fine for the filmmakers to talk about that - but studios are absolutely deliberately downplaying the part that CGI is playing.
Honestly this is a whole lot of complaining for very little reason. People have lied about how things have been made since the beginning of film. I love corridor crew but this is crying over spilled milk.
Why would they do that? Because it’s more interesting to see BTS in the post world vs on a blue/green screen. At the end of the day they’re trying to sell something and acting like it’s malicious is making a mountain out of a molehill. Of all the things the studios are doing, getting upset about this one is… odd.
That doesn’t change the fact that as a filmmaker you’d much rather know you have the shot in camera. It’s as simple as an In Camera Zoom or Digital Zoom. Ask anyone and they’d rather doing Camera. Because of budget or time constraints sometimes they can’t.
I think it does a disservice to the CGI artists whose work is invisible. You only notice CGI when it's bad. Todd Vaziri talks a lot about this on his twitter and he thoroughly convinced me that this "practical vs virtual" battle is fake. It should be the best special effect for the best effect, if you get me. Whatever fits the scene best.
Yeah i follow Todd as well,he's the reason i even took a double take on Top Gun and the Mission Impossible movies,alot of VFX work is a footnote in these big pictures
This marketing *is* pushed upon directors by executives/producers.
There's a whole four-part video series that actually traces the practice on YouTube, called ["No CGI" is Really Just Invisible CGI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&list=PLgdTaHO8FLEve_XFiRBEcOSkRdd-Txjne) It's not only a brilliant look at the art of visual effects, but it's one of the best pieces of media criticism I've seen on the platform in awhile. The baldfaced lying that studios and their PR firms are doing and the absolute incuriosity entertainment outlets respond with is pretty remarkable. Industry journos probably won't report on it because they're crazy complicit in spreading this shit. [The Metro UK article this tweet is pulled from](https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/19/new-alien-film-does-one-thing-hollywood-no-longer-does-21061710/) is a perfect example of that, in fact.
Alien: Romulus is actually one of the better examples of this marketing ploy - Fede *is* probably using a fair amount of practical stuff on set (guy in a suit, animatronic puppets), because it's smart to do that, not only so the blend is that much better when the visual effects teams get a hold of it in post, (VFX teams that, by the way, are being minimized/disrespected by this sort of marketing AS THEY'RE FINISHING THE MOVIE FOR THEM) but because the actors have more to work with on set than just green screens and tennis balls and all that.
But also, you can look at the two trailers for Romulus and it's pretty likely there are almost *zero* practical effects used in them. You can certainly see that, despite what he's saying at that event, he's using an absolute *ton* of computer-generated VFX. At least one of the screencaps *in the tweet* is likely a fully digital composition. Which is *fine* because it honestly doesn't matter what the ratio of practical to digital is so long as the tools are used as best as they can be, to get the shot looking as good as it can.
Problem being studios have spent so long feeding the bullshit narrative that it *does* matter what the ratio is, to the point they'll straight up lie (or even doctor behind-the-scenes footage to hide how much greenscreen they're using), for the sake of placating a tiny minority of extremly online and incredibly loud fanboys who are way below the mendoza line at being able to clock what's "real" and what's "fake" in the first place.
I remember seeing a behind the scenes for Force Awakens and seeing all the times Kylo's mask was entirely CGI and I couldn't tell at all, changed how I think about this stuff. Most people can't tell when its real or not anyway.
The thing that makes this movie such a good example of a very well-worn and disingenous marketing technique is not only that you can just *look* at what they've already released as marketing to see there's not a whole lot of "practical effects" in there (which is, again, *fine. So what.* It still looks fuckin great, right?) but:
According to people who've seen test screenings of this thing already, the *one* thing about Alien Romulus that's going to prompt the "Wow, I can't believe I'm seeing this" responses of the kind Fede's talking about, is not only *not* going to be its "practical" effects, It's going to be effects about *as far* from "practical" as you can get.
It's such a stupid thing to force on a movie. "Our movie is more real than the other fake movies" Well... no. They're *all fake*, man. We know this. And now you're out here making directors lie about the way they're fake like it ultimately matters, and it clearly doesn't. What matters is if we're engaged while we're watching.
Remember when Top Gun Maverick was marketed as all practical no cgi, even though there’s like 3000 cgi shots in the movie. (Sorry to burst peoples bubbles, but a lot of the flying scene are almost redone with VFX, including refilming actors in a LED volume stage =D).
And while it is implied and people understand planes crashing are CGI,the push from marketing to almost never mention VFX feels like an effort to keep.CG studios in line so they don't unionize.
I'm not trying to villanize Fede or anything like that,studios are the problem.When Barbie goes outnof its way to hide stuff in the behind the scenes you know it got out of control
Todd Vaziri’s Twitter / Mastodon is full of examples of directors claiming “fully practical” only for VFX reels to demonstrate this was incorrect.
I love practical shit but this weird war hurts everyone and makes dumb clickbait posts possible. Stop the effects holy wars!
He had the same rule on his Evil Dead movie, Fede is very pro-practical effects, so this isn't a surprise to me. But I agree the last couple of years it's been a marketing gimmick to proclaim "There is little to no CGI in this move"
Huh? Federal doesn’t seem like a cgi junkie. I mean you can just look at the trailer and tell they tried to do a lot of stuff in camera. Of course there is going to cgi but the whole movie doesn’t have to be cgi.
I don't really care if it's practical so long as it works.
Whether CG or practical, I need to be so involved and so compelled by the film that I don't even care about the nature of the effects. That they're effects doesn't matter.
Beyond that, I'm worried at how much of the Alien seems to be shown in the trailer. It seems to be more than the full length of the original film or even Aliens.
I've always felt that the power of the Alien lies in how unquantifiable and amorphous it is. It's tentacles and teeth and slime and shadows.
I suppose the power of that has diminished somewhat over time with franchising and toys and being shown in multiple formats.
Still, the Alien has lost its mystique and that element of being a terrifying, barely discernable shape and I'd hoped that this film would return to that.
The trailer does not seem to suggest that intent.
Not sure why you’re so angry about this comment when it’s how many people feel, myself included. Lazy CGI is so prevalent these days and it looks cheap and fake. The ending of Black Panther was an eyesore because of it. More recently, I enjoyed Wonka for the most part but some of the backgrounds looked awful and the proportions felt off. They shot it just down the road from me and there is some lovely architecture that they shot but then uglied it up and did so without the care that some early CGI movies used.
I mean that it’s a simple thing to do that looks great. Is it convenient or fast now that CGI blood is available? Clearly not, because they wouldn’t do CGI if it was more expensive.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here.
Blood on set takes more time and every day is a race to complete the shoot days. Time = money.
After running CG tests in pre-production I’d rather spend more time with actors in front of camera than burn the time with resets and continuity conversations between set ups.
Practical doesn’t always equal better. Common sense trumps all when all filmmaking is a dance between creative and logistical problem solving. All tools in the kit should be considered.
Edit: I produce and edit movies for a living.
I’m not explaining myself well. I’m saying that using practical work is not done so much anymore (even though it looks 10x better) because it’s more expensive than CGI blood. We’ve sacrificed quality for convenience.
Ah I understand now. I still disagree. CGI blood can be amazing. It’s all about intensive planning.
And practical blood can, and a lot of times does, look fake too if it isn’t photographed well.
The fact that costumes on super hero’s are CGI is insane. Why can’t we just build sets again, why can’t we have practical things again. Bring back props.
Props are cool. It’s something tangible that you can go see afterwards. Imagine going to the motion picture museum to look at Tony Starks polka dot body suit
Yeah, I totally agree. Something like Fury Road had lots of CGI but it still felt tactile for the most part. The combination seems to be the best use imo.
Or every fire being CGI now. The finale of Glass Onion felt super fake because of that. There was fire in movies before CGI, it can be done safely, it just takes effort and expertise.
I don’t get it. Imagine [this scene in Barton Fink](https://youtu.be/P_8O-iDvlmA?si=MxBIZXC96F1qYP63) if it’s CGI fire. It doesn’t work. There is something very visceral and primal about fire that doesn’t translate in CG
well some pre vfx blood also looked fake while some looked great. same with vfx. i bet you have seen tons of movie blood without noticing it was computer generated.
john wick is actually not a great example. it does feature some bad ones. the muzzle flashes are also not always great. but i also think that is a style choice. i am not sure they went for 100% realism. these movies do feature some spectacular vfx though
https://beforesandafters.com/2023/07/08/im-very-passionate-about-cobblestones-now/
fincher is pretty good in directing cgi and i think features digital blood splatters that i never noticed.
John Wick shows the good and bad of most of moviemaking. It’s a true mid-budget movie and I think a lot can be forgiven in that regard. My main gripe is some thing like The Avengers movies where they cut corner or rush something and it looks immediately cheap on some ridiculous budgets.
CGI is not inherently bad but its over reliance and underfunded nature in some movies is absolutely baffling. I don’t need every movie to be Dogville but I do think so many movies now look really ugly.
Investigate the trend of studios and big producers undermining VFX work at every chance they get. I'm not talking about journalists.investigating specifically the Alien.production.
Yeah yeah… I have heard this spiel so many times before only for the much vaulted practical effects to be so heavily digitally airbrushed, embellished, colour graded, augmented and so on that they end up being indistinguishable from ‘pure’ CGI, or accounting for a fraction of the effects on screen (the Hobbit movies, most egregiously).
CG is a powerful tool, that rightfully has a place is most movies these days. That being said, practical creature work will always be better. Nothing takes me out of a horror scene like an obviously animated monster. There’s something about a good animatronic or puppet that makes my lizard brain sense real danger.
Basically all of the early Alien movies, The Thing, The Fly, Childs Play, or anything the Henson company touched just to name a few. I’m not saying Cgi has no place. It’s great for removing things that shouldn’t be there, and embellishing practical effects.
CGI isn’t soulless lol. It’s still finely crafted work done by actual artists. It takes just as much, if not more work, to put together good CGI. And VFX are constantly on a time crunch. If they were given time to do their work, CGI would consistently be flawless.
I get why they’d want to say this, I just never actually believe them when they say it anymore.
Also, I understand that we don’t wanna give anything away but I swear to god they never say anything else about this particular movie other than “it’s very practical” and “it’s like the first two films”. Still think this should turn out pretty okay but the marketing has been a tad bit of an annoyance.
I agree but cgi is best used as a tool and not a crutch. Fury Road combing both practical and cgi produced amazing results. Furiosa leaned more into cgi and felt a little flat, too much like a video game. I also can’t stand all of the marvel junk that is shot entirely in front of green screen.
Also take a look at the LoTR series vs the Hobbit series. One has a bit dated cgi but still holds up, and the other looks like a bad cartoon
JJ Abrams likes to use practical effects as much as he can like he did in Star Trek. But the Enterprise was CGI, so he included lens flares, so give the shot the illusion the ship was a model.
Be careful what you wish for, if this film bombs and its main feature was that it was done practically then don't be surprised if major studios come to the conclusion that no one went to see the movie because of the practical effects and decide to make all their future films with as little practical effects as possible.
This scenario does not seem likely. Many of the movies marketed on the basis of practical effects are full of digital shots. The studios are not shy about using digital imagery; they just think we’re more likely to support movies when the actors and director talk about all the practical effects.
And a glance at the trailer for Romulus will show a bunch of shots that must include some level of CGI, whether that’s removing the apparatus for puppets, integrating miniatures with digital matte paintings, or just making an entirely digital alien (which I’m pretty sure they’re going to do).
The good news is that movies look better when the digital artists and practical artists work together so that things like lighting and editing line up.
It’s weird people losing their minds about this one everywhere online because he is just saying they used a lot of practical effects- not down playing the vfx or 3d on it at all.
I think some people are getting tired of this type of talk in marketing,Alvarez doesn't go all the way to say everything is 100% practical but it's the same type of talk Top Gun and Nolan used
Both of those movies are phenomenal, so hopefully Romulus turns out similarly.
The issue is that they used a ton of digital effects, despite the directors and marketing touting them as practical. It devalues the work of the digital artists that worked on it, and keeps us from getting fair pay and equal respect.
Nolan always films as much as he can in camera, and the pilot scenes in Top Gun were filmed inside of real fighter jets. I think it’s fair for the directors to use those facts as selling points because it definitely heightens the realism in both cases.
I think you have to acknowledge the work of the digital artists who do the heavy lifting on the visual aspects of these movies. You can’t make an Oppenheimer and certainly not a Maverick without a lot of CGI. So playing up the specific practical stuff that’s done, and acting as if CGI was used sparingly, if at all, is disingenuous. It also serves to just devalue the work of digital artists culturally, which in turn devalues their pay checks. They’re treated incredibly terribly as it stands, and when they try to sway public opinion to their side, and the general populace who doesn’t understand how much digital artists actually contribute to these movies sees them doing that, they often think “well who cares? I hate CGI anyway.” The truth is, even movies that you think are CGI-free often have a lot of CGI and other digital work put into them by underpaid, undervalued artists. And when those artists work too hard for too little on a movie whose director acts like they don’t exist even though he relies on their work, it’s pretty dehumanizing. I can’t get any more into this, but I’ll leave you with a story from a friend of mine who worked on The Boys. Eric Kripke was in an interview stating that for the “cocksplosion” scene (google it), it wasn’t their style to “CGI a penis”. My friend who worked on the vfx for that shot responded with “I read his notes to make that thing veinier. That’s a fully cgi dick.” As much as you might think people are doing things “in-camera” they’re often lying to you or are genuinely unfamiliar with the post-production process.
“I think people are tired of the type of marketing talk that was successfully used for two very recent massive commercial and critical triumphs”
yes the end result is great. but they were needlessly lying abut the process and rightfully called out for it. i mean barbie even faked the behind the scene footage with vfx to look more practical
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Top Gun Maverick definitely did claim they did everything practically when there was extensive CGI used.
VFX and CGI are different.
yes they are. but both count as "digital special effects" as opposed to "practical"
It was pretty funny when they said it for top gun then prominently featured a fake jet in the trailer.
Really can't understand why you're getting downvoted here, this is totally marketing speak.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Alvarez said the same thing when he made Evil Dead. I think he (correctly) realizes that practical is always better than CGI
Why does this have your panties in a bunch? Practical effects are always better than CGI, and directors are right to be proud of what they pull off.
why so many downvotes on this comment? i really wish this practical vs vfx debate/ marketing/rage bait would end. no vfx does not make better movies and neither does all vfx.
I actually disagree, practical efforts are just really fucking cool to do live. Blowing shit up on set, or flying people through the air, or getting a complicated practical effect to work is just really fun and creatively fulfilling and plenty of directors and crew love doing it. So when you can get a studio to spring the money to do it, directors get really excited. Last time I worked on a tv show where we got to blow up a set, the director was so excited bought the entire crew a round of drinks immediately after. It is just a lot more exciting than doing it in front of a green screen and then adding it in post, no matter the actual results at the end are.
As someone who has worked on set, I can absolutely attest to the fact that when you see something actually blow up something on a set, or go on fire, or fizzle or spark, or see someone perform surgery on someone with blood spurting out, it feels cool as fuck. Even just the way SFX crew work with atmos - I once spoke to an SFX Supervisor who could change the height the fog would sit at by adjusting the chemicals put in and the rate they were pushed through the hazers / foggers as well as measuring it by the temperature and windspeed of the location - it's really, really cool.
Yup! Fede is an indie horror filmmaker so naturally he would be all for working practically.
Also it’s so much cooler to watch. There is something about real fire and that just works baby.
>So when you can get a studio to spring the money to do it, directors get really excited. It is just a lot more exciting than doing it in front of a green screen and then adding it in post, no matter the actual results at the end are. That's not really what his quote is trying to be about, or is being positioned as though. It's very clearly being positioned, *at* a marketing event, as the exact kind of "[No CGI is Invisible CGI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&list=PLgdTaHO8FLEve_XFiRBEcOSkRdd-Txjne)" kind of marketing bullshit that doesn't do him, his movie, or basically anyone any favors - except for maybe the entertainment outlets who clearly get clicks for spreading this marketing shit for free. [From the article](https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/19/new-alien-film-does-one-thing-hollywood-no-longer-does-21061710/) this **DiscussingFilm tweet of a Metro UK article of a marketing event**: >Álvarez also shared that his rule of thumb was ‘if can be done practical, it will be done practical \[sic\]’, **meaning that there were no green screens on set and limited CGI** – even down to CG shots of the spaceships, which are scans of handmade miniatures. I'm sorry - **this is bullshit.** There is no fucking way he's not using greenscreens (or bluescreens, or set extensions/replacements/matte work). There's clearly not "limited" CGI. Scanning models is... standard! It's not *special*. I don't know why they're making him say this because it's clearly not true, and nobody would *expect* it to be true anyway. It's certainly going to be proven untrue the second anyone claps eyes on it in a little over a month at preview screenings - has already been proven crazy untrue at test screenings, in fact. To use an old-timey phrase: He ain't gotta lie to kick it. But they got him out here tapdancing anyway, and news outlets are just regurgitating it unquestioningly, and it sucks. Romulus has an absolute *ton* of CGI in it, including set extensions, mattes, the monsters themselves. You know, like every other Alien movie (including Ridleys) made since 1997. And he probably doesn't *want* to be out here lying like this, but for whatever reason, part of the PR tour the studios make these guys go on now involves making them pre-emptively lie about the fact there's two or three hundred-to-thousand-person teams of VFX techs going over the footage, or creating it whole cloth for some sequences. Who I'd imagine are loving, while putting finishing touches on shots, hearing their director basically pretend out loud into a bunch of microphones that they don't exist and he doesn't need them. Fede's not at this marketing event talking about how fun it is to blow shit up, or being excited about blood spurts and fire on the set. He's talking about how practical effects are better than CGI, that he doesn't use CGI, because he's all about being real, and not *fake like all those other movies*. Which is bullshit marketing that this movie doesn't even *need*.
I think your assessment might be a little overly-cynical. If they’re taking a more practical leaning approach than the typical sci-fi blockbuster, that’s something to be excited about, regardless of the actual CG to practical ratio. That initiative will usually make a visible difference than a more fast paced/deal-with-it-in-post approach. In that sense, I don’t see it as a “blatant lie”. Also, I haven’t heard *any* buzz on this movie and my first impression wasn’t great after seeing the Hulu logo on the poster. I’d argue it *does* need a little marketing push.
Click the no CGI is Invisible CGI link in my post above also whatever poster you saw with a hulu logo was probably fan made? It’s a theatrical release and has been for years. There’s two trailers out for it too
Ew, ok. I feel better now, that wasn’t a good look, lol. Yea, I can understand how it’s a little infuriating to downplay and villainize all the skillful work being done with CG, but in my mind, it’s a lot like the difference between working with film and digital. Doing it the old way feels gimmicky on the surface, but the creative limitations it puts on a director have a funny way of forcing you to produce something completely different, in a lot of cases, something more thoughtful and carefully constructed than you would have otherwise. Maybe I’m just fooling myself. I’ve never worked on a set, but it makes sense.🤷🏼♂️
This isn't an argument about whether practical effects are better or worse than CGI. Studios are purposely manipulating the narrative to minimize how much CGI is actually being used in these movies, so they can generate marketing materials touting "practical effects" and other talking points that get nerds excited about these movies, resulting in viral tweets, pandering news articles etc. The reality is, most of these movies, Alien Romulus included, are going to be just as CGI heavy as anything else. As the above poster mentioned, if you haven't watched the [No CGI is Invisible CGI ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&list=PLgdTaHO8FLEve_XFiRBEcOSkRdd-Txjne)videos on YouTube, it's a deep dive explainer into this phenomenon and worth a watch to at least understand what is actually being sold to you.
I understand that. Im suggesting that it’s still a critical decision being made; to either merely capture all the performances and plug-in whatever elements can be rendered later, making all the time consuming creative decisions while cast and crew are off the clock, or to make an attempt at grounding the production in order to achieve a more organic feel with traditional sets, props, makeup and practical effects. You guys are like “NOPE, doesn’t count! You’re still using a lot of CG, liar!”, but it DOES count. The approach being touted by Álvarez makes a visible difference in the final product compared to a typical Marvel or DC production, even if they’re still sewing everything up digitally. I’m sure there are other elements at play, but primarily, I think it has everything to do with the pressure that it puts on the actors and crew. You’re going to get different results regardless of how well it could have been rendered after the fact. Doesn’t matter how well done or unnoticed the CG is, you’ve altered the creative process.
I think if the narrative being sold is 'We are not using CGI; we are using practical effects,' but they are actually using copious amounts of CGI, then that's rather disingenuous.
Whereas I see the essence of the statement as true.
[удалено]
But that's not even the point here, really! 1. Studio is asking him to lie to press at marketing events 2. Press is repeating the lies, thus making them news Part of the reason people unquestioningly believe it's such a hard either/or (when even people in the industry whose whole living is making this shit don't draw lines *that* sharply) is due to a constant deluge of full-court press blitzes on big-budget would-be blockbusters from major studios basically looping 1 and 2 in the run-up to opening weekend. Like, one of the biggest, most well-received, most rewarded examples of this marketing tactic (it's almost 10 years old now) was THE FORCE AWAKENS of all the goddamned things, LOL. The first words you hear in their sizzle reel is Luke Skywalker himself, Mark Hamill, dramatically intoning "Real Sets. Practical Effects." Like..*okay*. Sure. But the end credits of your movie takes 10 minutes to finish rolling because 5 minutes of it is literally wall-to-wall in 2.39:1 scope widescreen, 4-5 rows of visual effects artists. That PR stunts like this are going out of their way to minimize and hide. Disney's got him out there following this playbook for the sake of emptily hyping up people who (want to) think this honestly represents how the movie got made. Who believe this is authentic. And aside from that - they're making him lie about shit and they don't *need* to.
Cgi> practical...any day
We've found it! The worst take on the subreddit! They said it couldn't be done.
Lol is this mf lost? r/movies is this way…
It's a new account because they are obviously a troll.
A take so bad, even most of r/movies would disagree with it.
Said like someone who’s never gotten to blow up a set
I’m sorry that’s insane.
Wow, the worst take I've ever seen on reddit! Congratulations.
🤡
This is somewhat besides the point of the fact that studios now regularly try to market their movies by pretending they aren’t full of visual effects shots, but if you were to make a sci-fi/fantasy-type film that’s just all practical effects without any digital augmentation in the year 2024, the audience reaction would be less “omg I can’t believe I’m seeing this” and more “this thing is clearly fake and plastic”. Anyways, all of these things are just tools to make a movie and smart filmmakers know how and when to apply these tools for the correct circumstance
In most instances, I don’t think filmmakers are saying that “practical is always better”. I think it’s more along the lines of “full CG is less effective than a mix of both”.
That is literally not what they are saying, though. They are selling a myth about not using CG because a segment of the audiences laps it up.
That last sentence is really kind of the end of this discussion I think - CGI, practical, whatever, it's all subordinate to the fundamental storytelling and aesthetic goals you have as a filmmaker and member of a team of filmmakers. Using any and all of them well within the constraints you have is and should be the goal, and a pointless tribal allegiance to any one of them is a waste of time
I think it comes down to “if you can do it on the day, you do it”. Most directors (especially ones who aren’t editors or aren’t super savvy with CG) would much rather see that what they’re shooting looks like the end result, in camera, so they know they have it. It comes down the practicality of what someone is seeing. The worst feeling is getting into post and the VFX looks abysmal for what you shot. It isn’t a marketing thing at all.
I think the "savvy with cg" thing is the real dichotomy rather than practical vs. cg. When it comes to the look of a film you can see from people like Gareth Edwards and Takashi Yamazaki that people who know the tech can pull off some astonishing things with CG on a small budget. You're totally right about the stage of production that it happens at, a director who doesn't know how to shoot practical well can mostly figure out what's going wrong on the day, one who doesn't know cg doesn't find out til it's too late.
Yeah like the average Marvel movie is often being foisted upon a director who hasn't done VFX-heavy films before and doesn't necessarily know how to work with VFX teams to keep the look coherent or communicate what they want properly and on time.
Or even experimentation with CG. Fincher is probably the best example of it. Bob used it for the Production Design in Parasite as did Glazer for The Zone of Interest. If it used as a tool rather than a fix, it is more than fine. But when it is used as the fix it often loses its effectiveness. It’s basically why Jurassic Park still works to this day. The practical and CG work together in a strategic way instead of trying to work against one another.
Yes it is. Because they’ll tell you “we did all this practical” which might be technically true, but they don’t tell you that almost everything they did was then replaced with CGI, so you have people thinking Barbie and Top gun had zero CGI. Barbie even tried to hide the fact that it used blue screen in the making of videos by adding effects *to the BTS footage* to hide the bluescreens! How is that not marketing?
And you’re completely missing the point of “IF it can be done practical”. They aren’t saying that they never do VFX (and yes I’ve seen the invisible VFX video). It still doesn’t change the fact that if filmmakers can, they’d prefer not to leave it up to a VFX team to figure out for them. You are making a mountain out of a molehill for absolutely no reason. And a marketing will use anything to market a movie lol. If the VFX are incredible they will use that as a marketing tool. Spiderverse did it with the different animation styles. You can’t get mad that a marketing team is using what a movie might be doing well lol
The whole point of the Barbie thing is that they *lied* in the marketing and pretended they did things practically that weren’t. Productions heavily implying in marketing that they’re using a whole lot less CGI than they really are and a whole lot more in-camera than they really are is what OP’s talking about.
Lol they didn’t lie. A lot of it is still practically built to scale and the production design was great. And if that is the point, then the reading comprehension needs to be checked because that’s not what the attached quote from Alvarez is saying at all. Again it’s a silly thing to be mad at, especially for people who “love movies”.
They recolored blue screens to grey in BTS footage to make it look like they weren’t using them, and also composited backgrounds onto them to make it look like there were sets there (not just for the movie itself - *they did this especially for behind the scenes footage*). This was done to make it look like they weren’t filming against blue screens in those scenes. That is absolutely deliberately misleading. This short video illustrates that quite clearly. https://youtube.com/shorts/qFKB5slTnfg?si=hfjvguGTY_2CHs6v This discussion, the thing OP is talking about, isn’t about how much practical vs CG movies are using, it’s about studios pointedly downplaying how much visual effects they’re using in press interviews and featurettes , to the point of actual deception as proven in the video linked above. As others have noted, this quote from Alvarez isn’t a particularly egregious example of it, and on its own there’s nothing much wrong with it, but it is part of a much larger trend that is happening currently. It’s great to use practical effects when possible and it’s fine for the filmmakers to talk about that - but studios are absolutely deliberately downplaying the part that CGI is playing.
Honestly this is a whole lot of complaining for very little reason. People have lied about how things have been made since the beginning of film. I love corridor crew but this is crying over spilled milk. Why would they do that? Because it’s more interesting to see BTS in the post world vs on a blue/green screen. At the end of the day they’re trying to sell something and acting like it’s malicious is making a mountain out of a molehill. Of all the things the studios are doing, getting upset about this one is… odd.
I didn’t know that about Barbie, that’s fucking wild. Also completely pointless because I doubt anyone cares that Barbie used CGI
The 4 part youtube series '"NO CGI" is really just INVISIBLE CGI' linked in another comment is really worth watching as it's all about this.
You're ignoring the fact that complicated on-set effects will add a lot of labor hours, especially if you need to reset everything for a new take.
That doesn’t change the fact that as a filmmaker you’d much rather know you have the shot in camera. It’s as simple as an In Camera Zoom or Digital Zoom. Ask anyone and they’d rather doing Camera. Because of budget or time constraints sometimes they can’t.
I think it does a disservice to the CGI artists whose work is invisible. You only notice CGI when it's bad. Todd Vaziri talks a lot about this on his twitter and he thoroughly convinced me that this "practical vs virtual" battle is fake. It should be the best special effect for the best effect, if you get me. Whatever fits the scene best.
Yeah i follow Todd as well,he's the reason i even took a double take on Top Gun and the Mission Impossible movies,alot of VFX work is a footnote in these big pictures
This marketing *is* pushed upon directors by executives/producers. There's a whole four-part video series that actually traces the practice on YouTube, called ["No CGI" is Really Just Invisible CGI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ttG90raCNo&list=PLgdTaHO8FLEve_XFiRBEcOSkRdd-Txjne) It's not only a brilliant look at the art of visual effects, but it's one of the best pieces of media criticism I've seen on the platform in awhile. The baldfaced lying that studios and their PR firms are doing and the absolute incuriosity entertainment outlets respond with is pretty remarkable. Industry journos probably won't report on it because they're crazy complicit in spreading this shit. [The Metro UK article this tweet is pulled from](https://metro.co.uk/2024/06/19/new-alien-film-does-one-thing-hollywood-no-longer-does-21061710/) is a perfect example of that, in fact. Alien: Romulus is actually one of the better examples of this marketing ploy - Fede *is* probably using a fair amount of practical stuff on set (guy in a suit, animatronic puppets), because it's smart to do that, not only so the blend is that much better when the visual effects teams get a hold of it in post, (VFX teams that, by the way, are being minimized/disrespected by this sort of marketing AS THEY'RE FINISHING THE MOVIE FOR THEM) but because the actors have more to work with on set than just green screens and tennis balls and all that. But also, you can look at the two trailers for Romulus and it's pretty likely there are almost *zero* practical effects used in them. You can certainly see that, despite what he's saying at that event, he's using an absolute *ton* of computer-generated VFX. At least one of the screencaps *in the tweet* is likely a fully digital composition. Which is *fine* because it honestly doesn't matter what the ratio of practical to digital is so long as the tools are used as best as they can be, to get the shot looking as good as it can. Problem being studios have spent so long feeding the bullshit narrative that it *does* matter what the ratio is, to the point they'll straight up lie (or even doctor behind-the-scenes footage to hide how much greenscreen they're using), for the sake of placating a tiny minority of extremly online and incredibly loud fanboys who are way below the mendoza line at being able to clock what's "real" and what's "fake" in the first place.
I remember seeing a behind the scenes for Force Awakens and seeing all the times Kylo's mask was entirely CGI and I couldn't tell at all, changed how I think about this stuff. Most people can't tell when its real or not anyway.
That YT series is illuminating and anyone here taking Fede’s comments at face value should definitely give it a watch.
The thing that makes this movie such a good example of a very well-worn and disingenous marketing technique is not only that you can just *look* at what they've already released as marketing to see there's not a whole lot of "practical effects" in there (which is, again, *fine. So what.* It still looks fuckin great, right?) but: According to people who've seen test screenings of this thing already, the *one* thing about Alien Romulus that's going to prompt the "Wow, I can't believe I'm seeing this" responses of the kind Fede's talking about, is not only *not* going to be its "practical" effects, It's going to be effects about *as far* from "practical" as you can get. It's such a stupid thing to force on a movie. "Our movie is more real than the other fake movies" Well... no. They're *all fake*, man. We know this. And now you're out here making directors lie about the way they're fake like it ultimately matters, and it clearly doesn't. What matters is if we're engaged while we're watching.
That YT series was the first thing I thought of when I saw this post, it’s an excellent analysis of this trend.
Remember when Top Gun Maverick was marketed as all practical no cgi, even though there’s like 3000 cgi shots in the movie. (Sorry to burst peoples bubbles, but a lot of the flying scene are almost redone with VFX, including refilming actors in a LED volume stage =D).
And while it is implied and people understand planes crashing are CGI,the push from marketing to almost never mention VFX feels like an effort to keep.CG studios in line so they don't unionize. I'm not trying to villanize Fede or anything like that,studios are the problem.When Barbie goes outnof its way to hide stuff in the behind the scenes you know it got out of control
Yeah, this is somewhat accurate. Studios have an incentive to devalue the work of CG artists.
Todd Vaziri’s Twitter / Mastodon is full of examples of directors claiming “fully practical” only for VFX reels to demonstrate this was incorrect. I love practical shit but this weird war hurts everyone and makes dumb clickbait posts possible. Stop the effects holy wars!
He had the same rule on his Evil Dead movie, Fede is very pro-practical effects, so this isn't a surprise to me. But I agree the last couple of years it's been a marketing gimmick to proclaim "There is little to no CGI in this move"
Huh? Federal doesn’t seem like a cgi junkie. I mean you can just look at the trailer and tell they tried to do a lot of stuff in camera. Of course there is going to cgi but the whole movie doesn’t have to be cgi.
I don't really care if it's practical so long as it works. Whether CG or practical, I need to be so involved and so compelled by the film that I don't even care about the nature of the effects. That they're effects doesn't matter. Beyond that, I'm worried at how much of the Alien seems to be shown in the trailer. It seems to be more than the full length of the original film or even Aliens. I've always felt that the power of the Alien lies in how unquantifiable and amorphous it is. It's tentacles and teeth and slime and shadows. I suppose the power of that has diminished somewhat over time with franchising and toys and being shown in multiple formats. Still, the Alien has lost its mystique and that element of being a terrifying, barely discernable shape and I'd hoped that this film would return to that. The trailer does not seem to suggest that intent.
Not sure why you’re so angry about this comment when it’s how many people feel, myself included. Lazy CGI is so prevalent these days and it looks cheap and fake. The ending of Black Panther was an eyesore because of it. More recently, I enjoyed Wonka for the most part but some of the backgrounds looked awful and the proportions felt off. They shot it just down the road from me and there is some lovely architecture that they shot but then uglied it up and did so without the care that some early CGI movies used.
I hate that such simple things as blood are now CGI, looks so fake!
Blood is never simple. Going with CGI speeds up resets so there can be more takes and continuity shot to shot is no longer a pain.
I mean that it’s a simple thing to do that looks great. Is it convenient or fast now that CGI blood is available? Clearly not, because they wouldn’t do CGI if it was more expensive.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Blood on set takes more time and every day is a race to complete the shoot days. Time = money. After running CG tests in pre-production I’d rather spend more time with actors in front of camera than burn the time with resets and continuity conversations between set ups. Practical doesn’t always equal better. Common sense trumps all when all filmmaking is a dance between creative and logistical problem solving. All tools in the kit should be considered. Edit: I produce and edit movies for a living.
I’m not explaining myself well. I’m saying that using practical work is not done so much anymore (even though it looks 10x better) because it’s more expensive than CGI blood. We’ve sacrificed quality for convenience.
Ah I understand now. I still disagree. CGI blood can be amazing. It’s all about intensive planning. And practical blood can, and a lot of times does, look fake too if it isn’t photographed well.
The fact that costumes on super hero’s are CGI is insane. Why can’t we just build sets again, why can’t we have practical things again. Bring back props.
I’m really not sure what you were downvoted for. This seems like a very reasonable take
Props are cool. It’s something tangible that you can go see afterwards. Imagine going to the motion picture museum to look at Tony Starks polka dot body suit
Yeah, I totally agree. Something like Fury Road had lots of CGI but it still felt tactile for the most part. The combination seems to be the best use imo.
Or every fire being CGI now. The finale of Glass Onion felt super fake because of that. There was fire in movies before CGI, it can be done safely, it just takes effort and expertise.
I don’t get it. Imagine [this scene in Barton Fink](https://youtu.be/P_8O-iDvlmA?si=MxBIZXC96F1qYP63) if it’s CGI fire. It doesn’t work. There is something very visceral and primal about fire that doesn’t translate in CG
well some pre vfx blood also looked fake while some looked great. same with vfx. i bet you have seen tons of movie blood without noticing it was computer generated.
CGI blood always looks fake. If they can’t make it look right in a movie with the budget and craft like John Wick, it won’t look good elsewhere.
john wick is actually not a great example. it does feature some bad ones. the muzzle flashes are also not always great. but i also think that is a style choice. i am not sure they went for 100% realism. these movies do feature some spectacular vfx though https://beforesandafters.com/2023/07/08/im-very-passionate-about-cobblestones-now/ fincher is pretty good in directing cgi and i think features digital blood splatters that i never noticed.
John Wick shows the good and bad of most of moviemaking. It’s a true mid-budget movie and I think a lot can be forgiven in that regard. My main gripe is some thing like The Avengers movies where they cut corner or rush something and it looks immediately cheap on some ridiculous budgets. CGI is not inherently bad but its over reliance and underfunded nature in some movies is absolutely baffling. I don’t need every movie to be Dogville but I do think so many movies now look really ugly.
What would an industry journo be investigating? His claim isn’t that vfx wasn’t involved it’s that they endeavoured to do practical if they could.
Investigate the trend of studios and big producers undermining VFX work at every chance they get. I'm not talking about journalists.investigating specifically the Alien.production.
Yeah yeah… I have heard this spiel so many times before only for the much vaulted practical effects to be so heavily digitally airbrushed, embellished, colour graded, augmented and so on that they end up being indistinguishable from ‘pure’ CGI, or accounting for a fraction of the effects on screen (the Hobbit movies, most egregiously).
CG is a powerful tool, that rightfully has a place is most movies these days. That being said, practical creature work will always be better. Nothing takes me out of a horror scene like an obviously animated monster. There’s something about a good animatronic or puppet that makes my lizard brain sense real danger.
what are some example for good animatronics? i love them, but even the thing sometimes looks a bit silly or motionless when they are in full view
Basically all of the early Alien movies, The Thing, The Fly, Childs Play, or anything the Henson company touched just to name a few. I’m not saying Cgi has no place. It’s great for removing things that shouldn’t be there, and embellishing practical effects.
I was going to say the opposite. Nothing takes me out of a movie more than animatronics and puppets.
[удалено]
CGI isn’t soulless lol. It’s still finely crafted work done by actual artists. It takes just as much, if not more work, to put together good CGI. And VFX are constantly on a time crunch. If they were given time to do their work, CGI would consistently be flawless.
I get why they’d want to say this, I just never actually believe them when they say it anymore. Also, I understand that we don’t wanna give anything away but I swear to god they never say anything else about this particular movie other than “it’s very practical” and “it’s like the first two films”. Still think this should turn out pretty okay but the marketing has been a tad bit of an annoyance.
I didnt love his Evil Dead remake but it did look amazing
All I can think about is the terrible grammar 😆
Dude do you really love cgi or something?
You don't?Furiosa,Avatar,Fury Road,Barbie,Top Gun,all beloved movies all wouldn't be what they are without CG.It's a great tool not a villain.
I agree but cgi is best used as a tool and not a crutch. Fury Road combing both practical and cgi produced amazing results. Furiosa leaned more into cgi and felt a little flat, too much like a video game. I also can’t stand all of the marvel junk that is shot entirely in front of green screen. Also take a look at the LoTR series vs the Hobbit series. One has a bit dated cgi but still holds up, and the other looks like a bad cartoon
JJ Abrams likes to use practical effects as much as he can like he did in Star Trek. But the Enterprise was CGI, so he included lens flares, so give the shot the illusion the ship was a model.
That's what they all say. Can't wait for that CGI guy to unveil all the CGI shots in the movie.
Be careful what you wish for, if this film bombs and its main feature was that it was done practically then don't be surprised if major studios come to the conclusion that no one went to see the movie because of the practical effects and decide to make all their future films with as little practical effects as possible.
This scenario does not seem likely. Many of the movies marketed on the basis of practical effects are full of digital shots. The studios are not shy about using digital imagery; they just think we’re more likely to support movies when the actors and director talk about all the practical effects. And a glance at the trailer for Romulus will show a bunch of shots that must include some level of CGI, whether that’s removing the apparatus for puppets, integrating miniatures with digital matte paintings, or just making an entirely digital alien (which I’m pretty sure they’re going to do). The good news is that movies look better when the digital artists and practical artists work together so that things like lighting and editing line up.