ILM Behind the Magic: The Visual Effects of Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker 

The amount of passion from the writers and directors is insignificant to that of the artists though. They are told what to do, the writers are “creative”. it’s an argument, for another time! Peace out!

It sure took a lot of passion to add cg dirt onto daisy ridleys face for no reason

Brandon Tidwell yeah story continuity isn’t a reason 🙄

pizza lol the dirt on her face ruins the continuity if you were to pay attention you’d have noticed. And continuity alone still isn’t a good reason to do it with cg, they could’ve done it cheaper quicker and made it look much better with just makeup.... when Rey is in the cockpit she has this cg dirt pasted all over her, but when she gets out, she’s perfectly clean. No dirt on her face in any of the shots following. So what? You could say she wiped it off before she got out of the x wing, but in that case why ad cg dirt at all if it’s not in the scene before or after. “Story continuity” is the shittiest reason you could’ve possibly come up with for them adding this. She is perfectly clean, costume and all throughout the entirety of the film, except for in these x-wing shots. She has these perfect white robes and every character has perfectly washed pressed ironed and folded clothes despite living in the jungle and constantly going to dirty planets throughout the course of the film. There’s none of that lived in look that the originals and 7 and 8 captured so perfectly. Everything is so perfect and pristine except for this one shot of Rey in the x-wing. And like I said it would’ve been done better, quicker, and cheaper with make up. So uh yeah.... continuity. Right 👍

Do you want a metal or something?

My thoughts exactly. They're awesome.

The bug anakin rode in the field?

@@Business_News ILM didn't decide to use old star destroyers, it was JJ

@@Business_News it wasn't ILM lmao, JJ decided what design of Star Destroyer to use, blame the filmmakers not studio

TheCloneX2 what bug?

They're certainly better than the visual effects featured in the prequels, if they ever decide to special editions of the prequels, I hope they update the visual effects

@@CodyJMinor0620 ROTS still has the best CGI effects. In the 90s nobody would've even though of trying to cgi in Carrie Fisher had she passed and blend it with her footage. That's a completely new trend, so pretty amazing.

@@MasonStrand It is, that why I like the visual effects in this new trilogy more than the ones in the prequel, it's harder to tell what's real and what's made on the computer

@@Darriusleonard Uh, just about everyone knows that Disney is an animation studio

Daniel McIntre The HUGE amount of a) really really hard work; b) great talent; c) artistic vision and d) creativity was used during filming of Original Trilogy (1977 - 1983). This shit even doesn't come close in every single level and dimension of filmmaking / vfx 👎

camila I miss Carrie fisher so much

You don’t know that, you tool

@@Kalle72 don't be an asshole

Dumbass

She looked dead expressionless every time they showed her

@@suckmymiddlefinger4350 yup it freaked me out

@@suckmymiddlefinger4350 looked like a puppet

@@larzguy3714 Yeah and not to mention that her voice sounded like low quality old recordings of her

The Cameron Sullivan Variety Channel well endgame was 3 hours long so but I agree it needed a bit more time for the cgi in the endfight but thanos that dude fing looks way to real

Old, GOOD (BETTER) Times ;D "water effects" from 1998 >>> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-VNtsVP42bOE.html "water effects", motion capture, motion tracking from 1997 > ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-scBY3cVyeyA.html And, more "fireworks" from 1996 ;D >>> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vjFG-4Ge668.html PS> I will not mention the more interesting plot and interesting, and suspenseful narrative of those productions.

@@Marecheck1978 you really dedicate your time to giving people scenes of movies you think have better cgi, look in a mirror my guy

@@Marecheck1978 chill

@@jdrummerdd That's painfull truth! Currently, everything is "artificial", boring, infantile, predictable. Trailers (sounds, editing) are similar. Industrial line. When I was at the premiere of the brilliant movie "The Truman Show", I didn't even suppose, that the intro may be prophetic after decades > ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WAJEyZ3Mg8s.html

what a tune, please?

The storytelling was actually pretty good, ( in my opinion )you just have to really understand the lore and everything else. Which I feel is a bit wrong, but it is what it is

Generally speaking story telling in movies just plain sucks. Because the people signing the checks have too much input. Let the artists tell the stories. You rich bastard just shut up and sign the check...

If a Star Wars movie has to be explained by lore, or books. It sucks, the movie must be easy to follow. This is the rule in the franchize.

@@ef-5tornado495 the more you understand Star Wars lore the stupider these Disney movies become

MPC, Weta Digital, DNEG, Digital Domain, Framestore, Rodeo and very many others are equally good. :)

@@bjo004 Of course they are. I respect people who have the time, money, and expertise to do this type of work.

@@BasicFilmmaker "Of course they are equally as good." 2 seconds before... "Nobody does it better than ILM." So which is it?

Bob Smith LOL! You’re one of those guys. Let me see...now I have to report to you that...NOT. Pick an answer that satisfies you. 😂😂😂

Actually I personally think that WETA is way better at realism.

IndependentVFX That’s a bingo

You're absolutely right. In my opinion makers of The Rogue One movie have put much more efforts to avoid a green screen.

Why are you highlighting aerial like that?

@@larniieplayz6285 because I wasnt sure if it falls under "space battle" or "aerial" depending on altitude above the planets surface. Pretty dorky of me... I know

@@skywalkies77 All I can hear in my mind is this when you say "That's a bingo". ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O5s3Oj2cPgc.html

Benny's here 😊

The last jedi is FAR from my favorite movie, but MAN is it gorgeous

That doesn't mean much

Yeah, they're absolutely gorgeous. Nobody can deny that. But then again so were the prequels and the original trilogy back in the day. And not only were they visual spectacles for their time, they also featured iconic unforgettable characters and masterful storytelling. Cheers.

I loved that movie so much, I saw it several times in the theater.

and over the top, really unbelievable if in the star wars universe far far away

Nah its just really, really stupid lol

@@joseph_kenyonyour stupid lol

ITs def. been nominated for best visual/special effects....

It won’t though because it’s a bunch pf techniques we’ve seen before

Fucking 1917 won it

@@crispyengineer7521 Good movie, 1917!

No significant progress has been made since Babylon V (a quarter of a century ago). In those days, CGI was impressive, now it is abused. Computers much faster than 25 years ago, and the effect is predictable. More and more "fireworks", but the narrative and story worse. Reproductive, boring and infantile ideas. Where are those times;) Example from "Babylon V". Effects rendered on Amiga computers and generated in Newtek "Lightwave" 3 >>> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mYq-XJ5XfkI.html

Exactly. That's what I love so much about these new movies. They take the best of both worlds and always choose to do effects practically whenever it's possible.

@@CaughtInTheLoop I'm just sad that after all the hype they didn't really use miniatures like in the prequels:S but oh well. CGI was really good in these movies.

I'm actually one of those people who really like the sequel trilogy, TFA was great, TLJ is the best Star Wars movie, TROS was bad but it was fun.

@@stefan6347 Awesome! Personally, the trilogy felt underwhelming. There were a lot of interesting ideas and concepts presented, but they were pretty much all poorly executed (IMO).

Very underrated comment I hope you get your dream job some day

👍👍👍

Rip

He might of made it his cockpit just got cut off.

66th likes

Dread StarZ Completely different not mk2

@Dread StarZ The mk2 B-wings cockpit seems to be much bigger

People who complained about details like that in a Space Wizard movie is just irritating.

Yeah its a lot... but the way they render it is using a render farm. Lots of CPUs with lots of cores... still takes a super long time... but not nearly as much.

@@WhiteWolf496 Ah render farm sped it up, ok.

Did you really think it took them 900+ years to render those ships? It's common sense

@@alfop6405 Obviously not, I thought it was a typo. Just wanted clarification is all.

@@brightgarinson3099 Perfectly reasonable question, kudos to whitewolf for answering in a non patronising way :)

Later in life? The movie came out less than 2 months ago.

@@henryambrose8607 That's his point lmao.

Their name is in the credits and in the film guild so no.

"I played a Jawa in Star Wars." "Cool."

I wish you'd all unionize so ya'll wouldn't be worked to the bone so hard. Actors have unions, production has unions, directors have unions...VFX REQUIRE unions. I don't like unions either, but I think given the nature of the work, they're required. Too much working to the point of lethal exhaustion going on.

@@MarkHoltze THIS!!

Exactly. No significant progress has been made since Babylon V (a quarter of a century ago). In those days, CGI was impressive, now it is abused. Computers much faster than 25 years ago, and the effect is predictable. More and more "fireworks", but the narrative and story worse. Reproductive, boring and infantile ideas. Where are those times;) Example from "Babylon V". Effects rendered on Amiga computers and generated in Newtek "Lightwave" 3 >>> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mYq-XJ5XfkI.html

Marecheck1978 seriously?

Harry Potter: am I joking to you

Too bad that people dont have brain that real life and movies are different

@Mighty Pain Gaming Channel avengers cgi sucks

Different tones bro As a person who enjoyed both movie visually I can At Least say the visuals are above average level

@@superkamiguru5354 It's some of the best CGI of all time but okay.

@@tylernorton8492 their old cg was better. Thanos was good but applying the cgi to the other characters were eh

I liked both of them but TROS had such an epilepsics nightmare in the final battle that my eyes hurt while watching it

Eh, AOTC exists in the uncanny valley, but yeah other than that the VFX are astonishing.

of course it's a 275 million movie.

ludo van goethem exactly

basically your comment is "mega corporation has money"

There’s a lot more going into visuals than just “lol they have money”

Paulo Henrique of course they have money but some studios would spend just as much and their effects would look terrible

the tight timelines, last minute changes, and unbearable hours are par for the course in industry, and this movie was exceptional on all 3. kudos to all the unheralded talent behind the magic

Just a shame it was wasted on trash like this.

I understand what you say but i'm not happy what they did with the Star Destroyers. They took the model from Rogue One made it bigger and put a gun under it. I would understand this if it was just a retrofitted ISD Class 1. But they call it the new Xyston-Class SD. That's just laziness. I do understand if they didn't have enough time so they reused models. But those ships are almost THE CENTER of the whole plot. So I find it idiotic why they did that.

It wasn't. ILM's CGI is just that refined. I thought it was interesting how they ended up creating yet another way of creating CGI water instead of using the same one they created for "Poseidon" and "Avatar." I think the reason that ILM's effects are so good is that they probably have a lot of people working for them that actually understand things like physics and science.

When I read this comment I thought you were suggesting they actually blew up a planet. XD

@@cubdukat I agree, they are the only ones to know how to make CGI smoke! I mean when you see the Kremlin explosion in Mission Impossible or smoke grenades in Amazing Spiderman, it's a joke.

@@Tuckerscreator oh I meant it was a physical miniature exploded old school with pyro, a cg texture map of planet matched to the big pizza pie chunks? Another thing I liked is the bridge blowing up shot, sparkler fountains. That's not particularly realistic, but cinema explosions are done with spark elements and fiery gasoline, not a flash and it's gone like TNT. Cinematic cool more important than straight real.

@@michaelcooney9368 the ensuing shot of general pryde being yeeted like a rag doll by the explosion is so satisfying

maybe they count just 1 processor .....it looks silly true

Glad I'm not the only one who just did the math....

Dylan Hoang every computer they use has multiple processors, and I’m sure they were using a fuckton of computers, so this is just the total amount of rendering hours across the board, although it was actually happening simultaneously.

@@justinbellman makes total sense, as an editor myself that should have clicked but the wording just threw me off haha

Dylan Hoang oh dude for sure, it’s worded in a dumb way just to seem more impressive lmao

Yeah, I loved how expressionless and dead Leia looked

Cameron Novotny what do you expect them to do with someone whos literally fucking dead

@@suckmymiddlefinger4350 fuck off.

VFX*

@@rogerhalt3991 Effects is correct too.

Roger Halt Visual Effects are also effects.

ILM is famous for visual effects, not grammar...

Why didn't they just film her with make up?

@@urshitheads Probably because the shot was meant to be earlier, before the final battle, and it was changed during the editing, meaning the battle damage should be added in post.

It just seems like it might have been simpler and cheaper to just call the actor back and reshoot.

Dan Waldman Not really. You’d have to pay the actor and crew, deal with scheduling, reconstruct the set, set up lighting - all for just one shot.

I did that too and RU-vid crashed once lol I love the music

Instead of spending money wisely on a couple bucks for makeup and an actual visor on the helmet, they rather spend thounsands of dollars on this....idiots.

@@DiamondDead The visors are often added or replaced in post these days, in order to avoid having to clean up and remove reflections of crew, rigging, lights, green spill, etc. It allows the filmmakers to add the correct reflections of the digital environment around Rey onto the visor. The addition of the dirt, blood, etc will be due to continuity requirements. The shot may well have been moved in post from a part the story where she had not yet picked up the injuries and grime. EDIT: in fact, there's a little note which appears over that exact shot in the breakdown video explaining why it was necessary.

@@DiamondDead it's likely that the digital dirt was added in due to rushed filming and/or rearrangement of scenes. It's a well known rumor that the production on TROS was a big mess.

@@DiamondDead Calling people idiots when you have no idea how the effects industry works. What an idiot!

@@tizerk It wasn't. Blood and dirt effects on the body are often done it post because it's _much_ cheaper. Not only do you get the full control, you also safe a lot of time with the make up department with dirt/blood not looking identical. Tracking a shot like that isn't the most complicated. Not a problem at all.

Custom ILM Music composed by John Williams himself. Took over 150,000 man hours from writing, to recording, to the final Skywalker Sound 5.1 Surround Sound THX Certified Mix. Costing upwards of $15,000,000 USD. John Williams said himself in an interview by Time that it was, "my best work" as he put it bluntly. Truly a masterpiece by a wonderful elite composer.

sathya skywalker ohh you silly billy

@@VincentG991 sooo probably not available on Spotify then? 😅

Shazam couldn't tell, but I'd say it's some Audiomachine or some similar music trailer.

@@KingRCT3 Terry Devine-King - Solar Orbiter

DeepSpace12 my god you are absolutely right. The fact that these magnificent ships were not even used is criminal. I’m a space ship, capital ship, space battle junky and it pisses me off to no end just how epic this battle could have really been.........if they used this damn impressive fleet.

The whole trilogy had not a single immersive battle. Poor ILM guys, i would instantly quit for this waste.

Missed opportunity to have an epic shot of all the ship’s engines at 2:59

And at 2:58 in the middle left you can see a Providence-class dreadnaught from the CIS

Polak1996 there is so many ships in this ONE SHOT and don’t know which ship your talking about

You're gonna have to be more specific, bud.

For over a thousand generations, the ILM processors were the guardians of visual effects.

"Before the dark times, before the Empire....."

Jedi lies.

Her younger self was portrayed by Billie Lourd, her daughter...

No, it's creepy. That's the kind of crap that Disney said wouldn't happen.

​@@SirBlackReeds - They said that rather than having a CGI-Leia performing in the film, they would instead use her archived performances which is exactly what they did. They only used CGI to give her new clothes and add her into the shot.

@@RedCaio So, basically, they used CGI to recreate every single aspect of every single frame that she is in, except for her face. Because that would be disrespectful to Carrie Fisher to digitally recreate her. We'll just digitally recreate her body, her environment, her hair, the lighting, and the context of all her lines. Peter Cushing can be a completely CGI character, though. Fuck him, I guess. Who cares about respecting his memory?

@@calebmurphy9406 Her body wasn't recreated, just the clothing - her hands in the shot and her movements are still her.

They're resistance fighters, they'll strap armor and guns on to anything that can handle it.

8.4 million hours is 959 years... Lol

@@studio25kc59 that's for one processer probably, they definitely had multiple server class CPUs working on these scenes.

​@@studio25kc59 A processor hour is how long it would take for one proscessor. ILM probably had a shit ton of proscessors

Deepfakes, digital actors, and de-aging isn't a Disney exclusive thing.

I think the biggest problem I had with Rogue One Leia was they kept it onscreen too long. The key to any good effect is not keeping it onscreen longer than you have to, and that one hung a little too long, especially when there was nothing else in the frame that could distract you from it. With TROS, the face replacement for both Luke and Leia worked a lot better; it seemed more like it was a natural part of the shot, plus there were other things in the shot that competed for your attention so that you didn't dwell on their faces.

Nerd!

@@calebmurphy9406 shut the fuck up

Who cares

Exactly. No significant progress has been made since Babylon V (a quarter of a century ago). In those days, CGI was impressive, now it is abused. Computers much faster than 25 years ago, and the effect is predictable. More and more "fireworks", but the narrative and story worse. Reproductive, boring and infantile ideas. Where are those times;) Example from "Babylon V". Effects rendered on Amiga computers and generated in Newtek "Lightwave" 3 >>> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mYq-XJ5XfkI.html

Fuck off

Gamer King Sure buddy! That won’t fix the film though.

You haven't seen him yet? There's leaked images and clips on RU-vid.

We didn't wanna see him in the film anyway

@@davidbrockmeier9538 Yup

Forced perspective is used since Metropolis (1927), and it looked already amazing^^

I agree, but it doesn't bother me here, as I had absolutely no idea it was cgi 😂 if it's that hard to notice then I'm fine with it

You didn't even notice it was Cgi till this video

@@danny2d473 Its not about noticing its about them becoming more and more lazy. Today we saw a cgi dirt and its ok. But later we will saw a whole movie with cgi. And trust me it will not do the same effect with real actors and real action. In the old days they were using it when it was almost impossible to do. But right now they cant even paint the dress and choose to do as special effect. Cgi is amazing when it used accurately.

@@sertan138 Cgi is not at all lazy. Its a lot of money and takes a lot of time to perfect.

@@danny2d473 Its their job. Its not a random dude tries to perfect it. Its like purchasing your efforts. It takes money but its lazy.