The Evolution of Indiana Jones's VFX 

Grab Atlas VPN for just $1.83/mo + 3 months extra before the SUMMER DEAL expires: get.atlasvpn.com/CGY 😍 I hope you guys enjoyed the video! - A Lot of people commented saying they didn't like the sources up on the screen - So I’ve moved them down the comments section. If you’re interested in learning more about Indiana Jones and it's making of, then feel free to check out those articles! - Anyway - please let me know what you guys think of this change? Does it help with the viewing experience? Also - What do you guys think about the look of the VFX in the new Indiana Jones film? - To me it looks like a lot of “volume” shots (which we’ve already discussed on this channel…) - And I think that's why the shots like the ones on the horse in the street look so jarring… But at the same time the de-aging of Harrison Ford looks insanely good… So what do you guys think? Will you be going to see it once it hits cinemas?

The biggest issue with Crystal Skull, I think, was how clean and overlit everything seemed. There was none of the grime and high contrast of the older films. Even the VFX-free scenes had a weird fake quality to them.

In my opinion, The Lord of the Rings is the perfect example of a movie which used both CGI and practical effects to astonishing effect. It was made in that perfect window of time where CGI had gotten good enough to do things that were previously impossible, but practical sets and costumes were still being made, and much of it was shot on location. As a result, the movies still look amazing today. The CGI has dated just a bit, but never distractingly so. Gollum still holds up amazingly well, which can not be said for other CGI characters at the time. The Middle-Earth in those movies looks real and lived-in, the Orcs look grimey and scary, and the miniature models of places like Helm's Deep, Rivendell and Minas Tirith look amazing and detailed. The Hobbit on the other hand, with a much bigger budget and much more extensive use of CGI, looks WAY worse in comparison despite being made more than 10 years later. Everything looks too clean and pristine, with none of the grimey realism from the original LOTR trilogy. Anyway, any chance of a LOTR video from you? 😁

Love that the nuke knocked out your audio for a few seconds at 17:48

If you haven't seen it I'd recommend watching the new 4K remaster of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, it vastly fixes a lot of the overlighting issues and the VFX looks a lot better because of it. Finally looks like the original trilogy now.

As someone who’s both an SFX and VFX guy I always said that they both sucked and both excel. A few years back I worked on an indie movie and there was a scene that a kid I we covered in leeches (lots of winks to horror films of days gone by). This was tagged as a CG shot. As a guy who does both SFX (electronic props and SFX make up) I was like: “this calls for practical for the wide and the mid shots” because having a kid come out of water and than tracking leeches on that glistened surface is a nightmare. You would need to paint tracker markers on the body. But then you’ll need to remove those. And there’s not a lot of surface to clone and hide the markets and it’s going to be a time consuming frustrating thing to do. And that’s with the object track matches. If it doesn’t we need to rig a complete digital human shape model, match that frame by frame and stick the CG leeches on that. Which has its own problems because this kids is muscular so you would need to match the muscles and it’s movements too. It’s a typical special effects makeup shot. We just make a 100 little leeches and stick them on the boy. Now the director has a background in SFX props and makeup but all from the early days. So he was like: “but rubber bands like will look fake as if something is stuck on. Foam latex and gelatine can’t handle water.” It’s ironic that the director is 15 years younger than me and literally stopped in 1995 with his fx knowledge. I reassured them that I can do it with what we call deadened OO silicone. And because Sunny (the talent) is so lean and ripped that rubber will flex with his muscles as comes out of the water together with the glisten it will look as though the independently move. The director and producer weren’t convinced. I told them I would make a set of 3 different leeched and cast 9 and send them across the pond with some waterproof medical adhesive. I spend 3.5 hours modeling and cast the leeches. The do a camera test and the were like… make us 80 more! This looks amazing! And it feels so real! And we will only do the extreme closeup of the moving leech in CG! And then the pull from the skin we also do practically because this stretches so nicely! And I said: “exactly my thoughts!” There’s one thing that old SFX artists know that VFX supervisors are often not as good at. And that’s thinking in different shots to tell the story. VFX supervisors often think in a completely single shot. Because that’s how the create everything in their 3D softwares too - and it seems to be the wish of modern directors too to shoot as much as possible in a single (yet dynamic) shot. And old practical FX guys think in shots to hide the weak spots I in illusions and the mechanical trickery that makes it work. Imagine my frustration that my first SFX job was creating special effects for a live TV show that had to fool people at home (that’s easy) and people right on top with their noses. Basically selling a lie that someone has extraordinary abilities just like Uri Geller (who was a judge and presenter). Man, we build things in 6 days time from scratch never done and seen before and we’ve test them at the day of going out live 😂That was the most stressful job I’ve ever had. And it was my first SFX job 😂

I like how you didn't just completely shit on CGI and proclaimed that "practical are better", but instead gave incite on practical effects having their own issues in terms of cost and realism as well. Both CGI and practical effects have their own positives and negatives, and I appreciate that you have a more down-to-earth perspective on them both instead of saying that the other is more superior than the other. Great video!

VFX artist since 2002 here. This video is fantastic. I'm showing my whole family. Thanks man.

I’ve noticed is that the overuse of particulate effects and lighting that’s been added after the fact is what kills the realism of most unconvincing vfx shots. Even the nuclear explosion shot you referenced had so much digital smoke and fake looking light bloom over everything that they took what was a very convincing effect and rendered it into being kind of a mess in my opinion. I’d actually have rather they left the plate 90% the practical destruction element and just punched it up just a little. What looks fake to my eye doesn’t necessarily bother other people though so who knows 🤷🏻‍♂️

The thing that a lot of people forget is, CGI and practical effects are simply tools, no different than a hammer and nails or a drill and screws. Yes, you CAN make a structure using exclusively one tool, but this is incredibly limiting and there's really no reason to. Not when you could instead take advantage of the unique attributes of each tool to make something that would be impossible to make if you used just one. Saying the structures of the past were "better" because of the tools they didn't have access to, is giving credit to the artisan's tools, instead of, y'know, the skill of the artisan. The reason why the structures of the past are beautiful is because the people who made them were the masters of their craft, not because they only used a specific kind of tool. One tool is not "better" than the other. While it's all well and good to admire the tangibility and craftsmanship of the practical effects in old movies, you only need to watch a few movies from the pre-CGI era with your rose-tinted glasses removed, to see that practical effects can look just as fake as CGI. In _Robocop,_ ED-209 moves in an INCREDIBLY jittery fashion and without any sense of the weight that a massive steel robot should have (iconic, since people always accuse CGI of looking weightless). In _Batman,_ it's obvious when they've swapped out the real Batmobile for a model in crash scenes, since it rolls and bounces like a toy car. In movies with puppet characters like _Gremlins_ and _Star Wars,_ they typically avoid showing the lower half of the puppet when its walking since this rarely ever looks good. As can be observed in the scenes in in _Gremlins_ where we can see full-body shots of Gizmo walking, and it looks like he's walking on ice. And yes, in _Indiana Jones,_ there's problems like being able to see where the matt painting starts and ends in the warehouse scene and the Nazi's glasses suddenly teleporting to his chest in the face-melting scene.

Great video and great channel, glad to hear that the nerdstalgic issue was resolved to a degree. I appreciate how you broke down the miniature use for the nuke explosion. I'll look forward to your take on Nolans practical effects for the atom bomb in Oppenheimer, I've read he's gone with miniatures and real explosion.

It's funny how people don't consider miniatures anymore when talking about visual effects Like with the Oppenheimer movie that's coming out, in interviews the director was saying that they were using practical effects for the explosions and people were losing their shits saying he was "nuking a real place" And it wasn't a joke or a meme either, people actually believed that Great video

Absolutely fantastic video. It's so refreshing to see some positivity towards CG these days when a very vocal group will denounce it at every corner even when it's done well. I also loved your explanation of melding multiple techniques to make more than the sum of their parts as that nuke explosion would have looked worse if only one technique was used. Great piece of insight! Also since you mentioned it, I'm glad I subbed to this channel and unsubbed from Nerdstalgic. Their content had been irritating me for a while but could never pin down a reason until I saw Nerdsync's video about the whole situation. They've felt so soulless for the longest time because they are essentially a content farm, and it's clear through each of your videos you are deeply passionate about these topics and it really shows and makes these videos entertaining. Thank you for the videos and keep up the amazing work. I genuinely can't wait to see you rise up through the ranks and become a titan among video essay channels.

I prefer the look of the old matte paintings to be honest. I don’t mind if a shot is static as long as that shot is beautiful to look at. One of the main problems I find with modern films is everything is fast fast fast and cgi flying at you from every direction and it barely gives you time to drink it all in. Plus the cinematography in Raiders is WAY better than that of Crystal Skull. Its not even on the same level. I honestly don’t see what Spielberg sees in Janus Kaminski and his glow show look of everything.

I just realised how few behind the scenes we see of modern films and tv shows. I used to be so fascinated by how things were made and nowadays we never see it. Or if we see it, we see it in such a curated manner where the filmmakers can’t talk about issues they faced and how they fixed them. It has to sound perfect and look easy for some reason?

Well done! :) Thank you for giving such a balanced account on CGI, that is not something you see everyday. People are hating on CGI, but probably 99% of the uses they wouldn't even notice. (And likewise, all the countless practical effects of the prequel Star Wars trilogy were dismissed as "Eww, CGI!")

17:48 and later - sound problem.

Avatar proves CG doesn't really have limitations. It's just not given the budget and time it needs

Loved this. Thanks so much for your effort putting this together!

I just hope practical effects don't become a lost art..

Great video...the AI voiceover not so much, but great work overall.

As I commented on a deleted video titled "Marvel's CGI Problem": I learn about VFX and CGI at home, I am a huge fan, and it's sad for me to hear all these stories about CGI problems in modern filmmaking. Many people say that older movies look better because they used practical effects. God damn, they almost miss the main point. I agree sometimes that practical effects can make for better results rather than overusing CGI. I also say that part of the problem is that most movies are shot on digital cameras, which means the images are just pixels, and not tangible something and a digital photography often lacks the quality of a physical film. But for me, the effects, practical or computer generated, make only a 1/6 of great shots, and here is the main reason why older movies worked, not because of the practical effects: Back then, without a way to create an over-the-top spectacle, filmmakers were forced to focus on the story, the characters in the situation, and the emotional aspect of the action. Even fantastical films, such as the Star Wars original trilogy, despite the groundbreaking visuals, it was all about the story, the characters, and the emotions. Strong writing, an engaging story, and well-written characters created the illusion. Great acting, creative cinematography, outstanding editing, and a wonderful soundtrack sold it. The effects, practical or any other kind of effects, were only ENHANCING the whole illusion. As one of my favorite VFX creators, Wern Weichman said: "By the end of the day, that is the goal of effects, they need to SERVE THE STORY. When the effects of a movie are flashy just for the sake of being flashy, they don't serve any purpose rather than creating a spectacle event, and more and more movies rely on CGI to hide a weak plot". God damn, he is right. Today almost every major blockbuster puts the spectacle and the action in the front and the story is just a secondary. Some examples: The dinosaurs in Jurassic park. Technically, they don't hold up to today's standards, and you can tell when they're CGI and where they're puppets. So why do they hold up so well? Is it because of the mixture of puppetry and CGI, or is it because of the movie was more about the fear and emotions of the trapped characters and created suspense and fear for the audience by acting, writing, sound, and scale, rather than showcasing the humongous dinosaurs? Gollum in LOTR is known as a groundbreaking and fantastic CGI character. But to be honest, his CGI character, even the updated one for The Hobbit, looks bad, especially when compared to Avatar 2. So why does it hold up so well? Is it because of nostalgia, or because of the phenomenal performances of Andy Serkis, the dialogues, and the blocking of his shots? Even Davy Jones from POTC doesn't look perfect, even when compared to Avatar 2. But again, did it work because of the love and care for the minor details (which I very much appreciate), or was it because of the dialogue, Bill Nighy's acting, the color grading, and the blocking of the shots? And now, three modern examples. The Batman and Dune have lots of CGI and (mostly) practical effects in them, but did it affect the films, or is it just the whole movies themselves were great? Even Everything Everywhere All At Once falls under that situation: the effects are not so fantastic, but the movie works because of the story, the characters, the emotions, and the unique artistic style. Effects, practical and visual, are tools to enhance the story. But movies are not about the effects, they are about the story and the characters. So when the end result is bad, it's not the fault of the tool, but the filmmaker using the tool.

God your videos are SO good. I subbed right away. Keep up the good work!! Thank you

Kudos to this video being more than just a “CGI=bad” video essay. Not only you praised CGI work and its contribution to the industry, but you made a great point on how marrying both SFX and VFX is key to making a scene look its possible best. Also, after all these years, I never knew that the doom town scene used a miniature set. No wonder why it looked amazing! It’s a shame that people don’t talk about this as much, they only pull their focus on the cgi gophers from the start of the film. Anyways, great video!

Great video, but your delivery is a little too pause-y. It'll be interesting to see how Indy 5 handles its effects.

I think it's worth noting that while acceptance and use of CGI skyrocketed in the 90s and 00s, fully convincing simulated explosions and destruction was one of the things that was still too tough for CGI to successfully pull off and really _required_ being done practically. I mainly think about the advancement of VFX in terms of Star Trek, a franchise that was famously dependent on models even resulting in shockingly movie-quality stuff for TV in TNG. In the movies they flirted with occasionally CGI ships in Genesis (1994) and First Contact (1996), then went fully-CGI with the spaceships in Insurrection (1998) and Nemesis (2002) (which was really too early and it also didn't help ILM were presumably too busy with Star Wars to work on them, but...) making big, effectively inert spaceships CGI was an inevitability. Despite this, the movies always end with big, climactic explosions and the giant array blowing up in Insurrection and the Enterprise crashing into the Scimitar in Nemesis still _had_ to be done using models because the effect is too complex. By the time of Star Trek (2009) the franchise was fully in the modern era of VFX I'd say, it was ILM again, the virtual spaceships looked effectively as good as models now and simulated CGI carnage was no longer off the table. We're over a decade later now and I'd say it's _so_ no longer off the table it's practically embedded into it. Those new movies became kinda bad but otherwise the CGI carnage was really high quality... in fact it was utterly _gratuitous_ in all three of them. The point I think I'm reaching for in this rambling comment is that I would argue when people talk about practical being _better,_ what they're really saying is not necessarily to do with how good or bad the CGI looks-however much that may be an additional, compounding factor as well as who is doing it and their budget-but rather that practical VFX by its very nature enforced a level of restraint that modern directors can now choose to just discard completely, to the detriment of the films using their VFX as a selling point.

CGY: It's okay to use CGI Nolan: *exits the chat room

The initial puff of dust and vapor off of the buildings, at least in a real nuclear blast, is actually from the heat of the explosion rather than any pressure wave. It vaporizes the paint and other materials and pushes away the ablated cloud with the sheer force of the thermal radiation.

What a lovely, thoughtful video.

As brilliant, as this video, was, the constant pausing, is quite, grating.

Thank you, awesome as usual

Is it my imagination or is this commentary AI generated?

Superb video!

Great explanation, thanks!

The Cinema-photography in the first 3 movies was amazing, but since the age of CGI the newer movies have became just expensive Cartoons !

17:56 , bro got caught in the blast 💀

Awesome explanation of how visual effects work. They should show your video to film students in college classes. Maybe then we will see better results in the future?

Great video!

Producers: For the atomic explosion we can go with miniatures or CGI Nolan: Or lets make a real atomic bomb and film it

17:49 wanted to capture the WHAT? Didn't catch that over the crazy cen so r -ship

great essay

That skull inside the mushroom cloud though at 22:02

great Video

Great video! Unfortunately, you're audio commentary feels so chopped up and unnatural.

In my observation, it seems that the solutions to the "bad CGI problem" have been more intention, more time, and more processing power. If a production can decide on what the shot needs to be, and gets the resources and time needed to work on it, I think we have transcended the era of distracting CGI. Avatar 2 blew my damn mind and sucked me into a story I had no intention of getting sucked into.

CGI: for rich film makers with computers. PROPS: for rich film makers with with large warehouses.

The recent "outings", very gently said, we all know you wanted to say: The recent "crimes" ... ^_^

ILM always found a way 💪

CGI has the potential to look better than anything practical but often sucks because studios and filmmakers still treat it like an afterthought, even in moves where CGI is essential. I’d say there’s a few rules filmmakers should go by to have great CGI. 1. Use CGI only, if there’s not better way to do it. 2. Treat CGI as the integral part of filmmaking that it is, not something that happens later far away. Good CGI lives and dies with good lighting 3. Give the CGI studios enough money and time. From what I often read and hear, the CGI artists are the ones who should go on strike the most.

TBH, the CG effects in KotCS would've looked more believable if not for the artificial shaky cam and overdone yellow color grading. Often times, I feel like these things are done in an attempt to mask the "CGI-ness" of the shot, but it ends up being a dead giveaway.

CG is just a tool just like practical effects. Use what’s best for each scene is what I’ve been saying for a long time. I’ve never liked the overuse of CG in recent years as it’s showing it’s issues, especially when VFX artists are being overworked and being forced to redo scenes

It's not so much laziness as it is freedom. They're told anything you can imagine can be done in post. Back in the day they were told many things couldn't be done so they started from a position where they were forced to be creative because everything had to be filmed with the camera. It was real filmmaking. CGI can be used very well, but one day the real separation will happen where filmmakers will decide to not use cgi at all as a selling point. And they'll shoot on film and edit the old fashion way. It'll become its own genre. And of course you have people like Nolan who blend it very well.

Dude, how do you not have more subscribers?

Lots of babbling to pad the video’s run time lol . I for one love the old school Matt painting and stop motion fxs

Never had any problems with CGI, even the bad one is good for a laugh at least =) What do you think of Laika studios works?

It's a great video but the VO is quite strange. Cadence way off. Sounds like a bad AI.

Unlike fine wine, it gets worse with time!

The problem with CG is that while it can be really helpful when used sparingly, if it's overused, it carbon dates the film and it looks awful. So many of the classic early 90s films from Spielberg, Zemeckis and Cameron like Jurassic Park, True Lies, Terminator 2, Forrest Gump and others still look amazing today because they showed restraint and didn't want to make their movie look like a bad video game. The CG used in these movies wasn't overdone. But if you're replacing stunt people with CG, you're doing it wrong. That's why Marvel movies look great when you first watch them but they look awful the moment you leave the theatre. Watch the early 2000s Spider-Man and X-Men movies. They look terrible unless you're wearing nostalgia goggles. The effects in Die Another Day are a perfect example of how people delude themselves into thinking certain effects look "great," and within a couple of years, EON was looking for a serious course correction and ended up bringing back Martin Campbell to direct a very different James Bond film, one more like the Fleming novels, with Casino Royale, a film that had very limited CG in comparison to many action films of the past 25 years. It's not the CG, it's the RELIANCE on it. If you're using CG to get rid of stunt cables and enhance a scene that is shot for real, that's fine. But if you've got a CGI Spider-Man flying around one minute and then suddenly they do a shot where he pulls off his mask (for no damn reason), unless you're really suspending your disbelief (or you just think Tom Holland is hot - which goes against the whole point of the Peter Parker character), it looks ridiculous. Obviously, we know with stunt people, it's not the actor actually doing those things. But it should at least FEEL like they are. The opening sequence of The Living Daylights was terrific because even though it wasn't all Timothy Dalton, he did a lot of it and it still felt like he was doing all of it. It was 1987 and back then, they weren't deluded enough to think that the technology would actually look passable. What makes the 1st and 3rd Indy films classics is that it's great storytelling with compelling characters shot for real. Nobody's cutting corners or cheating with nerds in a basement on their computer. When I saw the CG effect in the last one designed to de-age Harrison Ford, I couldn't believe my eyes. In a few years, that's going to be on a top 10 or 15 list, along with James Bond ice skiing, as some of the worst effects in any movie. I want to see real stunt people doing real stunts and real actors doing what they do. You're not going to top the effects at the end of Raiders or Last Crusade in an Indy movie. It still look fantastic today. By contrast, the effects in the last 2 screamed Disney+. I loved Ms. Marvel, but it still had those bad CG effects. If they had the same people working on that series that worked on Raiders or Last Crusade, it would have looked great.

Your file around 18 mins seems to be corrupted

CGI by itself certainly suffers with age, which is why practical VFX is there to help alongside it as time goes on. Lord of the rings is I think a great example of combining practical VFX and miniatures (or Bigatures) with CGI to make those miniatures feel real. Great video 👍

I hope Nerdstalgic doesn’t steal this video

For me personally the (almost) perfect balance between practical effects and CGI was already reached in the early 90s with Jurassic Park and T2! The CGI overlay of modern films just make it look unnatural.

Why pause after almost every word?

Yes.

You say Indiana Jones kingdom of the crystal skull but the time stamp says "Curse" of the crystal skull.... which one is it?

*CGI is an amazing tool if it's done right, you need to understand why you want to use it to create a great product, otherwise is just a cheap product you're making*

I am 14:14 in and already have such respect for your fairness in the discussion. Not sure where you’ll land, but my gut feeling is: writing matters and cannot be saved through either method so serving the story is God tier lol

I love Crystal Skull. Had no problem with the visual fx in that movie. The hard on people have for practical fx borders on autistic

12:04 🤦

You're talking strangely. Why? Lots of weird pauses between your words. Is this AI narration? Like, some kind of Text-To-Speech situation?.

I liked Dial of Destiny but it really screams this wasn't shot in film.

I’ve recently watch the originals and although you can tell the obvious short coming of the special affects.. it doesn’t take me out of the movie. And oddly perfect affects done with CGI take me out of the film more

Is the voice in this video AI? It sound so strange the way it seems to put a full stop on every other word.

Area 51? Hangar 18? No - Hangar 51.

Fascinating stuff, but you pause in some really weird places in your narrative. That makes it quite difficult to listen to.

The topic and the content is very interesting! The delivery is tiring. As if Bill Shatner would speak this. Please make the delivery more fluid and with less breaks mid sentence.

I am of the personal opinion that the Indiana Jones films slightly lessen in quality with each film in the series (with 4 being significantly worse than 3), but part of why I've always felt this way is because with each new film the budgets increased and special fx became more ambitious. Each film slowly added more blue screen/cgi effects rather than continuing some of the impressive practical stuntwork as often as possible. They all have amazing stuntwork. But each new one seemed to have less and less practical stunts than the one before and less practical effects. And when we got to the 4th one, whoa boy. I'm hoping 5 doesn't make me feel I'm stuck in the uncanny Valley with the de-age stuff but I can't help but think it will

Ever heard of a 'traveling matt'? Practicle SFX/Analog/Film will make a comeback. I understand non-linear editing, but just look at what Nolan is doing. Models, real film cameras. I think Hollywood NEEDS to go back to real craftsmanship.

Maybe fake video narration voice generation will improve over time, too.

It's the same problem with the Star Wars sequels; with Dial of Destiny, Lucasfilm would rather bait the audience with imitation and nostalgia, rather than being as bold, imaginative and creative as the movies (and creators) they are attempting to imitate. It's just hollow and forgettable, and lacks the spirit of what came before. And no, 'practical' isn't 'better' no matter how many people whine about it. As Lucas said, 'it's **all** fake'. Each has pros and cons, but when directors today talk about using 'practical effects' they do so to score points, not because it is necessary.

All of you commentors calling practical effects a lost, old, and therfore sacred artform that NEEDS to be returned are insane. You can't just support all movie industry artist and other workers, from miniature builders to matte painters and such, and then wish to flush everyone who knows CGI and 3D effects down the toilet.

And yet, the KotCS warehouse shot *_still_* looks more fake than the Raiders shot. Easier/cheaper =/= better

Physical artistry is becoming a lost art. Computers have removed the human element from life. Why can’t we use “digital matte” paintings? Print the matte (so it’s physical) and then use it in the same fashion as a hand-painted one…

Hangar 18 is nowhere near Area 51. They are two entirely different facilities. The former is in Ohio while the latter is in Nevada.

No. Only by passionate professionals.

Haris for

Well CGI isn't cheap. Why do you think movies today average around 200 million dollars to make Plus that again to market or more Why do you think Indiana Jones and the dial of the narcissistic feminists needs 800 to 900 million dollars just to break even ? CGI is not the be all and end all just look at Disney's 2023 little mermaid, it cost 250 million dollars to make and the CGI looks like it was done in the 2000s on top of everything else wrong with the movie It's not just what special effects you use It's the skill and talent of the people you hire to help make theses movies Unfortunately studios like Disney Amazon ,Netflix and the MSHEU are focused on woke and identity politics rather than making movies /shows that actually entertain the audience Shehulk ,Peter pan ,willow and the rings of power are just some examples of this Unfortunately with the studios mind set things aren't going to change anything soon no matter how much money they lose

Yes, yes they are better.

Good informative video, but with one big flaw. But what is this one big flaw of this otherwise good informative video? This one big flaw is the verbosity. What is "verbosity"? "Verbosity" refers to using more words than are necessary. This video's one big flaw is using more words than are necessary, which is what is meant by verbosity. Which is what this video's one big flaw is. Verbosity.

all of that effort for such a bland snoozefest

Im much more like original visual. Good cgi is pretty rare. I think Denis Villeneuve movies very good examokes of top tier cgi

Atlas vpn is amazing

Dramatic pause.....

I just wish...you could speak...in full...sentences

Is this AI commentary? The pauses between each word are spoiling the interest for me.

5:12 E-woke moment (amusing spelling goof)

I have no intention of watching the new Indiana Jones movie. I'm just not interested in the milking of those old franchises long past their prime. By having watched almost all of the Corridor Crew Vfx artists react videos I was already aware of the ways that miniatures and matt paintings have been used in some of the most influential movies. My favourite in that regard is probably Blade Runner, it's visually stunning. I think it's also interesting how Terminator went from practical effects and stop motion to CGI. All in all great video, thanks for the Upload :)

I'm sorry, but I wasn't fooled by the CGI copy/paste, it appeared more like a soap opera show than a cinema classic. Give me the matte painting and miniatures. Avatar 2 gave me the same headache a 3D game would do.

Great content, However…. Using an AI clone of your voice to talk about the evils of CGI is ironic. It has a distracting cadence to it.

The doomtown vfx was great. The rest was crap