VFX Artists React to Bad & Great CGi 85 

Reference to Epic NPC Man? lol

Timestamp?

@@zelig1799 Yes. They see what viewers actually watch.

@@zelig1799 Yeah, that's part of the video analytics, afaik. There are also browser addons and apps that might skip those parts automatically.

Also, the new feature on mobile can show you were people have selected a portion of a video of the most; so they probably noticed the first minute was skipped?

Especially that they can be sincere when there's no guests, they can criticize the bad stuff , which would be absent with guests

I love sam but for me Clint is one of the OGs

@Christian I was thinking the same thing. - Toronto, Canada.

clint OP

The legends themselves!

Also, the part where the guy gets forced down the sink drain is a practical effect...they didn't really film a guy being forced into a small hole.

The insane practical creativity of old pre-digital special effects never ceases to blow my mind!

I want to hear them talk about late 1800s and early 1900s movie effects.

REAL STEEL... but, YES!

Yes please

I second this!

Yes please

REAL*

ya...its like when i was a kid and would try and figure out how each effect shot was done...cgi is too good for me to figure out,but its fun when vfx guys can break down how things are done by the craft itself

theres been a lot of guests recently, and you dont need to do much guessing when you have the guy who's like, "that was shot in my bathroom" on the couch lol

Completely agree

the show is not that good, but the efects are

They spent everything on the effects they forgot about the writing

I agree, the mindset is so interesting to me!

@@rvantong Standard these days.

I think they could do an entire episode on just the Daniels' work in general, including their music videos. If they guested on that, I would flip out.

Yes!! I've been waiting for this since I first watched it when it came out.

+1, what an awesome movie, and I love the creativity a lower budget will force producers to have. It's easy to have a show look stunning with a billion dollar budget

I could not agree more with this!

Like the current episodes?

I also like how they teased at the end about getting another guest 😅.

The one that freaked me out as a kid cause I'm a lot younger was death in the Final Destination movies for kinda the same reason that it just couldn't be stopped the other reasons for me though the characters could just die at any time and much like Alien not seeing the danger was the scariest part. IT was pretty scary too cause the original mini series design unlike the new movie was pretty creepy but looking back on it is funny cause one moment IT is shit your pants terrifying then another scene he's hilariously stupid and silly but as a kid it was just all scary cause I saw it before I even turned 10.

" It was smart, it couldn't be stopped and it was just creepy." Beware of the blob, it creeps And leaps and glides and slides Across the floor Right through the door And all around the wall A splotch, a blotch Be careful of the blob

If only the writing was as good as the visual effects

@@godzilla234ful or the aesthetics. Looks all like a videogame, not realistic. Lenseflares, goodrays, bloom, eluminated fog.

@@godzilla234ful The writing is great, you are just on a blind hate wagon

@@evolicious The writing is 'ok' the characters actions all line up in a practical sense but the dialogue just does not work for me.

@@evolicious The writing is dreadful please go outside

i remembered the original...and thought "this is going to be cheesy fun"....i got a truely horrific body gore movie and loved it! imiss the practical days, cgi is gorgeous but i imagine all the physical work put into a single shot

You just nailed why I find this remake so disturbing. It seemed to me growing up (born 1962) there was some unspoken rule that you didn't let innocent kids get killed in horror films. At least I could not recall any films doing that (though admittedly what films I saw were arguably limited). Then this film hits the screens (I saw it on HBO) and there's the daring escape sequence with the young woman with the kid in tow, a bit like Ripley and Newt in "Aliens" released 2 years earlier. Then... *SHLORP!!!* ...this kid is not only grabbed, but they show him graphically melting within the goo! I felt like some "sacred law" had been violated! I've seen more graphic gore since, but I've never gird my loins to watch this film a second time because of that kid's grisly demise. I felt similarly when in "Alien 3" we learn that Newt was killed. While not shown, merely mentioned, it just made Ripley's efforts in the prior film all for naught.

I'm off to watch it again.

@@Redfern42 Agreed, and you nailed one reason why I don't hold Alien 3 among my favorites in the franchise. There are several reasons, but killing off Newt struck me as a major waste of a character and creative misfire overall. The film's biggest accomplishment in my opinion was its masterful sendoff for Ripley (only for her to be resurrected in the 4th entry). I never hated 3 though, and I understand why it has its fans.

It's probably my favorite horror movie of all time, much less remakes. It's immaculately written, in terms of character, plot, pace, and set ups and pay offs. And on top of that amazing script, you also have masterful, fun effects like these. Even when the effects don't quite work, they're still more fun than embarrassing. And while the kid getting killed was jarring, it's far from the only death that "gets" you in this way. So many movies do stale characterization to try to get you to "feel something" when the character dies. But you can usually spot the kind of characterization that's trying to get you to "feel something" versus characterization that's genuinely setting up a character for the rest of the film. The Blob fooled me every time into thinking, "THIS person is safe." Nah man. It also reminds me of Tremors because all of the characters do what I would, as a viewer, consider the "smart thing" to do in that situation. And they still keep getting into deeper trouble. That's when things get really scary for me as a viewer. I love to see it get some love from the Corridor Crew and in the comments here.

The Blob isn't though... it's pretty squishy

Eh, I appreciate the Blob but it doesn't reach The Thing levels

I'm also siding with the big dude theory just now. If you look at his left leg at 11:19 and then 11:22 they look different to me. Admittedly it is slightly different parts of the leg that are exposed.

Ya also the other actor is a child who is like under 5 ft tall so I don’t think they had to use vfx on this

You just ruined their professional rambling.

@@ThePandaSupreme a child 😂 Wouldn't call a 28-year-old a child

Paul Sturgess was a body double yes.

In a VFX sense, it's true. That's what he meant.

@@esaedvik Tron (1982) would like to have a word 😁 Heck, CD even made an episode on the first CGI character from Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)

@@chainsov Ok, you got me there, wow my memory is iffy :D (and yes, I was born before '82, so I have that as an excuse :D)

Also I was being facetious lol

@@SirWrender oh sure 😉

I know it was cg. Because his face was skinny and Paddy has a double chin and thick face.

But they did a good job

They should do that shot along with the wounded sniper from Boardwalk Empire to show how the technique advanced over 10 years.

The real question is which is better that HOTD effect or Two Face in the Dark Knight?

i'd imagine because they waited until the finale of rings of power, they're gonna wait until House of the Dragon is over to cover it.

It was a CIA-funded propaganda film to make kids filthy by scaring them away from anything with a drain. It accomplished it's goal, briefly, but nobody who requested it could remember why. Also - are people using strike-through as a substitute for underlining for *emphasis*? Edit: Well, since we can see *bold* doesn't work consistently...

Get this man his Telekinesis scene!

There not doing this to spite you at this point

bro really needs them to react to wires and green screens 🤦‍♂️

@@delitatactics6721 Right? Just kidding. I'm sure they have many, many plans.

@@anarky5682 There's more than just flying scenes. And it's not like they haven't reacted to wires and green screens. Ya jerk (this part is a joke).

Movement is always pretty much the only thing giving away most CG these days. On pause, today's CGI usually looks perfect. As soon as it starts moving, it tends to be too smooth, often too fast, and lacks the really subtle nuances of real-life physics. When you look back at Jurassic Park, it's the opposite. On pause, you can see a lot of flaws in the texturing and lighting. Sometimes the compositing isn't perfect, with the feet looking a little floaty on the ground and stuff like that. But in motion... the dinosaurs move so believably like real animals, that it convinces you, despite the flaws in other areas that your brain can more readily ignore or chalk to some kind of picture quality issue or something. But with unrealistic motion, your brain doesn't have any excuses and it just doesn't look like anything that exists in reality. We only see fake movement that doesn't obey all the laws of physics perfectly like that in animation/cartoons, so it instantly rings as being animated. The way they were able to achieve that on Jurassic Park was a combination of concentrated expertise due to ILM being the only game in town at the time, all the world's best experts in CG were working on that movie... along with the time to be able to spend on the shots, since they had like 2 years to work on only 50 shots... as well as the fact that they used physical armatures of the dinosaurs with sensors on them to animate. This gave an actual physical input for the movement, so it couldn't not obey the laws of physics. It wouldn't stretch the legs or back in a weird way or be too jello-y... it was a rigid armature, which is the perfect way to capture the confines and movements of an actual skeleton-supported body. You don't get that kind of input when you're animating free-hand through a mouse in abstract 3D space with no real physical confines to control what you can and can't physically make the model do. I feel like the practice of using a physical armature to animate CG creatures needs to be used more.

@@AWSVids As far as the physical armature is concerned - I'm pretty sure all of that is entirely false. You can *absolutely* have a rigid armature when animating with keyboard and mouse, and it's how most 3D animation is done. It's extremely easy for a computer to constrain that skeleton so that the joints all stay together, bones don't stretch, etc. The issues appear when you try to link that rigid skeleton to a bunch of floppy skin. The reason the physical controller worked well for them is that they were able to hire existing skilled stop-motion animators. However, the physical controller doesn't guarantee that the dinosaur follows the laws of physics, either - it's up to the animator to make sure that gravity, momentum, etc apply in a believable way.

I hope they talk about the warg too- personally I think the animation was perfect on it, it's just that the design is so weird it makes you feel like something is wrong. Curious to see their takes

@@ramonandrajo6348 why what?

Whats funny is that Peter Jackson put a perfect version of those on the screen 20 years ago and Amazon is just like, nah...

Is the show any good. I kinda forgot it even was a thing, I hardly check my Disney subscription

@@delitatactics6721 bro. I'm very much like the other hundreds of people who never even asked for this show. But as a person who believes that visuals can drive a narrative as much as the intended structure, its definitely worth a shot. You might like it. I did. Very gritty. Very grounded. Excuse the English if it's off lol

Most of that would have been filmed in UK. A lot of the actors doing bit parts are British so easy for location shooting to get everyone on set.

@@christophernicolson5086 I agree. All the green in one frame made for a great backdrop.

@@delitatactics6721 It’s good. Better than all their other SW Disney+ shows (Clone Wars doesn’t count). If you enjoyed Rogue One, then I think you’d feel the same for Andor.

This 💯

This right here.

I just mad that the video screens are no longer flat, even on _Discovery One._ The aliens must have replaced all of them between movies.

@@johnsensebe3153 Yeah, but at the same time, it's understandable why they wouldn't want the hassle of doing flat screens when most people won't notice. 2001 had to rear-project all its screen images, which added even more complexity (and cost) to the sets. It's so much easier to just use regular TVs and play video on them.

@@jasonblalock4429 I know, but it bothers me that they look different. It would have been fine on the Russian vehicle.

Man, it's disappointing that most of the budget went to the visuals and none of it went to the writing

I just made a comment about how the big guy is definitely comped because you can see a line in the dirt next to his foot where the dirt is moving at different speeds (because of the scaled motion control). If you see the same around the girl, then I would say they're both comped in. There is probably a normal shot with no actors, and shots of the guy and the girl (with appropriately scaled motion control) both comped in. So instead of making one character hugely different from the rest of the rest of the scene, they made both characters slightly different from the rest of the scene. Having a less exaggerated difference probably helped make it more believable.

I wonder when they’ll start getting steady work for big ass blockbusters

was looking for this comment hahaha - replayed it so many times lol

it should be a go to for anyone who works with images and wants to make anything have one cohesive feel. especially if it anything bringing together multiple things from multiple sources.

Could be a good theme for Halloween

In my opinion they overdid the VFX on that show. I wish they focussed on story and character instead.

@@rockomax4284 Yeah, they forgot to use the budget on competent writers and blew it all up in favor of CGI

​@@rockomax4284 Good VFX and a well written story don't have to be mutually exclusive.

The VFX in the original Jackson trilogy were always to the service of the fantastic story, and many times were done totally practically. This show has a very boring story so the VFX has no impact besides their technical quality.

It always feels like I'm watching a talented artist post on ArtSation, it's pretty, sure, but there isn't anything there for me to sink my teeth in. At least the point of the ArtStation post is the aesthetic.

hbo didn't pay them, amazon did

@@Hitacho25 I almost spit my drink out when Sam said it's "really good" and...."oh I'm so excited to watch it"...wonder how much Jeff cut them outta the billion dollar budget lmao

@@funtourhawk What makes it bad? Answer without going to Reddit to get some extrapolated explanation from a book you haven't read.

@@HRRRRRDRRRRR it's fkin boring.

@@HRRRRRDRRRRR he got you there Frank....

There are no issues. It’s amazing!

Yep

Yeah exactly. The writing and most performances are so bad that all the other setup is kind of ruined. Because visuals are only there to serve teh story and so without a story you don't really have anything. But great content to analyze for VFX artists for sure.

Found it really weird how everybody complained about the look and vfx when the trailers were released. From the beginning I was like: this isn't bad. What's up with you guys? And now they all admit it does look good (which still doesn't make it a good show).

@@MifuneRU-vid you can't tell someone they don't have issues with something.

Yep except Amazon didn't buy the rights of the Silmarillion book which would've helped with story

@@David-nq8cv tolkien estate was adamant that they do not sell the rights to any first age material. Which is odd since the show featured the war of the wrath and mentioned some names of people only said in the first age.

@@David-nq8cv yeah, and I find it hard to believe that having the rights to more of Tolkien's work would lead to a better product rather than simply having more of Tolkien's work turned to trash.

@@David-nq8cv except having more content to pull from wouldn't change the absolute dogshit writing lmao

They don't have the rights anymore anyway. Swedish company Embracer Group now owns the LOTR IP. Tolkien Estate doesn't have rights, Amazon doesn't have rights. Embracer Group could shut this down.

Yes! I searched for that comment before commenting on it myself :D He is clearly comped in. You can see the slightly blurred seam around the robe on both sides.

+1

It’s important to note that it’s a little hard to see details when we’re on the couch. We’re also not seeing the zooms and freeze frames the way they people are in the final video. Also, there’s a good chance we did see and mention something but it just didn’t make the final RU-vid cut. The website cut goes into this scene a LOT more

@@SirWrender Yeah I figured! I wasn't dissing by the way Wren, I love the show. Not sure what's your setup as we only see you guys on the couch, but definitely a big ass screen would be beneficial for review. I know it changed my own workflow when I got a 4k projector to review shots on a 100inch screen. Also, now I want to see the rest. Guess I'm buying a Corridor Sub now. 😂

@@SirWrender sorry to bother you but I just wanted to ask if someone is trying to scam commenters in your name, or is it really you guys from a new account?

and they recognize EVERY shot COUNTS. even small ones are planned to the teeth. they don't reduce effort just to put more on another.

THE FLY! 🤮🤮🤮 🦶 or did they already do that, i cant remember :P

I literally love that movie and would LOVE to see Corridor Crew dissect it!!

Aren't they already check it out? i remember they keep mocking how bad it is.

Yes please! That’s still one of my favorite movies ever and I would love to see them cover it.

VFX wise it's really good, plot though oof.

That movie was complete garbage except for some of the VFX for that time.

it really isn't. unless you want to know how much of a shit show can be made out of Tolkien's work.

@@hexcodeff6624 It's a good show on a technical level, the casting is great, the acting is good for the most part aside from some awkward dialogue. It is good.

I gave it a watch and it's cultural vandalism of Tolkien's work and world.

Too many racists hate that show, I'd love for CD to promote the show more, it's a fucking amazing show and blows everything out of the water right now. Cherry on top for making racists cope seethe & mald, lmfao.

"Matt paintings" Was the artist named Matt or do you mean "matte"?

Those other movies may be better, but I certainly rewatch The Blob more than I watch them. It rewards repeat viewings by being incredibly cleverly written and thoughtful about all its details. There isn't much of a theme or larger importance to the movie that The Thing, The Fly, or Invasion of the Body Snatchers pulled off, but it's as good as "genre" movies can get.