Hacker News Reader

Comment by ortusdux | Hacker News Reader

Amazing writeup! I'll add that the custom squibs they made for the liquid metal bullet impacts are still one of the best practical effects ever.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/v6qjaj/bu...

View on HN

They also used a practical effect for the scenes where the T-1000 needed to appear on screen at the same time as a character it had shapeshifted into.

They cast identical twins for the roles.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieDetails/comments/h9rzry/in_ter...

I was expecting Linda Hamilton, but apparently more than one set of twins were in there.

It’s interesting to me that people thought/think this was a good effect. I saw t2 in the theaters when it was released and I thought this was the phoniest effect of the movie. It was extremely cheesy, so clearly sitting on top of the actor. They literally looked like aluminum flowers taped on to his shirt.

Holy shit. I thought the bullet splashes were CGI. I'm even more impressed that they were real practical effects, that is indeed nextfuckinglevel

Believe it or not, there is 6 minutes of onscreen CGI in T2 and only 6 minutes of onscreen CGI in Jurassic Park. The 80s and 90s were magical with practical effects. So many things were difficult to imagine how they were pulled off.

In the last 20 years, everything’s just CGI. Movies like Mad Max: Fury Road and Fall Guy are few and far between.

My friend, there are over 2000 VFX shots in Fury Road, and at least 600 in The Fall Guy.

I get that people are tired of CGI, but it’s a tool that is used in virtually every film that reaches theaters, for reasons as prosaic as matching skies between shots.

These days it is mostly just Directors, Producers, and Investors that don't respect the medium. They just see a film as more Brand management issues.

It has little to do with "how the hotdogs are made". Most good CGI isn't noticeable.

Yet everyone is there to make a story look great, even when faced with a re-heated dog-turd of a script. =3

The question is for what is the tool used.

To mach colors and hide cables or the complete content of a scene

I don't know where you are getting that idea. The entire movie is soaked with cg from every angle.

https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual...

And now compare to an Marvel or Transformers movie where many shots don't have a single real thing in it

What the person up to said:

In the last 20 years, everything’s just CGI. Movies like Mad Max: Fury Road and Fall Guy are few and far between.

There is no world where naming a random longer movie with more effects makes mad max an example of a movie that doesn't use cgi. Something completely unrelated doesn't make a false statement true. There was some marketing that got people to believe this and it's an outright lie.

Miller repeatedly stressed that the MM: Fury Road stunts were real and the physics was real world - that got turned into a false "quote" about less than 10% CGI .. and that became mythical when the MM: Furiosa trailer had obvious in your face digitally artificial characters, etc.

Of interest, perhaps:

* The 'Fury Road' Practical Effects Myth Is Hurting 'Furiosa' - https://textualvariations.substack.com/p/fury-fx-furiosa

[ * The visual effects of Mad Max: Fury Road - https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual... ]

( oops, my bad, I put the second link in not realising you had already referenced that up thread )

The distinction, for now I guess, would be "movies with real actors really moving on real props" versus "movies that are damn near fully generated including much of the actors (eg: lead actor speaks and provided body capture, doesn't actually appear "raw" at any point).

Mad Max: Fury Road

Mad Max: Fury Road is wall to wall CG, compositing and everything in between.

https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com