This video was absolutely fascinating. It must have been so exciting working on movies like this, and coming up with all those bonkers hacks to get the shots. These days it's so often just "shoot...
This video was absolutely fascinating. It must have been so exciting working on movies like this, and coming up with all those bonkers hacks to get the shots. These days it's so often just "shoot it, we'll fix it in post" and sure, CG is totally a skill and the work VFX artists do is incredible - but it's not the same as lining up two mirrors in front of the camera to hide a support beam for your forced perspective shot with a miniature.
That rendering pipeline makes my palms sweat though. Render a frame at vast compute cost, expose it onto film. delete it before confirming the film exposure worked. I know they didn't have a choice with only 150MB total storage in the system but still.
It is worth noting that VFX artists hate this. Shots are preferably planned out and built to support whatever VFX are planned. Actually, I was just watching a tutorial a few days ago that opened...
These days it's so often just "shoot it, we'll fix it in post"
It is worth noting that VFX artists hate this. Shots are preferably planned out and built to support whatever VFX are planned. Actually, I was just watching a tutorial a few days ago that opened with a rant about directors and actors always asking him to just do this or that super difficult thing, because they didn't want to bother with putting on the right shirt for the shot or whatever.
So that is mostly the meaning I intended with my comment. You are right though, sometimes directors/cinematographers will offload the hard work of fixing something that's gone wrong to VFX (or...
Shots are preferably planned out and built to support whatever VFX are planned.
So that is mostly the meaning I intended with my comment. You are right though, sometimes directors/cinematographers will offload the hard work of fixing something that's gone wrong to VFX (or they're just lazy/shitty at their jobs) but ideally it is all carefully planned in advance. But it's easier - or at least cheaper - to do stuff in post than to set up a meticulous practical effect or build a bunch of set/dressing for a few seconds of camera time.
I re-watch Flight of the Navigator at least once every few years, and even though its quite flawed, still rank it amongst my all-time favorite kids movies along with Labyrinth, NeverEnding Story,...
I re-watch Flight of the Navigator at least once every few years, and even though its quite flawed, still rank it amongst my all-time favorite kids movies along with Labyrinth, NeverEnding Story, Princess Bride, The Goonies, etc. And I also love Captain Disillusion, even though it's unfortunately often months between his releases, so this was a pretty wonderful surprise to see pop up in my notifications!
It was also surprising to find out that everything in the movie was accomplished with practical effects, miniatures, matte paintings, and even full-scale props/sets too. I had no idea that was the case, and always assumed most shots in the movie featuring the ship used CGI... which I guess in retrospect is actually kinda silly considering the shoddy state of computer graphics back in the mid-1980s. :P
Not everything; the ship in flight is early CG. It might have been one of the first films to use reflection mapping at the time. Interestingly enough, the soundtrack is mostly synthetic, being...
Not everything; the ship in flight is early CG. It might have been one of the first films to use reflection mapping at the time.
Interestingly enough, the soundtrack is mostly synthetic, being produced on the rather infamous Synclavier.
Of course, nerdy me talks about this before realizing the video talks about all of that….
This was also one of my all-time favorites as a kid too, though now I can barely remember it. What about it was flawed? (not disagreeing necessarily, just don't remember)
This was also one of my all-time favorites as a kid too, though now I can barely remember it. What about it was flawed? (not disagreeing necessarily, just don't remember)
It's flawed in the same way many early/mid-80s kids movies are flawed. The story is trope heavy, the child actor is mediocre, the alien puppets are kinda lame, the special effects are good for the...
It's flawed in the same way many early/mid-80s kids movies are flawed. The story is trope heavy, the child actor is mediocre, the alien puppets are kinda lame, the special effects are good for the time but still kinda dated at this point. It's a great kids movie, but when watching it again as an adult it loses a fair bit of its magic. Don't get me wrong, I still love it, and the powerful nostalgia I feel for it allows me to easily ignore most of its flaws. :P But for people who have never seen it before, it might be pretty underwhelming.
Honestly, I don't really remember anything particularly bad about it. I'd say it was a pretty well made movie in my opinion. The only real 'crime' it had was that it wasn't really terribly...
Honestly, I don't really remember anything particularly bad about it. I'd say it was a pretty well made movie in my opinion. The only real 'crime' it had was that it wasn't really terribly memorable. It was a bit too kid-centric; there are times when I can imagine contemporary adults would just tune out, and likewise I think that's why a lot of adults who have seen this as a kid have probably forgotten about it.
This video was absolutely fascinating. It must have been so exciting working on movies like this, and coming up with all those bonkers hacks to get the shots. These days it's so often just "shoot it, we'll fix it in post" and sure, CG is totally a skill and the work VFX artists do is incredible - but it's not the same as lining up two mirrors in front of the camera to hide a support beam for your forced perspective shot with a miniature.
That rendering pipeline makes my palms sweat though. Render a frame at vast compute cost, expose it onto film. delete it before confirming the film exposure worked. I know they didn't have a choice with only 150MB total storage in the system but still.
It is worth noting that VFX artists hate this. Shots are preferably planned out and built to support whatever VFX are planned. Actually, I was just watching a tutorial a few days ago that opened with a rant about directors and actors always asking him to just do this or that super difficult thing, because they didn't want to bother with putting on the right shirt for the shot or whatever.
"just" is a dirty word in any communication between non-technical and technical people.
So that is mostly the meaning I intended with my comment. You are right though, sometimes directors/cinematographers will offload the hard work of fixing something that's gone wrong to VFX (or they're just lazy/shitty at their jobs) but ideally it is all carefully planned in advance. But it's easier - or at least cheaper - to do stuff in post than to set up a meticulous practical effect or build a bunch of set/dressing for a few seconds of camera time.
I re-watch Flight of the Navigator at least once every few years, and even though its quite flawed, still rank it amongst my all-time favorite kids movies along with Labyrinth, NeverEnding Story, Princess Bride, The Goonies, etc. And I also love Captain Disillusion, even though it's unfortunately often months between his releases, so this was a pretty wonderful surprise to see pop up in my notifications!
It was also surprising to find out that everything in the movie was accomplished with practical effects, miniatures, matte paintings, and even full-scale props/sets too. I had no idea that was the case, and always assumed most shots in the movie featuring the ship used CGI... which I guess in retrospect is actually kinda silly considering the shoddy state of computer graphics back in the mid-1980s. :P
Not everything; the ship in flight is early CG. It might have been one of the first films to use reflection mapping at the time.
Interestingly enough, the soundtrack is mostly synthetic, being produced on the rather infamous Synclavier.
Of course, nerdy me talks about this before realizing the video talks about all of that….
This was also one of my all-time favorites as a kid too, though now I can barely remember it. What about it was flawed? (not disagreeing necessarily, just don't remember)
It's flawed in the same way many early/mid-80s kids movies are flawed. The story is trope heavy, the child actor is mediocre, the alien puppets are kinda lame, the special effects are good for the time but still kinda dated at this point. It's a great kids movie, but when watching it again as an adult it loses a fair bit of its magic. Don't get me wrong, I still love it, and the powerful nostalgia I feel for it allows me to easily ignore most of its flaws. :P But for people who have never seen it before, it might be pretty underwhelming.
Honestly, I don't really remember anything particularly bad about it. I'd say it was a pretty well made movie in my opinion. The only real 'crime' it had was that it wasn't really terribly memorable. It was a bit too kid-centric; there are times when I can imagine contemporary adults would just tune out, and likewise I think that's why a lot of adults who have seen this as a kid have probably forgotten about it.