I’ve seen behind the scenes videos of movie sets and a lot of them seem to still have a pretty decent covid protection protocol. Was there masks being used behind the scenes on Kodar? Are there any other things people do to prevent staff from getting sick?
Most film sets don’t require tests or masks from my experience at the moment, but as recent as a few months ago they did. I shot Greatest Beer Run Ever during the thick of COVID and had to do a mandatory quarantine in Thailand in my hotel room for two weeks before being allowed to work (and then required to test every day and wear masks).
For Kodar we left it up to the individual, we encouraged to wear masks but didn’t mandate it.
Don't threaten us with a bad time Bobby. Turns out it was the talent that drove the first phase success of the MCU. Pushing more Captain Marvel on us isn't gonna do it.
Probably not, we've floated the idea of expanding it into a feature, but not sure how that would look yet. Right now just focused on writing and developing other material!
Fury road is up there with some of my favorites, so yeah I was disappointed.
I read it's because the director is really getting up there in age and didn't want to make production as long as the first, but who knows the real reason.
See my above comment, but fury road had a TON of CGI (maybe half or more of the action shots). People don't realize it because by the time the movie drops production is complete and good cgi is just invisible CGI. The production on Furiosa Is still in progress when the trailer was released.
I would like to see a source regarding the TON of CGI effects used in Fury Road, because everything I’ve read and seen about it states the complete opposite.
Pretty much all of the environment is CG, which makes nearly every shot a VFX shot automatically. Additionally, almost all shots of a vehicle in motion where the actors are acting was shot still and all motion is CG.
I think this disagreement boils down to which elements are CGI.
Of course there are many background elements that are CGI in Fury Road, therefore most scenes do contain CGI. However, all the primary elements of the scenes (vehicles and characters/costumes) are generally practical. That doesn't appear to be the case with Furiosa. The most important stuff appears to be CGI in many cases.
You just have to look at the credits to see the army of people who worked on VFX for fury Road. I dont have time to dig up exact sources, but this guy touches on it at one point in this series:
Ok. When people are saying “No CGI” they mean that the movie was shot on location using practical stunts instead of filming in a green screen dome like the MCU and Star Wars trash that Disney is pumping out. There can be an army of VFX artists in the credits, but who enhanced the films effects instead of rendering entire scenes.
The first Furiosa trailer that dropped like 6 months to a year ago gave off that green screen MCU vibe. I don’t think anyone really means absolutely zero post-production when they say “No CGI”.
I understand why people are focusing on green screen as stand in for CGI (I'm sure we still have collective ptsd from the Star Wars prequels) but there is a lot more to CGI in production that goes beyond "enhancing" the scenes. Entire elements (ie vehicles) are CGI in Fury Road.
Again, everything I have read and seen regarding the effects for Fury Road was that pretty much everything was filmed practically and on location, including the vehicular combat etc. If you’re referring to a vehicle getting sucked up into the air by the dust storm, ok bro. If your talking about a vehicle driving around in the desert, once again you’re going to have to cite that claim with something other than “VFX artists are
in the credits” because it flies in the face of ten years of commentary on this movie.
You're kinda missing the point and I don't know if I'm doing a poor job of explaining or what. I never said there were no practical effects. I never said they weren't the majority of the effects. I never said they filmed on a green screen most of the scenes. All that being told, there is a mountain of VFX happening in almost every shot. And to ignore it is silly at this point.
The issue that started this whole thing was the concern over what looked to be an over reliance on CGI based on the original Furiosa trailer, especially considering that what made Fury Road so special was its heavy use of practical effects for the vast majority of its stunt work and its use of CGI to enhance rather than create. No one was saying CGI and VFX aren’t done in post.
I don’t think i’m missing the point. I think we’re both talking past each other a bit and you’re being a bit too pedantic which is shifting the conversation away from its original context.
No, people are seeing a trailer that was released long before production is wrapped and they're freaking out. Which is normal, but once the movie is out I promise The same people won't tell the difference between what is practical or not.
I don't think you're completely accurate here. Do you have anything backing up your claim on the amount of CGI?
Fury Road is pretty well documented for using an inordinate amount of practical effects. Vehicles, costumes, explosions, etc. As far as I know, the most CGI was for the background/landscapes of scenes. And Furiousa's hand of course. The quantity and the quality of CGI in Furiosa is my issue
Not directly to your question, but the movie rabbit hole did a breakdown of what "no CGI" means in movies. It's very long, but it covers a wide variety of movies, including Fury Road.
I wrote an essay on this exact thing back in college. Basically every backdrop, including every mountain range the action actually took place in was totally digitally created, furthermore many of the explosions were beefed up in post production. Some obvious stuff like the sandstorm were of course CGI too. Sometimes the ground would just be reshaped a little for the aesthetics of the final shot when it's basically just changing desert to desert.
The thing is, practically every vehicle and person you saw was real, and most of the special effects like the explosions were real and looked incredible on the day, with things like shrapnel and the like being added in post.
Fury Road barely used CGI for the content people care about, the stuff that's exciting to know was done for real on location. But beyond that, it was used liberally.
I'm happy with this approach and I'm curious to see how much the new film adheres to this choice.
Your second to last paragraph is pretty much my point. Obviously there was CGI in Fury Road. But you're completely correct that the "important" stuff was practical effects.
That's where my concern with Furiosa stems from; much more of the important stuff (vehicles and characters) appear to be CGI.
There is a ton of cgi in fury road. Many of the cars that crash, environments, backdrops. Yes, there are also practical effects as well. Many productions do a mix of both. This guy does a good job of explaining the bizarre aversion to CGI that is touted in press releases for every movie that gets released today:
It is typical for trailers to be released while production is still in progress. Fury road had a TON of CGI, but it's impossible to tell because by release the work was completed. People don't realize how much CGI goes into movies these days and assume it's all practical FX.
Fury road had a lot of practical effects though. Obviously there's still a lot of cgi of shots that is either impossible to do for real, or to enhance the effects and the scene, but almost all the action was all done the same way the originals were done in the 80s.
It's a mix of practical and VFX. The VFX production team on Fury road was huge. The reality is good CGI is impossible to discern from practical. There's more to VFX than green screens.
I saw the trailer on youtube when it first dropped and it legit worried me. I saw the same trailer again before Dune 2 and it looked significantly better, which was a bit encouraging. I do understand where you’re coming from though, and feel much the same myself.
George Miller is almost 80 now and the movie was partly shot during the pandemic. It was always going to be much more CG heavy than Fury Road. Doesn't mean it's bad.
For me, it wasn't the CGI so much as the bad green screen and compositing. CGI doesn't even need to enter into it if you get the fundamentals wrong, and that part stuck out even in the trailers.
Now that you've tried out directing as well as acting, which side of the camera do you prefer?
Are there any things you've learned from the experience of directing that you think will help in future acting roles? Additionally, is there anything you would do differently about directing Kodar if you got to start over from scratch today?
I don't think I necessarily prefer one to the other, my ideal world would be directing and acting in the film a la Ben Affleck. I think it's much harder to get a movie off the ground and make something as opposed to just be a hired gun as an actor, so it's hard to compare. It's definitely an adrenaline rush when your'e directing a whole crew and cast and responsible for the whole day as opposed to just your scenes.
To help future acting roles I'd probably say learning to not take a director's notes as a sign that you're necessarily doing something "wrong" and rather they just want a different option in the editing room for flexibility. For instance Peter Farrelly would have you do a line like 20 different ways all in a row, but that wasn't because I was doing the line bad, he just wants the flexibility to have it different ways in the editing room to match thew tone of whatever the final edit ends up being. So basically as an actor, go easy on yourself.
If I could do it all over, I would work on the transition between Maddie finding out she has cancer into the cosplay with Kodar. That has been our main note, is that some people don't buy that this girl who just found out such devastating news would then be so flippant about playing into the cosplay with Kodar. I imagined it that she needed to do it as a way of coping with the bad news, but maybe it doesn't read clearly. So probably would go back into the script and figure out how to land that smoother.
I understand that note and really disagree with it. Brains do weird protective shit in those moments, and being able to retreat to a place of comfort.... Yeah, that fast escape is real
Well thank you! That’s where my mind was when I made it, and I think I still believe that to be authentic. It’s just hard when you get the same note a bunch of times you start to think it’s correct
True, but it's really hard to properly translate the 'emotional logic' of it.
To me It's kinda like 2d vs 3d - there are tricks you can do to add some of the 3d information to your 2d space, but at the end of the day it's still 'flat'.
It's completely unrealistic when I first saw it. Great fantasy but so impossible it's more like a piece of pulp fiction on film.
Any woman that beautiful in a post apocalyptic world would never exist. They would be raped, enslaved, bought and sold like a prize within months of the world breaking down.
Whenever I see or read scenarios like this I'm constantly reminded by a quote by Kurt Vonnegut, a veteran of the second world war who wrote some great books about war including 'Slaughter House Five' ..... he said ... "In war there are only two types of women, those that have been raped and those that will be raped"
When the world breaks down and there is no law and order any more, the women are usually the first to suffer.
This is why I thought this film was unrealistic with such a beautiful model actor as the lead.
Because we all know Mad Max is a very realistic & authentic representation of post apocalyptic scenarios. It's basically a documentary with how accurate and real it is.
Filmmakers: Spielberg, Scorsese, Gerwig, Nolan, Cameron, Cohen, Fincher (I also think the Duplass Brothers are always influencing the indie scene, they just produced the first entirely independent full television series that they managed to sell to Netflix for distribution)
Actors: It's always changing but my friends and I have a theory that the only actor in the world who isn't jealous of other actor's careers or worried about someone else getting the offer is Leo
For actors I think some of you may already know him but I did a movie with Lewis Pullman and I think he could (or might already be) the next big leading man. For filmmakers, Cooper Raiff (who's already had a lot of success) in my opinion could be winning Oscars one day.
To be honest, I remember watching Toby Maguire's Spiderman when I was like 10 years old and then leaving the theater to go play a little league game and I felt like I was on top of the world and was literally a super hero myself lol. And Toby's Spiderman was such an average Joe of a dude that I felt like being in a movie like that felt more accessible. Since then I've had many more "cinefile" type movies that have inspired me (The Duplass Brothers, Tarantino, Wes Anderson, Nolan), but it was probably that Spiderman that set the wheels in motion.
I think a lot of people would be shocked by the amount of "name" actors who still audition for roles. I'm not yet a "name" but have some friends who might be considered one, and they still have to grind and audition for pretty much any decent script/project that's put in front of them. Unless you really break into that top one percent of celebrity status, you're always fighting for the next job. Which is also why a lot of actors have started to make their own content, kind of flipping the power dynamics and giving yourself more control in your career as opposed to waiting for the phone to ring.
I’d say it’s the same amount of nepotism as pretty much any other industry. If you know someone or are related to someone important, you’re afforded more access and opportunity earlier in your career. But even still, if you have that advantage, you still gotta show up and do good work!
movies
Newest