That scene where the T-1000 goes through the bars is brilliant and the fact that they achieved that in 1991 makes it even more amazing
@smilertoo
Жыл бұрын
This and jurasic park were the films that made the jump to CG visual effects, couldnt have been done as well without them.
@GetToDaChoppa-k5r
Жыл бұрын
and The Phantom Menace
@yassersaeed2010
Жыл бұрын
CGI is so important when it's done right.
@joannot6706
Жыл бұрын
good CGI is good, bad CGI is bad, wise words
@KulaGGin
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, the problem with current era of movies is that they use CGI for everything. Like, do you really need to do a green screen to film a normal non-action scene where 2 characters talk out on the street?
@beaulynskey8470
Жыл бұрын
I could only imagine how many takes it took to get the actor to drop the milk carton and the blade to retrieve out of his mouth in time.
@Met9171
Жыл бұрын
I take so long to create a short movie I assume this was a tough job.
@MarcV_IndieGameDev
Жыл бұрын
t1000 is one of the most fearsome enemies to be on screen or imagined.
@aserta
Жыл бұрын
CGI isn't bad, it's how it's used today that's bad. CGI needs to be a condiment, not the whole freaking course. To use CGI completely, as food stuff, you need to understand every aspect of it down to the very code that makes it tick. There isn't a single director alive that knows these things, hence why CGI doesn't look good and why it's even more jarring (not unnoticeable) than before. In Terminator, the use of the CGI to sprinkle practical effects could be passed on as the reparation stage. Exactly how in Matrix, in the fight between Neo and the Smiths, the CGI could be passed on as the system (The Matrix) was unable to cope with the anomaly and thus the CGI effect (willing or not willing, the use of CGI there and in specific other scenes, does lead to that).
@Ironica82
Жыл бұрын
For a great comparison, compare how much CGI was used in LOTR trilogy to how much CGI was used in The Hobbit trilogy. Heck, listening to Ian talk about how lonely he was should show you exactly what people are talking about.
@ethansloan
Жыл бұрын
@@Ironica82 Exactly! So much of LOTR was done practical, and it looks amazing. Whereas a whole lot of the Hobbit shots looked bad even at the time, and it's because instead of building a forced-perspective set and capturing everything in-camera, every element was shot separately and composited together, or even created entirely out of CGI. The best 90s VFX still hold up today because it was just augmenting practical things. Jurassic Park, The Fifth Element, The Matrix, T2, Apollo 13, etc. The only shots in Titanic that don't hold up are the big, sweeping, CGI shots of the ship; everything else was done with models and digital compositing/touch ups. Obviously, CGI today is capable of being so much better than it was back then, but studio practices now demand that basically everything be CGI, so the producers have the option of changing things at every step of the process. Have you seen that breakdown of the VFX in one of the Avengers movies, about how they got all of these real people and CGI characters to interact? The trick is, basically nothing other than the heads of the actors were real. The marketing department didn't know what uniforms they wanted on the toys yet, so the actors were all wearing motion-capture suits, and their entire bodies were added in post. That's a bad use of CGI. We've had the technology to make clothes since well before we were making movies.
@mightisright
Жыл бұрын
Very smartly done VFX that account for the limitations of the time. It helped that this might have been the peek of professionals that could do puppetry, animatronics, matte painting and all the practical FX that had been developed over nearly a hundred years of cinema.
@Stevieboy74
6 ай бұрын
The T-1000 CGI work that Steve Spaz Williams, Mark Dippe and the rest of the ILM digital effects team produced was absolutely phenomenal, and it still stands up to this day. The fact it was done in 1990-91 is mind blowing. They were trailblazers and really paved the way for what was to come.
@patricklui6834
Жыл бұрын
Art Never Dies!!
@peterlenham3180
Жыл бұрын
The splash head puppet head wasn't worn by Robert Patrick, it was worn by his stunt double. The CGI and practical effects in T2 are legendary.
@vilchico
Жыл бұрын
Buen video, esta pelicula será siempre una de mis favoritas
@Tarets
Жыл бұрын
Another excuse to remind ourselves how good Terminator 2 is.
@roosh2927
Жыл бұрын
“Art Never Dies” AI: “Hold My Bitbeer”
@alexello1189
27 күн бұрын
If you really study the film you realize that every CGI shot of the t-1000 is supported by practical effects first and foremost. Anytime the t-1000 is shot a bullet shot impact foam piece is triggered. Then they use cgi to show its healing. Same with its spikes. Starts with the actor trying to grab the door, then a static shot of the door as the spikes form, then back to practical as the t-1000 opens the elevator. T-800 splits its head (cgi), then shows it wiggling (practical) as the elevator closes and goes down. The t-1000 reforms its head (cgi) and jumps into the elevator shaft. There’s the constant pattern of practical supporting and introducing the virtual effects. That’s what separates the cgi quality of t2 compared to modern action films
@no.needyoubadguy
Жыл бұрын
Wow another fantastic vid 😍
@marcfuchs6938
Жыл бұрын
Terminator 2 is basically the ultimate memory, that movies can in fact look breathtaking AND be damn good in all other ways. Unlike modern cinema.
@johnsmith-vn9cs
Жыл бұрын
this issue is not that "movies should stop using GCI and go back to practical effects", it's that movies should stop focusing on GCI and go back to storytelling.
@AdriNox777
Жыл бұрын
A good blend of practical and digital is always impressive to see.
@ragreenburg
Жыл бұрын
I feel like people who talk about hating CGI and loving practical effects are comparing bad CGI to great practical. Even in shows and movies with massive budgets you can usually tell when something is a practical effect in the same way you can with CGI. Personally I find practical effects way more jaring than CGI.
@fireaza
Жыл бұрын
I suspect it's because a lot of these "CGI BAD! PRACTICAL GOOD! ME DISCERNING FILM BUFF!" types have only seen a small handful of pre-CGI era movies, mostly just Star Wars. If they had a larger repertoire, they would have seen some comically fake-looking practical effects.
@romeoC9968
Жыл бұрын
I think some things that are often overlooked is 1. the story should always come first and any effect is to support a story not the other way around (you see less screw up on a good story) and if you have to resort to looking at it frame by frame to find something wrong with it then you have way too much time on your hands
@mightisright
Жыл бұрын
As long as a movie suspends your disbelief, you will forgive minor imperfections. As for the story, if this script had been given to Roger Corman none of us would remember it. In movie making, every team member adds to the final product. Not just the writer.
@KulaGGin
Жыл бұрын
Yep. That's another problem with current era of movies. It feels like they make everything CGI and flashy just to make it flashy and amaze the viewers with visuals, not to support the story. Like modern Marvel "movies". It's just a farce with pretty pictures: an absolute failure as movies. The 1994 Fox Kids' cartoon series Spider-man has a much better story than Marvel movies made after like 2004(Spider-man 2 with Tobey Maguire). You can tell they were trying to make a good story and teach kids some morals, not to amaze kids with flashy animations.
@PillarsOfDrear
Жыл бұрын
Cgi definitely has a place in film. It should be used to complement practical effects when they aren't, well, practical; which T2 is a prime example of. It's when cgi is the only source of any and all effects in a movie is when I feel it can really detract and ruin the experience.
@chr1998is
Жыл бұрын
Planning is everything when it comes to making movies, especially visual effects. That and they had £102 million dollars. Makes doing things practically a little easier. Don’t forget the helicopter stunt on the freeway chase sequence towards the end of the film, was done FOR REAL. No CGI, no Miniature. Just a crazy Vietnam vet pilot and James Cameron himself filming it due to the camera crew refusing for being too risky.
@VIDEOGAMEPLUS
Жыл бұрын
Beautiful video!
@OxKing
Жыл бұрын
What people mean: Shooting everything in a volume, all backgrounds CGI, no practical sets, just green screen or volume.
@chekkygurl182
Жыл бұрын
Yes and the big difference is T2 (ILM) used both practical effects and cgi seemingly to achieve an action as opposed to doing everything in front of a green screen.
@thelukeofficial9626
Жыл бұрын
Well said people just complain about vfx because they have nothing else to do!!!
@DarthAwar
2 ай бұрын
They do rely too heavily on CGI especially in big box office films (Fast Furious etc!) the trick is the correct one for the right scene (Practical Explosions as an example!) as well as blending CGI & Practical together.
@connorsvoes6035
Жыл бұрын
They need to go back to this
@IreneAdler-ds5mo
Жыл бұрын
CGI and special effects is integral part of movies and I would argue has been since Méliès in the early 1900s; he did some cool special effects with plates for his short films. CGI has in part made some filmmakers lazy they think ohh people will be like "wow CGI" like in T2 but CGI can not replace the effort put into a good story, characters etc... I like what Spielberg said recently most people when they see a movie are like this scene,character, or music moved me not he was using this specific type of shot or lens. Filmmakers need to realize that the average movie goer has seen quite alot of CGI so they have to make it look good and or serve the story like Racconooni in Everything Everwhere All At Once. It is like a having a really good slice of well-baked cake, once you have had a good cake why go back to a bought cake mix you will always know the difference.
@22carmoon
Жыл бұрын
It’s foolish to hate movies that use CGI and it’s the wrong reason to hate it. If a movie is planned and filmed accordingly for the use of CGI it will work wonders in your favour. This is why older movies looked better than some of todays. Todays its haphazardly thrown in a last minute attempt to fix something the filmmaker doesn’t understand and changed under such tight deadlines. VFX artists are actual wizards with prep time.
@pacfdaworld
Жыл бұрын
Wonder if you can find your green friends in the moon landing footage ?
@alisurfleet
7 ай бұрын
I work in vfx. Can anybody tell me what hardware they were using for these shots? It still holds up today.
@DarthAwar
2 ай бұрын
Funfact the Melted Metal the T1000 falls into was water had some yellow dye in it and lit with yellow and orange lights and was not CGI or Real Liquid Iron/Steel
@KuruGDI
Жыл бұрын
Doesn't it come down to cost and efficiency in the very end? Making practical effects probably is much more expensive the larger you make them. And if you go full CGI you can model and fix stuff that you would may have to re-shoot or entirely cut out otherwise.
@Yashkumar-n7t
Жыл бұрын
Bro you are just like deadpool when you wear goggles 😎😎
@ScruffyITA
Жыл бұрын
terminator movies are always been my fav of all time both for the story, the vusual effect and cgi. no matter if some of them is not like the 2, but i still enjoy watching them.
@ArifRWinandar
Жыл бұрын
2:14 Either T2 is gorier than I remember or the pixelation caused me to imagine it to be gory.
@farmersboy
Жыл бұрын
It's not that gory, not sure why they felt they had to pixelate it.
@ROBOHOLIC1
Жыл бұрын
@@farmersboy KZitem is finicky with gore of any kind. You can't be too paranoid about showing it these days, unfortunately.
@tremorsfan
Жыл бұрын
I think part of the problem is when they use CGI when practical will do. I personally hate CGI blood.
@AngusCNH
Жыл бұрын
i will feel guilty if i don't give you a like. i knew more about my favorite movie at the pass now
@HabichuelaConDulce
Жыл бұрын
didnt they used Video Toaster for Terminator ?
@Zralock79
Жыл бұрын
In Terminator 2 there is not one scene completely created by CGI... only some objects were digitalized. And that is the difference. All scenes were build either in studios or in real life environment. That's why it is more believable.
@lj5190
Жыл бұрын
I could be wrong, but the only full CGI shot in the movie is when the T1000's liquid metal face finally dissipates into the molten steel.
@peterlenham3180
4 ай бұрын
No you are correct.
@SimplyMovingPictures
Жыл бұрын
Awesome!
@Lumibear.
Жыл бұрын
It’s not that CGI is bad, it’s that over reliance on it with poor planning & execution is. ie. when it’s a couple of weeks of loosely scripted acting, mostly to green screen, for a franchise movie outsourced to various unrelated CGI staff on $2 an hour, with daily ‘executive input’ from a director who doesn’t care about the fans, characters or lore.
@FernandoAcarvalho27
Жыл бұрын
Ótimo vídeo
@JonO387
Жыл бұрын
What's with the blurring?
@nasrkazmi
Жыл бұрын
❤👍
@عمر-ك7ف8ج
8 күн бұрын
What is the name of the movie
@gouthambhat3576
Жыл бұрын
Thanks to CGI... Made filmmakers life easy
@Andrew_Franklin
Жыл бұрын
Lol I always thought the T-1000 bullet wounds looked fake
@Monkey_Snot
Жыл бұрын
People just need to stop complaining and whining and enjoy the damn movie.
@lj5190
Жыл бұрын
The problem with CGI is that no matter how good it is, it always looks layered onto the shot, whereas practical effects are actually in the shot.
@peterlenham3180
4 ай бұрын
The recent and upcoming Planet of the Apes films beg to differ. Digital effects with a huge budget never look layered on, but they do in cheap films.
@peterlenham3180
3 ай бұрын
Thats not true. Theres lots of CGI in films that looks absolutely like its there.
@lj5190
3 ай бұрын
@@peterlenham3180 I’m not saying there’s not exceptional CGI. What are some examples you would point to where it’s indiscernible from reality?
@peterlenham3180
3 ай бұрын
Several characters in Dr Strange 2 wore CGI clothes. I didnt know because it was completely seamless, so theres an example. However, a liquid metal robot or a dinosaur, is obviously not invisible CGI, so you know its a computer generated image, no matter how real it looks.
@SJ-by2jz
Жыл бұрын
1:27 couldn't they just shot in reverse ?
@mightisright
Жыл бұрын
The smoke in the background would be going down instead of up.
@imbatman9768
Жыл бұрын
See Adipurush trailer you will know what is CGI 🤦😤 Hollywood can't compete with our Telugu movie CG's !
@nizamishak9808
Жыл бұрын
Mr 🍏 pls do moon landing
@blakemrolfsensanchez547
Жыл бұрын
Look at movies today 90% is CGI nothing is real anymore. T2 barely used it and that is why that movie is still great
@MarlonConsad-hf3ib
11 ай бұрын
Back ground music tittle please 😅
@hashirsaifullah7657
Жыл бұрын
👍
@caramelo_black
Жыл бұрын
So qu3m e fa de verdade vai curtir esse come ntario
@khomankumar1272
Жыл бұрын
🎉🎉
@cbs1710
Жыл бұрын
"Art never dies" - maybe try tell that to abused, overworked, underpayed CGI artists that (tried to do their) work on Marvel's panoply of unimaginative films. Instead of being used sparigly as possible and for "an effect" (pun intended), it became incompetent producer(s)'/scriptwriter(s)'/screenplay writer(s)'/director(s)' panacea and "fix-all" for everything, and an excuse to not do their job properly. Those movies are the definition of CGI over(ab)use.
@miguelm203
Жыл бұрын
Just watch 2001 space odissey...
@PR0KEN
Жыл бұрын
How is that possible 😂
@أبوناصرالبنشري
Жыл бұрын
قوه
@康生-g9l
Жыл бұрын
Are you sick? The subtitles are so big, how many lines of sight are blocked.
Пікірлер: 86