Ridiculous Things Actors Have to Do for VFX



Get some cool drag & drop VFX here! ► https://www.famefocus.com/go/getvfx/

Like the music in this video? I made it!
Support me by getting it on any of these sites 😛
Get it on iTunes: ►https://music.apple.com/us/artist/monkey-media/1350503460
Listen on Spotify: ► https://open.spotify.com/artist/1Xd0Ndmh6i1n7RTMyM43VM
Buy it on Amazon: ► https://www.amazon.com/music/player/artists/B079ZN1P2Z/monkey-media

❗️ http:// amzn.to are Affiliate Links. If you buy something through them, nothing changes for you, but you support my work.

The above ActionVFX link contains a Special Fame Focus Discount. We also earn an affiliate percentage of each purchase.

Filmmakers use Visual Effects to create the illusion of achieving things that, to do for real, would either be too dangerous, too expensive, too complicated, or just plain impossible.

Whether it’s to give someone superpowers, make them fly through the air, or fall from a massive height, make them look like they’re interacting with a Computer generated beast, or actually becoming one themselves.

The hardest part for the VFX team is finding the best method, or inventing the right technique to obtain the best result possible.
The hardest part for the actors is trying to remain in character and give a convincing performance whilst looking like, well, like a bit of a twit.

For Alice in Wonderland, the visual effects teams made. Matt Lucas perform as Tweedledee and Tweedledum dressed in a fat green costume on stilts, they made Johnny Depp talk to a green stick, Mia Wasikowska fight against, well, absolutely nothing and Crispin Glover ride this odd-looking contraption.
Interestingly enough, for this shot, they only used Crispen’s head, everything else was CGI, which begs the question,
Why bother with the whole contraption in the first place? and,
Is everything the VFX teams do, really necessary? or are they just having a bit of fun making the actors look stupid?

Read more here: www.famefocus.com
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/focusfame

source

48 thoughts on “Ridiculous Things Actors Have to Do for VFX”

  1. You point on the wrong things, at least with the masks, heads and the hippo body. Those are to interact and act better.
    People act better to something than to tennisballs. And those Dino heads give the correct eyelines.

    Being completely in green screen land without things and people to interact with, that is mean. (See Ian McKellen, making of the Hobbit)

    Reply
  2. It's not about having reference as much as having 2 options. Directors want to stay with live action as much as possible to avoid an overly digital look. But that method often doesn't work and they have to replace it with full digital imagery. If it was all about reference they wouldn't be putting everything in green screen, which is the last thing you'd want for reference. They're shooting live action with those mattes (at great expense) hoping it might make the final shot, but they can't know for sure.

    Reply
  3. Answering… yes, it is neccesary to get the most precisely match between CGI and live action and, in the other hand, actors don't think in silly, they play their characters and that's all, hey, they actually need to get into situation through body and facial expression even if the character is a CGI doll

    Reply
  4. I think is more easy for actors to have an idea of how and where the head of the creature is, then just point to someone and say, here is the creature, and look like this artwork on this paper.

    Reply
  5. Wow, a whole channel presented by someone who knows nothing about filmmaking. There's two main reasons for this. One, all of this stuff gives the VFX artists reference for how things should move or look. Second, it helps the actors get into the scene and feel the moment better.

    Reply
  6. It's a great collection of the on-set shots, thanks for that. but I strongly disagree that the actor's performance as a CGI character is useless. Actually the opposite – they reference how the character should move and which emotions to convey, otherwise the director would have to do the same job in post, telling VFX-artists how to play the character.

    Reply
  7. The thing with Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug was that he did the full body motion capture as least partially for his method acting. It helped him get into character and figure out how to sound, use the right tone of voice, behave, etc.

    Reply
  8. I think we need to use VFX less. Not that they aren't amazing, and I love them as much as anyone else. Something seems to be lost though in using CGI for all effects. The models that places like Industrial Light and Magic used to make added certain qualities that just can't be replicated. The best documentation of this that I can think of is in "The Crystal Calls Making the Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance" which details how they decided to go with actual Henson style animatronics and enhanced them with CGI. This resulted in something that was amazing allowing for great CGI but retains the real-world physics and shadows from the animatronics.

    Reply
  9. The real question is, why do studios still resort to making movies and TV shows this way? It's common knowledge that VFX studios are going out of business and/or producing subpar work because nowadays they're being asked to practically make the entire movie in post production with a tiny budget and a ridiculous timeline. Movies in the 90's like Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 look better than today's superhero and action movies because they used real sets and practical effects wherever possible, whereas now directors will default to making even the most basic scenes and ordinary characters completely out of CGI just so they can shoot the whole thing in the same room with minimal props, costumes, or even actors.

    Reply
  10. just because they did something for the movie, does not mean that the results obtained were useable. Similar to multiple takes on an everyday scene, sometimes the Director has to come up with an alternate way of getting what they want for the CGI to look correct to their vision. Would it have been nice that ALL of the MoCap content was used, of course. Obviously, the Director wanted to use it and that is why they paid money to do it. But, some results end up on the cutting room floor for reasons. MoCap content still suffers the same fate as normal film in the end.

    Reply
  11. Okay, time for a little explanation:
    Actually The actor in mo-cap suits or green screen suits are wearing helments when portraying animals to make it easier for the actors to see the head of the creature, not the head of the actor, because it would be weird if the actor was talking to the chest of the animal instead of it's head. In the case of Bennedict Cumberbatch, it probably was test footage to see how the performance would look.
    In cases were motion is involved, like in Grant Gustin's performance, the actor is required to move his arms like that so it could later be used in post-production to track the tornado. If Grant hadn't done the performance, then it wouldn't turn out like that.
    So please, next time you do a video about these topics, please make some research to know how the industry works, because to people that now how it does these videos seem like an insult.

    Reply
  12. The title should be Ridiculous Things VFX departments have to do for Actors and directors
    In the end all the glory goes to Actors/actresses

    but the 2000 people working in the Background are paid like shiet!

    i bet people don't even know the name of stunt doubles… for your favourite James Bond, Spiderman, Superman
    people dont even know the writers, sound department, set designers, costume designers etc etc to name a few departments

    Reply
  13. Je trouve cela prodigieux, c'est un prodige ! Où ils vont trouver toutes ces techniques, tout ce temps et tout, ces efforts et tout cet argent pour au final produire et réaliser des films qui sont fondamentalement nul et ressemble autres autres films du même genre pour la plupart ? C'est prodigieux ! Moi perso ma m'emerderai de faire tout cela pour divertir des jacques bonhommes… et le pire c'est que apparemment c continue ils ne se fatiguent jamais les mecs ! Chapeau !

    Reply
  14. OK remind me again why The two and only two Disney films that aren’t even out yet are getting trolled double duty for having POC leads but this crap flies by unscathed for over a decade? Asking for a friend.

    Reply
  15. I am a theater person and we always try a lot stuffs to make each scenes look the best in the way we want. For some complicated scenes it simply takes a lot of effort, like trying different costumes, props, and settings and this is super time & energy consuming. Those complicated CGI movies must have to try a lot more things to make the outcomes more appealings, thats what I thought. So maybe we see here a bunch of clips that didn't show in real movies, but I think the production did't know that when they planed them. A thousand of modifications must be made afterwords and it really doen‘t do the justice to the crew when you ask if it was necessary over and over again.

    Reply
  16. “What appears to be” is the interesting phrase in your narration. It confirms the fact that you don’t know why they used the methods they did and instead of finding out the reason you’re just assuming it was to make actors look silly. “Did they really need to…” yes clearly at the time they thought they did. That much is obvious.

    Reply

Leave a Comment