[bensyverson]

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.

[Joel_Mckay]

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

[croes]

The question is for what is the tool used.

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

[CyberDildonics]

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...

[croes]

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

[CyberDildonics]

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.

[defrost]

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).