CGI is a contentious subject among film enthusiasts. Some are enthusiastic about its inclusion and are happy to see it advance, and some want their space films to be filmed in space. Cue the rise of the marketability of ‘No CGI’ movies such as Oppenheimer and Top Gun: Maverick. Of course, the art of practical film making is an impressive and important one, and gave rise to modern VFX techniques in the first place so there is no debating that. That being said, this trend can be slightly worrying to those of us a part of - or trying our hardest to become a part of - the VFX world, as it signals a general distaste towards CGI from the public. However, do not fret my underpaid and overworked friend, as these films still contain copious amounts of CGI, and that’s what we’ll be exploring today.
2400. That’s how many VFX shots are featured in Top Gun: Maverick, a movie marketed heavily around having no or minimal CGI. But that doesn’t mean the movie’s marketing was a lie, as the majority of these shots were what’s called ‘invisible’ VFX. That’s what this trend actually means, impressive practical effects alongside the ‘boring’ stuff. So what does that entail? Invisible VFX encompasses anything that enhances real life shots. Take the final flying scene in Top Gun: Maverick: one of the jets in that shot is real, the other three are CG. The fact that you can’t tell which is which reinforces that there is a lot hidden away in things like set extensions, compositing and retouching in post-production. The vast majority of these practices consist of removing wires and rigs from actors, chroma-keying green screens, crowd generation and sky replacement among many others. Ironically, the best VFX is the stuff you were never aware of, as is the nature of digital enhancement, but that doesn’t mean artists should go uncredited.
Spot the difference! Image courtesy of Paramount
So what does this mean for the industry itself? You may be thinking, ‘Who cares if the jobs still exist anyway?’ While that on the whole is true, the current culture of the VFX industry is one of crunching and missing important life events to complete work for projects that deny their existence. The Visual Effects Society has taken issue with the trend on these grounds arguing ‘VFX artists and innovators deserve to be respected and recognised as agents of cinematic storytelling, in the same breath as other creative collaborators, and not cast aside as if they are detractors dispelling an illusion of 'pure' filmmaking.’ A recent example of this is Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer: over 160 VFX artists worked on the film (source: DNEG), with only just over 25 being named in the end credits - less than 20% of the total.
So what can be done? A large part of the shift towards the desire for practical filmmaking comes from below-par VFX featured in films stemming from underfunding and overworked employees. Therefore, it comes back to the same trend that we keep hearing about: pay workers fairly. From the viewpoint of an employee, this can be done by pushing for unions and better compensation, which will always be a scary endeavour when livelihoods are on the line. As a new generation of artists, we can do a lot here, by demanding change. And, of course, credit those damn VFX artists.
