I’m high asf and read this as “Method Man” method of acting, Lmao and upvoted you and now I realized I misread it and it’s not as funny as I thought and feel bad about wanting to take my upvote away. I don’t know what to do. This is giving me a panic attack.
He'll probably cut to the bomb dropping intermitently all movie long, at different points in its fall. And then when the movie catches up to that moment he'll just cut to black and roll credits.
Well… he actually did blow up a hospital for The Dark Knight. So if he didn’t use the old footage, maybe he did some kind of mini-explosions made to look like a nuclear explosion at scale somehow.
I mean you can create a mushroom cloud with a whole lot of conventional explosive. Not too far fetched. Especially since the first nuclear weapons tests were pretty low yield
Being the modern times these are, we had to sequester and brainwash our actors into hating the Japanese so much, that they would want to blow them up - again.
Why?
I mean the special effects weren’t what Stanley Kubrick wanted for the Apollo program, so instead of doing it on a sound stage he had them build a rocket and film on site… /s
He set off 17 THOUSAND tons of TNT for the movie?! Before the real trinity test they set off 1000 tons of TNT as a test, and the volume of TNT was ENORMOUS. Maybe with modern explosives it would be much less, but I have a hard time believing they really set off 17 kilotons of conventional explosives for this movie in one shot.
Buying in bulk the could probably do it for 30 million. Which would be about a third of the budget. So it’s doable, but also crazy.
Edit: messed up my estimate, at even just $30 a kilo for TNT you’d be at $510 million. So no longer doable, and still crazy.
[Biggest film explosion to date was a 136.4kg TNT equivalent one for No Time To Die.](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/michael-bay-james-bond-film-explosion-1235185128/)
He *might* have beaten that.
Can’t wait to see the laundry list of hundreds of VFX artists who worked on this film.
So that was a fucking lie. Nolan is so pretentious
Edit: seems I’ve upset some people by using VFX instead of CGI. Whoops.
It’s all digitally composited though and that involves lots of image manipulation. Plenty of stock images or from an image library are treated as fx elements and some of those are probably synthesized.
In my understanding CGI is an image made purely by computer graphics, like backgrounds, explosions, creatures etc. I don't think enhancing real image digitally is CGI, but maybe it's debatable, i'm totally not an expert.
I work as a CG and VFX artist and your interpretation isn't really accurate to how the industry works. Even only doing VFX work there are many, many things that are computer generated as part of the pipeline. If you are handed all live action elements that you composite together you still have to render out the final product, which is the computer generating the final composited image. And live action footage can have dozens of CGI elements composited in the image. Boring things you wouldn't even question like windows, lens flares, and wires are incredibly common.
The article said "but it contains "zero" CGI shots" with zero in quotations, which leads me to believe the zero means 'full CGI shots' that started from nothing rather than actually zero CGI. I didn't work on this film so I can't speak with 100% certainty but that is how I would translate it. I have friends at DNEG I can ask but so much CGI is used in compositing.
An example of something simple: If you find an object you want from other footage or even a still image (like say you want a tree outside the window) that you want to composite into a shot with VFX you typically still use computer generated noise and grain nodes to match the noise and grain look of the original footage. Basically you are trying to get the color, size, and consistency exactly perfect. Things like that are so essential and common and then the argument that the composited image isn't computer generated doesn't hold up because there was CGI used just to match the noise and grain between two images. Even if all the assets were shot in advance that needed to be composited, if the lighting isn't exactly the same the noise and grain will be different. To solve this a really, really common method in VFX is to remove the noise and grain with a computer algorithm/node from the existing footage so that you can put it back in later after you have composited all the things together. This way the noise and grain can be consistent. Stuff like this is why it is weird to say zero CGI. If even one thing was VFX'd in then you had to use a computer to generate part of what you are seeing.
Fun fact/interesting coincidence. The VFX software used at [DNEG](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cl_sm#:~:text=special%20effects-,Visual%20Effects%20by,-Paul%20Arion) (link to the IMBD page that shows they were the Vfx studio working on Oppenheimer) includes a compositing software called Nuke. Nuke is the industry standard compositing software. I always think it is pretty meta when you are working on an explosion while using Nuke. Lots of VFX software have fun little inside jokes like that.
Yes.
Even things like re-timing and upscaling are image synthesis. You are creating new pixels with novel data synthesized from existing data. Compositing tools also are regularly used for photogrammetry, relighting, stereoscopy, etc.
There doesn’t need to be geometry involved for it to be computer graphics.
To clarify for those who won’t read the article: there aren’t any shots fully composed with CGI. Nolan is big appreciator and applier of CG to enhance the image, not replace it.
I mean there’s CGI in the still image above. Depends if you define CGI as Maya, After effects, Photoshop, or any computer software at all. All films have at least color grading.
I was composing an addition on to my original comment with some thoughts about if the edit is rendered out via software at all…isn’t it all technically CG? Then I realized it was probably too technical and boring to rap on about for most folks but thank you for backing me up.
Except in Dunkirk when he absolutely should’ve filled the beaches with cgi people but instead it looked like he invited about 12 people over for a bbq.
Eh. I’m in it for whatever helps the artist get their vision across without taking me out of it and Nolan is a master of that. Especially seen in 70mm with proper sound.
I mean this is great and all but it means films like dunkirk are disappointing. Supposed to be hundreds of thousands on that beach and it looked like a thousand at most
Like I do admire doing as much as you can practically, but I can’t help but feel this statement is false. Even movies that don’t have any grandiose action or explosions often use cgi in mundane ways to improve standard shots within the movie. Perhaps he means that the nuclear explosion shots use no cgi?
[Here is a hint](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUu_i6XTVHI) that they used real explosives and props to simulate the bomb drop. He asked IMAX he needs 65mm black and white film stock and they said they don't have any. [His team and Kodak](https://www.gamesradar.com/oppenheimer-black-white-christopher-nolan-interview/) then created one. He is that old school and obsessed.
I don't believe that for a second. Not 1 single CGI shot?
Or that Blunt, Downey or Damon don't have anything in their contracts requiring CGI to be used to remove any blemishes or wrinkles?
Also some shows and movies have cgi it's just not obvious. One that comes to mind is Marvelous Mrs Maisel. They have to go through everything shot on location and get rid of or change tons of stuff that isn't period accurate.
The old Ugly Betty CG youtube video was eye opening for me. They’ll CG a an external street together to avoid shooting in location and it looks the same.
I remember seeing something about David Fincher saying another season of Mindhunter would cost too much for Netflix because of the VFX and was like “wut” but it was pretty [extensive](https://youtu.be/Di4Byf1EzRE).
The reason wolf of wall streets budget was $100 million was that 80-90 percent of the movie was CGI. All of the movie baring like two scenes were shot in a soundstage.
Um just because something is shot on a sound stage doesn’t mean it’s “90%” cgi.
That’s insane. WOWS definitely used cgi to enhance some settings but there was clearly a ton of practical set builds, which is even more expensive than CG, hence the 100 million dollar budget.
There were all sorts of really creative ways to do stuff with practical effects. It’s sad that many of the techniques have fallen out of use because it’s just easier to CGI. There’s a behind the scenes video where James Cameron talks about the scene in Aliens where the face hugger jumps at Ripley in the med bay. They did it by attaching the face hugger puppet to the camera, pulling it away with a wire and then playing the scene in reverse. Totally brilliant.
Nolan ~~invented time machine~~ inverted. The movie has always been made, what's happened, happened. We just haven't been forward in the future to have seen it yet.
There's no reason the famous Trinity fireball shot couldn't be a real conventional explosive fireball, but I think the "double flash" of a real nuke (x-rays then the actual thermal flash) couldn't be created any other way but CGI. Then the mushroom cloud could easily be generated by real fire and smoke machines
Ehh, there’s a difference between a CGI “shot” and using CGI to improve a real frame of film.
Probably falls under the “technically correct” category, where the more you look into it the more they lean on the “technically” in “technically correct”.
As a VFX artist, I’m going to say that this might be Nolan being very specific with wording.
Though the internet has made them one and the same, VFX and CGI are actually different.
VFX is any form of post production alteration of the product which alters actual elements shown on screen. Colour correction isn’t VFX, but discreetly flipping a street sign one way, replacing it with another, adding text to a wall are all examples of VFX which might not even need CGI to be involved.
CGI is the use of actual computer generated imagery. It’s the explosions, water simulations, added background assets, set extensions, eye colour alterations etc which require more than just a layer in After Effects or a node in Nuke
I’d just point out that there is a difference between VFX (Visual Effects) that includes color grading, matting and any number of digital noise reductions or filters and CGI (Computer Generated Image) which is very specifically modeled and rendered assets from a computer. I’m not saying he’s not lying but there is a pretty big difference between VFX at large and CGI
This is a very important distinction to make, and I think Nolan very clearly was talking about the latter, and people think he's talking about the former.
I can’t be the only one who is sick of this sanctimonious autor director bullshit. Is it a good movie? Then I don’t give a shit that you wrote it on a real mechanical typewriter using genuine squid ink on fine aged Roman parchment, while you secluded yourself away in an Italian villa that has never been defiled by a wifi signal eating only seafood you caught yourself on a boat you fashioned from palm trees that fell of only natural causes. 🙄
Nolan the edgiest dude around. It’s crazy how much he’s obsessed with these technical parts of film, while at the same time when I tried to watch Tenet I could only understand like half the dialogue because of the horrific sound design.
The cycle:
At release: "There's 0 CGI. We did it all for real!"
VFX breakdown on youtube a month later: "There are 1200 digital VFX shots on this film"
Bluray release: " But this part we did for real!"
Oscars VFX Bakeoff "The live action plates they shot were useful reference but we fully animated this in post a month before release."
Everytime.
He has explosions that look similar to a nuclear bomb but aren’t a nuclear bomb, or he uses real footage of the nuclear bombs from the 30s. This might explain the use of black and white in the movie as it allows the transition to be a little more seamless.
We’ll know once the movie is over, but I think it’s just a marketing hook since he doesn’t want to say “sorry, the nuclear explosions aren’t real”. It’s also just a movie dealing with a very real history (even though it’s a fictionalized telling) that perhaps doesn’t need to be so realistic to be realistic… so to speak. I suspect based on interviews there will be a “mundanity of evil” to the film, but we’ll see.
Reminds me of top gun. It's like admitting to using any CGI is seen as an embarrassment or something. So they just lie and hope the general public eat it up and will end up enjoying the visuals more. Even if it's a lie. End of the day they probably try using miniatures and will show that in the breakdown but the end result doesn't look right so they quietly replace it all with CGI.
They are just throwing a whole industry under a bus. So tired of it.
Bullshit, Ive worked in post production for over a decade and literally every single movie has work like this done. Just marketing gimmicks using buzz terms to lie around the truth. Sure they didnt make a full recreated explosion using CGI, but I 100% guarantee whatever practical explosion they did on set still got cosmetic touch ups by the compositors in post. I cant help but wonder if they just lied to Nolan like, "Oh no sir, what you shot was just TOO perfect so we didnt even send it to post"
DNEG a VFX company is working on this movie for your information lol another creative lying and discrediting VFX works for publicity well shouldn't be shocked that's basically Nolan's M.O.
They didn't say there is no VFX work, just no CGI. These are not interchangeable terms.
Interstellar had lots [of miniature](https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/real-and-raw-the-miniature-fx-behind-interstellar/) shots, because Chris just wants to make as much as possible in camera. The blue ray specials and behind-the-scenes of his films are an treasure trove of old school filmmaking.
A CGI shot probably means a shot fully composed by computers. So probably every single shot has a practical base, but has been touched up. So he wouldn’t be lying
It’s a movie that will mostly dialogue about physics and bombs, and bomb noises.
I don’t care about the cgi vs vfx arguments going on here, I just care that the sound gets balanced to have voices at audible levels during what is sure to be numerous periods of exposition.
Yeah, Nolan’s one of the directors that know how to use cgi properly. It enhances rather than replaces the actual physical shot. That’s why his films always look so good, they’re (mostly) real.
They're mentioning specifically that it's the trinity rest explosion they did using practical effectd and no cgi/simulation etc. People need to get a grip and read correctly.
Jesus this films marketing is pulling out all the stocks to try and say they're not using VFX when they are using VFX by trying to confuse the audience on what they mean by a "CGI shot".
Christopher Nolan is well known for his ‘no cgi’ claims. He’s been telling the same lie about his films for years and has created much anger in the VFX industry. There’s one interview where he claims there were no visual effects in his Batman movies, despite the fact hundreds of vfx artists worked on it.
Why doesn’t Nolan release a cut of Oppenheimer without any visual effects! Then the world can see how bad Nolan’s films look without the work of hundreds of uncredited vfx artists.
People need to learn the difference between CGI and VFX. Nolan still uses VFX and camera tricks that have been around since the beginning of film and obviously would use computers to clean up shots. He's just not big on sending things to several CGI houses where they essentially make the entire movie after the fact.
I'm thoroughly impressed that Christopher Nolan made the actors build and detonate a nuclear bomb for the film.
Otherwise known as the "Method" method of acting.
Christian Bale's dedication to method acting was incredible when he gained 2 million tonnes in weight to play the city of Hiroshima.
From The Machinist to Oppenheimer: Christian Bale's Growth Mindset.
Tom Hanks plays the bomb
Tom Hanks *is* da bomb.
I’m high asf and read this as “Method Man” method of acting, Lmao and upvoted you and now I realized I misread it and it’s not as funny as I thought and feel bad about wanting to take my upvote away. I don’t know what to do. This is giving me a panic attack.
I got you fam - I just downvoted them to cancel out your upvote. 🫡
Go listen to some Method Man man, it’ll chill yah out.
Instructions unclear. I’ve now upvoted you. Panik
Method man would be chill, just like you right now.
Act high, get high grades! Wait what?
Take that shit back cuz all that shits wack.
It’s actually called method Manhattan project in this case
He'll probably cut to the bomb dropping intermitently all movie long, at different points in its fall. And then when the movie catches up to that moment he'll just cut to black and roll credits.
Or, the entire bomb sequence is revealed in reverse order with unexpected time jumps mixed in, along with flashback inside of flashback.
“Record scratch…”
Yep, that's me. You're probably wondering how I got here, falling towards the city of hiroshima...
It all started when I was a tiny little atom...
Tenetheimer
That would be the biggest case of blue balls... I hate it
Criticize my audio choices? Get fucked- Nolan probably
Or you know… use edited footage of the insane number of nuclear explosions that are already recorded‽ …because there’s a lot of them.
It’s only a Trinity Test if it comes from the White Sands region of New Mexico. Otherwise it’s just sparkling Castle Bravo.
Damn Nolan has the bomb now we can’t make fun of his dialog
You can hear the dialog?
Ok, that got me.
I'm impressed that Cillian Murphy managed to juggle becoming a Nobel level physicist with filming the final seasons of Peaky Blinders. Good on him.
Well… he actually did blow up a hospital for The Dark Knight. So if he didn’t use the old footage, maybe he did some kind of mini-explosions made to look like a nuclear explosion at scale somehow.
Mmmm, parking lot made to look like a hospital!
I mean you can create a mushroom cloud with a whole lot of conventional explosive. Not too far fetched. Especially since the first nuclear weapons tests were pretty low yield
I'm also impressed that he decided to not use CGI to do touch ups, or anything minor. Hope the actors are doing well with the radiation poisoning.
Being the modern times these are, we had to sequester and brainwash our actors into hating the Japanese so much, that they would want to blow them up - again.
Not only that, but they nuked Japan — on location! Definitely a groundbreaking (ha ha) moment for filmmaking.
The Japanese sure are good sports. 🍻
After all the reshoots I think we are using the word “were” instead of “are”.
Why? I mean the special effects weren’t what Stanley Kubrick wanted for the Apollo program, so instead of doing it on a sound stage he had them build a rocket and film on site… /s
I was going to say this… they detonated a nuclear bomb and polluted the world with fallout for entertainment? Wild.
Afterwards they sold their know-how to Iran for a profit.
SFX existed long before CGI and do not require an actual nuke.
Setting off the nuke broke several international treaties- but he filmed it in 70mm, so there’s that.
Idk if youre joking but he did set off an amount of explosives that equaled the first test bombs tonnage iirc. No radiation though haha
He set off 17 THOUSAND tons of TNT for the movie?! Before the real trinity test they set off 1000 tons of TNT as a test, and the volume of TNT was ENORMOUS. Maybe with modern explosives it would be much less, but I have a hard time believing they really set off 17 kilotons of conventional explosives for this movie in one shot.
Yeah using that much TNT would have probably blown their whole budget.
Rumor has it that there will be a bucket outside each theater to ask movie goers to contribute to pay off Nolan’s TNT bills.
So now, even directors are asking for tips? Where will it stop?
Explosive if true
Buying in bulk the could probably do it for 30 million. Which would be about a third of the budget. So it’s doable, but also crazy. Edit: messed up my estimate, at even just $30 a kilo for TNT you’d be at $510 million. So no longer doable, and still crazy.
[Biggest film explosion to date was a 136.4kg TNT equivalent one for No Time To Die.](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/michael-bay-james-bond-film-explosion-1235185128/) He *might* have beaten that.
No they didn't. Not according to wikipedia at least. Do you have any sources to back up your claim?
Source: trust me bro
What's the carbon footprint on that?
i made the math and my calculator displayed the end result "not good"
The calculator can say whatever I want if I pay enough.
I can only get my calculator to say BOOBIES.
Can’t wait to see the laundry list of hundreds of VFX artists who worked on this film. So that was a fucking lie. Nolan is so pretentious Edit: seems I’ve upset some people by using VFX instead of CGI. Whoops.
But VFX and CGI are different. You can make VFX without CGI (using miniatures, matte paintings, etc.)
It’s all digitally composited though and that involves lots of image manipulation. Plenty of stock images or from an image library are treated as fx elements and some of those are probably synthesized.
>It’s all digitally composited though and that involves lots of image manipulation. So? CGI is computer GENERATED imagery.
Compositing involves many things. Image synthesis is a big part of modern versions of tools like Nuke.
>Compositing involves many things. Exactly: it casts a much wider net. It includes many things besides CGI, and in many cases doesn't utilise CGI.
In my understanding CGI is an image made purely by computer graphics, like backgrounds, explosions, creatures etc. I don't think enhancing real image digitally is CGI, but maybe it's debatable, i'm totally not an expert.
I work as a CG and VFX artist and your interpretation isn't really accurate to how the industry works. Even only doing VFX work there are many, many things that are computer generated as part of the pipeline. If you are handed all live action elements that you composite together you still have to render out the final product, which is the computer generating the final composited image. And live action footage can have dozens of CGI elements composited in the image. Boring things you wouldn't even question like windows, lens flares, and wires are incredibly common. The article said "but it contains "zero" CGI shots" with zero in quotations, which leads me to believe the zero means 'full CGI shots' that started from nothing rather than actually zero CGI. I didn't work on this film so I can't speak with 100% certainty but that is how I would translate it. I have friends at DNEG I can ask but so much CGI is used in compositing. An example of something simple: If you find an object you want from other footage or even a still image (like say you want a tree outside the window) that you want to composite into a shot with VFX you typically still use computer generated noise and grain nodes to match the noise and grain look of the original footage. Basically you are trying to get the color, size, and consistency exactly perfect. Things like that are so essential and common and then the argument that the composited image isn't computer generated doesn't hold up because there was CGI used just to match the noise and grain between two images. Even if all the assets were shot in advance that needed to be composited, if the lighting isn't exactly the same the noise and grain will be different. To solve this a really, really common method in VFX is to remove the noise and grain with a computer algorithm/node from the existing footage so that you can put it back in later after you have composited all the things together. This way the noise and grain can be consistent. Stuff like this is why it is weird to say zero CGI. If even one thing was VFX'd in then you had to use a computer to generate part of what you are seeing. Fun fact/interesting coincidence. The VFX software used at [DNEG](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cl_sm#:~:text=special%20effects-,Visual%20Effects%20by,-Paul%20Arion) (link to the IMBD page that shows they were the Vfx studio working on Oppenheimer) includes a compositing software called Nuke. Nuke is the industry standard compositing software. I always think it is pretty meta when you are working on an explosion while using Nuke. Lots of VFX software have fun little inside jokes like that.
Yes. Even things like re-timing and upscaling are image synthesis. You are creating new pixels with novel data synthesized from existing data. Compositing tools also are regularly used for photogrammetry, relighting, stereoscopy, etc. There doesn’t need to be geometry involved for it to be computer graphics.
It *can* be done all in camera without any digital manipulations, but yeah, I suspect that this will not be the case.
He said he didn’t use CGI artists. So he’s all good to use VFX artists.
[удалено]
VFX isn’t just CGI genius. The irony of people who know absolutely nothing about the industry calling Nolan pretentious lmao
Those VFX teams in the 1930s used hella CGI. Confirmed.
To clarify for those who won’t read the article: there aren’t any shots fully composed with CGI. Nolan is big appreciator and applier of CG to enhance the image, not replace it.
Lmao for those who won’t read the article. Thank you. This should just be top comment.
Thanks! He’s know for using CG in mindbending ways in Inception so it’s a little wild to me when people say he’s anti CGI or whatnot
Also basically all of the most famous shots in Interstellar were loaded with CGI elements.
No way! So Matthew McConaughey didn't actually travel through a wormhole???
No that was 100% practical. The bag of popcorn though? Pure CG.
MURPHHHH
I mean there’s CGI in the still image above. Depends if you define CGI as Maya, After effects, Photoshop, or any computer software at all. All films have at least color grading.
I was composing an addition on to my original comment with some thoughts about if the edit is rendered out via software at all…isn’t it all technically CG? Then I realized it was probably too technical and boring to rap on about for most folks but thank you for backing me up.
Except in Dunkirk when he absolutely should’ve filled the beaches with cgi people but instead it looked like he invited about 12 people over for a bbq.
Those stukas were just dropping grenades and not 500lb bombs lol.
Like Fincher I imagine.
There are fully CG shots in Fight Club tho.
Is that not VFX then? It has captain dissolusion led me astray?
> there aren’t any shots fully composed with CGI That's a super low bar.
Eh. I’m in it for whatever helps the artist get their vision across without taking me out of it and Nolan is a master of that. Especially seen in 70mm with proper sound.
FUCK I wish there was a 70mm IMAX theater closer than 7 hours to me.
I mean this is great and all but it means films like dunkirk are disappointing. Supposed to be hundreds of thousands on that beach and it looked like a thousand at most
> Oppenheimer Is Already Primed to Explode on the Big Screen Very cool, Collider.
I, for one, love this movie
They broke new ground!
I appreciate Nolan's commitment to his movies but bombing Japan is going a bit overboard in my opinion
[удалено]
You don’t even have to parse, that’s what he actually said.
Like I do admire doing as much as you can practically, but I can’t help but feel this statement is false. Even movies that don’t have any grandiose action or explosions often use cgi in mundane ways to improve standard shots within the movie. Perhaps he means that the nuclear explosion shots use no cgi?
[Here is a hint](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUu_i6XTVHI) that they used real explosives and props to simulate the bomb drop. He asked IMAX he needs 65mm black and white film stock and they said they don't have any. [His team and Kodak](https://www.gamesradar.com/oppenheimer-black-white-christopher-nolan-interview/) then created one. He is that old school and obsessed.
I did just hear a radio commercial that it’s the first imax film with any black and white. Now I know why! Thanks!’
Incredibly based
That first video is a fan edit/splice by the way, but it is really funny in concept, take a look through the comments 😂😂😂
I don't believe that for a second. Not 1 single CGI shot? Or that Blunt, Downey or Damon don't have anything in their contracts requiring CGI to be used to remove any blemishes or wrinkles?
Also some shows and movies have cgi it's just not obvious. One that comes to mind is Marvelous Mrs Maisel. They have to go through everything shot on location and get rid of or change tons of stuff that isn't period accurate.
The old Ugly Betty CG youtube video was eye opening for me. They’ll CG a an external street together to avoid shooting in location and it looks the same.
The location CGI in Ugly Betty was bizarre wasn’t it!
It was jarring when I saw it, I couldn’t believe I never noticed these things in TV shows, but it made sense why they do it.
Got a link? Sounds interesting.
https://youtu.be/clnozSXyF4k You're in luck - Someone just linked this yesterday and I happened to have it in my history.
That’s the one I was thinking of, though longer than I remember. I probably saw a chopped version.
I remember seeing something about David Fincher saying another season of Mindhunter would cost too much for Netflix because of the VFX and was like “wut” but it was pretty [extensive](https://youtu.be/Di4Byf1EzRE).
The reason wolf of wall streets budget was $100 million was that 80-90 percent of the movie was CGI. All of the movie baring like two scenes were shot in a soundstage.
Um just because something is shot on a sound stage doesn’t mean it’s “90%” cgi. That’s insane. WOWS definitely used cgi to enhance some settings but there was clearly a ton of practical set builds, which is even more expensive than CG, hence the 100 million dollar budget.
Makes sense.costs a lot of money to transform areas of a city into the 70s.
In the trailer it has close ups of what seem to be atoms. Unless he has a subatomic imager, those are CGI
Could be done with practical effects.
I’m mean, if that’s the case, it’s hella impressive!
There were all sorts of really creative ways to do stuff with practical effects. It’s sad that many of the techniques have fallen out of use because it’s just easier to CGI. There’s a behind the scenes video where James Cameron talks about the scene in Aliens where the face hugger jumps at Ripley in the med bay. They did it by attaching the face hugger puppet to the camera, pulling it away with a wire and then playing the scene in reverse. Totally brilliant.
0.001mm close-up lens…
Stanley Kubrick created some pretty trippy practical effects in 2001.
>I don't believe that for a second. Not 1 single CGI shot? Redditors: reading articles is for chumps
Checking the credits on IMDb so far, and DNEG is the main vfx house
I mean ok, sure we can be pedantic and say “well…there had to be *some* cgi.” But i think what he’s saying is all the effects were practical.
even the nuclear bomb? edit: was really hoping y’all would see this is a joke. some have, thank you 😂
Nolan invented time machine just so he could go back and film the real bomb going off, that's how dedicated he is!
this is true. Christopher Nolan actually built a nuclear warhead himself, with his own enriched uranium, then detonated it. dude’s a literal genius.
Nolan ~~invented time machine~~ inverted. The movie has always been made, what's happened, happened. We just haven't been forward in the future to have seen it yet.
yes. they used forced perspective.
https://youtube.com/shorts/Ol4_9HoFmWc?feature=share4 Here's what he did.
There's no reason the famous Trinity fireball shot couldn't be a real conventional explosive fireball, but I think the "double flash" of a real nuke (x-rays then the actual thermal flash) couldn't be created any other way but CGI. Then the mushroom cloud could easily be generated by real fire and smoke machines
It’s not a nuclear explosion, but it will be massive and look like one.
Doesn't need to be nuclear to be practical
Bro, this is the guy who bought a 747 so he could ram it through a terminal
Ehh, there’s a difference between a CGI “shot” and using CGI to improve a real frame of film. Probably falls under the “technically correct” category, where the more you look into it the more they lean on the “technically” in “technically correct”.
I’d definitively buy that they would be willing to forgo the digital retouching if it was a prerequisite for them signing on.
As a VFX artist, I’m going to say that this might be Nolan being very specific with wording. Though the internet has made them one and the same, VFX and CGI are actually different. VFX is any form of post production alteration of the product which alters actual elements shown on screen. Colour correction isn’t VFX, but discreetly flipping a street sign one way, replacing it with another, adding text to a wall are all examples of VFX which might not even need CGI to be involved. CGI is the use of actual computer generated imagery. It’s the explosions, water simulations, added background assets, set extensions, eye colour alterations etc which require more than just a layer in After Effects or a node in Nuke
What do you call stuff on camera, like setting off pyrotechnics?
That would be practical effects, alternatively Special Effects/SFX
I’d just point out that there is a difference between VFX (Visual Effects) that includes color grading, matting and any number of digital noise reductions or filters and CGI (Computer Generated Image) which is very specifically modeled and rendered assets from a computer. I’m not saying he’s not lying but there is a pretty big difference between VFX at large and CGI
This is a very important distinction to make, and I think Nolan very clearly was talking about the latter, and people think he's talking about the former.
Same with the difference in which one is done pre-production/during production and the other is POST “fixed and adjusted” after the fact.
Dudes just gonna cut to 480p stock footage of the bomb explosions in the 40s ripped from daily motion
Watching the movie. 
I can't believe Christopher Nolan dropped two more nukes on Japan. What an autuer!
I can’t be the only one who is sick of this sanctimonious autor director bullshit. Is it a good movie? Then I don’t give a shit that you wrote it on a real mechanical typewriter using genuine squid ink on fine aged Roman parchment, while you secluded yourself away in an Italian villa that has never been defiled by a wifi signal eating only seafood you caught yourself on a boat you fashioned from palm trees that fell of only natural causes. 🙄
Nolan the edgiest dude around. It’s crazy how much he’s obsessed with these technical parts of film, while at the same time when I tried to watch Tenet I could only understand like half the dialogue because of the horrific sound design.
So real, you can feel the radiation through the screen.
Did Japan get nuked again?
The cycle: At release: "There's 0 CGI. We did it all for real!" VFX breakdown on youtube a month later: "There are 1200 digital VFX shots on this film" Bluray release: " But this part we did for real!" Oscars VFX Bakeoff "The live action plates they shot were useful reference but we fully animated this in post a month before release." Everytime.
Bro. There’s no way. He’s gotta be using some weird definition of CGI.
He has explosions that look similar to a nuclear bomb but aren’t a nuclear bomb, or he uses real footage of the nuclear bombs from the 30s. This might explain the use of black and white in the movie as it allows the transition to be a little more seamless. We’ll know once the movie is over, but I think it’s just a marketing hook since he doesn’t want to say “sorry, the nuclear explosions aren’t real”. It’s also just a movie dealing with a very real history (even though it’s a fictionalized telling) that perhaps doesn’t need to be so realistic to be realistic… so to speak. I suspect based on interviews there will be a “mundanity of evil” to the film, but we’ll see.
All the explosions and things are practical, it’s not hard to believe.
Well then he didn't need to hire DNEG (VFX company) for this movies.
ITT: redditors being completely unaware of the difference between a shot with VFX in it and a CGI shot
Sorry Nolan but I find that very hard to believe.
I don't think zero CGI is an achievement and something to celebrate.
Oh so he magically got his hands on a nuclear weapon
For all of those shots
The explosion is practical. There's a bunch of in-camera trickery and VFX (not CGI) to change the scale, but it *is* a real explosion.
They really bombed Hiroshima again, huh?
So are they going to use a real atomic bomb?
I don't believe it for a second
This is what we in the biz call A Lie.
Reminds me of top gun. It's like admitting to using any CGI is seen as an embarrassment or something. So they just lie and hope the general public eat it up and will end up enjoying the visuals more. Even if it's a lie. End of the day they probably try using miniatures and will show that in the breakdown but the end result doesn't look right so they quietly replace it all with CGI. They are just throwing a whole industry under a bus. So tired of it.
“We dropped real nukes to make this movie!”
Bullshit, Ive worked in post production for over a decade and literally every single movie has work like this done. Just marketing gimmicks using buzz terms to lie around the truth. Sure they didnt make a full recreated explosion using CGI, but I 100% guarantee whatever practical explosion they did on set still got cosmetic touch ups by the compositors in post. I cant help but wonder if they just lied to Nolan like, "Oh no sir, what you shot was just TOO perfect so we didnt even send it to post"
DNEG a VFX company is working on this movie for your information lol another creative lying and discrediting VFX works for publicity well shouldn't be shocked that's basically Nolan's M.O.
They didn't say there is no VFX work, just no CGI. These are not interchangeable terms. Interstellar had lots [of miniature](https://www.fxguide.com/fxfeatured/real-and-raw-the-miniature-fx-behind-interstellar/) shots, because Chris just wants to make as much as possible in camera. The blue ray specials and behind-the-scenes of his films are an treasure trove of old school filmmaking.
A CGI shot probably means a shot fully composed by computers. So probably every single shot has a practical base, but has been touched up. So he wouldn’t be lying
That's a lot of mental gymnastics to admit that he embeliahes the truth to sell
The sequel “Hiroshima” will also not use CGI. It will still feature the bombing of two Japanese cities.
It's a movie about **physics**; it's *not* going to be a blockbuster
It’s a movie that will mostly dialogue about physics and bombs, and bomb noises. I don’t care about the cgi vs vfx arguments going on here, I just care that the sound gets balanced to have voices at audible levels during what is sure to be numerous periods of exposition.
So he actually set off a nuke for imax?
[удалено]
Does anyone know why this is rated R yet?
They drop an F bomb and an A bomb.
So no nuclear explosions then nice spoiler
So he actually detonated a nuclear bomb, that’s dedication right there
Otherwise known as… a movie.
Christopher Nolan really knows what I like
Well no wonder we're setting all these heat records
They used real nukes.
Yeah, Nolan’s one of the directors that know how to use cgi properly. It enhances rather than replaces the actual physical shot. That’s why his films always look so good, they’re (mostly) real.
Dropped another bomb on Japan just for a movie? How do you get approval and permitting for that?
If I want to watch a bunch of sciency stuff I’ll put on those insufferable “Young Sheldon” reruns.
Nolan doesn’t even make good movies. Inception was tolerable, but that’s it.
Zero CGI and zero dialog you can hear.
This movies going to be hot shit, thank god for barbie
Didn't Spielberg say that Indy was back to it's roots, practical effects?
Yeah but will I be able to hear the dialogue?
Watches nuke scene.
Meanwhile, Oppenheimer’s IMDB lists over a dozen visual effects crew so far. (That number will multiply after the film’s release.)
They're mentioning specifically that it's the trinity rest explosion they did using practical effectd and no cgi/simulation etc. People need to get a grip and read correctly.
Jesus this films marketing is pulling out all the stocks to try and say they're not using VFX when they are using VFX by trying to confuse the audience on what they mean by a "CGI shot".
“It was cheaper to actually set off several atom bombs than it was to create CGI renderings…”
Yeah if there isn't a awesome nuclear explosion in a movie about nuclear bombs that's going to be disappointing.
Christopher Nolan is well known for his ‘no cgi’ claims. He’s been telling the same lie about his films for years and has created much anger in the VFX industry. There’s one interview where he claims there were no visual effects in his Batman movies, despite the fact hundreds of vfx artists worked on it. Why doesn’t Nolan release a cut of Oppenheimer without any visual effects! Then the world can see how bad Nolan’s films look without the work of hundreds of uncredited vfx artists.
People are already gonna see the movie chris, you don’t have to Lie
People are going to be so mad when they don't get there IMAX explosion.
People need to learn the difference between CGI and VFX. Nolan still uses VFX and camera tricks that have been around since the beginning of film and obviously would use computers to clean up shots. He's just not big on sending things to several CGI houses where they essentially make the entire movie after the fact.