- My name's Kevin Baillie,
and I'm a visual effects artist.
I got my start when I was 18
years old in the industry,
on "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace,"
and have since worked on movies
like "Harry Potter and
the Goblet of Fire,"
"Transformers: Age of Extinction,"
and a whole bunch of movies
with Robert Zemeckis.
We're here today to talk about
the five visual effects
Academy Award nominees,
and what makes them so groundbreaking.
What's really exciting to me
as a visual effects artist
about this year's field of nominees,
is how diverse they are.
Some years you have three or
four really similar films,
and one kind of stands above the rest,
and it's an easy guess.
This year, it's everything
from digital characters,
to de-aging, to invisible
effects, virtual production.
Every film stands for something different.
[upbeat music]
First, let's look at "Avengers: Endgame."
"Avengers: Endgame,"
which is a whole tie-up
to the Marvel comic universe,
really built upon successes
of previous Marvel films
with their digital characters.
Thanos was an amazing
performing digital character
in "Infinity War" that made
use of machine learning,
and all kinds of cool tech,
to bring him to life in that film,
and they just elevated that technology
to a whole new level.
And not only was there Thanos,
in this film we also
had smart Hulk, right?
So we had multiple digital characters
that were performing, emoting,
that the audience could
really connect with.
In previous Marvel movies,
the Hulk has always been
this sort of raging,
stupid, embodiment of anger,
and he didn't really have
to connect with the audience
on any other level than that.
With smart Hulk in "Avengers: Endgame,"
he actually has got his wits about him.
- Maybe smash a few things along the way.
- I think it's gratuitous, but whatever.
[growls]
- [Kevin] And he's
sitting there performing
alongside his live action actors,
and needs to be up to the
very same level as them
with every nuance of
performance that he gives.
- And now look at me.
Best of both worlds.
- There was some pretty amazing technology
that went into bringing Thanos
and smart Hulk to life
in "Avengers: Endgame."
In the past there's been, you know,
techniques used where there's thousands
of dots on an actor's face,
and every single one of them is trying
to drive like a little piece
of a digital character's performance,
but there's always stuff that happens
in between the dots that we miss, right,
and we end up with this kind
of uncanny valley effect
with digital characters.
Well, by using machine learning,
they spent a lot of time
actually teaching the computer
how these faces should move,
and then when the actor goes to perform
with these head mounted cameras on,
they're actually not
capturing that much data.
They're just sort of getting the gist
of what the actor's doing.
- When I had the gauntlet, the stones,
I really tried to bring her back.
- And they feed that to the
machine learning algorithm,
and it analyzes what the face is doing,
and it effectively fills in the blanks,
and translates that to
smart Hulk's performance.
So they actually use a
lot of different sets
of input data, what we
call it training data,
to learn how an actor's face should move.
So there is a very, very
high resolution scan
of the actor's face that's
hundreds of cameras,
multiple lights, that tell us not only
how their face is shaped,
but how their skin reacts
to a different kind
of lighting hitting it.
And then we also put them through
what we call facial
range of motions, right,
which is them going
through every expression
you can possibly imagine.
It's actually very tiring
going through this,
but what it allows us to do is to see
down to a pore level of detail
what their skin does in three dimensions,
as they go from a smile
to a frown, for example.
Terabytes of data go into the input,
to train the machine learning algorithms,
and that allows us to actually not capture
a lot of data on set.
Then we can correlate
that small amount of data
with this intense dataset
that we have for training,
to create an incredibly rich performance
of a fully digital character.
[dramatic music]
In addition to these
stunning digital characters
in "Avengers: Endgame,"
there are entire worlds
that are designed from scratch,
just sort of out of peoples' imagination,
built down to every blade of grass,
and doing that in a
level that is consistent
across an entire film,
and this film had 2500 individual shots
that had visual effects in them,
to make that consistent
across the whole film,
is a huge, huge task on this scale,
and they really nailed it.
- [Rey] People keep
telling me they know me.
No one does.
- [Ben] But I do.
- "Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker"
was a film that really
played heavily on nostalgia
from a visual effects perspective,
and a storytelling perspective.
Not only did the visual effects team
have to kind of build on
this Star Wars universe
that we've become so used to seeing,
and to have it feel really authentic,
and physical, and gritty, and grounded,
but they had to bring multitudes
of digital and actually
live action puppets to life.
Star Wars has always been groundbreaking
from a technology perspective,
but it's also always been
grounded in reality, right?
The world just feels tactile,
and in this film they went to huge lengths
to pay respect to how the
original films were made.
They used tons of practical models,
and actual physical set builds,
in addition to a lot of digital techniques
that are cutting edge even for today.
That real blend of physical
with state of the art,
is part of the Star Wars DNA.
One of the biggest
challenges we always have
in deciding how we're gonna film a movie
is deciding what's gonna be real,
versus what's gonna be digital.
In the scene that takes place
on the sunken Death Star,
Roger Guyette, the
visual effects supervisor
and his team had to decide
what water should be real
versus what should be digital,
and they ended up doing the vast majority
of the water digitally.
They actually created an
entirely new ocean pipeline,
in order to be able to
execute those shots.
But not all of the water was digital.
One of the really important things for us
as a visual effects team,
is to make sure that the
actors always have context
to help with their performances,
and especially when it's something
that they need to touch.
Having something there for real,
like having these waves
that are crashing over them,
be there for real,
is critical to achieving
a believable illusion.
A really touching part of "Star
Wars: The Rise of Skywalker"
was seeing Carrie Fisher onscreen again,
playing Princess Leia posthumously.
Instead of using the
digital facial techniques
that are heavily used by some
of the other contenders this year,
they opted to use Carrie
Fisher's real face,
filmed from footage from past films,
and augment it with digital hair,
and a digital body around her,
so that she fit into her environment.
I think that that really
helped Carrie's soul
come out onscreen, and
it was really appropriate
for that moment, right?
So, Thanos absolutely deserves
to be a digital character.
Carrie in this film,
the only way to do her
was to actually use her.
Since my days as an 18 year
old on Star Wars episode one,
digital effects have come so, so far.
Back then we really had to be restrictive
about how we used the effects,
so digital characters were
incredibly difficult to achieve.
We had to make sure that the
camera wasn't moving too much
in any one shot, otherwise it would make
the shots take a long time,
and be way too expensive.
Now, we're sort of freed up to be able
to do almost anything that we can imagine,
and so what filmmakers are
challenged with these days
is not to ask whether
something can be done,
which is what we faced back in the days
of Star Wars episode one,
but should it be done,
and how does it service the story?
And I think Star Wars has
evolved as a franchise
to be a great example of a film
that uses the right
tool for the right job.
- In your own time, gentlemen.
- Must be something big
if the General's here.
- [General] They're walking into a trap.
Your orders are to deliver a message,
calling off tomorrow morning's attack.
If you don't get there in time,
[explosions]
we will lose 1600 men.
- "1917" is a movie that
you might not look at
and say, "Oh, that's a
visual effects movie."
You would be sorely mistaken.
It is full of visual
effects, beginning to end.
The whole movie plays
as one continuous shot,
where there's no cuts
that you can actually see
in the film,
and that required an
immense amount of work
from the visual effects team.
The film was actually shot in
several different locations,
some of them outdoors, some of
them inside on sound stages,
over the course of several months.
And so how do you make that all look
like one seamless piece of storytelling?
Between each piece of footage,
shot on different days
in different places,
digital effects artists
had to seamlessly blend
from one to the next,
in a way that the audience
can't actually perceive it.
One of the more dramatic examples
of one of these digital blends is a scene
where our hero character
is running out of a village
that's on fire, away from gunmen,
jumps off a bridge and into a river,
and then floats down the river.
As the actor came around
and jumped off the bridge,
he was transitioned to
a fully digital actor,
until he lands in the water,
and then he became that same actor,
but on a different day,
in a different place.
So, just that one example is thousands
of man hours of visual effects time,
to bring that to life.
In addition to all of the digital blends,
what a lot of people don't realize
is how much digital work is done
to actually plus out this
World War I period world,
where tanks that are
stuck in giant craters,
they're actually fully digital.
They were never built for real.
Big fields that have tons
of spent ammunition strewn all over,
very little of that was actually real.
And it all felt incredibly grounded.
It felt like it was really there,
and to me those kinds of effects,
what we call invisible visual effects,
that are there to support the story,
rather than be the story,
are some of my favorite kinds of effects.
- It was like the army.
You followed orders,
you did the right thing,
you got rewarded.
- "The Irishman" featured
one specific technique
that is what got it
nominated for an Oscar.
That is the de-aging of
some of the most well known
and well loved actors of our time,
and to do that for the entire film,
without falling into the uncanny valley,
is a massive challenge.
What the visual effects
supervisor, Pablo Helman,
and his team did on that film,
was to actually really use
the actors facial expressions
on a movie set as ground truth,
and they made a digital mask effectively
that went over that actor's face.
To make these digital
masks move perfectly,
they filmed every actor with
not one camera, but three.
We have the main camera
that was the normal camera
that you would use to shoot a movie,
and then we had two, what
we call witness cameras
on either side.
And between those three cameras,
and a special piece of software
that Industrial Light and
Magic wrote called Flux,
they were able to actually
analyze every movement
of an actor's face.
Flux was actually able to figure out
what each actor was doing exactly,
create the younger version of them,
and then that would be superimposed
on the older version of the actor,
and that became the final result.
It was really important to Martin Scorsese
to be able to shoot this
like a normal movie,
without motion capture, right?
He didn't want a bunch
of technology getting
in the way of the process.
So the two cameras, the witness cameras
that are on either side
of the main camera,
they actually shoot infrared footage,
because that allows
the visual effects team
to light the scene in a way
that allows those cameras
to actually see the actor.
We can't see infrared light,
so we can just pump in
infrared light into the set,
and see really clearly
what the actors are doing,
even though Scorsese wants to light it
as like a really dark moody scene.
So, what "The Irishman"
visual effects team did
was actually brilliant,
is that they figured out
how to get out of the way
of the filmmaking process
of this, you know,
genius in Scorsese, to get all the data
that they needed.
A really important part of
bringing these younger versions
of these actors to life was
actually using thousands
of images and video clips
from each actor in their younger days,
so that they can not only build a face
that looks like kind of
what we remember them
to have looked like in the past,
but also to help train algorithms
within the Flux software,
to make the faces move authentically.
- Where are we gonna go but up?
- When watching "The Irishman"
for all 3 1/2 hours of the movie,
I actually felt like they
were really successful
in bringing these younger versions
of the actors to life.
There was some criticism about,
oh, you know, the posture of the actors
was a little more like an old man
than it was the younger
version of yourself,
and to be honest, I
think the sign of success
with any effect, is whether it helps
to engage you in the movie,
or if it bumps you out of the movie,
and for the duration of "The Irishman,"
I was just fully engaged
in those characters.
So the little technical flaws,
of, in this instance posture,
they just didn't stand out to me.
I've heard a lot of actors
talk about "The Irishman"
as giving them a new lease on life, right?
The fact that these actors could perform
as younger versions of themselves,
and do so so convincingly,
I think has pretty big ramifications
for storytellers moving forward.
We can now look at casting actors
based on their personality
and their fit for a role,
and less for their age.
Some people talk about
the ethical concerns
of being able to create a digital version
of any actor out there,
and I was like, "Oh, are we
gonna replace actors one day?"
And I think "The Irishman"
is proof positive
that that's just not gonna
happen, it's nonsensical.
There is no amount of digital wizardry,
I promise you this, that is
gonna bring a performance
to the level that a DeNiro is gonna bring
to the screen, right?
And that foundation,
that soul of the actor,
that's what we're responding to
from an emotional perspective.
And as "The Irishman" proved
to us, the digital wizardry,
more than replacing an
actor's performance,
it's complementing it.
It's actually helping to highlight it,
and build upon it,
and that as a storyteller is
an incredibly exciting
prospect to leverage
more and more into the future.
["Circle of Life"]
- In "The Lion King," Rob Legato,
the visual effects
supervisor, and his team,
created an entirely digital world
for the story to take place in.
In fact, there's only
one shot in the movie,
the opening shot, that
was filmed in Africa.
Everything else is completely virtual,
but it feels like real life.
It feels like you're watching
a National Geographic documentary.
Now the danger of having
a completely virtual world
that you can do anything you want in,
is that it could end up
looking like a video game.
No matter how realistic the grass looks,
if the camera's not moving correctly,
and if the lighting isn't cinematic,
it's just not gonna work.
So, what Rob Legato and
his visual effects team did
on the film, is they designed
virtual production tools
that allowed real camera teams,
with real camera cranes, and dollies,
and steady cams, that were puppeteering
these digital cameras
in the virtual world.
And so what you end up
with is a feel of the movie
that is every bit as naturalistic
as if it had been shot
in the African Plains.
The thing that's always a dead giveaway
with digital effects is when
things are too perfect, right?
The natural world, it has
a certain amount of chaos
that is completely unavoidable,
and by using virtual production,
and real camera equipment
to design these digital camera moves,
that imperfection that we're so used
to seeing in cinema, is translated
onto these digital African Plains,
so that it just looks like something
that we're used to seeing.
Predicting who's gonna take
home the Oscar this year
is, and I'm not copping out here,
it's just totally impossible.
All of the films that are
nominated are so different,
and I really think that
the winner is gonna be
probably the story that
ended up connecting
with audiences the most.
[upbeat music]
