Even in trailers for Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, the prequel looks notably different from 2015’s Mad Max: Fury Road. While the deep orange hues of the outback-turned-wasteland persist, Furiosa’s overall use of CGI is much more apparent — and somewhat jarring. Initially, director George Miller had intended to shoot Furiosa and Fury Road back-to-back in order to keep his wild universe as cohesive as possible. In fact, Theron was even provided with the backstory that would become Furiosa’s narrative. Unfortunately, the prequel landed in development hell for years.
Although Fury Road production VFX supervisor Andrew Jackson returned for Furiosa, the Taylor-Joy-starring prequel boasts some jarring use of CGI throughout. In some of the film’s most chaotic scenes, like one that’s set in Mad Max’s Citadel, the CGI stands out — and not in a good way. For a series that’s always boasted impressive practical effects, choreography, and stunt work, the glaring CGI is a bit of a letdown in certain moments. At the same time, there’s so much happening on screen that Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga needs to rely on CGI-heavy post-production.
While Mad Max: Fury Road contains 2,000 visual effects shots, the post-apocalyptic smash hit relied on practical effects and singular editing techniques in order to capture its distinct feel. Film Editor Margaret Sixel combed through 480 hours of footage, with the final film boasting roughly 2,700 cuts. Moreover, Fury Road does not run at the traditional frame rate of 24 frames per second for the duration of the film, which gives it that almost cartoonish, bombastic feel. Furiosa definitely uses some of the same tricks, but it also relies more heavily on green screens.
In Mad Max: Fury Road, a lot was shot on camera, but then tweaked in post-production. For example, visual effects artists added in dramatic backdrops or altered lighting, textures, and weather in certain shots in order to capture Mad Max’s distinct Wasteland world. In Furiosa’s ending (and throughout), things look more studio-controlled. That is, the CGI isn’t used to enhance certain sequences in Furiosa. Instead, the prequel’s go-to approach was to rely on CGI for certain elements. While there’s no harm in doing so, it’s definitely a different approach from Fury Road.
You must log in or register to comment.
I was interested in the “non-traditional” fps of Fury Road so here’s the relevant part from wikipedia, they actually used less than 24 for most of the movie.
According to Seale, “something like 50 or 60 percent of the film is not running at 24 frames a second, which is the traditional frame rate. It’ll be running below 24 frames because George, if he couldn’t understand what was happening in the shot, he slowed it down until you could … Or if it was too well understood, he’d shorten it or he’d speed it up back towards 24. His manipulation of every shot in that movie is intense.”[75] The Washington Post noted that the changing frame rate gives the film an “almost cartoonishly jerky” look.[76]
It’s things like this that make me unconcerned about this new movies CGI. This guy has a vision for his films and will do what he can to see it through. Is everything 100% perfect? No of course not. But you know the man gave it well over 100% in effort.
I watched it and the CGI was way way way more noticable. There’s a scene at the beginning of the movie of someone getting on a horse, and it looks like when Legolas very obviously CGI’d his way onto the horse in LotR. Lots of other shots with bad CGI, too.
That’s really weird. Did you see a release version?
Edit. Oh yeah its probably been out all weekend. Do’h
I was rewatching fury road on the weekend and this was something I picked up on I hadn’t noticed before. it’s quite apparent in scenes where a sense of urgency is required, such as when Max is trying to escape from the warboys in the citadel near the start of the movie
What does a change in frame rate look like?
it kind of looks like scenes are being sped up, but when you pay attention you can see the action is moving at a normal pace, but looks faster. it’s a clever effect used in the right places
That sounds distracting if you are capable of noticing it! I’ll keep an untrained eye out.
its not so bad but something you will notice now you know about it!
These days, if the VFX doesn’t look invisible, the studio just didn’t want to spend either the time or money it would take.
All CGI can be seamless and photo-real, if you have the budget for it.The problem is the studios that have the money to make it invisible just stretch it even further until we’re just watching animated movies with actors faces on top
That’s the same problem.
I had heard grumbles about the CGI. We’ll see - I am booked in for Monday and the friend I am going with is in visual effects, so we’ll see what his more finely-attuned eye picks up. However, I know he prefers as much physical effects as possible with CGI getting dropped into that so…
First thing I noticed when I saw the trailer was the CGI looked “overdone”. I was hoping it was just unfinished footage since some movies do that for trailers, but it looks like it really is like that. I’m still having second thoughts about seeing it in theaters because I don’t want to see a cgi fest, but let’s see.
Is this article ai? I
I saw it opening day. Pretty great movie (a delightful blend of the first three Mad Max movies and Fury Road), but the CGI definitely stands out. Ultimately, I agree with some of the other comments here, that as long as George Miller is at the helm using every tool he can the realize his vision, it’s fine by me.
I’m an annoying broken record on this ATM (genuinely sorry, but I’m happy to die on this hill for now) …
but maybe being amateur VFX critics is not the best thing we could be doing with a movie going experiences?! How was the story, writing, directing and the acting?!!
I’ve recently started watching Babylon 5, a 90s Sci-Fi show. The props are cheap, and all of the space scenes are done with TV 90s CGI that basically looks like a video game … from '94. And so far (about half way through season 1), I’m all in. I got used to the VFX and have even come to appreciate their “charm” (seriously, they look kinda alien and comic book like) … but mostly I like the story, directing and characters … focusing on the CGI would be a waste of my time … they tell the space elements of the story perfectly well.
Now I haven’t seen Furiosa, and I’m open to it and its VFX being poorly deployed … but maybe this whole “the CGI took me out of it because I could tell it wasn’t practical … is just missing the point”??
I think they criticise VFX because there’s an end goal of being indistinguishable from reality.
Commenting on story, execution, and uniqueness requires actual taste and a personal bias which may least to reduced views and interaction.
There actual CGI background bits look about the same, but like with the animals your brain just knows that what you’re looking at can’t be real. The anti-CGI purists miss so much subtle CGI in films and TV it’s actually kind of laughable, but will give themselves a big slap on the back for noticing a tentacle creature in a Sam Raimi movie that’s really obviously textured to look like a rubber prop monster from one of his old films.
