A "Terminator 2" Callback

larger

Modern franchise pictures frequently utilize easter eggs, references and callbacks as meaningful cinematic nutrition. But it doesn't have to be this way.

Here's an understated, unassuming, blink-and-you'll-miss it callback in "Terminator 2" (1991) to "The Terminator" (1984) which repeats a motif yet uses the callback in a completely different manner.

Image description: In "The Terminator" (1984), Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) destroys a T-800 robot using a giant, four-button industrial activator. In "Terminator 2" (1991), Connor again destroys a T-800 robot using a giant, two-button industrial activator, but this time in a completely different context.

"Why Does OLD MOVIE's Visual Effects Still Hold Up?"

This question comes up a lot, usually in regards to films like "Jurassic Park" (1993) and "Transformers" (2007), especially when referring to franchise films. Some folks feel that the visual effects of a successful movie's sequels are "worse" than the original film's, even though the "technology is better". The problem with the premise of this question is that it disregards the human and creative aspects of filmmaking, instead defaulting to "technology is better, why aren't the images better?"... which is a deeply reductive and silly way of looking at the artistic process.

I wrote this tweet in 2023 as a quick attempt to answer the rhetorical question. I think my answer still holds up pretty well. Heh.

•  •  •  •

"Why does OLD MOVIE's visual effects still hold up?"

• shot design
• planning and organization
• taste
• sticking to a plan
• appropriate timeline
• small volume of work
• appropriate budget

These principles are timeless. If you think a visual effects shot looks like crap, the people involved with the movie can point to one or more of these bullet points to indicate the reason.

Please note how none of these bullet points are about technique because making good art is technique-agnostic.

•  •  •  •

I really hope readers don't gloss over that last sentence, because it's fairly important.

Battling Misinformation: "Transformers"

Our visual effects work for "Transformers" (2007) is still being lauded to this day, which is a testament to the amazing talents of the visual effects teams at Industrial Light & Magic under the supervision of Scott Farrar, Russell Earl and Scott Benza.

I frequently see myths about the production timeline of our film, and in the spirit of squashing misinformation, I'd like to address it here.

In a quote tweet responding to someone complimenting our work on the movie, a social media post reads:

The reason the VFX looks so stellar is because ILM began animating for the film in early 2005. They had Two Entire Years to complete the CGI. The industry standard now is a couple months if they're feeling generous.

I've seen a variation of "Two Entire Years" myth several times over the years. This is not true.

Very roughly, ILM's first animation tests took place in May 2006, while director Michael Bay, Farrar, Earl and Benza were still shooting the movie. I started compositing the first transformation shots in the movie in June 2006. Our ILM crew was modest at the start, and grew by September 2006. The movie wrapped filming in October 2006. The movie was released in theaters July 2007. So, roughly speaking, the lion's share of visual effects production took place in less than one year.

Please stop repeating this "two years" business. Yes, generally speaking, we had more time to work on this type of movie than we do these days, but let's not be hyperbolic and repeat the lie that we had more than double the time to complete our visual effects shots than what was true.

Battling Misinformation: "Severance"

A Twitter account with a verified blue checkmark and over 1 million followers regularly peddles misinformation about how movies are made. Here's how they described the making of the first shot from "Severance" (Apple TV+) season two, episode one:

"The opening scene of 'SEVERANCE' Season 2 took 5 months to film."

Any reasonable person that is not a filmmaking professional would have no reason to believe anything other than this: "the production spent five months straight filming the elements for this single shot." Of course, what this crummy account wrote is a gross simplification of a nuanced point. The production did not spend five months straight filming elements for this shot.

As indicated in the show's official podcast hosted by director Ben Stiller and actor Adam Scott, they couldn't be more clear about the complexities they face in gathering the photography for this shot.

view on YouTube

Scott: "We shot those ten difference pieces [of photography] over a period of, what would you say, five months?"

Stiller: "Yeah."

Pretty clear. In fact, the dumb account that posted this misinformation included the link to the podcast as its source in a reply. Either they are intentionally being deceptive, or they're grossly incompetent at reporting "Film Updates".

There are far too many accounts out there that spit misinformation, muddying the waters of how the general public understands how art is created, and it's quite frustrating. Just read some of the replies and quote tweets of this stupid post.

"Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" Mini-Oner

Much has been said about Steven Spielberg’s uncanny ability to tell a story within a frame and set up geography, and usually folks use his long oners as examples of this talent. In fact, we break down a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981) oner on the Lighter Darker: The ILM Podcast, in Episode 3 (starting around 27:35).

But here’s a relatively innocuous, non-flashy 26-second-long shot from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade” (1989) that does all those things.

With this blocking, Spielberg quickly sets up the geography of the scene, the physical goals of the characters, and even allows for full-body physical comedy to happen within the frame. Other directors would shoot this scene as a wide+closeups, then intercut “to increase tension”.

The same angle repeats later in the sequence, again to clearly establish the geography and the relationships between the characters. This is how directors like Spielberg help the audience understand the action and never get spatially confused.

Now, you might be asking yourself “How did Indy and his dad get in the box? How did they close the box? Why did they close the box instead if just driving away? Why didn’t they wait until the bad guys were cruising down the river?” Because it’s a movie, that’s why.

OH AND ALL THIS TIME YOU NEVER SAW THE CREW MEMBER’S HAND CREEPING OUT FROM UNDERNEATH A TARP, PUTTING THEIR HAND ON THE MOTOR SO IT CAN BE "STEERED", something that you will now never be able to unsee. Ha.

And here's some speculation on my part - maybe this was designed as one big long shot, with Indy and his dad emerging/running off camera/bad guys emerge/camera reveals the box/Indy drives out. (Which would also qualify as a Texas Switch, since Harrison Ford and Sean Connery would not have been the driver and passenger of the motorcycle). Perhaps the timing/choreography didn't work out, and the middle shot was required to complete the sequence.

Original, abbreviated Bluesky post.