In the world of filmmaking, the synergy between visual effects (VFX) and color grading isn’t often talked about, yet it’s crucial. It's the final glaze that perfects the effects. This article explores the essential steps to ensure smooth collaboration between CGI and color grading. After all, even the most meticulously crafted visual effects can falter with missteps in grading. Furiosa: A Mad Max saga | ©Warner Bros VFX BEFORE GRADING In post-production, a workflow principle is that VFX should be done before color grading. This approach preserves the wide dynamic range of the original camera footage. In other words, working with ungraded, raw footage allows the VFX artists to maintain consistency. This means that the VFX team has greater flexibility and control, facilitating the achievement of the desired visual aesthetics. This way also provides colorists with a "raw" canvas to work with, even with the effects already integrated in the plates. “From the initial acquisition to the final composite, preserving the integrity of the original footage is paramount. When seamlessly blending live-action footage with CG elements, it is essential to work with the highest quality and widest dynamic range possible”, Richard Betts, Head of VFX at Blockhead . However, not all projects follow this sequential workflow; some may require to work in parallel. For example, in Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga, due to its heavy use of CGI, collaboration between VFX artists and colorists started early on and was crucial for achieving the hyper-stylized aesthetic George Miller envisioned . Eric Whipp , Head of Color, explains in an interview with PostPerspective  that this project necessitated a workflow that allowed to iterate quickly, almost in "real time". “As a lot of the backgrounds in this film are full-CG, we would start with a basic lighting pass and comp of a shot from VFX, then jump into the color suite and play with the look. Often we would try different skies and looks and sculpt the lighting to get it right for the scene”, he states. Once the look was green lit by the director, Whipp would send the reference back to the VFX team, who matched the effects accordingly, without undergoing numerous time-consuming iterations. “It makes it easier for VFX to move forward, as there’s a reference of where we need to end up”, Whipp adds. COLOR MANAGEMENT A common understanding of workflow and color management is crucial from the outset. The industry-standard Academy Color Encoding System (ACES)  plays an important role by standardizing color processes across different digital formats. This ensures consistent and reliable color reproduction throughout the production process. Adherence to ACES allows VFX studios to return their completed work in the same format and color as initially received, thereby preserving the integrity of the original footage. LUTs AND COLOR BIBLES Creating an early LUT for key or "hero" shots  is an effective (and important) way to provide a reference point for VFX studios. This LUT acts as a preliminary color guide, allowing VFX artists to align their work with the intended visual style of the film. Similarly, comprehensive color bibles are sometimes developed; for instance, Greg Fraiser, the Director of Photography for Villeneuve's Dune , crafted color bibles that significantly influenced the visual effects' color pipeline . As described by the American Society of Cinematographers ( ASC ), Fraiser and the assistant editor initially edited the film in scene orde to establish a visual baseline. “I took wide shots and close-ups of important scenes, put those into a timeline, and graded them to capture Denis’ vision, and my vision. [It was] just a series of images that represented our intent. During the post process, as [visual-effects supervisor] Paul Lambert and his team added backgrounds, the color bible was a reference, so they could apply that LUT to make sure it was going the way we wanted”, Greg Fraiser, Dune DOP. THE RISK OF COLOR GRADING ON VFX While color grading can enhance a film's visual appeal, it also has the potential to disrupt the harmony of CGI elements. Small discrepancies like misaligned hues or subtle changes in shadows can cause digital effects to stand out unnaturally, breaking the illusion of realism. Conversely, a skillful color grade can uplift and even salvage a visual effect. Minor adjustments like tweaking the intensity of smoke, atmospheric rays, or making slight hue shifts can all be managed directly in the color grading suite. Sometimes, the VFX studios may also propose, within the parameters of the LUT or movie bible given, a grading. One that works ideally with the effect on the shot. This is sent either as a still or as metadata. Never baked into the footage. “It happens sometimes that we need to propose a creative grade on that sequence, because it will better serve the work of the VFX artist. Obviously, we would never ever step against the created or defined look that was done between the DOP and the colorist”, confesses Christian Ganea Reitmeier, VFX colorist for DNEG, in a MixingLight podcast. IT'S ALL ABOUT ENHANCING. NOT CONTRADICTING. In conclusion, the dance between VFX and color grading is an art that defines modern filmmaking. By strategically defining where the VFX sit in the pipeline, embracing early collaborations and sticking to standards like ACES, filmmakers can end up with visually stunning shots. Done right, this alliance doesn't just enhance a film; it transforms it. It makes it captivating.

The opening scene of Final Destination 2  has left an indelible mark on those who saw it, becoming a reference point for highway nightmares. Even today, discussions about the traumatic impact of the log truck scene persist, showcasing its lasting influence on pop culture. But what makes this  scene so memorable, and how did the filmmakers achieve such a terrifying effect? ©2003 New Line Cinema First, a little context. If you’ve been living under a rock, Final Destination  is a horror film series centered around a group of people who narrowly escape a deadly disaster, only to be hunted down by death itself in increasingly gruesome (and might we say, fun and unexpected?) ways. There have been five movies so far, with a sixth, Final Destination: Bloodlines , set to be released in 2025. The log truck accident occurs in the second installment of the series, during the opening sequence where we see a premonition of everyone’s tragic death. This particular sequence captures the chaos of a massive highway pile-up, with its screeching tires, shattered glass, fiery explosions and copious amounts of splattering blood. The scene is visceral and intense, and even after more than 20 years since its release, it remains etched in viewers’ minds. “We knew at its core, the death sequences were really what people were going to see. The writers, who were twisted and sick beyond hope and reason, were able to come up with the most bizarre and yet completely interconnected ways that the characters are killed,” said producer Craig Perry. RELATABLE FEAR The scene taps into a universally relatable fear: a car accident. Compared to the first film's airplane disaster or the last film's bridge collapse, the log truck crash hits closer to home. Car accidents are something most people have experienced or witnessed , making the horror feel personal and immediate. Another interesting element is that everything is filmed in broad daylight . You see every detail, every drop of blood, wood splintering and glass shattering. There’s no darkness to hide in, neither for the audience nor the effects team. “There’s none of the mood that nighttime or darkness creates. No, we do it in broad daylight, in everyday experiences”, Eric Sears, the film's editor. And although some effects were enhanced for dramatic purposes, the stunts used real cars crashing, with actual stunt drivers, making it feel like a genuine representation of a horrific accident. SWEET BLEND OF STUNTS, SFX AND VFX Filming the sequence took the crew 11 days, and they had 7 kilometers of highway at their disposal. To make the movie as real and gruesome as possible, they followed a specific approach throughout the movie, including the log sequence. “It all comes down to some really basic concepts: shoot as much as you can practical, or get the actors on a green screen stage, or shoot as many pieces as you can practically, and then go into the computer and start mimicking reality”, Joe Bauer, VFX supervisor. However, one thing had to be CGI: the logs . As Jason Crosby, senior technical manager from Digital Domain, explains in detail in an interview with CG Channel : “when New Line started shooting the major accident in Vancouver, they discovered that real logs only bounced about an inch off the road when dropped from a logging truck. Obviously, this didn’t have the impact they wanted for a Hollywood-style crash scene”. This highlights an important aspect of CGI: it’s not just used to create things that don’t exist, but also to direct inanimate objects to behave in a way that serves the story, such as logs or superhero’s capes . Crosby even mentioned how they had to “tweak parameters” of the log simulation to give the logs that “jumping through windshields killer instinct” effect. Other digital effects were used in combination with practical ones. For instance, when a log crashes through a police car (driver included), they filmed it with a fixed log and a real car crashing into it, using a dummy filled with blood. They then replaced the dummy’s face with the actor’s and added rotation to the log for a more dynamic effect. In many cases, actors were filmed against a green backdrop and composited over the real crash scenes. Fire was also added digitally to amplify the real one and a lot of wire removal was necessary to achieve the desired results. “The physical effect had to work out with the stunt guy doing the right thing, with the right timing of the explosion”, David Ellis, director. SOUND DESIGN & ABSENCE OF MUSIC The sound design is crucial to the scene’s impact. It not only sets the rhythm of the sequence, foreshadowing what’s to come, but also immerses the audience, making them feel like they’re on the highway too. The sounds of speeding cars on a damp road, roaring engines and each character’s specific choice of music or radio channel all contribute to the familiar experience of being in a car. Then... the logs detach. Besides a soft hum at that exact moment, you’re left with gasps, screams, screeching tires, metal crunching, explosions and the sickening thud of logs hitting the road, cars and bodies. This sensory overload makes the scene unforgettable. The lack of a musical score during the carnage also amplifies the realism, forcing the viewer to focus on the raw, chaotic sounds of the disaster . When the music finally emerges at the very end, it underscores the false hope that Kimberly, the protagonist, might survive... only to have the “truck from hell” come barreling through. DIRECTOR Last but not least, having a director who understood the intricacies of action movies was crucial in cementing the log truck scene’s status as one of the most memorable car crash scenes in modern film history. David R. Ellis exemplified this with his extensive experience as a stunt coordinator and 2nd unit director, specializing in action sequences (from the SUV kidnapping scene in Clear and Present Danger  to a Quidditch match in Harry Potter) . His expertise ensured that the log truck scene in Final Destination 2  was as technically proficient as emotionally impactful. This underscores the importance of having directors who truly comprehends the task at hand, whether it's a comedy, an action movie, or a VFX-packed sci-fi epic . So, now you know! If you’re ever trying to create a scene with similar elements, don’t hold back. Use every tool at your disposal : practical stunts, real fire, fake fire, makeup effects, digital effects, green screen, wires, even miniatures! If you’re unsure how to achieve this or need help making decisions, Orbitae is here to offer a comprehensive solution to create your scene in the best way possible.

In art, it's all about reinveinting what has already been made. As Pablo Picasso allegedly said: "Good artists borrow. Great artists steal" However, in the Alien  franchise, this premise doesn’t quite hold... you can't just copy what the the previous director did. That’s not how it works. The series, now spanning seven movies (not counting the Predator  crossovers), has had to continually reimagine and expand upon a lore and creature first invented in 1979. But what about its most iconic moment: the chestburster scene? How has each director managed to recreate and revitalize such a pivotal moment? Let’s explore the evolution of this scene across the Alien  saga and see how each film put its unique spin on it. The original chestburster scene | ©Twentieth Century Fox ALIEN (1979) - RIDLEY SCOTT Ridley Scott’s original Alien  introduced the world to the chestburster in a scene that has since become one of the most iconic in horror history and set the standard for all that followed. The concept originated with the film's writer, Dan O'Bannon, who suffered from Crohn's disease. Apparently, after a particularly excruciating night of pain, O'Bannon conceived the idea of a creature violently erupting from a person’s body. A metaphor for his own suffering. Alien's script The jump from script to screen was no easy feat, starting with the design of this version of the creature, up to the logistics of the scene. Bringing the chestburster to life required four takes and nearly 23 liters of fake blood . The terror was also amplified by the actors' genuine reactions. As most of them were unaware of the exact nature of the scene, it lead to real shock when the red liquid and actual animal guts sprayed across the set. Additionally, Scott carefully structured the film so that we had to wait over 50 minutes to catch the first glimpse of the alien, making the chestburster scene unforgettable to this day. Ridley Scott draws his own storyboards, know as "Ridleygrams" If you want to have a more in-depth understanding on how this scene was brought to life, check out this video ! ALIENS (1986) - JAMES CAMERON Terminator’s director took a different approach in Aliens , shifting the franchise towards action while retaining its horror roots. The first chestburster moment in this film is implied through a nightmare sequence, where Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) dreams of the creature emerging from her chest. This scene deepens Ripley’s PTSD from the first film and taps into the audience’s lingering fear. By not directly recreating the scene, Cameron preserved the impact of the original while building tension in a new, psychologically driven way. Nightmare sequence | ©Twentieth Century Fox But Cameron didn’t entirely shy away from a traditional alien chestburster moment. Later in the film, when Ripley and the Marines enter the alien hive, they discover a woman cocooned and begging for death, moments before a chestburster erupts from her. This scene is brief but significant for the characters in the movie. It's a reminder of what happens when you get facehugged. ALIEN³ (1992) - DAVID FINCHER David Fincher’s Alien³  introduced a new twist by having the chestburster emerge from a different host: an animal. In the theatrical release, it bursts from a dog, while in the special edition, it emerges from an ox. This adaptation expanded the Xenomorph mythos by showcasing the creature's ability to adapt to its host. The result is a variant known as the " Runner ", characterized by its agile body, which allows it to move on all fours and, oh, it can spit acid from its mouth too. Unlike the small, pale, elongated versions of chestbursters seen before, the Runner emerges almost fully formed, with distinct traits inherited from its host. Which version did you see, the dog or ox? | ©Twentieth Century Fox However, in the theatrical ending , Alien³  also gives us a human chestburster moment, this time with none other than Ripley herself. In the film's climax, having been impregnated with a Xenomorph queen embryo, she sacrifices herself by jumping into a furnace. As she falls, the alien bursts out of her, but she holds it close and ensures that both she and the creature are destroyed in the flames. It's Ripley's finale. ALIEN: RESURRECTION (1997) - JEAN-PIERRE JEUNET  Because "we've seen it all before", Alien: Resurrection  brings a darker, more aggressive and intentional use of the creature . Near the climax of the film, Purvis (a kidnapped civilian who was part of Dr. Mason Wren's breeding project) knows the chestburster inside him will soon emerge and kill him. Seizing control of his final moments, he grabs Dr. Wren and forces his head against his chest, ensuring that the chestburster will kill both of them. This scene gives the host a sense of agency, turning the moment into a weapon and adding emotional intensity to the traditional chestburster horror. It's chaotic, messy, and... surprising! PROMETHEUS (2012) - RIDLEY SCOTT While there isn’t a traditional chestburster scene in this movie, there is a harrowing moment reminiscent of it: a forced abortion . This occurs when the " Trilobite ", a parasitic alien, is surgically extracted from Dr. Shaw’s (Noomi Rapace) body using an automated surgical pod. Unlike the familiar chestburster, the Trilobite has a more primitive, squid-like appearance. This design choice was intentional, highlighting the creature’s role as a precursor to the Xenomorph. More squid like. More aquatic. The scene mirrors the horror of the original chest-bursting moment by exploring the concept of alien life taking root inside a human. Abortion sequence | ©Twentieth Century Fox ALIEN: COVENANT (2017) - RIDLEY SCOTT  Returning to the franchise, Ridley Scott had the laborious task of reimagining something he had created decades before. While he avoided to do it in Prometheus , he brought it back in Alien: Covenant and, this time, it happens twice. The first instance is a variation though, more of a “backburster”. When a crew member becomes infected, his back begins to burst, crack and break apart during a medical exam, ultimately giving way to a Bloodburster  that emerges, complete with its placenta-like sac and all. Yes, that scene is gruesome. Later in the film, there’s a recreation of the classic chestburster scene: a man lies on his back, choking as an alien breaks free from his chest, tearing through his T-shirt. The diffrence is that the alien that emerges from the dead body is fully formed, resembling a miniature version of the Xenomorph. Also, in contrast with the scene above, the tone here is more, let’s say "cute", for lack of a better word, rather than horrific, as it depicts David (the android, played by Fassbender) proudly watching the culmination of his work. Even the music is calmer, almost soothing. ©Twentieth Century Fox ALIEN: ROMULUS (2024) - FEDE ÁLVAREZ  Last in the list is the recently released Alien: Romulus , which doesn’t shy away from this now well-rooted body horror moment of the franchise. It delivers a full, classic chestburster scene with brutal realism, blending the practical effects of the 1970s with all the tropes of modern horror. In this case, the young pilot Navarro gets face-hugged and then chest-burst pretty quickly, just as we might expect. However, this time, there’s no shirt in the way. This time, we see the alien literally bursting out of Navarro’s chest, with ribs cracking and skin ripping off. "I approached it as if it was a nature documentary. The direction I gave the puppeteers was stuff like, ‘The baby looks for the scent of the mother now,’ and so it raises his head to do that. That just makes it way more realistic", Fede Alvarez, for Entertainment Weekly In conclusion, each chestburster scene across the Alien  saga has built upon the terror of the original, adapting to the times and the evolving expectations of horror fans. Whether through the introduction of new lore or ways to use special effects, these scenes have remained a central element of the franchise's appeal. Which one did you prefer or which one did you see first? Let us know in the comments!

Have you seen The Substance ? You know, Demi Moore’s new movie? Got a standing ovation  in Cannes? Well, it’s… let’s say surprising. We walked in with little information, only to find a highly stylized film, beautifully shot, with great sound design and some memorable scenes (though the hag- sploitation is a bit on the brink). But we are not here to talk about that. After seeing the movie, we started noticing posts and articles about all the easter eggs, references and homages scattered throughout. From Kubrick to Cronenberg and even Giallo cinema, it seems packed with deliberate nods. So, it got us thinking: when is it a copy and when is it a homage? Where’s the line? Nobody is accusing Fargeat of stealing from previous directors. Yet Tarantino, who has built his career on similar borrowings, finds himself constantly at the center of controversy. “I steal from every single movie ever made”, Quentin Tarantino, Empire Magazine 1994 SO, WHAT IS AN HOMAGE? AND WHEN IS IT CONSIDERED A COPY? Homage (noun) /ˈhɒmɪdʒ/ Expression of high regard: Respect Something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another:  Tribute An homage is a filmmaker’s way of paying tribute. It's a deliberate acknowledgment of another work or artist (movie, painting, poem, etc.!). It’s an act of respect that enriches a film by connecting it to its predecessors, often adding depth for cinephiles who recognize the references. Cinema is so filled with homages, that it’s hard to keep record of it. One recent and interesting example is the opening of Barbie , which reimagines the iconic sequence from 2001: A Space Odyssey . Barbie opening scene | ©Warner Bros Copying, by contrast, lacks that transformative touch . It occurs when elements from another work are reused without reinterpretation or originality. The distinction between homage and copying can be subjective, but key factors include intent, execution and the degree of innovation applied to borrowed material. Meaning, that if you want to pay a homage, try to do it your way, don’t just recreate it plainly. Take, for example, the controversy between Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Guillermo del Toro over The Shape of Water . Jeunet accused del Toro of plagiarizing a scene from his 1991 film Delicatessen . The Mexican director simply responded by pointing out that both filmmakers owed the idea to Terry Gilliam, framing it as part of a larger chain of influence . However, Jeunet maintained in a interview with Ouest-France  that if  he ever borrowed from other directors, it was done unconsciously. "It's so copy-pasted from Delicatessen  that at some point, I can’t help but think he lacks self-respect", Jean Pierre Jeunet about del Toro. Another prime example of this debate is Quentin Tarantino’s work. His debut film, Reservoir Dogs  (1992), has been accused of plagiarizing Ringo Lam’s City on Fire  (1987), with critics pointing out that the last 20 minutes are almost identical. Tarantino’s Kill Bill  series also draws heavily from the 1973 Japanese film Lady Snowblood . In fact, all of Tarantino’s movies borrow heavily from other works! Left: Federico Fellini's 8 1/2. Right : Pulp Fiction by Tarantino ENTER PASTICHE To complicate the discussion even further, let’s talk about pastiche, a technique that blends multiple references into a single work . Think of it as a collage of inspirations, stitched together to create something entirely new. “What makes Tarantino so special is that he never steals from one source. He rather steals from multiple sources spanning decades and then stitches them together to create something new. It's a technique known as pastiche, a vital element in postmodernism”, Business Insider This idea of combining numerous references to form a patchwork of influences applies not only to Tarantino but also to del Toro, who is always open about the various inspirations behind his stories. Naturally, it also suits our case of interest: The Substance . To show you what we mean, here are four standout homages Fargeat makes in her movie: ATTENTION: SPOILERS AHEAD (if you haven’t seen the movie, stop reading now!) The Shining Kubrick’s The Shining  casts a long shadow over The Substance . Demi’s “Wall of Successes” features a geometric carpet pattern that recalls the iconic flooring of the Overlook Hotel. But the parallels don’t stop there: the same corridor drenched in blood evokes the elevator scene. Certain shots of Demi’s character also mirror Jack Torrance’s shots. And what about the Red Bathroom? Or the old hag nod with hanging boobs? It seems the references to this movie are endless. The Fly Cronenberg’s The Fly  influences The Substance  in a more thematic way. And Fargeat hints at it early in the movie. It happens in, arguably, one of the most grotesque scenes (at least for me), where Demi’s character is being callously dismissed by her boss, who’s voraciously eating shrimps while telling her she’s just too old. Then, we cut to a shot of a fly drowning in his wine... a foreshadowing of the body horror to come. Later, much like Seth Brundle, the films’ characters undergo a monstrous transformation, evolving into a creature called Monstro Elisasue. The Backburster In a scene that would make Ridley Scott proud, Demi’s character takes the titular substance and, well, a horrifying “rebirth” scene takes place. Her “other self” bursts out of her back. Reminds you of something? Yes, Alien . To be specific, Covenant . By the way, we wrote an article about how every director reimagined this scene throughout the franchise instead of just copying it. Backbuster scene | ©MUBI Carrie The film’s finale gets inspiration from Carrie . The climactic chaos ends with everyone laughing and berating the protagonist (much like in the 1976 classic) and, as you might expect, it doesn’t end well. The result is a blood-soaked spectacle, though here it leans more into gory excess. Bonus:  A 2001: A Space Odyssey  Nod As Demi’s character takes the substance, she’s plunged into a kaleidoscopic tunnel of colors, that immediately reminds you of the iconic “Stargate” sequence. These are just a few of the many references in The Substance . There’s no shortage of material to dissect, but we’ll stop here and let you dig deeper for yourself. All in all, it seems that if you copy visually (hum hum, sorry, pay homage), it’s OK. Because, in the end, when you try to reinterpret an idea, through your own creative process and with your own themes and concept, it transforms into something that’s yours, all while tapping into something that already has meaning, thus creating a new meaning overall. That being said, never ever   shy away from acknowledging your influences.  After all, we all start by recreating what inspires us. That’s how art works. That’s how it evolves. And that’s how classical art stays alive. What do you think? Where’s the line between inspiration and imitation?

Remember that guy who jumped from the Titanic as it was sinking, only to collide with the propeller and spiral down into the icy water? Or how Spider-Man can flip through the air with gravity-defying agility? Ever wondered how they did it? The answer lies in digi-doubles, lifelike digital replicas of actors used to pull off scenes that are too dangerous, complex or downright impossible to film with real people. Rodeo digi-doubles breakdown for Stranger Things 4 While it might seem like the domain of superhero blockbusters, digi-doubles have been quietly revolutionizing all kinds of films since the 90s. But what goes into making a digi-double, and why have they become such an essential tool in every filmmaker’s storytelling toolkit? WHAT IS A DIGI-DOUBLE? A digi-double is a digital recreation of an actor, crafted to replicate their appearance, movements and even facial expressions. The process typically begins with 3D scanning the actor to capture their likeness in detail. This data is then used to build a realistic 3D model, which can be animated using motion capture or other techniques to mirror the actor's performance. This digital counterpart can then be integrated into live-action scenes, making it appear as if the actor is performing feats without you even knowing it (when it’s well done). The first time, it seems, that a digi-double was used in a film, was in Batman Forever (1995), with cape and all. But why go to all this trouble? Digi-doubles offer filmmakers a way to tackle scenes that would be too dangerous, expensive, impractical or impossible to shoot with real actors. WHEN TO USE DIGI-DOUBLES? Digi-doubles have become a go-to tool in blockbuster action filmmaking, especially with the rise of superhero movies. For example, Spider-Man's swings through New York City are performed by a CGI double because, well, you know... Spidey things. But it's not only about the stunts. When Spider-Man made his first appearance in Captain America: Civil War , what audiences actually saw was a digi-double, even in dialogue scenes. Lengthy negotiations and Tom Holland’s late casting, which happened months after filming had already begun, necessitated the use of a digital stand-in to integrate the character into the story, according to VOX . So, they aren't just for action, they're also very helpful under tight deadlines and unexpected challenges . Vox : showcasing how digi-doubles enhance position Another reason to use them is to enhance a character's pose, silhouette and/or movement , especially when aiming for a comic book vibe or creating a gruesome effect. In horror movies, they are particularly valuable for violently killing or "breaking" characters, as was done in Stranger Things 4 . However, digi-doubles aren’t limited to superhero or supernatural scenarios... they're also used in more grounded settings. For example, in Titanic , they were key to convey the massive scale of the ship and the violence of its sinking. They were used not only for the main actors and stunt scenes but also to populate the ship with hundreds of passengers. A more recent use comes from David Fincher’s The Killer  (2023), where a digi-double was employed during a scene in which the protagonist, played by Michael Fassbender, narrowly escapes through the streets of Paris after a botched hit. The decision to use CGI was done because the result of shooting in a virtual set didn't live up to the expectations. Sometimes, digi-doubles can be a last resort. In Furious 7 (2015), for example, after Paul Walker's tragic death, his brothers stood in as body doubles and a digi-double was used to complete his remaining scenes, allowing the film to preserve the character’s storyline. Digi-doubles are also useful for de-aging or aging actors, as seen in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button , where Brad Pitt’s face was digitally recreated for most of the film. Additionally, they can be invaluable for creating specific crowds, like in season 3 of The Handmaid’s Tale , where thousands of handmaids were digitally replicated. Leo Bovell, VFX supervisor at Mavericks VFX, described the challenge in an interview with Befores and Afters : “One of the more challenging parts of the sequence was our digi-double handmaids. In total we had approximately 22,000 plus digi-doubles”. The Handmaid's Tale | Befores & Afters Maverick breakdown DIGI-DOUBLES FOR INTERACTION Another use of digi-doubles is to facilitate interaction with CGI elements. In this case, they don’t need to be exact replicas of the actor but are instead used to simulate how CGI elements (such as fabric, snow, water, fire or debris), would interact with a human body. By creating a digital stand-in that matches the actor’s size, shape and movements, VFX artists can ensure that the CGI reacts naturally, like a gun melting onto a man's hand because of Homelander's X-rays. THE UNCANNY VALLEY While digi-doubles offer a wide array of possibilities, they also come with the risk of falling into the " uncanny valley ", a term used to describe the eerie feeling audiences get when a digital human looks almost, but not quite, real. This discomfort can break the viewer's immersion, making them acutely aware that they are watching something artificial. A notorious example is the CGI baby Renesmee in Twilight: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 , where the VFX artists faced the challenging task of creating a baby that resembled the child actress, using photos of her to replace a real baby on screen. “We’d realign the posture of the baby to be more self-aware. […] Next step in that process was the eyeline. We’re doing CGI eyeballs, because you cannot say look to the left or right to a baby. So, we controlled the eyeline with CG eyeballs”, Edson Williams, VFX Supervisor at Lola. Nicolas Cage's brief appearance as Superman in The Flash  (2023) and the digital recreation of Luke Skywalker in The Mandalorian  faced the same problems. This is why digi-doubles tend to work best with masked superheroes or helmet-wearing characters, as it’s easier to convincingly recreate fabric rather than skin, although, as we have seen, not impossible. So, in the end, digi-doubles have become an integral part of modern filmmaking. They offer solutions to a wide range of challenges (from executing complex stunts to filling out large crowd scenes), across various genres . Their use ensures safety and continuity when real-life limitations arise. Now, if you need a digi-double for your production, Orbitae is here to help you with it.

It’s been almost 20 years since the Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest  hit theaters, and yet Davy Jones’ slimy, tentacled face still looks better than many modern CGI characters. Why? This is a question that many have asked us. Why does this character still look so good? Why modern characters don’t hold up even when technology clearly has advanced? Why? But why though? | ©Disney And, indeed. Why does the captain of the Flying Dutchman   still reign supreme in the world of CGI characters? The short answer seems to be a series of smart decisions stacked one on top of the other. Here are a few of them for you to think about for your next idea. A CHARACTER THAT JUSTIFIES CGI Davy Jones is a character that makes sense  as a CGI creation. This is something CGY pointed out in their analysis and we completely agree. Jones’ design includes a beard of 46 tentacles, each moving independently, which would’ve been a nightmare to achieve with animatronics or prosthetics. And this wasn’t done just because it looks cool. Au contraire... it’s integral to the narrative. They play the organ, hide the key to the Dead Man’s Chest, kill people and even give important cues about how Jones feels. Davy Jones using his tentacles | ©Disney Now compare that to other CGI-heavy characters like Azog from The Hobbit  or even Thanos. Both have few unique traits beyond their height that require them to be CGI. After all, the Lord of the Rings  (LOTR) franchise is known for its clever tricks to create the illusion of size. Techniques like forced perspective convinced us that hobbits and dwarves were smaller than humans, without relying on CGI. So, why not do the same with Azog? I mean, the Uruk-hai in the original trilogy were brought to life with makeup and they’re still fan favorites. More often than not, for a main character like that, a blend of both make-up and CGI creates the perfect balance for selling the illusion to audiences. Though, we must admit, this also comes with its own challenges, as seen with the extensive enhancements needed for Red Skull in Captain America . And this isn’t just about fully CG characters. Even replacing a limb, like a robotic arm, deserves the same scrutiny. Ask yourself: What does it bring to the narrative ?  Can the character do something extraordinary with it or does it add to the story thematically? In the end, if a feature isn’t inherently tied to CGI, like a tentacled beard with narrative importance, why go through all the trouble? HALF-HUMAN, HALF-SEA MONSTER Humans are wired to recognize imperfections in other humans. If a CGI character isn’t perfect, our brains pick up on it instantly. This is when you fall into the “ uncanny valley ”. In this case, Davy Jones’ design is great because it walks the line between human and sea creature. Davy Jones | ©Disney His eyes, eyebrows and mouth remain human, allowing for nuanced expressions and it lets the audience connect with him. But a tentacled beard? We don’t know how it looks like in real life. Never seen one. So, we have no way to compare it to something else. This means it’s easier for us to accept it as a character that actually exists and is not digitally created. He's human enough to empathize with, alien enough to accept it as a “real” character. MOTION CAPTURE AS A FOUNDATION Motion capture ( mocap ) technology allowed Bill Nighy’s performance to shine through. Acting alongside his co-stars in a gray suit, Nighy delivered an emotional and quirky portrayal that animators used as the foundation for Davy Jones. But mocap isn’t a magic fix. The animation team still had to completely replace the actor with a fully CG character, as explained in Pirates of the Caribbean 2 ’s bonus feature, “ Meet Davy Jones: Anatomy of a Legend ”. “We made the decision on this film to cast actors, to play the parts and they’re in the shots playing the characters, and we’re gonna put our CG versions on top of them”, Hall Hickel, ILM animation director. To match Nighy’s performance, the animators created over 700 shapes in the CG face, from blinking eyes to raising cheeks. And that’s without factoring in the tentacles. Each one was simulated separately, with meticulous attention paid to how they moved, writhed and collided with one another. To ensure realism, they couldn’t pass through each other or behave like frictionless objects. Instead, the tentacles had to feel sticky, almost like pasta, with a subtle resistance in their motion. Still, some tentacles had to be hand-animated for specific, “directable” shots, like the moment they reveal the key to the Dead Man’s Chest. “And then the other part of it is, we’re trying to translate all of that onto a character that has an octopus on his face”, Geoff Campbell, digital model supervisor. Did you know? They put makeup around Bill Nighy’s eyes just in case CGI couldn’t pull it off. Turns out, they didn’t need it—those eyes are 100% CG! THE SKIN DILEMMA Skin is one of the toughest challenges for CGI artists. Why? Because real skin has subsurface scattering (how light penetrates and bounces around beneath the surface, creating a soft, translucent effect). Think about how light shines through your ears or when you see a glow inside your mouth. It’s subtle, but in visual effects, it’s a nightmare to replicate. Fail to do this correctly and your character can look rubbery... and this applies to both CGI and prosthetics. Davy Jones | ©Disney But ILM had more than one trick up their sleeve to overcome these challenges:   Little skin Most of his body is covered by clothing. Unlike She-Hulk or Azog, Jones’ VFX team didn’t have to worry about rendering realistic arms, legs or torsos. They focused their resources on his face and beard, where it mattered most. Reflective surfaces Davy Jones’ connection to the sea was a blessing for ILM. As a demi-god of the ocean, he’s constantly wet and reflective surfaces are far easier to render than dry skin. The reflections obscure subsurface imperfections, giving his tentacled face a more believable and polished appearance. Lighting choices Lighting is everything in filmmaking. Same goes with visual effects. Like magic tricks, you only show enough to sell the illusion. The right lighting can elevate makeup, prosthetics or CGI to the next level.  In Jones’ case, he’s often shown at night or under the harsh Caribbean sun, which naturally casts deep shadows and enhances key features. BLENDING PRACTICAL EFFECTS AND CGI Blending practical effects with CGI is always a smart move. Even if it’s not with the creature itself, it can be done with sets, costumes or other elements to create a more grounded visual experience. In Pirates of the Caribbean , practical effects played a crucial role in grounding the film’s visuals. Real ships, costumes and on-location environments gave the audience tangible elements to connect with . Take Jurassic Park  as another example. The T-Rex still holds up today because the filmmakers blended animatronics with CGI. A decision more driven by the limitations of the era, but one that turned out to be a sweet spot. For close-ups, they used an animatronic made by no others than Stan Winston, switching to CGI for full-body shots. Again, by giving viewers a “ground truth” (something real to anchor the illusion), the CGI felt more believable. Now compare that to modern blockbusters where entire environments, characters and even suits are rendered digitally. While impressive, they can sometimes lack the authenticity that come from combining real and digital elements. This is why we’re seeing more films return to using animatronics. It’s not because CGI has ruined movies, but because the blend of both worlds seems to truly sells the illusion. FINAL THOUGHTS All in all, Davy Jones’ success boils down to one thing: thoughtful choices. From his design to his integration with practical effects, every decision was made to serve the character and the story. For filmmakers today, the lesson is clear: use the right tool for the job. CGI isn’t the answer to everything (and neither is AI). Today, as filmmakers, we have more tools than ever to craft the best illusions. But we have to learn how to use them wisely. So, choose the methods that serve your story, timeline, and budget. If in doubt, send us a probe!

When FX and Disney+ launched Alien: Earth  late this summer, fans expected xenomorphs, facehuggers and chestbursters . What no one expected was a sheep possessed by an alien eyeball staring out of its skull. ⚠️  Spoiler warning : This article contains details from Episodes 4 and 6 of Alien:Earth. For this new story within the Alien universe, rather than relying solely on the classic Xenomorph, the series has expanded the menagerie with a host of unsettling new organisms. We’ve seen grotesque, giant ticks (dubbed the Leech or Species 19), and even flies that can chew through metals, alloys and minerals, upping the danger for the seemingly indestructible hybrids at the story’s core. The standout species, however, is Species 26. Also known as the “Eye Midge” or "The Eye parasite", this tentacled eyeball whose iris can split into multiple smaller eyes or come together as one single, disturbing, gaze, has quickly become one of the show’s most talked-about creatures. Even surpassing the almighty Xenomorph. And with the season finale just around the corner, let’s explore how the production and FX team brought this cute nightmare to life. “THE EYE” PARASITE ©FX / Disney The Eye parasite, officially classified in the series as Trypanohyncha Ocellus, went through several design iterations before making its debut. As showrunner Noah Hawley  explained to The Hollywood Reporter , it initially had just legs and was very fast. But it was VFX supervisor Jonathan Rothbart  who suggested a major upgrade: suckers. “[The suckers] was a really great upgrade for the original conceit where before, it just had to run as fast as it could at you. Now it can fly (...), propel itself, stick to you and you’re basically trying to fight it off ”, Noah Hawley, showrunner The showrunner also drew a direct comparison with the iconic facehugger. Whereas it forces its way down the throat, the Eye parasite takes control through the eye socket. “It just felt like it’s designed to play into that genetic revulsion”, he added. ©FX / Disney Beyond its weird biology, the Eye parasite is characterized by its behavior: it is smart, cunning... and unnervingly observant. Not like the other aliens, who are hunters, always looking for food. As for why a sheep, Hawley told SciFiNow : “The sheep was just what I typed in that moment. You know goats have a sort of satanic presence in our stories; sheep are just kind of daft and smelly, but in an innocent kind of way. And I really liked the idea that, much like Monty Python did with the rabbit, we might take the sheep and make people look at it in a very different way” HOW THEY BROUGHT IT TO LIFE? Though there’s no full VFX breakdown released yet, interviews with cast, crew and articles give us a good map of what was done, including a clever blend of practical effects, puppetry, CGI and even creative camerawork. A singular POV.  Because the Eye has one globe but multiple shifting irises, the cinematographers gave us a point of view using an in-camera kaleidoscopic filter, letting the audience “see” through its fractured, hyper-observant vision. Director of Photography Colin Watkinson  (one of the series’ DPs, alongside David Franco, Dana and Bella Gonzalez) introduced the filter on set. According to Ryan McGregor, the show’s main unit Digital Imaging Technician, they usually “shot wide open on the V-Lite Lenses with a bit of nose grease on the filter”. Kaleidoscopic filter | ©FX / Disney On set. To help actors and cameras find their marks, the crew used a practical eyeball prop as a stand-in, as showed in a featurette . This was part of a larger philosophy of keeping something physical in the frame, even when CGI would later replace it. “You always want as much in camera as possible, even if you're not gonna use it because it gives you so much information and gives the actor something to act around, and gives the DP something to light around, and gives the director something to direct around. So, it's a huge part of the process”, VFX supervisor Jonathan Rothbart In post. The puppet was only a starting point. In postproduction, the Eye was fully replaced with CGI and that’s where it came alive. How it moves, how it launches itself, how it observes before striking: all decisions made by the team of animators behind this creature. In captivity, they sometimes played it as cute, small and light, with its tentacles pressed against the glass. But when it's free? It's a violent, fast and strong little creature that aims for your eye socket, only to fall back into silence once inside a host, watching everything with its shifting irises. “I always try and think about why this creature does what it does. I need to know why it's doing these choices it's making. I try to treat it in a directorial way, because in doing that, it can help inform me on how I want to have him animated to act in the scene”, VFX supervisor Jonathan Rothbart on FX’s official podcast Victoria the sheep.  For early shots, the production filmed with a real sheep , nicknamed Victoria. To keep her stock-still and staring, her handler scratched her belly with a green-gloved pole, as explained in Polygon . Once infected, Victoria was swapped for a Wētā Workshop animatronic double , which was uncannily similar to the real thing. CGI then enhanced the iris splitting and other alien touches. “It was quite limited in movement, but it was able to do these creepy things. I mean, it looked creepy to begin with, as it was just standing still, and it was able to cock its head and chew very slowly and do little weird things with its eyes”, Ugla Hauksdóttir, director of episode 6, on the animatronic In humans.  A similar method was used when the Eye infects Schmuel, an engineer aboard the USCSS Maginot . Prosthetics handled the initial look, while CG refined the alien eye itself and possibly blended transitions between live action and digital augmentation. Ultimately, it was the blend of animatronics, live performance, and digital artistry that made the Eye parasite feel real. And while fans still wait for full VFX breakdowns, one thing is clear: the Eye Midge has earned its place in the Alien bestiary.

Recently, a theory has been gaining traction online: that Botox might be ruining cinema. It sounds like a hot take, but the idea actually taps into film theory, psychology and contemporary Hollywood practice. Freakier Friday | ©D isney If cinema is built on the power of the face, what happens when the face is frozen? THE SCIENCE OF BOTOX AND EMOTION Botox (noun/trademark) : a drug prepared from  botulin , used medically to treat certain muscular conditions and cosmetically to remove wrinkles by temporarily paralysing facial muscles (Oxford dictionary) With the rise of Botox, psychologists have studied what happens when facial muscles are paralyzed and the results are mixed. On the one hand, smoothing wrinkles may boost self-esteem, and can even help with depression . On the other, it can “undermine the ability to understand the facial expressions of other people”, as a 2016 study published in ScienceDaily found. Another study published in the Aesthetic Surgery Journal  (2019) also found that Botox injections had a “significant effect on the perception of anger and surprise”, altering how emotions are read both by the person expressing them and the person observing them. Psychologist Paul Ekman , who pioneered facial expressions and emotions research, made this clear: micro-expressions are involuntary cues that reveal hidden emotion. Remove them, and you risk dulling authenticity; the very currency of cinematic performance. And this matters. If the face cannot move, emotion cannot flow. Thus, connection cannot happen. THE FACE IN CLASSIC CINEMA The Hungarian film theorist Béla Balázs  understood this a century ago. In his essay Visible Man  (1924), Balázs argued that cinema’s unique power lay in the close-up, which revealed hidden things of life that we thought we already knew so well. “The whole of mankind is now busy relearning the long-forgotten language of gestures and facial expression. This language is [...] the visual corollary of human souls immediately made flesh”, Visible Man. Silent stars embodied this principle. Greta Garbo , widely celebrated for her expressive face, built her mystique on the arch of an eyebrow and the faintest shift of her lips ( Barthes, Mythologies , 1957). Even Charlie Chaplin’s  comedy relied on minute eye flickers and half-smiles as much as pratfalls. With the arrival of sound, performances shifted, took a more naturalistic style. By mid-century, actors mastered the art of doing “less”, trusting the camera to magnify a twitch or a glance into full dramatic weight. “In closeups every wrinkle becomes a crucial element of character and every twitch of a muscle testifies to a pathos that signal great inner events”, Visible Man Decades later, Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard  would immortalize this truth in its closing line: “Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up”.  Gloria Swanson’s face fills the screen, embodying everything Balázs claimed. So, if micro-expressions are cinema’s heartbeat, what happens when Botox erases them? BOTOX IN MOVIES TODAY We now live in the age of the “Instagram face” (sometimes called “iPhone face”): a blend of Botox, fillers and filters. “Baby Botox”,  injections given preventively from a young age, is marketed as routine self-care. In Hollywood, it has become common and, for many, even mandatory. The result? Audiences are taken aback by emotionless faces. Not able to connect to the story. Lindsay Lohan , in her Freakier Friday  sequel, sparked online commentary that her frozen expressions made emotional scenes feel flat. Anne Hathaway has also been criticized for the same lack of eyebrow mobility. And what about Nicole Kidman ? Is she angry? Sad? The pressure is gendered but spreading. Women over 35 feel pushed to “freshen up” to keep roles; men increasingly follow. Winona Ryder  admitted in   Elle that directors — including women — told her to “relax your forehead” with Botox. She refused: “I’m trying to be a great actor”.  In other cases, Amanda Seyfried  gave up Botox altogether to meet director Mona Fastvold’s demand for a raw, makeup-free role, as published by People . But not everyone sees Botox as a threat to acting (mostly because it seems to be unavoidable). As one Hollywood practitioner explained, the “secret” is in timing injections around filming schedules and using them lightly, to soften lines without fully freezing the face, as published in PopSugar . " I have directors or producers that complain about working with somebody who, in a scene where they have to look surprised, can only make their eyeballs pop. I'll work with the actor and makeup artist, so we can plan Botox around certain scenes" , dermatologist Francesca Fusco , MD This is the paradox: directors want expression, but without the lines it creates. The result is a casting battlefield where faces are caught between beauty standards and expressive needs. THE COST OF PARALYZED FACES Audiences may not always articulate it, but they feel it. A frozen face can read as empty, uncanny, disconnected. When too many characters can’t wrinkle a brow, stories risk losing their emotional resonance. Cinema has always exploited beauty, but its soul lies in the imperfections  that close-ups reveal: a twitch of anxiety, a wrinkle of grief, the moist shimmer of an eye. Too much Botox erases those imperfections. And with them, perhaps, part of cinema itself. Is that one more piece of the puzzle of why so many recent films feel lifeless? Another layer to the algorithmic scripts, now with expressionless actors?

Critterz is the name of the film. “Is this AI’s ‘Toy Story’ moment?” , asked Los Angeles Times , which marked the arrival of 3D animation as a mainstream force. The film is produced by Los Angeles–based Native Foreign (the same team behind the controversial Toys’R’us ad  in 2024), in collaboration with London’s Vertigo Films and OpenAI. And it’s already fueling debate online. So, here’s the tea. FROM SHORT TO FEATURE Critterz  originated in 2023 as a short film by OpenAI creative specialist Chad Nelson and Native Foreign’s Nik Kleverov. It used OpenAI’s image generator DALL·E for its visuals, and was earlier this year “remastered” with Sora . The self-proclaimed “first-ever AI-generated short” screened at Annecy Animation film festival, Tribeca and Cannes Lions, and was nominated for a Producers Guild Innovation Award, according to Native Foreign .   The film follows a community of forest creatures whose village is disrupted by a stranger, setting them off on an adventure. “By saying that we are embarking on this, I think it can hopefully open the door for more AI projects to also come out, and we can hopefully see a wave of new great storytelling”, Nik Kleverov, chief creative officer of Native Foreign Today, after securing copyright through law firm Perkins Coie , Critterz  is now being developed into a full-length "AI animated movie" with writers James Lamont and Jon Foster, the duo behind Paddington in Peru. According to Vertigo Films , the production will also employ artists to provide sketches that feed into OpenAI’s tools and cast human actors for the voices. The feature is expected to be completed in just nine months  on a budget of less than $30 million . For comparison, a “traditional” 3D animated film such as Toy Story 4  can cost up to $200 million and take three to four years to make. By contrast, the Oscar-winning indie movie Flow , was made for $3.5 million using the open-source 3D software Blender , but took the small team five and a half years of work to finalize it. ©Flow REACTIONS ABOUT THE AI ANIMATED MOVIE The announcement comes as debate continues over the use of AI in film. Ongoing lawsuits, including Disney and Universal’s case against Midjourney , highlight unresolved questions about copyright and creative ownership. Many are asking the same question: to AI or not to AI , including us. Meanwhile, audience reactions so far remain harsh and sceptical. As of September 11, 2025, the original Critterz  short on YouTube has more than 75,000 views , with largely negative comments (but not a single thumbs down). On LinkedIn, too, the discussion is heated (at least according to our algorithm), reflecting a mix of hate and fear with a hint of curiosity (to see them fail).   Still, Kleverov aims to create a legitimate contender within mainstream cinema, “a really great film”, as reported by the Los Angeles Times . “The last thing I want [the audience] to think about is AI. (...) I think we’re going to see a revolution of independent cinema because you’re going to be able to tell so many more stories”, Kleverov. Only time will tell if Critterz becomes AI’s Toy Story  moment or if it will be yet another name on the long list of another box office flop , AI or not.

Have you ever been to a symphonic concert featuring the greatest hits of John Williams? If not, we highly recommend it, especially if you ever get the rare chance to see the maestro himself conduct. It’s spine-tingling. Exciting. Different from any other concert, as it carries an additional emotional baggage with it. You’re instantly transported through time and space. And if you grew up with his films, you’ll feel that same childhood wonder and excitement rush back into your veins. Image from Music by John Williams | ©Disney Now, that same experience is expanding. On November 8, 2025, Los Angeles will host Future Ruins , a new festival dedicated entirely to film and television music. The one-day event was created by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, longtime collaborators known for their work in Nine Inch Nails  as well as scores for films like The Social Network , Gone Girl , and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo . The goal? To bring together a diverse group of composers (from cult icons to Emmy and Oscar winners) and present their work in a rare live setting, as explained in the festival’s website : “Each artist is encouraged to take big swings and reimagine their work for a live audience. Ranging from electronic sets and live bands to orchestral performances, fans have the chance to experience live debuts from composers who rarely appear onstage” WHY IS IT IMPORTANT? A soundtrack is as essential to a movie as popcorn is to the moviegoing experience. It’s cultural. Timeless. It’s the emotional architecture beneath every scene, shaping how we feel even when we’re not fully aware of it. As the saying goes in the industry: you can save a mediocre film with the right music .  “The greatest way to demonstrate how much music affects movies, play it absolutely with no music at all. And then go back, and do the whole scene again, with all the cues”, Steven Spielberg on Music by John Williams documentary. Yes, scores guide us through suspense, triumph, grief and revelation. In some cases, the music becomes as iconic as the movie itself. Think of the James Bond  theme: big brass, bold rhythm, instantly recognizable. You simply can’t make a Bond film without it. (By the way, if that interests you, check out The Sound of 007 ,  a deep dive into how the music was composed and shaped the Bond legacy). In recent years, the boundary between traditional composers and popular musicians has blurred. Artists like Trent Reznor, Tyler Bates  (Marilyn Manson’s guitarist and composer of 300, the John Wick  series and the Pearl saga), and Geoff Barrow  (Portishead’s multi-instrumentalist and co-composer of Ex Machina  and Annihilation ) have gained recognition in both the industries. But for fans, the experience of these scores remains mostly passive, consumed through headphones or embedded within a film. FROM MOVIE THEATERS TO FESTIVALS This shift isn’t coming out of nowhere. For years, fans have flocked to symphonic concert tours dedicated to legendary composers like John Williams , whose music from Star Wars , Jurassic Park  and Harry Potter  has been performed live by orchestras around the world. Hans Zimmer , perhaps the most high-profile film composer working today, has sold out arenas with his live shows. Still, most of these concerts seem to focus on orchestral works, aka “the new classical”. But what about other composers working outside that mold? What about Cristobal Tapia de Veer , whose strange, layered and deeply satisfying score for The White Lotus  helped define the show’s tone? Or John Carpenter , who composed his own minimalist electronic soundtracks for films like The Thing and Halloween ? "Going from Hollywood studios to Boston (Pops) was very, very satisfying [...]. There's an orchestra, there's an audience. The music is brought to life. People applaud. And for the wounded ego of a Hollywood composer who never has an audience to get some applause, it's lovely", John Williams Future Ruins is here for that. It’s a platform that invites composers of all kinds onto the same stage, with a lineup that reads like a who’s who of modern screen music like: Danny Elfman (Beetlejuice, Batman...) , Hildur Guðnadóttir ( Joker, Chernobyl, Sicario...), Claudio Simonetti’s Goblin   (Suspiria, Dawn of the dead...) and Terence Blanchard (Cadillac Records, Inside Man, etc.),  to mention a few. The event also features a rare performance of Howard Shore’s score for Crash of David Cronenberg. Shore, for the record, is the legendary composer behind Lord of the Rings , The Fly and many of Cronenberg’s films. “There’s no hierarchy. Every artist is a headliner”, Trent Reznor. Even if most of us won’t make it to Future Ruins  this year, the festival represents something larger: a growing recognition that film scoring deserves the spotlight and the stage . Hopefully, it’s the beginning of a broader movement, one where composers step into the spotlight, and fans finally get to hear the music that made them cry, scream, or cheer... all while replaying the movie in their minds.

I was recently asked about the last movie I truly and I mean really enjoyed. The kind you'd enthusiastically recommend to your friends or family. And... it took me longer than it should have. Which is sad. (It was The Rule of Jenny Penn , now on Shudder). Electric State | ©Netflix We’re living in a strange moment where mainstream movies, especially sci-fi and epic action-adventure blockbusters, have never looked better (most of the time). And yet, after (half) watching Netflix’s latest big-budget sci-fi, The Electric State , I got bored. Bored and mad. I used to love these kinds of movies. Used to long for them. But now? I don’t even care. And I'm not the only one saying it. "They've ruined the movies we loved", I hear people complaining. They are pretty, yes. But also, pretty dumb. This isn’t an isolated issue. It’s symptomatic of a much bigger shift. A shift toward algorithmic “content”. Sure, films are visually stunning, but increasingly forgettable. And forgettable, honestly, is probably the worst thing a movie can be. Being good-looking is not enough anymore . Spectacle used to bring awe, wonder and originality. Today it’s industrialized, copy-pasted, slapped onto everything. But at what cost? The spectacle has grown brighter. Louder. Emptier. And The Electric State  might be the epitome of it all. How did we get here? And more importantly, where do we go next? WHY DO WE LIKE MOVIES? In the book Writing a Great Movie , Jeff Kitchen talks about drama historically serving a kind of shamanistic function: it shows those watching how to transform themselves . We, as an audience, seek guidance in our lives. Before making big decisions, we watch what others have done around us in similar situations and, depending on the consequences of their actions, we adjust accordingly. Similarly, movies offer a safe, fictional space where we experiment with forbidden ideas, radical solutions and provocative scenarios. “The key word in the entertainment industry is outrageousness ”, Jeff Kitchen Movies are meant to push boundaries, test limits, ask uncomfortable questions. But in an era dominated by hyper-political correctness, studios sanitize scripts, simplify motivations and flatten complexity to avoid offending anyone and reach the widest possible audience. The result? Good-looking forgettable movies. At the same time, big-budget productions also scramble to keep up with fast-paced algorithms and our shrinking attention spans, churning out films like they’re reels, optimized for metrics, not meaning . In the process, they’ve forgotten what makes films matter: the story. And the thing is: good stories take time. Time to write, to rethink, to feel dangerous before they feel finished. ALGORITHMIC AESTHETICS The Electric State  is based on a striking and haunting universe created by Simon Stålenhag , a Swedish artist known for blending decaying sci-fi tech into everyday life. His work carries a sense of doom, loneliness and isolation, but also wonder and beauty. Kind of like Blade Runner 2049. Seriously, if you don't know his graphic novels, look him up! His universes are incredible. So why, despite having such promising source material and a whooping $320 million budget , does The Electric State  leave viewers completely indifferent? Well, it’s probably because every creative decision feels engineered by data, like casting decisions based on Instagram follower counts, frictionless emotional beats, empty dialogue. This film feels manufactured for the “second-screen watch” or “casual viewing” as described by Will Tavlin in N+1 : “Netflix’s movies don’t have to abide by any of the norms established over the history of cinema: they don’t have to be profitable, pretty, sexy, intelligent, funny, well-made, or anything else that pulls audiences into theater seats”. It's not just Netflix. We're seeing the emergence of algorithmic cinema everywhere: stories reverse-engineered from platform metrics, past viewer habits, and AI-chosen scripts. Platforms like Largo.ai  literally quantify screenplay potential, calculating which star should headline, which narrative paths have historically worked best, and assigning percentage probabilities of success. It saves time on decision-making, certainly. But, somewhere along the line, it kills innovation. Creativity. Type-cast heroes | ©Netflix Risky ideas vanish, radical concepts get shelved, and we’re left with endless reruns of safe dystopias (or utopias) and market-tested type-cast heroes. Look, movies are undeniably products, and they must sell. But Hollywood’s current formula isn’t working. Audiences are growing bored. It's stagnating and... it might not even be (totally) their fault. “In doing so, [Netflix] has brought Hollywood to the brink of irrelevance. Because Netflix doesn’t just survive when no one is watching — it thrives”, Will Tavlin THE SILVER LINING It's easy to criticize The Electric State  as a failure because it missed Stålenhag’s original genre, but that’s not really the heart of the problem. The real issue is that it doesn't hit any tone or theme at all. It leaves you feeling nothing. We don't care about the characters, we don't feel their journey. But here’s the good news: audiences are getting tired of recycled franchises, reboots and nostalgia gimmicks. They’re becoming vocal about their fatigue, craving authenticity and fresh stories again. This moment feels somewhat similar to Hollywood’s change of direction in the 90s, from tired franchises that flopped hard (rings any bells?) to indie filmmakers with a distinct voice. “A series of big-budget flops led studios to gamble on idiosyncratic, independent-minded directorial voices and less conventional fare with countercultural energy”, The Take . Are we seeing the same thing today? Are indie mid-budget movies coming back? Hard to say, given the big differences in how media and content is consumed and produced nowadays vs the pre-social media era. But, there’s hope. Just as studios in the ’90s took chances on indie films — think Miramax or IFC Studios (both still around today) — we’re now also seeing players such as A24 and Shudder gain passionate followings by offering bold, original alternatives. Even platforms like  MUBI are finding traction with films like The Substance  by staying focused on cinéma d’auteur. The Substance | ©MUBI So, here’s the deal: if you’re an indie filmmaker with a script abandoned somewhere in your computer: finish it. Now might be your perfect moment. Take the creative risks algorithms will never be able to do (at least not without our input). Because there’s one thing data-driven cinema can not replicate: A story shaped by flaws, opinions and lived experiences, told with your own vision.

A digital simulation is what happens when you try to make natural elements behave on cue, in rhythm, under direction. You guide it. Shape it. So that fluid becomes a bottle of wine. So that a specific wave hits a ship at exactly the right moment. 2012 Los Angeles destruction sim | ©Columbia Pictures It’s the art of introducing controlled chaos into a scene. Technically speaking, it's the process of using software to recreate physical phenomena by defining rules based on real-world physics, instead of animating it frame by frame. Fire, smoke, fluids, cloth, hair, destruction — these are the type of elements that are more often than not simulated because animating them manually would be painfully slow, and nearly impossible to make look real. And the beauty of it is that you can art direct the motion. Give it purpose. Make it serve the narrative, the emotion, the frame. Think of how every superhero cape feels perfectly timed. That’s thanks to CGI . Simulated and sculpted. But simulation wasn't always possible. It all started at the end of the 1900... A BIT OF HISTORY Recently, the Season 2 of Light & Magic in Disney+ was released. The docuseries traces how ILM was built around a simple idea: use technology to help artists do things no one had done before. To push the boundaries of digital effects, at a time when they were still at their embryonic stage. To do so, George Lucas brought together a team from every corner of creativity and engineering. Artists, animators, sculptors, coders, engineers, tinkerers. People who could imagine the impossible and others who could code the programs to make it real. Among them is Habib Zargarpour, known as ‘the particle guy’. “Particles have a mind of their own. When you simulate, you have millions of them and you have to just give them general guidelines. You can have forces of attraction, forces that repel or have them collide with things. But you can’t say this particle’s going to do this thing”, Habib Zargarpour, ILM CG Supervisor. His early work included The Mask (1994), where he had to add a green gas effect whenever a character took off the mask. But the real test came when Spielberg asked: “Can you do a tornado?”. It was for the movie Twister  (1996).  They tested the VFX, before even having the script | ©ILM That work unlocked something new: water simulation. Enter: The Perfect Storm  (2000). A massive challenge. They needed an ocean that could be directed . Which meant it had to be CG. But, as Masi Oka, ILM digital effects artist, said: "human skin and water are the hardest to do with CG". And it was. The sheer scale of it, pushed both the technology and the artists to the edge. To complete the shots, they used digital layering : rendering multiple simulations separately (waves, ships, foam, splashes) and combining them into the final shot. As explained in the docuseries, it took 90 days of render time to produce one second of final simulation. “We were creating revolutionary new technology, just so we could digitally drown George Clooney”, Masi Oka, ILM digital effects artist. Since then, the technology hasn’t stopped evolving, giving artists more control over simulations with every passing year. CONTROLLED CHAOS Particle simulation is therefore a process that requires a different mindset than traditional animation. And this is important for filmmakers to keep in mind when working with VFX teams. “Because tiny variations [...] never repeat and vastly affect the outcome”, Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Parc, 1993. As Zargarpour previously noted, the artist defines the forces, materials and constraints, but the final result emerges from the physics itself. That’s because simulations rely on a web of interconnected variables, where a single change can ripple through the entire system. However, today’s tools allow for more control. You can assign a seed to make a sim repeatable, or isolate and modify a section depending on the software. Even so, a minor tweak can still mean days of rework. Because, at its core, a simulation is still what the name suggests. You’re influencing a system with millions of particles moving in interdependence. In a way, you’re playing God. It's about experimentation. About learning how to nudge the system toward the result you want. And often, there’s more than one path to get there. And that’s the beauty of it: the unpredictability. The organic, semi-random quality that makes it feel alive. The magic happens when you finally achieve the look you aimed for or, better yet, when something unexpected turns out even stronger. To have more control over the frames, many productions turn to hybrid approaches : blending simulations with hand animation. This is the case of Davy Jones’ beard in Pirates of the Caribbean. Of the 40+ tentacles, only eight were hand-animated, meaning they could be precisely controlled. The rest were simulated, giving the beard its unsettling, sticky organic motion. A similar technique was done in The Last of Us  (2023), where the cordyceps fungus erupting from infected mouths were part simulation, part animation . The sim brought realism and chaos. The animation brought timing and control, as explained by Espen Nordahl, VFX Supervisor at Storm Studios . In the end, simulation is what happens when you take something wild (water, fire, cloth, debris) and make it perform. You control it. Art direct it. Which can be as gratifying as it is nerve-wracking. Because let’s be honest: sometimes those particles? They act like they have a mind of their own (again, as the particle guy said himself). Test of a giant walking through a fire sim |  ©Orbitae So, what is a sim? It’s the art of introducing controlled chaos into a scene. to performance. Artists tweak parameters, shape forces, and build containers for that chaos — until the result feels juuuuuust right.