When the trailer for Good Boy  blew up online this summer, IFC moved the indie film from a limited run to a wide release . Why you may ask? Because this new horror movie is told from a dog’s point of view. And everyone online, unusually united for once, had the same visceral reaction: “That dog better not die”. This is the unspoken contract between audience and filmmaker whenever an animal is on screen. It’s why   Does the dog die?  is a website, a meme and a shorthand for trust. Put a dog at the center of your film and you can expect viewers to project worry, empathy and protectiveness. Even villains know better than to hurt the pet... and if they dare, well, expect the Baba Yaga to come get them (and the audience to cheer him on). But why do dogs move us so much? Ethologists remind us that they have evolved alongside humans for tens of thousands of years, becoming expert at reading our expressions and even developing eyebrows to communicate with us (or manipulate us into giving them treats!). That innate ability to connect makes them great performers... even though they don’t really know what they’re doing. “Everything that the dog does, is a reflection of either my body language or tone of voice. You give very direct cues — one word and one syllable commands — and you get a quick reaction to what you’re asking him to do”, Teresa Ann Miller, dog trainer on White Dog That’s why we understood John Wick ’s killing spree after his puppy was murdered. That’s why Marley & Me remains one of the most manipulative movies ever made. And that’s why entire films and series can be built around dogs, sometimes without humans at all, like Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey. So why would a director ever use a CG dog instead of the real thing? THE CASE FOR REAL DOGS Real dogs bring authenticity, unpredictability and charm. Sometimes their improvisations become happy accidents, as when Milo in The Mask  refused to let go of the bank money or the frisbee, allowing Jim Carrey to improvise around it. But working with dogs is demanding: they miss marks, need extensive pre-production training and require trainers to give constant cues during takes. Which in turn means dialogue usually has to be dubbed later too. Productions also usually cycle through more than one dog for the same character, both to avoid overworking them and to draw on different strengths or quirks, creating a richer, fuller performance on screen. On the other hand, you’ll be under heavy scrutiny from audiences and animal welfare organizations. That said, dogs have generally fared better than other animal actors. Unlike horses, there are few reports of systemic abuse and some canines have enjoyed star treatment, like Rin Tin Tin in the 1920s. All in all, they’re expensive to have, yes, but also bankable and audiences’ affection for them makes them one of the safest bets. THE HYBRID APPROACH Sometimes the solution is part real, part digital. A classic example is Frank the pug in Men in Black , whose mouth was digitally animated to deliver dialogue. Or David Fincher’s The Killer , where the pitbull's wagging tail was removed in post because it broke the menace of the scene. These tweaks allow filmmakers to keep a living, breathing dog on screen, while using VFX to fine-tune performance. "That was quite a commitment, there was a lot of stuff with that dog shot through a chain-link fence. So, it was no easy task to remove a wagging tale", Kirk Baxter, editor of the movie. THE FULLY DIGITAL Other times, the dog needs to do the impossible or the unsafe. That’s when films go all in on CG. With those, audiences are often skeptical. But when done with care, it works. Take Krypto in James Gunn’s Superman (2025), which was done in CG because of his super strength and ability to fly. Framestore  (the ones that did Rocket in Guardians of the Galaxy) built the character using the director’s own rescue pup, Ozu. They 3D captured its frame and used videos of the dog to help animators capture his soul, as reported by CNN . On set, actress Murphy Weed provided motion-capture performance and a real dog named Jolene was used as a stand-in. The result? He stole the show! Audiences loved him, despite knowing he was pixels and fur shaders. So, in the end, to CG or not to CG comes down to the same calculus as practical blood or digital splatter : budget, time and what you need the scene to do. In the dog’s case, whether flesh-and-blood, hybrid or digital, what matters is the connection, not the pipeline. A dog on screen carries the weight of our trust, a contract. If filmmakers honour that contract, audiences will care for your character.

There it was—one star. A tiny, intangible little star, that carried so much meaning in everyone's life. It could determine the rise or demise of a business, a dream. Even a life. Generated with Midjourney As a kid, it was about grades, a way to keep track of how much we learned every year. As an adult, it’s about stars, a government’s method to control people’s behavior. We saw it on fictional series, a foreshadowing of what was to come, but no one believed it would be a reality. Fast-forward, it did. So, I learned to lay low, to keep it under the radar… but today? Today went sideways. Hard. You see, one star rating, nothing happens. Two stars... people start noticing. But three stars on your social skills? They send you to the the psychiatrist... And I hate psychiatrists. It was a Karen on steroids. Oh, she was nasty. “Such a disgusting looking creature… Just disgusting”, she sneered while chewing a bright pink gum that matched her painted cheeks. “Pardon me?”, I blurted, concealing it back in my pocket. “D-E-S-gus-tin’. Don’t ya understand tha word? What is it anyways? Some sort of deformed baby or somethin’?” Offended, I stood up. Not to fight, but to tower. Height was all I had. She, on the other hand, was short. Short, but sharp. “What? Ya’ think ya scary? Tall and all? Uh-huh, not to me. So disgusting”. She proceeded to blow a bubble of gum so big, it almost covered her entire face. POP! I was torn. My eyelid flinched. Should I storm out of the bus at the next stop? Correct her spelling of "disgusting"? Or find a strong yet politically correct way to put her in her place? As I was still thinking on the best way to address the situation, the bus came to an abrupt halt, causing her to lose her balance. She fell, front first, onto my dry, skeletal elbow. As a result, she choked on her gum and spat it onto the hair of an elderly woman sitting in front of us. Hesitant, the lady reached out for her pearly curls. Her fingers found it with ease: a pink mass tangled in silver strings. Her eyes widened. Her neck twisted far. Too far. Farther than it should... and looked at us. I was like a fish out of the water. Confused and aghast. Sneaky Karen, again, was very quick: “Not me! Uh-huh. He the one guilty here, hitting me and all with his spiky dead ass elbows, making me almost choke to death, ya know?" The gum-afflicted woman took her phone, scanned me and Karen, and gave us one star each. Infuriated, Karen also took her phone and did the same, giving me a second star with a comment as a side “rude and desgustin’” . I was discombobulated. The third and last one, was a gift from Karen’s supportive friend. They all went off the bus on the next stop. I? Well, I had to go to the psychiatrist the very next day. “What was the creature?” “What do you mean?” “The creature she said was disgusting”, the psychiatrist inquired, sitting across the table with a pen in hand, as he peered at me over his glasses with a slight tilt of his head. “Oh, well...”, I hesitated at first, but decided to come clean, "here she is”. I took her out of my trench coat and showed her to him. He was, to say the least, astonished. In my hands was a curled little hairless cat. “Should be extinct”, I specified and added, “Found her yesterday near a dumpsite. Couldn’t bring myself to leave her there. All cold and wet. So, I decided to take her home and that's when I met this girl on the bus and then...”, I leaned back on my chair and muttered, "well, you know the rest...”. The cat purred in my huge hands, almost camouflaging itself in them. “Is it… is it a dog?” The mind-expert took a closer look. “A cat” “Does it eat?” “Of course! Like us, they need food, warm and love” “But it’s forbidden. You know that, right?” “Yes” “So, why show it to me?” “You seemed like a reasonable person” The cat meowed as I put her on the doctor's desk, where she sniffed, purred and played with a pen. She was a curious little creature. He was amused and somewhat fascinated. We were not used to seeing these animals around nowadays. After the “Great Pet Crisis” - now known as “GPC” -, it was determined that humans could not have domesticated animals anymore. There were far too many irresponsible owners who abandoned them, an abundance of unscrupulous pet shops that sold them carelessly, and countless animals roaming the streets. Many ended up in veterinary clinics with deformed bodies resulting from centuries of selfish breeding. Animal shelters were overflowing, and the list of issues seemed endless. All it took was one country to make a stand. It did not take long before the rest followed suit. However, what began with good intentions led to a terrible fate for dogs, cats, tortoises, ferrets, bunnies, and even lizards: they were eradicated. Why? Well, not long after the prohibition, a war on illegal pet trafficking began. The government's solution was simple: if pets no longer existed, humans couldn't possess them, and illegal trafficking would end. Thus, the "GPC Enforcement Act" was implemented. It was a massacre. Over time, we replaced them with robots, which we grew accustomed to. They were easier to care for—no pee to clean up, no hairy clothes or chewed shoes, and best of all: no more vet bills. But there was no love, either. This all happened a century ago. I was born into a petless world. But there's a rumor that this ordeal left people despondent. It changed us. The roots of our partnership with animals were so deep, that the barbaric act had an unprecedented effect on humanity. We became lonely. Very lonely. “Can… can I touch it?”, asked my appointed psychiatrist. I nodded. He rubbed his hands together and then extended his elongated, slightly bent finger due to arthritis, towards the little creature. But she was a sneaky one. Until, at last, contact was made. He was conquered. As was I. How could Karen not be? I left the psychiatrist’s office with a cat in my pocket and a year's worth of appointments scheduled. “The patient needs a weekly session for a year – at least – to make sure he does not do anything borderline, in order to avoid any one-star behavior”, the doctor’s notice read. It was a deal: I could keep the cat and my psychiatrist could see her once a week. We became friends, real friends the three of us. The kind of friends that, like pets, were rare, if not non-existent. The kind of friends that kept a secret for almost 17 years. In the end, they were not so bad after all, these psychiatrists. Alex Iwanoff

Imagine two identical balls rolling toward each other. In silence, most viewers think they simply pass through. But add a brief collision‑like click , and suddenly they seem to bounce off each other instead. This is the optical trick called the cross-bounce illusion. Batman: The Dark Knight – Master Race | ©DC Comics This effect was explored in a study  published in Scientific Reports , which showed that even imagined collision sounds can shift perception: participants who heard  a collision noise were significantly more likely to see  a bounce than those who didn’t. This reveals something simple, but powerful: the brain fuses sight and sound . We don’t process visual and auditory information in isolation. On the contrary, we integrate them to build our version of reality. In ambiguous visual scenarios, sound steers what we think we see. And it’s not just in science labs. This idea shows up everywhere, even in written format, like comic books or scripts. Think about it: KABOOM! CRACK! POOM!  You don’t actually hear them, but your brain does something with those cues. It helps make the action feel more immediate, more real. Snippet from The Substanc e script And this is a fact one must not overlook when doing a film. Yes, music  sets the tone and emotion of a scene. But when it comes to grounding the action itself—especially when the action isn’t real—sound design does the heavy lifting. It tells us what’s hard, what’s heavy, what’s moving fast or slow. And that’s where visual effects meet their invisible partner: sound design . Because when it’s done right, synchronization anchors believability.  VFX WITHOUT SOUND IS HALF THE STORY Visual effects without the right sound? They just don’t land. They feel hollow. Fake. Think of a volcano  erupting: the roar, ground-rumbling bass, debris crackling—without these, the scene falls flat, unbelievable. A brawl without the hitting sounds? You might as well be watching rehearsal footage (and even those have enhanced sounds!). “Sound design immerses you in the film’s world and stirs your emotion”, Filmustage Ben Burtt recording sounds for Star Wars This is already true for every genre (I mean, what is horror  without the wet, bone-crunching sound effects?), but it becomes absolutely critical when what you’re seeing on screen doesn’t exist at all . Take the iconic sounds of Star Wars. Like the VZOOM VZOOM  (yes, you heard it!) of the lightsabers or the PEWW PEWW  of the laser guns. These were created by sound designer Ben Burtt, who faced the challenge of bringing an entire galaxy to life through sound alone. To give you an example, the shriek of the TIE fighters drew inspiration from WWII German dive bombers. The Ju‑87 Stuka were equipped with mechanical sirens called Jericho Trumpets . These weren’t tactical. Au contraire, they were installed purely for psychological impact, for terror. They announced the incoming chaos. To create the same unease, Ben Burtt blended elephant calls with wet pavement tire noise, and added a Doppler effect to sell the motion. And voilà, a designed fear, echoing real-world trauma from a galaxy not so far away. “Sound is what truly convinces the mind is in a place; in other words, ‘hearing is believing’”, Jesse Schell, Video game designer and CEO of Schell Games. So, again, when audio falls short, everything falls apart. The LA Film School  warns that sloppy audio can “ruin otherwise spectacular production”. No matter how gorgeous the simulation  is or how scary your monster looks, if the audio isn’t there, credibility crumbles. This is also the reason why you can sometimes save  a mediocre effect with strong sound, or even skip the effect altogether and just suggest it with audio. Yes, you don’t always need to show it, just let your audience hear it. “Sound is much more violent than images. There’s something physical, immediate about it—almost hand-to-hand. To make someone hear a sound is an act of intent”, Daniel Deshays, sound engineer and sound director. AI‑DRIVEN SOUND DESIGN Now, with generative AI, things are evolving fast. We’re starting to see tools that generate audio and visuals together , in sync from the start. Batman: the killing joke, vol 4 | ©DC Comics Academic work like Oxford’s “ Audio‑Visual Synchronisation in the Wild ” is feeding directly into new tools that prioritize perfect sync in real-world footage. Platforms like AutoFoley  use deep learning to generate synchronized Foley for silent footage. Even ElevenLabs  is exploring AI-generated sound effects (which are actually fun to play with). And platforms like Veo 3  and other beta-stage tools promise end-to-end pipelines: you create visuals with their matching audio. But that raises a question: just because we can generate sound, are we doing it right? And also, in the case of VFX, can AI generate a sound that does not exist? “Sound design is not about creating noise that simply mirrors what’s in the images, but about assigning value to certain elements within the visuals”, Daniel Deshays, sound engineer and sound director. While AI can mimic, good sound design is still about intention. In a seminar called “The mise-en-scène of sound design”,  Deshays points out that audio is about gesture . How far, how fast, how forcefully a sound evolves. Because in the end, “sound isn’t reality, it’s a way of listening. It’s an interpretation of the world”, as he put it himself. So, use the AI-tools, but use them wisely. Play with it. Mix it and remix it. In conclusion, yes, you see with your eyes. But you believe with your ears. Sound guides the imagination, fills in the blanks and makes the digital feel physical. It shapes expectations, sells impact and builds immersion. That’s why sound is the invisible glue that makes the illusion stick. Don’t do VFX, without having a budget for the sound design. It’s the liant  in a chef's dish. The mortar between the bricks. Without it, your effects might taste, look and feel bland.

“Absolutely!”, I used to say. But that’s changed. Gremlins movie theater scene | ©Warner Bros. I used to love going to the movies—the smell of popcorn, the big screen, the sound vibrations running through the comfy chairs. But now? I don’t go as often as before. Either it’s because of the price of the tickets or, honestly, there just aren’t that many movies that make me think, “ This  one. This needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible”. Or, maybe, it’s because the few times I went, it was almost an empty room. Either way, the excitement seems to have faded. That is… until I went to the biggest movie hall ever at the Sitges Fantastic Film Festival last year. With a capacity of 1380 spectators, it was something else. And the first movie I saw there? The European premiere of Terrifier 3 , at midnight. It was packed. Masks of Art the Clown were distributed at the entrance. People were laughing, clapping and screaming at the movie. When it ended, we had to wait for a good ten minutes just to get to the exit – the line was that big. And that’s when it hit me. That’s when I remembered why  I’d used to go once a week. After all, we still go to concerts even though we have Spotify. We still go to the opera. Why did we stop doing that with cinema? THE ANCIENT RITUAL OF STORYTELLING Have you ever wondered why we go to the movies? Why we watch them? Well, for millennia, humans have gathered around fires, sharing tales of heroism, tragedy and everything in between. These were vital for transmitting knowledge, solidifying communal bonds and understanding the world around us. In other words, storytelling is connection. And cinema, at its core, is simply the latest iteration of this ancient ritual. We’ve moved from the campfire to the silver screen, but the fundamental need for shared narrative experience remains. “People naturally seek closure and meaning in life– sometimes a film can provide this if ‘real life’ cannot”, Jeff Kitchen, in his book Writing a good movie . THE NEUROSCIENCE BEHIND IT When we engage with a good story, our brains respond as if we are living  it. Mirror neurons fire, allowing us to empathize with characters and experience their emotions. Dopamine is released, creating a sense of pleasure and anticipation. Our hearts race during tense scenes, and we might even shed a tear during moments of heartbreak. Toy Story 3 | © Disney Think of when Woody, Buzz and the team held hands as they faced incineration in Toy Story 3 . Or the shock of a twist like “What’s in the box?”. Or when Jack slowly sank into the depths of the ocean. But when we experience a film collectively, the emotions hit harder. In 2020, a study  published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience  explores how watching movies activates complex patterns of brain activity. This phenomenon, known as neurocinematics , reveals that films are structured to guide viewers’ attention and emotional responses in synchronized ways. In communal settings like a movie theater, this synchronization is intensified —viewers not only engage with the narrative but also with each other on a neurological level, creating a uniquely shared emotional and cognitive experience that streaming alone at home can’t replicate. ​It’s called the "inter-subject correlation" (ISC), referring to the synchronization of neural activity across different individuals when watching the same film, according to the Mirage News . It’s like emotional contagion, where individuals subconsciously mimic and synchronize with the emotions of those around them, making us feel more connected. BOX OFFICE AND VIEWING HABITS However, this experience is facing a challenge. While cinema isn't dying, it is undeniably changing. Recent data from the European Audiovisual Observatory  shows a complex picture. Admissions in certain European markets remain relatively stable, but overall attendance hasn’t fully recovered to pre-pandemic levels. And a recent Deloitte study highlights a significant shift in consumer habits. Streaming services now account for a substantial portion of entertainment spending, with many consumers prioritizing convenience and cost-effectiveness over the theatrical experience. There’s also the fragmentation of viewing habits. We’re not really curating our entertainment anymore, but passively consuming it. Letting the algorithm decide. Movies play while we scroll through social media, check emails and half-listen when we’re at home. And younger generations? According to Deloitte, they prefer creator-driven content over traditional films and series. And Millie Bobby Brown is proof of that, as she told The Sun she does not like to sit for a certain period of time to watch a movie. “Think about the war for people’s attention and time that exists today, between traditional media and social media”, China Widener, vice chair of Deloitte in  The Hollywood Reporter . THE RISE OF THE HOME CINEMA Electric States | ©Netflix The convenience of streaming is undeniable. A few clicks, and you’ve got access to thousands of titles, all from the comfort of your couch. But this convenience comes at a cost. Something important is shifting: how movies are made. They’re becoming content , built for the algorithm . Designed to check certain boxes. Framed to look good on your phone, your tablet, your TV. Less detail. Everything's centered. And yeah, it’s comfy. But more often than not, it just fades into background noise. This also means that there are so many meh shows, series, and movies now that we end up endlessly scrolling through Netflix or whatever platform, never really choosing anything new. We go back to that one comfort movie we’ve seen a dozen times. It's safe. It’s easy. So, in the end, maybe we just need to remember what it feels like to sit in the dark with strangers, all reacting to the same story. And, well… I’ll try to go to the movies more often. Are you?

On the second day of the NIFFF Extended program, the focus pivoted from VFX— showcased with "The Last of Us" and "3 Body Problem" —to practical SFX miniature making with Simon Weisse and it was fascinating! Simon Weisse and his miniatures (image from the NIFFF) So, first, who is Simon Weisse ? He's a master of making miniature for cinema and movies, best known for his work with Wes Anderson, including "The Grand Budapest Hotel", the Roald Dahl shorts and "Asteroid City". Through time, Weisse has carved a unique niche in the industry. He began his career in the late 80s, working for movies like Event Horizon and V for Vendetta, to mention a few. But with the advent of CGI. Things changed. Lewis & Clark spaceship from Event Horizon at Lyon's museum of Miniature. “Twenty years ago, I thought my career was over, that’s why I started making props. But since 'The Grand Budapest Hotel', I’ve never had more work!”, he told. This resurgence doesn't mean he's abandoned prop work. In his studio, for "Asteroid City", the team handled both miniatures and functional props. They created meteorites in various sizes, as well as jetpacks and guns. Among the miniatures was the UFO ingeniously assembled from everyday kitchen utensils, and the train—a particularly memorable challenge since the model arrived in pieces from the States. "I was hoping it would be like assembling something from Ikea. With a manual! It was far from it, and we had to creatively find a way to piece it together!" he recalls with a laugh. Now, let's clarify something about miniatures for cinema: these aren’t your average models you can build in your living room. Cinematic “miniatures” can be larger than a car! For instance, he was asked to create a 50-meter-long road for “The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar”. It was so massive that he couldn’t find a place large enough to film it and had to use a greenhouse in Berlin. By the way, for those interested in seeing these works up close, the Museum of Cinema & Miniature in Lyon, France, houses many of his creations, including a forced perspective set from the short film "The Swan", directed by Anderson and Event Horizon's ship. Unfortunately, miniature making remains a labor-intensive and resource-heavy process, often requiring strong support from directors and producers. "For this kind of project to be feasible, it needs the full backing of the director and sometimes even the producer. Without their support, it simply won't happen," explains Weisse. This is where filmmakers like Wes Anderson make a significant difference. For "The Grand Budapest Hotel", the director's enthusiasm for mini-effects led Weisse and his team to spend about two months in preparation and another three to four months building the maquettes—all for just a few days of shooting. When asked about the skill set needed to be a miniature maker for movies , Weisse emphasized the meticulous nature of the work, which demands patience, passion, and a diverse skill set. His team in Berlin includes architects, carpenters, painters, and more, showcasing the range of talents required. “You must not be afraid of getting your hands dirty”, Weisse advises, adding, “the 3D guy is also able to cut wood, you know?” Finally, Weisse also addressed the ongoing debate between practical and digital effects, dismissing it as nonsensical. Often faced with "purists" who insist on one method over the other, Weisse, an enthusiast for new technologies, advocates for a synthesis of traditional and modern techniques. “Combining these old techniques with new ones is truly an asset,” he stated.

In a move that's been decades in the making, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has officially announced the creation of a new competitive Oscar category: Achievement in Stunt Design . The award will debut at the 100th Academy Awards in 2028, recognizing work from films released in 2027 — a milestone that industry professionals have been demanding for years. THE HIDDEN ARCHITECTS OF ACTION Stunt performers have been part of cinema since the silent era. Think Charlie Chaplin doing his own pratfalls, Buster Keaton dodging falling buildings, or Yakima Canutt inventing the art of the moving horse-to-wagon transfer for John Ford. They were there from the beginning — but mostly in the shadows. While stars collected awards and audiences held their breath, the people throwing themselves off buildings, getting hit by cars, or set on fire were rarely acknowledged. And that invisibility? It was by design. Not out of malice, but out of necessity. After all, cinema is an illusion. And a great stunt is meant to serve the story (yes, even the fights mean something) and to give our heroes and villains amazing abilities. All without drawing attention to the risk involved. “It’s the contract we sign up for: we’re not supposed to be seen”, David Leitch, director and stuntman, LA Times For generations, stunt performers have perfected the art of disappearing into  the action, embodying characters and executing dangerous feats. They are meticulous planners, skilled athletes and dedicated artists, often overlooked in the celebration of filmmaking. And even sometimes absent from the credits. Literally. Being erased from film credits was a common practice, especially when studios wanted to maintain the illusion that actors did their own stunts. That’s why it was news when, in season three, The Mandalorian  correctly credited the men  (not man ) behind the mask. Mando was a character built by three different bodies and one voice. And yet, most viewers have no idea. That’s how good the illusion is. From left to right:   Pedro Pascal  – the voice and image of Mando;   Brendan Wayne  – the gunslinger ;   Lateef Crowder  – the martial artist/sword master | Image from ScreenRant This lack of recognition has created a frustrating paradox: the very people responsible for some of cinema’s most breathtaking moments have been denied the industry’s highest honor. THE TAURUS AWARDS: STUNT WORK’S UNDERGROUND OSCARS Until now, the most prestigious recognition for stunt professionals has been the Taurus World Stunt Awards . Launched in 2001, the event was created by Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz. It honors categories like 'Best Fight', 'Best High Work' and 'Hardest Hit', but remains largely outside the mainstream eye. The 2025 Taurus Awards are set for May 10. A SEAT AT THE TABLE – FINALLY The Academy’s announcement on April 10, 2025, confirmed that a new Oscar will be introduced for Stunt Design  at the 2028 ceremony. Unlike past honorary awards or brief mentions during montages, this will be a fully-fledged, voted category. “We are proud to honor the innovative work of these technical and creative artists, and we congratulate them for their commitment and dedication in reaching this momentous occasion”, Academy CEO Bill Kramer and Academy President Janet Yang But what exactly does “stunt design” mean? According to John Wick  director and longtime stunt professional Chad Stahelski , calling the category "Stunt design" was a smart compromise. It acknowledges how collaborative stunt work truly is. As he explains in an interview with Vulture , bringing a stunt to life on screen involves far more than just a single performer. You have choreographers, stunt doubles, camera operators, riggers, safety coordinators, rehearsal teams, VFX artists, editors — and more, depending on the complexity of the scene. It’s all of these departments working in sync. A team. BTS of John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum | Image from Film Independent “I have a team of ten guys that helps me choreograph. I have three other fight choreographers that are coming from Japan, China, France. I have two stunt-riggers that design how I do the wild gags. My idea is the gag. Their idea is how to do it safely. Camera guys shoot it. My editor helps me edit it. VFX helped me erase the wires. That’s pretty fucking collaborative”, Stahelski on John Wick. Though the rules for eligibility will be announced in 2027, the new Oscar is expected to be awarded to a team recognizing the collaborative nature of the craft. A BIT OF HISTORY: THE IRONY AND THE DEBATE The fight for recognition isn’t new. In 1967, legendary stuntman Yakima Canutt received an honorary Oscar for his groundbreaking work in stunt safety and rigging. Hal Needham  — a stunt coordinator and performer on more than 30 films from the 1950s through the ’70s — was honored with a similar award at the 2013 Governors Awards, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter.   Action Heroes Owe Everything to Stunt Pioneer Yakima Canutt | WIRED Nearly fifty years later, Jackie Chan  was also given an Honorary Award for his “lifetime achievement” in 2016 — a nod for redefining action cinema with death-defying choreography. But these were exceptions. For years, industry insiders have lobbied for an official Oscar category for stunt work. As early as the 1990s, the Stuntmen’s Association of Motion Pictures   began campaigning for change, according to LA Times . The irony hit a high point in 2020, when Brad Pitt won an Oscar  for portraying a stuntman in Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood  — a fictional character inspired by real professionals who, at the time, still had no Oscar category of their own. The conversation reignited with The Fall Guy  (2024), a movie about — and for — stunt performers, released into an industry that still hadn’t formally recognized their work. Until, finally, a year later — the Academy announced it. And much of the credit goes to director David Leitch, who helped lead the charge while promoting the film. “This has been a journey for so many of us. Chris O’Hara and myself have invested several years into this. We built on the work of all the stunt designers who fought so hard for this in the past over the past decades. We are very grateful. Thank You @theacademy ”, he said in an Instagram  post.

Zack Snyder's "Rebel Moon" has ignited discussions about the use (or abuse) of slow motion in films. Known for his stylistic, extra-slow-motion sequences, Snyder has faced criticism for employing this technique excessively in both parts of his latest epic sci-fi movies, with many going so far as to say he has "ruined it". Rebel Moon - part 2 | ©Netflix Let's not mince words: the director has disappointed his Snyder-cult (us included), prompting reflection on where things went wrong. With "Rebel Moon", Snyder has shown that impressive visuals alone cannot compensate for a lack of compelling story and character development. To avoid repeating his mistakes, we've decided to dig deeper into the technique: what exactly is slow motion and how can it be used effectively? WHAT IS SLOW MOTION? Slow motion, often abbreviated as slow-mo, is a technique that creates the illusion of time moving slower than normal. This effect is achieved by recording footage at a higher frame rate than it is played back. For example, filming at 120 frames per second (fps) and then playing it back at 24 fps results in a scene appearing five times slower than real-time. In fact, some cameras are specifically designed for capturing high-frame-rate footage, such as the iconic Phantom camera. Dredd | ©DNA Films The technique was pioneered by August Musger , an Austrian priest and physicist. Initially designed to mitigate flickering in early cinema projectors, his invention unintentionally introduced the concept of slow motion. Musger patented his device in 1904, laying the foundation for what would eventually become a fundamental tool in filmmaking. WHEN TO USE SLOW-MO AND WHY? Enhancing visual impact might seem the primary role of slow motion, yet its potential extends beyond this initial function. It allows viewers to immerse themselves in intricate details, amplifying the drama, action, or thematic elements of a scene. However, like any cinematic technique, moderation is key to maintaining its effectiveness. Overuse can diminish its impact. Therefore, select carefully specific moments where this effect serves a purpose beyond mere visual appeal. Here are a few instances where employing slow motion can give that extra “umph” to your movie:   Enhance Emotional Impact Slow motion enhances emotional impact by enabling the audience to absorb every detail of a powerful moment. It is particularly effective in capturing the subtle expressions and reactions of characters during pivotal scenes, such as death scenes like Gwen's in "The Amazing Spider-Man 2”. Yeah… that one. Highlight Action In action sequences, slow motion emphasizes the choreography and intensity of movements, providing directors with an opportunity to showcase critical story elements. This can include the protagonist’s technique, strategic decisions and the high stakes involved. Slow-mo transforms fast-paced action into a comprehensible visual experience for the audience, allowing us to appreciate essential details that might otherwise be missed. For example, in "Puss in Boots", slow-mo is used during Puss' first confrontation with his nemesis, Death, highlighting the moment he is actually injured for the first time, making him defeatable. Create Suspense By decelerating time, slow motion builds suspense and anticipation. This technique is invaluable in thriller or horror films, but its application extends beyond these genres. It intensifies the audience anxiety, as we anticipate the resolution of tense situations. In " Final Girls ", a film that humorously plays with horror tropes, slow motion is employed in a long sequence where the supposedly defeated killer unexpectedly reappears, chasing our characters through the forest. Surreal and Narrative Moments But slow motion can also play a distinct role in narrative storytelling. For instance, in "Dredd" (2012), a drug known as “Slo-Mo” alters perception by slowing down time, intensifying colors and creating a whimsy atmosphere. Each use of this drug transports us into this kind of surreal world, starkly contrasting with the violent scenes depicted. Similarly, filmmaker Lars von Trier uses the technique in several of his films to evoke a surreal ambiance, like the Hypnosis sequence in " Antichrist ". Visual Aesthetics It's fair to acknowledge that slow motion can enhance the visual appeal of any scene, making mundane actions appear extraordinary. However, this should not be the principal reason for its use. Choose wisely, as this is precisely where Snyder sinned. By turning everything (and we mean it) into a visual spectacle, he lost his audience interest. A perfect example of this is the now infamous farming scene in "Rebel Moon 2”.  Despite Snyder's explanation that the plant is crucial to the plot, the excessive sloooooooooow-mo of people harvesting, made it feel more like a bad advertisement, rather than a cinematic experience. Puss in Boots | ©DreamWorks Animation L.L.C 300 VS. REBEL MOON In "300", Zack Snyder's use of slow motion was sparingly employed to enhance storytelling, particularly in battle scenes where it underscored the Spartans' skill and bravery. Each slow-mo shot had a clear purpose, contributing to the film's epic and stylized tone, reminiscent of the graphic novel it portrayed. Conversely, "Rebel Moon" utilizes slow motion excessively, seemingly because it aligns with Snyder's stylistic preferences. Unfortunately, this overuse diminishes pacing and narrative cohesion (not that there is much to begin with, but that’s another story) and actually disconnects the audience. Instead of accentuating pivotal moments, the frequent slow-mo scenes make nothing feel truly significant. They lacked narrative justification . This highlights two crucial lessons from Snyder on how not to use slow-mo : Visual spectacle alone cannot compensate for weak dialogue and underdeveloped characters. Redundancy makes it feel boring and takes away the excitement. In conclusion, slow motion is a potent tool in filmmaking when applied judiciously. It has the potential to heighten emotional and visual impact when used purposefully and precisely. However, as seen in "Rebel Moon", excessive reliance on this effect can detract from the overall experience.

“All practical”, “ no CGI ”, the war is still ongoing. However, it is fascinating that the Oscars don’t seem to make such distinction (well, almost...). Practical or digital? Those are encapsulated under the same category “Best visual effects”. Production concepts of Wicked shared and done by Oliver Beck This year’s nominations include two films heavily marketed as using "only" practical effects, but we already have some breakdowns of all the scenes where VFX (and CG—for those making the distinction) are used. And it works! Both practical and digital effects have evolved a lot since their inception and it’s thanks to both of them that we have great movies (and some flops, of course!). On the other hand, we also have two very different takes on motion-captured apes performances, and 2024's most beloved sci-fi epic. Here’s the breakdown of this year’s nominees: ALIEN: ROMULUS – FEDE ALVAREZ Touted as a film relying entirely on practical effects, Alien: Romulus  was a return to old-school filmmaking techniques. While this claim holds weight, we’re glad to see behind-the-scenes footage revealing how CGI was also used to bring some of the film's most gruesome creatures and scenes to life —along with a few other things (asteroid belts, spaceships, floating acid, etc.). Practically speaking? Plenty was done in-camera, including our favorite: the swimming facehugger, specifically designed to leap from the water towards its prey. Video from WetaWorkshop  Instagram According to IMDb , 23 companies contributed to the film's effects, covering everything from concept art and previs to practical effects, miniatures, and digital work . It’s exciting to see filmmakers putting in the effort to revive the practical side of effects, despite the cost and complexity. However, the way the movie has been marketed—as though CGI is the “evil sibling”—feels unnecessary. “We went all the way to create creatures with (...) the philosophy of the old movies but with technology of today, to create something that people don’t see on screen everyday”, director Fede Alvarez told the Hollywood Reporter . WICKED  - JON M. CHU Much like the Romulus  campaign, Wicked   has been marketed as "real" and "tangible", boasting impressive feats like planting nine million tulips. And, again, this is true—they built immense, magical sets and went all-in on practical elements. But let’s not ignore the significant digital contributions that helped bring the movie to life. Fortunately, we’re starting to see breakdowns and behind-the-scenes footage from Framestore , showcasing the amount of work of thousands of artists from both the practical and digital realms. This transparency is refreshing—especially when compared to Barbie’s  infamous behind-the-scenes “grey screens”, which sparked online debates about the studios’ fakeness and their reluctance to reveal just how much VFX was actually used. DUNE: PART TWO – DENIS VILLENEUVE The Oscar for Best Visual Effects at the 97th Academy Awards was awarded to Dune: Part Two (Paul Lambert, Stephen James, Rhys Salcombe and Gerd Nefzer). No surprises here—Denis Villeneuve’s epic sequel once again delivered jaw-dropping visuals. From massive sandworms to the sprawling deserts of Arrakis, the film has lots of incredible and epic scenes. A mix of techniques were used, but we already covered the ones we liked the most in this article . Dune: Part Two | Official Trailer | ©Warner Bros KINGDOM OF THE PLANET OF THE APES – WES BALL Motion capture continues to evolve and innovate, and this film is the ultimate proof. With its hyper-realistic ape characters, Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes showcases how CG has reached new levels, enabling to create emotion and believable characters. While CG-heavy movies are (mostly) frowned upon today, the Planet of the Apes franchise has managed to sidestep this stigma . Even though we know  those apes don’t exist, we remain fully invested in the story. The integration of visual effects doesn’t detract from the film—it elevates it and the artistry is undeniable. “Through those three apes’ films that technology [mocap] improved, became robust. We were able to take it outside in the rain or in the snow”, Eric Winquist, VFX supervisor BETTER MAN – MICHAEL GRACEY “We usually do stunts and fights, and then we were thrown into dancing apes”, Emma Cross, Weta FX motion capture. Weta FX were the ones that took on the challenge of creating a singing, dancing ape—a task a bit outside their usual expertise. This required them to innovate and adapt their workflow to make it work. “We had to make a lot of motion studies there, to sort of work out how you convincingly make all that sound and all that energy and all that breath come out of this CG character”, Dave Clayton, Weta FX Previs & Animation supervisor The decision to transform Robbie Williams into an ape wasn’t arbitrary. According to the director, it reflected how Williams sees himself, placing the biopic in the realm of magic realism. This creative choice brought a new layer of depth to the storytelling, offering audiences something we haven’t really seen before. ** Which of these movies do you think should win the Oscar for Best Visual Effects? Or is there another film you believe should have made the list? Let us know!

This wasn’t the article we planned to write today, but given the buzz, it felt necessary. We’ve covered AI advancements and controversies before, but this one stands out for its irony. The Super Bowl is known for its high-profile, creative advertisements, with each 30-second slot costing a literal fortune. This year, among the usual array of big-budget ads (including many related to AI ), one stood out—not specifically for its message, but for what it revealed between the lines. OpenAI made its Super Bowl debut with The Intelligence Age , a 60-second ad that reportedly cost $14 million, according to The Verge . The spot features pointillism-inspired animation, transforming dots into iconic milestones of human progress—from fire and the wheel to DNA sequencing and space exploration. It culminates with ChatGPT assisting with everyday tasks like business planning and language tutoring, positioning AI as the next great leap in human innovation. A compelling message, sure. But what really got people talking, at least in our algorithm? The fact that this AI-powered company, championing the future of generative technology, didn’t use AI to create its ad. “The ad itself is a signal of how AI can assist—not replace, but aid and enhance—a human-led creative effort”, as described in OpenAI’s blog  about the ad. THE IRONIC TWIST For the past two years, AI-generated content has flooded the internet, with endless claims that it spells the death of traditional creative industries. Yet, when it came to its own high-profile Super Bowl moment, OpenAI opted for traditional, human-made advertising animation rather that showcasing the technology it is pushing. To produce it, they partnered with Accenture Song . According to OpenAI CMO Kate Rouch, they did use their generative video model, Sora , for early prototyping, camera animations and rapid iteration . However, the final animation was crafted entirely by human artists. “This is a celebration of human creativity and an extension of human creativity”, Open AI CMO, Kate Rouch The decision seems in and on itself… surprising. The marketing industry is already heavily turning to AI for generating visuals, copy and even entirely finished commercials—largely because it’s cheaper. But is it better? OpenAI's choice suggests that, when the stakes are high, human creatives are still the best bet.   So… is it all just silicon valley hype? AI ADS AND CONTROVERSY Still from the ad "Crush!" of Apple We’re in a moment of disruption. Backlash is inevitable. Fear is palpable. In advertising, we’ve already seen brands face intense criticism for their use of AI. However, OpenAI’s approach was a calculated marketing move, allowing them to sidestep the kind of backlash that other AI-powered ads have faced. Oh, you don't remember? Let us give you a refresher, with our top three most controversial AI related ads: Coca-Cola’s AI-Generated Christmas Ad  attempted to deliver a heartwarming holiday message, but instead, it was criticized for feeling "uncanny" and "soulless". Many argued that it lacked the warmth and authenticity that define classic holiday campaigns. Apple’s "Crush" iPad Ad  sparked outrage by showing creative tools—musical instruments, books, and art supplies—being crushed into an iPad. Critics called it a tone-deaf metaphor for technology replacing traditional creative methods. Google’s Gemini Olympics Ad  was pulled after backlash. The ad, which featured an AI writing a heartfelt letter from a young girl to her favorite athlete, was seen as diminishing human emotion in favor of automation. SO, WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? Generative AI is improving by the second and as we’ve said before, the question isn’t if we should use it, but how  we use it. OpenAI’s Super Bowl ad makes one thing clear: AI is a tool, not a replacement. And, for once, it's nice to see that humans are still the ones shaping the (hi)story.

The Neuchâtel International Fantastic Film Festival (NIFFF) stands out as a premier Swiss event for genre film enthusiasts, showcasing fantastic, action-packed, and sometimes gory films. Needless to say, it’s an event we do not miss, and not only for the movies. There are also very interesting conferences on different subjects. This Monday, we attended two sessions on visual effects (VFX) as part of the NIFFF Extended program. THE LAST OF US - STORM STUDIOS Presented by Espen Nordahl, VFX Supervisor at Storm Studios in Norway, this conference delved into the intricate work behind the VFX for the hit series "The Last of Us". Nordahl’s team was responsible for 150 shots across six episodes, with around 30 people contributing over roughly five months of post-production. They handled complex shots involving “cordyceps” tendrils emerging from the mouths of the infected, face replacements, blue screen work and creating wounds and bite marks. One key difference between the game and the series was the method of infection. In the game, characters are infected via spores, but the series opted for direct physical contact to emphasize the human element. “You’re fighting against humans, not things and that's what the directors wanted”, explained Nordahl. This decision required the Storm studio team to conceptualize and test various prototypes for the cordyceps – you know, those weird, disgusting tendrils that come out of the mouths of the infected. Being involved very early in the pre-production allowed them to test different prototypes for this very important element throughout the series. "Our motto is to fail fast, get ideas quickly”, Nordahl This way, they can show early iterations to the directors, have feedback early on and determine which direction to take. This process was crucial in refining the cordyceps’ movement, aiming for a natural yet eerie effect. They did lots of trials, some too aggressive, others too limps, falling out the mouth like noodles, until they finally settled on a more plant-like, organic slow movement, reminiscent of how plant roots would behave. The final effect was achieved through a combination of hand animation and simulation, ensuring the tendrils did what they wanted in specific shots. Early look development of the tendrils | Image showed in presentation ©Storm Studio The team also had to do CG face replacements. Although all the infected had SFX makeup, in some shots, like real close-ups, the prosthetics still felt a bit too rubbery, necessitating CG enhancements or replacement. Of course, the team built upon the incredible work already done by the SFX department, which allowed to add a more realistic layer and disgusting appearance. In other instances, they had to “fill in the gaps”, adding tendrils, deteriorating teeth, etc. Finally, there were stunt doubles who needed their faces replaced with the actors’. "References are key to everything when you’re making photorealistic VFX", Nordhal emphasized. 3 BODY PROBLEM - PIXOMONDO Michael Schlesinger, Lead Compositor at Pixomondo in Germany, shared insights into the VFX work for "3 Body Problem". The variety of shots in this project ranged from subtle enhancements to a big a** atomic explosion in space. In this case, there were a lot of invisible VFX involved. A prominent example of this is that they had to add cold breath in 52 shots for the first episode, which was set in a cold environment. "It sounds simple, but you have to analyze how they talk and what they are doing to understand when the gas comes out of the mouth. It was all the more complicated, as they did not speak English!", Schlesinger explained. But the team also had to work on bigger full CG sequences, like a rocket launch in Cape Canaveral and the dream sequence with a paper boat, which was filmed against a blue backdrop with the actor. The origami boat then had to be replaced so that it had a more paper-like texture, in addition to creating the entire environment (water, sky, fog, etc.). Dream sequence | © 2024 Netflix, Inc. For the atomic bomb explosion in space, they took a different approach; they did it with compositing techniques. As mentioned before, referencing real footage is key, so Schlesinger was surprised to see that there is actual historical footage from "Operation Fishbowl", a 1962 operation led by the USA where nukes were launched 400 km into space.  However, they had to balance scientific accuracy with creative liberty to make the explosion visually compelling. “Scientists probably will see this and go like, what the? But we do it for the viewers, for the shot”, he joked. Another particularly tricky aspect when you’re doing VFX is depicting scale. For the Pixomondo team, it was one level up, as in space there are no familiar reference points. So, to convey how big the golden sail for the rocket was, the team used techniques like reducing contrast for distant objects and sharpening closer ones, mimicking atmospheric effects even though space has no atmosphere. This approach helped create a convincing sense of scale.   These conferences highlighted the meticulous work involved in VFX, showcasing the blend of technical skill and creativity required to bring fantastical or realistic elements to life on screen. But that’s not all we have in store from NIFFF this week. Stay tuned as we cover more exciting conferences and reveal our top five must-see movies from the festival. You won’t want to miss it!

On the second day of the 2024 NIFFF Extended program, the focus pivoted from the digital VFX— showcased with "The Last of Us" and "3 Body Problem" —to the equally intricate worlds of 3D animation, with the movie Nimona, made by DNEG. ©Netflix The journey of bringing "Nimona" to the screen was anything but straightforward. Initially started by Blue Sky Studios, the project faced uncertainty when the studio closed in 2021. However, the passion and dedication of key individuals led to its revival at DNEG , where at its peak, 100 animators worked together to bring the graphic novel adaptation to life. Toby Seale, Lead Animator at DNEG, shared insights into their animation process, which started with… graphs. Yes. Given the project's temporary halt, the directors had the chance to deeply explore the character arcs and dynamics. They created graphs tracking their emotional journey throughout the movie, both individually and collectively.  This tool proved to be invaluable for directors and animators alike, allowing them to infuse this emotional subtext into the animation. Another important resource for the animators was the style guide created by Ted Ty, the Animation Director for "Nimona". They also worked with the concept of "golden poses" . What are those, you may ask? Well, these are still frames where the character's pose conveys the essential elements of a shot, guiding the viewer's eye to the most important aspects. This technique, borrowed from traditional 2D animation, ensures clarity and intention in each frame. It also enabled quick feedback cycles with directors, helping animators avoid overworking shots that might later be changed. Like VFX, references are crucial in animation , though more for acting than for textures. This involves the team filming themselves acting out scenes, often in a cartoony style, to better understand body and facial movements. Even subtle actions, such as holding a hand, are filmed to capture the intricacies of key real-life movements. For the animation of "Nimona," the team aimed for a theatrical, exaggerated style, often utilizing the entire frame and set. However, in moments of vulnerability, the animation shifted to a subtler, more natural approach. A striking example is a scene where Nimona, feeling exposed and honest, is depicted from the back in a very still position, to emphasize her emotional state. But she does more than that... "Nimona’s transformations were one of the biggest challenges for the animation team", confessed Seale. ©Netflix And we are not surprised. Turns out, they were tasked with creating her transformations entirely in 3D, using VFX only for enhancements. This technical challenge also had to align with Nimona's emotional arc. For instance, when she is playful, her shape-shifting is quick, fun and seamless. They achieved this by nesting the rigs of different animals inside one another, similar to Russian dolls. However, contrary to what many might believe, it’s not the larger, more dynamic movements that are most challenging. Minimal movements posed a greater challenge, as conveying emotion with slight gestures requires immense skill.

As the credits rolled for the inaugural episode of Marvel's "Secret Invasion”, controversy sparked across the internet. For the first time, artificial intelligence had been used in a major production, causing serious backlash from critics, the industry and fans alike. But why? And what can history tell us about the use (and arrival) of new technologies in art? CREDIT: Marvel - "Secret Invasion" opening credits Now, this will be a lengthy article, but if AI is a topic that frightens or fascinates you, please bear with me… As artists working in the film field – with Joe being initially a CG artist, and me, being more from the writing side of the creative process – we found ourselves confronted with the possibility of extinction. With technologies like Wonder Dynamics, which integrates CG characters into real footage or Chat GPT, we've even wondered if we should start learning to make bread, or perhaps arepas. Since the first time AI crawled its way into our studio, a year ago when Midjourney was in beta testing phase, we have been on a rollercoaster of emotions. But instead of looking the other way, we started experimenting with many AI tools, and... good news! While some enable to create images or texts with ease – though not necessarily great – we realized it will not replace human creativity. AI is a new tool in a filmmaker’s arsenal, like a personal minion you can overwork and it'd be happy about it. But it's not a magic tool (a misconception many seem to have); it takes time, patience and a lot of editing. Plus, it needs to be trained or told what to do. This means the ideas (and the final product) are still coming from your little brain, which, actually is the scary part. But I digress… So, let's gain a little perspective here. When you look back, the history of art itself testifies to the fact that new technology can also engender new forms of creativity.* * note to our readers, this is about technology, not copyright - which deserves another article. WHEN PHOTOGRAPHY WAS INVENTED, PAINTERS WERE UPSET Rewind to the 19th century, when Nicéphore Niépce, a French pionner, inventend photography. It was 1822. The art world took a hit and was in turmoil, as traditional artists (mostly portrait and landscape painters) worried that this new mechanical piece of technology, able to capture reality as none of them could, would make them obsolete. Yet, instead of replacing traditional art, photography evolved into an art form of its own and pushed painters to explore new artistic styles like Impressionism , which celebrated the human interpretation of the world in a way a photography could not. DIGITAL ANIMATION VS. TRADITIONAL ANIMATION The introduction of digital animation in the 90s was similarly impactful. Prior to its introduction, animation was an intensive process, that took hours and required artists to draw each frame by hand. Digital animation significantly streamlined this process and allowed for new techniques and styles. Unsurprisingly, many traditional animators initially resisted this shift due to concerns about job security and the potential loss of the hand-drawn aesthetic. But don’t take it from us. Here’s a reaction from Disney animator, Aaron Blaise , to Corridor Crew’s manga AI short film “Rock, paper, scissors” . Similarly, when Jurassic Park was made, creatures were traditionally animated in stop motion. Phil Tippet was the Maestro of this specific, time-consuming art. Having worked in classic movies like King Kong, Star Wars and Robocop, it was only natural that he was part of Spielberg’s team. But then came Steve 'Spaz' Williams , who was so sure CG animation was the future, he worked his a** off to make a walk cycle for the T-rex. It was thought to be impossible, yet he did it. And… CG animated dinosaurs were used in the movie! When he saw it, Tippet got very sick and said to Spielberg that this "made him feel extinct" (line that was later used in the movie when archeology was in danger, by the way), but on the contrary! He had such a deep understanding of how creatures should move, that he guided the CG team and helped them understand movement, in order to animate the dinosaurs in a believable, life-like way. Instead of going extinct, he evolved. He was now the "Dinosaur Supervisor" of the movie. Images from " Jurassic Punk " trailer "AI WILL REPLACE US", "AI ARTISTS ARE NOT REAL ARTISTS" In our present day, we find ourselves at a crossroads again with AI-technology disturbing our status quo. Many see AI as a threat, while others, view it as a new tool to play with, to explore, to further the narrative of their work, to question even reality… that is what artists do. The controversy surrounding AI in art recalls the initial reactions to photography and animation. While it's crucial to acknowledge and address the issues of AI (ethical, moral, copyright, how it's going to be exploited by big corps, etc.), we should also recognize its potential as a new medium for artistic expression, creating new breeds of artists and pushing the boundaries on how we create things. Refik Anadol , who uses AI to create immersive installations, is a perfect example of this new kind of creative individuals. Here’s another interesting video made by the MoMa itself about AI in art. MARVEL'S AI OPENING CREDITS Now… don’t get us wrong. We are certainly not defending Marvel or any other big studio that have been notorious for mistreating their artists – hence the ongoing writers’ strike , or the complete and utter disrespect for VFX artists –. So, why did they do it? According to the Executive producer and Director of the series, Ali Selim, the decision to use AI for the opening credits was a conscious artistic choice, echoing the show's themes of alien infiltration and identity uncertainty. At least they are being open and direct about it. Now, was this done to cut costs? Well, that's (unfortunately) how the world works. Could this have been accomplished by a traditional artist (2d or 3d)? Certainly. Would it have had the same impact? Not sure. The sequence was made by Method Studio , an award-winning VFX studio, who told the Hollywood Reporter that " the production process was highly collaborative and iterative, with a dedicated focus on this specific application of an AI toolset. It involved a tremendous effort by talented art directors, animators (proficient in both 2D and 3D), artists, and developers, who employed conventional techniques to craft all the other aspects of the project. However, it is crucial to emphasize that while the AI component provided optimal results, AI is just one tool among the array of toolsets our artists used. No artists’ jobs were replaced by incorporating these new tools; instead, they complemented and assisted our creative teams ". In conclusion, the story of art is a story of evolution - of new technologies and techniques challenging and transforming the way we create and perceive art. It is sometimes scary, other times exciting... but one thing is sure, AI is out of the box and here to stay. So, how are we going to use it? ___ Alex Iwanoff