Previsualization, or previs, is a way to visualize film scenes in advance. It helps directors plan and conceptualize complex moments, often weeks or months before shooting begins. Previs of La Piñata Before/After | ©Orbitae Sàrl Often done in 3D , this approach is not only reserved for productions with special effects; it is also very useful for films without any. Here's why previs has become indispensable in production: COMPLEX SCENES PLANNING Does the scene have many characters entering and exiting the frame? A fast pace? Visual effects? Many locations? Previs helps directors orchestrate each element of the scene, defining what they want to tell and how to tell it. Anticipating camera movements, actor interactions, lens types, rhythm, etc., are all points that can be resolved in advance, ensuring smooth and efficient execution during filming. Even Villeneuve used it for Dune! STUNT PREVIS Executing scenes with a car chase, a gang fight, an avalanche, or an animal attack can seem like a daunting task. Stunt previs is key to defining choreography and coordination between actors and the camera. Notably, depending on the type of stunt, this step becomes crucial in preparing scenes that require millimeter precision and maximum safety. Extract from IGN exclusive BTS of Furiosa: Mad Max Saga SET CONSTRUCTION By creating sets in previs, it is possible to determine the desired lighting, how it will be dressed, what can be eliminated and what must absolutely be kept. For example, for "John Wick 3", the set of one of the final scenes was created in Unreal Engine, allowing for informed decisions before its construction and even exploring the set itself thanks to VR. "It became this tool that allowed us to visualize what the set looked like, and also helped us to create the lighting and the design of this thing months and months before any decision had to be made on set", Alex Nice, Concept Illustrator. "The actors, directors, cinematographers went into the VR model so they could basically visualize everything that was going to be built and seen in the film", he adds. BUDGET OPTIMIZATION By previsualizing some scenes, directors and producers can significantly reduce production costs by avoiding time wastage on set and optimizing resource use. As we know... time is money. For instance, for Netflix's "Society of the snow", a previs of the plane crash was created, which helped them determine how many seats and what parts of the plane they needed to build for this particular and complicated moment. Images du BTS - © Netflix A GOOD COMMUNICATION TOOL Previs also serves as a visual reference for all those involved in the project. It facilitates the director to communicate his or her vision and ensures that all members clearly understand the composition and tone of the scene to be shot. BONUS - A WAY TO TEST SHOTS FOR DIRECTORS This process offers great creative freedom. With this tool, directors can experiment with different camera angles, lighting and narrative approaches before making final decisions, thus promoting a richer and more accomplished artistic expression.   All in all, previsualization is not just a technical tool; it's an extension of the creative vision, a facilitator of communication and an essential instrument for the effective management of a cinematic project. That's why, at Orbitae, we offer 3D previs services for complex scenes, as well as stunt previs. Interested? Don't hesitate to contact us!

Everyone's talking about it. Since "The Mandalorian" series, virtual production has been used in many projects, including blockbusters like "The Batman" and Netflix's series "1899" (the behind-the-scenes is a must-see to discover and understand how it works, by the way). But, what is it? In short, Virtual Production (or VP) uses LED screens to project pre-designed virtual environments. Thanks to Motion Tracking, it dynamically adjusts the perspective in real-time within a "volume"—the area surrounded by LED screens. This facilitates the integration and immersion of actors into digital sets, right on the stage. Now, before diving into making a whole movie with this technology, here are a few things you should know: LESS POST-PRODUCTION, BUT MORE PRE-PRODUCTION! Virtual production can reduce post-production time, but that doesn't mean it’s quicker overall! In fact, post-production time shifts to pre-production. Yes, virtual production requires more in-depth preparation because all environments must be created in advance. This means that everything, from textures to lighting, must be anticipated before shooting. "All that stuff took months and months inside a computer game space, before we start building [the set]", Dylan Clark, producer of The Batman. Now, this doesn’t mean there’s no post-production at all. Color grading, compositing, and other visual effects will still be needed. TESTS, TESTS & TESTS It's crucial to run tests to ensure that the environments work well with the sets and the actors' lighting. It's also vital to test for technical performance. Highly detailed environments require high-performance computers, so system stress tests are essential. LOOK DEVELOPMENT The rendering can be photorealistic, stylized like in "Sin City" or entirely surreal. This choice, made before shooting, dictates the project's mood, tone and visual and technical appearance. It requires close collaboration between the director, the DoP, the design team and the visual effects supervisor. When filming in front of a screen, it's vital to test the desired look to set optimal conditions. Don't fight the technology; work with it for better results. REAL SETS SELL THE ILLUSION Every successful virtual production needs set design in front of the screens. This ties everything together. VP can be viewed as an extension or complement to a real set rather than a replacement. A VFX SUPERVISOR IS A MUST The visual effects supervisor is your bridge between creative vision and technical reality. This person is responsible for ensuring consistency and preempting any technical issues during the integration of real and virtual elements. Integrated from the get-go, they'll advise on the best way to achieve desired effects or even which technique to use, given time and budget constraints. Don't have one? Send us an e-mail! IT'S A TOOL, NOT A UNIVERSAL SOLUTION Although virtual production offers new possibilities for filmmaking or advertisements, sometimes it's not the best solution. For effects requiring actor interaction, like particles or volumetric effects (smoke, explosions, etc.), a green screen might still be preferable to avoid long rotoscoping hours. This means each scene should be evaluated to find the most optimal solution based on budget and time. UNDERSTAND ITS LIMITS AND ADVANTAGES Yes, with virtual production, you can have a sunset for 8 hours of shooting, which is sweet. Plus, if you have a character that uses a reflective armor, like in "The Mandalorian", or even a car scene, it's very useful! However, it's crucial to understand the technology's benefits and limits. A common mistake is to push the technology, expecting an ultra-realistic final render without the necessary technical resources. In fact, is now common knowledge among VFX artists, that the background has to be completely replaced (meaning lots of rotoscopy work), because the final output might not be realistic enough. This was the case for the final scene of "Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania". It went to a point where RED used it as a selling point for their V-RAPTOR [X] Camera, saying it "captures final pixel and green screen simultaneously". Another thing to consider is that some LED screens might display moiré patterns, especially when the camera moves quickly or is set at different frequencies. Also, not all LEDs render colors the same way, which might affect how scene colors are perceived on camera (we said it before: do some tests and, yes… more tests!). In conclusion, virtual production offers directors and production teams new tools to realize their artistic visions. However, like any technology, it demands meticulous preparation and close collaboration between teams to harness its full potential. While it may seem like the answer to every production challenge, knowing when and how to use it effectively is essential. After all, true art lies not just in mastering the technology but in the ability to know when to use it in order to enhance the cinematic experience.

The film industry and its audience have yet again found themselves at odds over the claims of 'zero CGI' used in Christopher Nolan’s 'Oppenheimer' . This is so common nowadays that it has reached a point where people and studios are seemingly afraid to even mention that they're using CGI—it's like we're the Voldemort of the story. But why does this matter? Listen, we don't mind being He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named (a character brought to life thanks to a beautiful mix between SFX and CGI , by the way), but unfortunately, the negative publicity is impacting the art and the artists that work endless hours unnoticed. Therefore, we are on a mission to demistify the VFX industry, and we are not alone. In fact, for a more in-depth explanation on the subject, we highly recommend watching "No CGI is just invisible CGI" , from The Movie Rabbit Hole, hosted by Jonas Ussing. With this article, we hope to offer more clarity and shed light on the indispensable and gigantic role of visual effects in filmmaking. What exactly is CGI? A BIT OF HISTORY The art of Visual Effects has been an integral part of filmmaking since its inception, being used in movies as early as 1900! Pioneering filmmakers like Alice Guy and Georges Méliès were among the first to employ methods such as tinting and double exposures, adding a layer of magic to their narratives. Techniques like rear projections and matte paintings were introduced later. Today, the tradition of illusion continues with digital tools (aka computers) and now even artificial intelligence! So, although the tools have evolved, the core purpose of VFX remains the same. What you're trying to do is give the audience a better picture, that tells a better story", Clarence Slifer, Academy Award winner for Best Special Effects, in The Invisible Art . IS IT VFX OR CGI? In a nutshell, CGI is about wholly computer-generated imagery (hence CGI), from fantastical creatures to cityscapes. Conversely, VFX (visual effects) encompasses a broader spectrum, sometimes integrating CGI with live-action footage. VFX side by side - we erased the crew and the cables holding the vampiresse Therefore, VFX would be the umbrella term that   refers to any image alteration that happens in post-production , regardless of whether it's with 3D elements (or CGI) or the compositing of various in-camera footage to create a better image. It's about seamlessly integrating various elements in post to create believable scenes. In this context, CGI would be a subset of VFX, a tool. This term could be reserved for entirely computer-made creations such as characters, backgrounds or objects. It can also be re creations of something that exists using, for example, photogrammetry. In other words, CGI is the modern tool of choice when real-world shooting is too expensive, too dangerous, impractical or impossible. It allows filmmakers to render their visions to life, transforming otherwise normal or impossible sets and/or characters. Behind the CGI scenes for " Artificial Faith ". We modified the metahuman and created the clothes from scratch DON'T FORGET SFX! While CGI and VFX reign in the digital domain, SFX reminds us of the tangible. In deed, SFX refers to all practical or physical effects that occur on set . These can include elements like prosthetics, makeup, weather effects, miniatures and pyrotechnics. Unlike VFX, which is applied or created in post-production, SFX is all about creating tricks in-camera , which (we must confess) are often enhanced in post-production. But, for us, the beauty of cinema relies in the blend of all these techniques! In conclusion, labeling a film 'zero CGI' might be a compelling marketing angle, but it oversimplifies the vast, collaborative art form that visual effects represent. The interplay of CGI, VFX, and SFX is fundamental in modern filmmaking, each element crucial in crafting the movies we love so much (even the ones that are not fantastical!).

Today, you can ask AI to create images, videos and even music. But you can also use AI-generated voices or clone existing ones for many purposes. With tools like ElevenLabs (our favorite), users can alter, clone and dub voices with impressive accuracy. This technology is increasingly used in various fields, from film narration and translation, to customer service and more. However, its rapid development raises significant ethical and legal concerns. Here are some of the hottest controversies. SCARLETT JOHANSSON VS. OPEN AI Scarlett Johansson may be lawyering up against OpenAI over concerns about the unauthorized use of her voice for their AI personal assistant, Sky. According to a statement given by the actress to NPR, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, reached out to her nine months ago to ask her to voice Sky, as it would be “comforting to people” since they are already familiar with her voice as an AI in the movie “Her”. But she refused. To her surprise, when the assistant was launched, the voice sounded eerily like hers. To add insult to injury, Altman posted on X: "Her," leading many to believe there was foul play. However, OpenAI explained later in a blog post how they chose the voice. Nonetheless, Johansson’s legal team argues that the technology poses a significant threat to performers' control over their own voices. This situation could set a precedent for how AI-generated content is regulated and the extent to which individuals can protect their vocal likenesses. "In a time when we are all grappling with deepfakes and the protection of our own likeness, our own work, our own identities, I believe these are questions that deserve absolute clarity", Johansson told NPR. ACTORS ACTUALLY SUE AN AI COMPANY In the USA, two actors are suing the AI voice generation company LOVO for unauthorized use of their voices, as french lawyer, Betty Jeulin, shared on her Linkedin. In the lawsuit, two actors allege that their voices were cloned and used without consent. Both were hired via Fiverr before the AI advent (2019 and 2020) for purposes like "academic research in voice synthesis" and "radio ad script tests for internal use". Unfortunately, one of them discovered his cloned voice was used in 2022 to promote Russian military equipment on YouTube and in a 2023 podcast about AI dangers (ironically). The other found her voice and image in a 2023 promotional video by LOVO, showcasing their AI voice cloning technology to investors on YouTube. They were paid $1,200 and $400, respectively. The New York court will evaluate multiple legal issues, including possible breaches of SAG-AFTRA's rules on AI usage, highlighting important concerns about consent and fair compensation in the growing AI voice technology industry. THE CORTANA SWISS-GERMAN VOICE CASE Another interesting case involves a Swiss-German artist, Helena Hallberg, who voiced Cortana for Microsoft in that specific language. In her TikTok video, she expresses disbelief upon learning that her voice was sold (cloned) to other platforms by the company, all for just $3,000. This incident highlights the growing concern among voice professionals and other artists about the lack of control and potential exploitation enabled by AI voice cloning technology. This, mixed with the unclear legal framework surrounding AI uses, leaves artists at a loss when situations like these happen.

Apple recently faced significant backlash over its iPad Pro "Crush" advertisement, prompting an apology from the tech giant and opening discussions about human creativity in a world increasingly influenced by AI. Here's what happened. THE AD AND ITS CONTROVERSY On May 7, Apple’s CEO Tim Cook published the ad on his X account. As of today, the post has over 60 million views, but the comments are overwhelmingly negative. To promote their thinnest iPad, Apple decided to crush a myriad of artistic symbols—such as paint cans, musical instruments and cameras—with an industrial hydraulic press. The backlash was immediate, forcing Apple to issue an apology just a few days later and acknowledge that the ad "missed the mark", as reported by CNN. Many internet users were also quick to compare this ad with LG’s 2008 one, where various instruments were equally destroyed in a vertical press to create a mobile phone. As a result, Apple lost even more points for lack of originality. IN CONTRAST WITH THE 1984 AD Apple's "1984" Super Bowl ad is one of the brand's most famous commercials. Directed by Ridley Scott, it depicted a dystopian future inspired by George Orwell's novel "Nineteen Eighty-Four". The ad showed an athletic heroine destroying a screen portraying Big Brother, symbolizing IBM, to introduce the Macintosh computer. Despite initial controversy and almost being pulled, it set a new standard in advertising and solidified Apple's image as an innovative disruptor, as described in Mental Floss. The "1984" ad contrasts sharply with today's ads. The company's early advertisements, including "Think Different", celebrated individuality, creativity and breaking away from the norm. These ads were not just about the products but about a vision of technology as a liberating force, a way to enhance creativity. Over the years, Apple's focus has shifted to highlighting the design and functionality of its products, often with simpler, more direct messages, that, in this case, did not land. SAMSUNG'S SWIFT RESPONSE Capitalizing on Apple's stumble, Samsung released its own ad just a week later, trolling Apple's blunder and highlighting Samsung's commitment to originality and creativity. Executive Creative Director from advertising agency BBH USA, Estefanio Holtz, said in a statement to CBS News: "It's about humanity, and the tablet is just a tool that helps her [the guitar player] play the notes. We went in the opposite direction to remind people, as we go through technological innovations, that we cannot leave humanity behind". The response, however, was met with mixed reviews. TECHNOLOGY AND CREATIVITY The controversy sparks a broader conversation about the role of technology in creative industries. As technology advances, including AI, concerns grow over the authenticity and originality of creative work. The backlash against Apple's ad reflects a fear that AI-driven or derivative creativity may undermine genuine human exploration and creation. In a time when AI can generate art, music, and even advertisements, the emphasis on originality and ethical creativity becomes even more critical. Technological tools have always been a double-edged sword in the creative process. On one hand, they enable unprecedented levels of creativity and productivity. Software for graphic design, video editing and music production allows creators to push the boundaries of their fields. On the other hand, the accessibility of these tools can lead to homogenization, where the unique touch of human creativity is overshadowed by templated, algorithm-generated content. In this case and in today's panorama, Apple's "Crush" ad pushed (or crushed) the wrong buttons.

A few weeks ago, we published an article about Sora, the new OpenAI's text-to-video generator, wondering if (and how) it might revolutionize filmmaking. The tool was subsequently tested by several artists and filmmakers, whose short films gained traction and stirred up curiosity, but also doubts in the minds of many creatives. But is AI as easy as it seems? The short answer is: no, as we'll see with the Air Head case, a Sora short film. As of today, AI is a tool that recreates things (images, videos, text). While anyone can quickly generate an image of a bunny under a rainbow in Dali's style, the standout AI art comes from a new breed of artists who invest time mastering these ever-evolving tools. They experiment with prompts, iterate repeatedly, create new workflows, and try new approaches. More often than not, the output is refined or post-produced using "traditional" tools to make the final result cohesive. "It’s not as easy as just a magic trick: type something in and get exactly what you were hoping for," Sydney Leeder, Shy Kids producer, about Sora. THE AIR HEAD VIDEO CASE A prime example is Sora's short film that went viral, Air Head. Created by the Toronto-based group Shy Kids, it features a man named Sonny with a yellow balloon for a head. The film's concept got the attention of thousands partly because it was promoted as a showcase of Sora's imaginative content generation. And, yes, it is amazing. Today, it’s often cited as a prime example of “what AI can do in video”, but is it really only AI? Again, the short answer is: no. First and foremost, the filmmakers at Shy Kids were the ones who came up with this great idea. In order to make it a reality, they had to test various prompts and create many iterations of scenes to find a few that worked. In an in-depth interview with FXGuide, Patrick Cederberg, Shy Kids' animation and post-production director, discussed their experience using Sora. He noted that hundreds of generations were produced, saying, "my math is bad, but I would guess probably 300:1 in terms of the amount of source material to what ended up in the final." He also explained that, on average, rendering a 3 to 20-second clip took around 10 to 20 minutes. While Sora can render up to 720p, they chose to work "at 480 for speed and then upright using Topaz", another AI tool that upscales video resolution. Despite Sora's capabilities, the scenes generated also required extensive post-production work. They faced issues like maintaining the balloon's color and shape across scenes, and had to remove unwanted artifacts like faces embedded in the balloon. "What you end up seeing took work, time, and human hands to get it semi-consistent, through curation, scriptwriting, editing, voiceover, music, sound design, color correction... all the usual post-production stuff", Cederberg explains in the BTS video. So, while the technology enabled the filmmakers to generate surreal short clips quickly (which is very exciting), it still required manual intervention to achieve the complete vision. This shows that tools like Sora aren't a magic bullet for seamless and original art. Instead, they complement traditional techniques and artists. As Sydney Leeder noted, "using Sora definitely opens up a lot more possibilities, especially with indie film crews working on low-budget projects".

To make a film, an incredible variety of talents and a diverse range of artists are needed. Behind-the-scenes footage often highlights directors, actors and actresses, but what about the rest of the team—the technicians, designers and unseen creatives tasked with bringing to life a world, a vision that doesn’t yet exist? To shed light on these essential but often overlooked aspects of filmmaking, we've curated a list of 5 film documentaries we highly recommend. Each one offers a glimpse into the creative process, celebrating the imagination, innovation and relentless dedication required to craft the movies we love. Creature designers - The Frankenstein complex This documentary explores a century of monster creation in the cinematic universe. It highlights the work of artists who, like Frankenstein, bring to life creatures that have now become iconic on both the big and small screen. Discover the world of special effects (SFX) masters who, equipped with a simple idea, a piece of cardboard and tons of silicone, shape the nightmares that haunt our nights. Featuring interviews with renowned artists in the field such as Rick Baker, Alec Gillis, Phil Tippett, Matt Winston (Stan’s son), and more, this documentary is a must-see! Because even though we do a lot of VFX, we always advocate for a mix of techniques. The movies that made us de Netflix Less known but equally fascinating, this documentary series, now in its third season, delves into the behind-the-scenes of cult movies. From "Jurassic Park" to "Die Hard" and "Pretty Woman", to a special Halloween season featuring movies like "RoboCop" and "Friday the 13th," this series unveils the secrets (and misadventures) of movie production. You'll discover a variety of interviews, from directors to screenwriters, set designers to special effects experts. It showcases a wonderful melting pot of all the professions involved in filmmaking. What did we learn? That nothing is really completely under control when making a movie. Robert Rodriguez – the rebel without a crew In this six-episode docu-series, we follow director Robert Rodriguez as he reenacts the exercise that changed his career over 25 years ago: making a movie in 14 days with $7,000. Although today he can make huge savings thanks to the sets he can create directly in the Troublemakers Studio hangars with props from old movies, he shares with us his creative process. This series is for those who love to have the camera on their shoulder; it's filled with tips and tricks from writing to organizing production, working with actors, creating low-cost effects, and the magic of sound and editing. We must say... we are tempted to do it. Who would be up for this adventure? Contact us! Lord of the rings – appendices This is an oldie, we know, but such a goodie. We've never had the opportunity to delve so deeply into the production of a movie as we did with these so-called appendices that came with the LOTR DVDs. For over six hours, dive into Tolkien's universe brought to life by Peter Jackson. The making of the films was an epic in itself, just like the story they told. 5 years of prep, 1 year to film the 3 movies simultaneously, a Herculean task of creating props, thousands of people involved, up to 8 additional directing units, and more than 4 hours of dailies to review each evening. In short, the appendices provide in-depth content on the making of LOTR; or the scaffolding necessary to make a fantasy film. You can watch them directly on Youtube! (ah, that 2000s vibe, right?) Jodorowsky’s Dune This documentary explores filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowsky's failed attempt to adapt the novel "Dune" in the mid-1970s. The film delves into this ambitious, yet unrealized project, which would have presented a unique and avant-garde vision for the market of that era... and perhaps even for today's market. It brought together an unparalleled team, featuring iconic artists and pop culture figures like Moebius and Giger, as well as Dali and even David Bowie. What captivated us is that, even though the film was never made, Jodorowsky's vision paved the way for subsequent science fiction masterpieces such as Alien, Star Wars, and even The Matrix. Have you seen any of those? Which one do you recommend us to watch next? Let us know in the comments.

In the last decade, the VFX industry has been under siege and is in a reputation crisis, despite being an essential part of cinematic magic since the early days of film. Headlines with narratives of how “bad CGI ruins a movie” or how “the ol’ times were better” are proliferating throughout the internet. Today, the controversy resurfaces as Christopher Nolan, in an interview with Collider, apparently said that there is “zero CGI shots” in his new movie Oppenheimer – which we aren’t really sure if he said that or if the journalist interpreted it that way. Either way, this has sparked a huge debate within the industry, because it is not the first time this has happened. Similar claims were said with Top Gun: Maverick, where everything was done practically, like in the 80’s. This was of course later debunked, as it had 2,400 VFX shots and was even nominated to the Oscars for best VFX. George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road’s director, also initially stated that the movie relied almost entirely on practical effects, which was a significant selling point for the film. However, it later emerged that the movie used a substantial amount of CGI and VFX. Now, let’s try to set the record straight. First, Nolan did not shun the VFX for the film, contrary to media interpretations. Although he is known for his commitment to practical effects (we all remember he blew up a plane for Tenet – which was then enhanced with you know what…), his movies would not be possible without CGI. What Nolan said is that he wanted to use practical methods to recreate key events such as the Trinity test and explained how they are working to do so with his effects supervisor. For him, "animation tends to feel a little safe for the audience. The Trinity Test, ultimately, but also these early imaginings of Oppenheimer visualizing the Quantum Realm, they had to be threatening in some way. They had to have the bite of real-world imagery", as he said in the interview. This does not mean that there will not be any digital effects involved. In fact, DNEG, renowned VFX company that has worked in shows like Dune and Last of us, published a tweet a year ago, informing they were the sole VFX studio working on it and, recently, also shared the movie trailer, confirming their involvement in it. So, no CG? Not really. Second, in the comment section of the tweet that started the controversy, the journalist says that there is a differenciation between VFX and CGI. While this is true, the headline of the article claims that there are "zero" CGI shots in the movie. By doing so, the journalist—and possibly Nolan—is treading a fine line with semantics. This use of nuanced language, while technically accurate, can be misleading for those not well-versed in the intricacies of film production terminology. This not only causes confusion among readers but also undervalues the significant roles both VFX and CGI play in the industry. It oversimplifies complex processes and creates a potential misunderstanding of the hard work and creativity involved in these fields. Why? Well, many films are sold as being made “almost” entirely with practical effects. Although this may be true, the final output is only possible thanks to the magic of CGI. Enhancements, set extensions, cable removals, actors touch-ups, etc. This invisible work, carried out by hundreds of artists and involving thousands of hours, often goes unrecognized and is even belittled, particularly in the face of such claims. In addition to that, the VFX industry often grapples with challenging working conditions and intense competition, with some directors and producers lacking a deep understanding of the VFX process, leading to unrealistic expectations and stressful work environments. But the questions remain: why is CGI still so vilified? Why do media hate them so much (and therefore the audience)? Why its absence is used as a key element in a marketing campaign? This is similar to the use of Auto-Tune in music. People hate it. The media hates it. But the reality is that it’s used all the time, everywhere, without you even knowing it, since Cher’s 1998 track "Believe". The conversation needs to shift. Instead of vilifying VFX, we should acknowledge it as a tool that helps further the narrative of the story, making many of the movies we love possible. Like any tool, its effectiveness depends on how well it is used and how the artists are treated. In Oppenheimer's case, we will know for sure how much digital effects are used in the movie in a year or so. Meanwhile, controversies are always useful for selling tickets. We certainly are going to see it! Are you?

As the nights stretch out and leaves take on a reddish hue, it becomes the ideal moment to curl up under a blanket and delve into some spine-chilling tales. But which horror movie to see this week? Here's a small selection of films and series we recommend for you; some with terrifying stories, others supernatural, sometimes featuring creatures or are shrouded in dark mysteries. Time to pop some corn and dim the lights for our 2023 picks. The Fall of the House of Usher - Mike Flanagan Mike Flanagan, the director behind hits like The Haunting of Hill House and Midnight Mass (our personal favorite!), returns this October with an adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe's famed story, The Fall of The House of Usher. True to his style, Flanagan toys with horror conventions and dives deep into real terror: human nature and, in this instance, the lengths we go for money. Familiar faces from the Flanaverse deliver stellar performances, as always. If you're a fan of his style and crave more than just jump scares and gore, this series is a must-watch. No one will save you – Brian Duffield Loved by some, loathed by others, this film ends in a way you won't forget. No one will save you follows a young woman, Brynn, fighting to survive an alien onslaught. "Been there, done that", you might think. However, the director throws a curveball, delivering a roughly 90-minute film... without dialogue! The few words spoken are chosen with utmost care, prioritizing a wholly visual narrative and highlighting Kaitlyn Dever's impressive performance. While not outright scary, there are disturbing scenes, and the alien race introduced is both fascinating and curious. Talk to me - Danny and Michael Philippou The Philippou brothers, previously recognized mainly for their YouTube channel RackaRacka, have made a stellar debut with Talk to me, which, according to IMDB, is "on track to become the best horror film of the year". Shot in Australia, it was featured at Sundance, where it caught A24's attention. Transitioning from YouTube likes to film festivals, the brothers captivate with a refreshing, modern take on possession. Mobile phones, trends, challenges – they've included it all. With Mia as the protagonist, evoking memories of Euphoria's Rue, this thriller is as unpredictable as it is spine-chilling. Don't miss it this Halloween! Evil dead rising - Lee Cronin In today's world, franchise films are inevitable. Evil dead Rise is no exception, marking the fifth installment of The Evil Dead. The narrative unfolds around two sisters thrust into a nightmare as one becomes demon-possessed. While retaining the charm and iconic elements from the original movies (like the chainsaw), this version leans towards a graver, even more unsettling tone. Special shoutout to the lead actress and the remarkable makeup team for bringing to life a genuinely disturbing character. We also admired the polished visuals and meticulous cinematography. Svaha: The Sixth Finger - Jang Jae-hyun For fans intrigued by Asian horror cinema, Jang Jae-hyun's Svaha: The Sixth Finger is wroth your while. Beyond the typical scares, the movie delves into the complexities of religion, cults and deep-rooted Korean superstitions. It showcases Squid Game's lead actor, Lee Jung-jae, further proving his outstanding versatility. Jae-hyun, with his signature visual flair, weaves together the supernatural and spiritual, prompting reflections on faith. Malignant – James Wan Even though James Wan released The Nun II this october, we've chosen to spotlight Malignant. Despite mixed reviews and a lackluster box office, its boldness stands out. Wan offers a fresh horror perspective with a unique pace, story and concept that should be more talked about. His ability to challenge genre expectations further cements his undisputed talent in horror cinema. American Horror Story – Double Feature The American Horror Story franchise continues to surprise and innovate. While the latest season, Delicate, is currently running, we recommend checking out Double Feature. This season, split into two distinct parts, touches upon the Roswell alien conspiracy and a covert government agreement. Presented in black and white, with its always refined aesthetics, the first segment delves into a rarely discussed conspiracy theory. The latter segment uses vampires as a mere backdrop. The true horror revolves around creativity and the extents we'd go to be the best... Something that spoke to us, like on a personal level. Incantation - Kevin Ko Last on our list, Incantation is a Chinese film that navigates between folklore and the supernatural. Right from the start, you're thrust into a ritual; participation isn't optional. Using the found-footage format, the story unfolds around a young woman returning to her hometown, only to discover an ancient curse possibly responsible for her family's misfortunes. Blending unease with mysticism, the film toys with appearances and blurs the line between reality and myth.

Cinema is not the only realm where fantastic tales unfold. Be it chilling horrors or mythical entities, the ad world too has a knack for leveraging these elements. To etch a lasting imprint, adding creatures can either accentuate a product's strengths, underline its limitations, or simply deliver a powerful visual punch. Here are six adverts, both from yesteryears and contemporary times, that have used CGI and VFX to incorporate fantasy entities, presenting a narrative with a distinctive twist. As you know, the realm of creature creation is vast; should you wish to infuse one into your campaigns, we're here to breathe some life into it! Haynes Baked Beans – not for astronauts This advert is from a few years ago already. Deviating from the expected, it portrays astronauts triumphant in their moon landing, only to be haunted by an alien monster. One astronaut narrowly evades the threat, but only momentarily. While this is essentially a fictitious advertisement for a bean product, it holds a place on our list because it was created as a promotional piece for Cinesite, the CGI company responsible for its production. After all, isn't promotion itself a form of advertising? Given the success it had, maybe a brand should think about doing something like this. Chek out the behind-the-scenes! Burberry - Night creatures Last year, the luxury brand made an ad that became iconic, where aerial dancers glided above wheat fields. This year, Burverry unfurled a sequel. While the central theme remains unaltered, the fresh twist debuted what seems to be a technologically advanced alien, that dances with the humans. It wouldn’t be amiss to suggest that the creature's design took cues from the extraterrestrials in "War of the Worlds." Volkswagen Electrifying Movies: Monster Escape "Don’t’ worry, she can’t escape the electric fence”, says the guardian of the park, only for another to disable said barrier to charge his car. Drawing inspiration from Jurassic Park, Volkswagen cleverly meshes its endorsement for ITV—a British TV network—to showcase its electric vehicle in a whimsical, fantastical setting, all while maintaining a humorous undertone. Canal Kitchen In an ad promoting TV channels, it's only fitting to use and explore the myriad universes they span! Ranging from dinosaurs and sports to animated characters, this advert underscores the vast bouquet of entertainment options available, akin to a chef parading his culinary masterpieces. T-shirts Taking Flight? Absolutely. IKEA reaffirms its creative audacity, rolling out campaigns of varied moods to tout its offerings—each echoing the brand's commitment to space efficiency and storage solutions. In this particular narrative, the spotlight isn't on... let's say known fabled creatures. It's on T-shirts. Yes, you read that correctly. Tees that migrate, just like birds would. Mikado. So, who's the clever one? In this ad, a reimagined Godzilla induces chaos. However, the giant reptile meets its match, facing electrocution when it emulates a young woman savoring a Mikado. This straightforward yet impactful concept astutely accentuates the brand's catchphrase.

Across diverse visual mediums—be it films, ads or music videos— visual effects have firmly anchored themselves as an integral element of storytelling. Yet, a lack of understanding about this intricate art often results in films that miss the mark, as witnessed in movies like "Cats" and more recently… "The Flash". However, every so often, a film emerges that stands as a testament to the power of seamlessly integrating VFX into storytelling. Such is the case with "The Creator" by Gareth Edwards. Gareth’s unorthodox approach to making “The Creator” Before gracing the director's chair, Gareth Edwards was a visual effects artist, as he mentioned in an interview with The A.V: “I spent 10 years doing computer graphics very cheaply in my bedroom. So, I learned a lot of tricks as to how to make things look bigger than they are with very little effort”. With this background and unique insight into CGI, he became a director known for helming epic-scale movies like "Godzilla" and "Rogue One", with great visual effects. But back to “The Creator”. The first thing that is astounding about this sci-fi epic is its budget. Edwards transformed the normally $300 million projected budget for these kinds of movies, into an $80 million spectacle rivaling any other blockbusters. How? Well, they changed the approach: “obviously, we went for ‘Go make it like an indie movie, but on steroids,’”, he said to Inverse. He leveraged 80 real-world locations instead of sets and worked with a remarkably intimate camera crew, guerrilla style. But that’s not all… Rather than follow the traditional path of shooting a film and then letting VFX companies bid for post-production, Edwards intertwined the VFX team into the filming process from the outset. This approach not only streamlined post-production but also optimized the budget. Further breaking the mold, the film was edited to its final version first, and only then handed over to the VFX teams, which allowed the artists to concentrate solely on the shots that were going to be used; perfecting what needed to be perfected. Drawing parallels, Sam Hargrave, the director of "Extraction", brought a similar depth of specialized knowledge. Having been a stunt coordinator for movies like "John Wick", Hargrave's intimate understanding of action sequences resulted in "Extraction" being celebrated for its raw and riveting action choreography. Just as Edwards' understanding of VFX enriched "The Creator", Hargrave's background ensured "Extraction" was both authentic and breathtaking in its depiction of action, bridging the gap between stunts and storytelling. So, movies that heavily rely on CGI aren't just about having astronomical budgets that result in poor visual effects. If thought from a different point of view, amazing things can be done. Iit is not just about the adoption (and abuse) of these technologies, but about understanding what they have to offer and their limitations, in order to integrate them organically into storytelling. Gareth Edwards is a great example of this, challenging the way big studios work with VFX companies, he showcased, yet again, that CGI when understood deeply and used judiciously, makes the movie magic.

Her name was Alice Guy. She was a visionary artist, a pioneer of early cinema who helped shape the art form as we know it today. Born in the Parisian suburb of Saint-Mandé in 1873, Guy has left an incredible legacy for filmmakers. Unfortunately, her name remained largely unrecognized for years and most of her films were lost. Here are a few reasons why she should be recognized and remembered. Scripting the Silver Screen In an era where motion pictures were still in its infancy, primarily used to capture moving objects like a speeding train, a horse running or a passing parade, Guy saw an opportunity to use the medium differently. She was inspired to tell "little stories that [she] would make up", thereby revolutionizing the film industry. It was 1896 – just a year after Les frères Lumière invented the Cinématographe –, when Guy made history with her film "La Fée aux Choux" (The Cabbage Fairy). The one-minute short tells the story of a fairy who creates babies out of cabbages and is widely recognized as one of the earliest examples of narrative filmmaking. However, the original version of the film is lost. The versions available today are from 1900 and 1902. The Palette of Illusions: Alice's strides in early visual effects Lately, people seem to say that movies back in the days were better, without the overuse of visual effects. Well… contrary to popular belief, visual effects have been part of the magic of cinema since its genesis, and Alice Guy was a pioneering force behind this. For example, she was among the first filmmakers to add hand-tinted color to her films, a groundbreaking technique for its time. Additionally, she experimented with double exposure, most notably in " The Birth, the Life and the Death of Christ" (1906), which could be considered the first-ever super-production, with over 300 extras and 25 sets, and a running time of 33 minutes. In the film, she used this technique in many occasions to create supernatural events, such as the ascension scene. In addition to that, she was the first to use Close-up shots, which later became a hallmark of modern cinema, and also explored synchronized sound through the Gaumont Chronophone, showing an innovative grasp of technology, introducing sound effects and music into her films as early as 1902. A prolific filmmaker! Throughout her career, which spanned from 1894 to 1922, she is estimated to have directed, produced, or supervised approximately 600 silent films and 150 synchronized sound films. These films encompassed a broad spectrum of genres, including comedies, dramas, historical epics, adventure, westerns and even tackled some political and more delicate subjects, such as race and genre. One example is "Les résultats du féminisme". Released in 1906, the film challenges traditional gender roles and highlights the absurdity of societal expectations surrounding gender, with a message that still resonates over a century later. According to Woman film pioneers project, Guy also made numerous action films with female characters as heroes, where she’d cast and train women to do their own stunts. Other example of her rebellious spirit is “A fool and his Money”, considered to be probably the first film to have an all-African-American cast. The film is now preserved at the National Center for Film and Video Preservation at the American Film Institute due to its historical and aesthetic significance.