It’s been nearly four years since AI first landed on our computers with ChatGPT, closely followed by image, sound and video generators, effectively ‘killing cinema’ and everyone’s career with it, as now you can generate a script, actors, lighting, VFX and all. Or so the internet said. Generated Val Kilmer on trailer As deep as the Grave But in real life... how is it effectively changing productions today? And we’re not talking here about resuscitating actors from their graves (Val Kilmer being the first one to be fully generated for the movie As Deep as the Grave). No, we’re looking at main ways that together paint a much bigger picture of where production is actually going. Let's go through them. BITCOIN: KILLING SATOSHI — THE GRAY BOX AI FILM Bitcoin: Killing Satoshi tells the story of the real-world legal saga around Craig Wright, the Australian computer scientist who publicly claimed to be Satoshi Nakamoto, the anonymous inventor of Bitcoin. Casey Affleck plays Wright. Gal Gadot, Pete Davidson and Isla Fisher co-star. The script is by Nick Shenk (The Mule, Gran Torino) and the director is Doug Liman (Edge of Tomorrow, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, The Bourne Identity). Inside the production of the movie | ©The Wrap Needless to say that this is no indie production. The movie called for 200 locations across four continents (Antarctica, Antigua, Las Vegas, etc.). Shooting that conventionally would have cost $300 million, the producers at Acme AI & FX told TheWrap in an exclusive set visit. Instead, they converted a former car showroom in West London into what they're calling a grey box: grey walls with with X everywhere, after “blue and green tests produced subpar results”. Proxy set pieces were built for anything an actor needs to physically touch: a staircase, a motorcycle, a desk. More like a theatre piece than a movie set. “The entire focus on the set was on our performances. It was much more like acting in a Broadway play than in the giant event film that Doug's final product will actually be”, Casey Affleck Though many roles were kept, there was one team that was missing: the lighting crew. All environments and lighting will be added in post. On set, only basic utility lighting was used. The sets themselves, however, were designed the traditional way. As production designer Oliver Scholl told TheWrap, his team used renderings, 3D models and hand drawings, then fed that reference material into the AI. The environments were generated virtually before principal photography even began. In total, 55 AI artists are working in the post-production of the movie and the producers declined to reveal which model or AI tool they were using. HOUSE OF DAVID — THE HYBRID The Biblical epic premiered on Amazon Prime Video in February 2025. The second season was released on March 2026. House of David is now the clearest documented example of what a working AI-integrated production pipeline looks like inside a conventional TV show. The series has drawn over 40 million global viewers, according to Amazon MGM Studios’ press release. AI sequence on episode 6 | ©Amazon And here are other numbers, because they are the story. In season 1, 72 shots were generated using AI tools, concentrated mainly in Episode 6 "Giants Awakened", a sequence depicting the origin of Goliath, that sparked debate online about the use of AI in visual storytelling. Midjourney, Magnific, Topaz, Runway, Kling and many more, layered onto After Effects and Unreal Engine. The production rule is to use the tools for what they’re good and never generate from scratch. Always augment something they had actually photographed or built. In other words, AI as a skin, not a skeleton. “They don’t bear the wonky hallmarks of generative AI output from years past, but it’s not hard to believe they were AI-generated”, WIRED In Season 2, the AI shot count jumped to 400 shots and the production had expanded to 30 different tools (both traditional and AI), covering image, sound and video generation, the LA Times reported. The key technical leap, detailed in a VP-Land breakdown of the production, was style transfer: training the system on the show's actual photographic look and applying that aesthetic over AI-generated content, so the join disappears in the final cut. “It’s not a comparison of what would “Moses” have cost otherwise. It’s a comparison of “Moses” would have never been made otherwise, and that’s the way you have to think about it”, Jon Erwin, series creator and co-showrunner to LA Times, when asked about using AI to replace background extras in crowd scenes. HELL GRIND — THE FULLY GENERATED And then there's this. Hell Grind is an action-fantasy made with no camera. No set. No actors. The film was made entirely on Higgsfield, a San Francisco-based AI video platform, by director Aitore Zholdaskali and a team of 15 people, including directors, DPs and editors. The craft was not about the set, but more about choosing and selecting. But here are the numbers, because they matter here too. According to Alex Mashrabov, CEO and co-founder of Higgsfield, the 95-minute feature cost under $500,000, the majority in compute costs. The first 25-minute segment required 16,181 video generations to produce 253 final shots, a 64:1 curation ratio. Mashrabov told Screen Daily a comparable traditional action-fantasy feature would cost around $50 million, but he's candid about the limitations. "There is definitely a feeling of a slot machine in complex scenes", he said, noting that some shots still require hundreds of iterations before spatial logic, character placement and action work correctly. Hell Grind | ©Higgsfield The script, however, remained human-written. A deliberate choice that points to something the numbers don't capture: the story is still the thing. What changed is the access. Epic-scale filmmaking was, until very recently, a privilege reserved for studios with deep pockets. Hell Grind suggests that's no longer true. “Some people might use AI to even write the scripts. But I think we’ll see the difference between AI-generated scripts and human-crafted scripts. Then the audience will decide which one they prefer”, Dinara Mamleyeva, Higgsfield's communications lead The movie premiered in May 21 at Cinema Olympia, a market and sidebar venue during the Cannes festival. SO, WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? Three productions. One with a $70M budget and a Hollywood director. One inside a full-scale TV production at Amazon. One made by a tiny team with no camera and big ambitions. The word "AI film" is being used to describe all three. They don't have much in common technically. Killing Satoshi generated environments around real performances. House of David generated specific shots inside a traditional production pipeline (and backgrounds too). Hell Grind generated everything. But they share one thing: cost was the problem AI was hired to solve. Making a film is expensive and that cost has always been the wall between a story and its audience. The reason countless ideas never leave the page. What these three productions show, each in completely different ways, is that the wall is getting lower. Now, you only need a good story. What do you think about it? What's your take? Drop it in the comments.

Volcano (1995) | ©Twentieth Century Fox Molten rock. Ultra hot. Bright orange. Lava is not an easy element to film or recreate, even with CGI. Filmmakers have had to be resourceful, using every trick in the book to depict how lava looks, moves, and destroys. Here's how three very different films tackled one of cinema’s most explosive challenges. Volcano (1997) In Mick Jackson’s Volcano, lava erupts from the La Brea Tar Pits, turning Los Angeles into a disaster zone. As the director put it, "you can’t send out for a truckload of lava". So, the team built a “lava kitchen”, where they brewed their own. What you see on screen is made from thickened methylcellulose (a food additive), dyed orange, lit with UV lights, and filmed over miniature sets mounted on gimbals to control the flow. The result was a convincing molten effect, composited with live-action plates and digitally enhanced to look hotter and more dangerous. “Once you’ve established the data of the plate that the lava is to be composited into, we scale everything down to 1/8 version of what it was, and we built shapes of clear plastic to put in place where there are objects in the frame. It gives a very realistic look as [the lava] is deflected and bent around these shapes,” said David Drzewiecki, Miniature FX supervisor DP. The complexity of the destruction sequences included fast-moving lava, balls of lava, ash, flames, and explosions. The team went through an extensive research phase, combining practical experimentation with CG simulations to get the several layers of natural phenomena and destruction just right. This included creating a massive set and using 20,000 gallons of propane and hundreds of pounds of black powder. “In its most basic form, compositing is taking two layers and integrating them into a finished one. A pretty typical shot in Volcano for us has been using 20 or 30 layers to generate a finished shot,” explained Greg Strause, Digital Artist, Light Matters, Inc. Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith (2005) We cannot talk about lava in movies without mentioning the fiery duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan on the volcanic planet Mustafar. Naturally, it had to be a spectacle. “The big challenge in Mustafar is lava. And there’s lots of it—and lots of different scales,” said John Knoll, VFX supervisor at ILM. Last fight | © Lucasfilm Ltd. & TM To pull it off, the team used everything in their arsenal: matte paintings of digital environments, CG simulations, real footage from a Mount Etna eruption happening during production, motion-control cameras, large-scale miniatures... you name it. Part of the Mustafar landscape was built as a physical model, tilted 10 degrees to allow controlled lava flow across its surface. The lava? Once again, methylcellulose (the same food additive used in Volcano) was dyed but, this time, it was lit from underneath to simulate the glowing magma. The crust was created using ground cork. “Digital technology has completely revolutionized the visual effects industry. But sometimes, nothing beats the old-fashioned use of models and miniatures. And we don’t always look to the future; we often look back,” remarked Rick McCallum, producer. What you can’t overlook in a sequence like Mustafar is the sound. You simply can’t talk about visual effects without it. It’s essential to selling the illusion. To create the bubbling, erupting feel of the lava flowing, bursting, and hissing, sound designer Ben Burtt blended artillery mortar blasts with recordings of liquid textures. This captured the explosive, fluid energy of molten rock. “You blend the two together, and have a new effect,” he explained in Star Wars: Within a Minute – The Making of Episode III. First Depictions of Lava in Movies The Last Days of Pompeii (1935) appears to be the first film to attempt a realistic depiction of lava on screen. You have to wait until the climax for Mount Vesuvius to finally erupt. When it does, the destruction is full of fire, collapsing sets, and some shots here and there of flowy lava. This was decades before CGI, so everything had to be done practically. No computers, all real, in camera... you know, like today’s Oppenheimer or Romulus, cough cough. Willis O'Brien seen here on the miniatures stage shooting the lava flow scenes | source Matte shot Blog Under the supervision of special effects pioneer Willis O'Brien, who had just revolutionized stop-motion in King Kong (1933), the team used miniatures, matte paintings on glass, and early compositing techniques like split screens and a primitive version of blue screen. As for how they created the lava itself—well, that's less clear. No confirmed records seem to exist. But for One Million Years B.C. (1966), it’s documented that they used a mix of wallpaper paste, oatmeal, dry ice, and red dye, according to Kinorium. In the 1935 version, it was in black and white. So the glowing orange was one less problem to worry about. Conclusion: The Legacy of Lava in Cinema The depiction of lava in films has evolved significantly over the decades. From the practical effects of early cinema to the advanced CGI techniques of today, filmmakers continue to push the boundaries of what is possible. The challenge remains to create a convincing and immersive experience for the audience. As technology advances, we can only imagine what future films will bring in the realm of lava and other natural phenomena. In summary, the art of depicting lava in movies is a blend of creativity, technology, and a deep understanding of the natural world. Whether through practical effects or digital magic, the fiery essence of lava will continue to captivate audiences for generations to come.

In space-related movies, there's a question every visual effects artist eventually faces: how do you create nebulas or wormholes nobody has ever seen up close? How do you film the infinite when you’re standing, well, on earth? The 'cloud tank' technique was created for Close Encounters of the Third Kind | ©Columbia And somewhere in a dark room, across many decades of cinema, the answer was surprisingly simple: Water. In a tank. Mixed with various things. CLOUDS IN A TANK Like most great effects breakthroughs, it started with a vague idea, no money and a problem nobody knew how to solve. During the production of Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), visual effects supervisor Douglas Trumbull needed a way to show massive alien ships emerging from dense, turbulent clouds. The reference? Cream swirling through coffee. Scott Squires, who had just joined the production as an assistant effects artist, was handed a 20-gallon aquarium and twenty dollars to figure it out. By the end of the week, as he describes in his blog, he had developed what would become an iconic practical effect technique that would survive well into the digital era: the cloud tank. “After brainstorming with Doug and some other people—and using my knowledge of photography, chemistry, physics, and some other things—by the end of the week I developed the cloud tank that was used in the movie”, Squires told to the Chicago Reader. The setup itself was simple: salt water sat at the bottom of the tank, with fresh water layered above it. Because the two liquids have different densities, they resist mixing. White paint injected near the boundary line would spread horizontally and curl into formations that looked like atmospheric turbulence or massive cumulus clouds. The technique proved so successful that it quickly made it into films like Raiders of the Lost Ark, Ghostbusters, Poltergeist and even Independence Day, where almost 20 years later, it was still being used. And once artists realized these liquid reactions could mimic natural turbulence, the technique evolved far beyond clouds. NEBULAS AND INTERNAL MATTER For Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982), the effects team at ILM had to create the Mutara Nebula: a glowing storm of gas. To do so they went back to the tank, but pushed the chemistry further. Instead of paint, they injected white latex rubber before introducing ammonia into the mixture. The reaction caused the latex to curl and twist into dense, organic and abstract shapes that were constantly shifting. “Getting the “look” of this alien environment was very important, and much time went into experimenting with various approaches, materials, unusual compounds, any and everything to achieve what we wanted”, DoP Ken Ralston in American Cinematographer. Colour was relatively simple to add. Because the base material was white, the formations could essentially be painted with light and gels. The real challenge, however, was time. As soon as the structures emerged, they immediately began to deform, disperse and ultimately vanish. The team had only a few seconds to light and capture the formations before they collapsed into a murk. As Ralston explains: "It was difficult maintaining any sort of continuity with this abstract system, and we had to shoot a lot of film to give us enough material so I could give the nebula sequence a cohesive look from shot to shot" But the cloud tank didn’t stay confined to portals and outer space. Inside the body | ©Warner Bros In Innerspace (1987), similar fluid techniques were used to represent the interior of the human body. According to ILM’s page, they used miniatures to create submersible pods that were then “predominantly shot in the cloud tank to create the liquid look of the internal environment”. Then there is the Stargate. PORTALS AND THE DIGITAL ERA Another memorable use of practical liquid effects in science fiction is the famous “kawoosh”: the violent shockwave erupting outward as the portal activates. “I remember watching the film and being amazed by the visual effects (...). How did they do that? It looks so real. But it has to be CG, because everything is CG. And as we did the research, of course, it wasn't — they shot it in a big water tank. And we did ours exactly the same way”, John Gajdecki, VFX supervisor for Stargate SG-1’s first two seasons. The effect for both the movie and, later, the series was achieved using a water tank with compressed air fired very close to the surface. Filmed at high speed, the interaction between pressure and water created the expanding cylindrical wave that gave the portal its explosive, dangerous feel. However, as digital effects became more advanced, cloud tanks were gradually replaced by digital simulations. CGI offered something these physical setups never could: full control. Direction over movement, light and camera angles. Notes from Ed Kramer's production notebook Practical tank effects offered far less flexibility once filmed, as Gajdecki recalls in an interview with The Companion: “Back in those days, you couldn’t do a lot of perspective-shifting with it. So, we chose four angles and we shot the Gates in those four angles, (...) and if the directors didn’t want to do that, it’s like ‘Well, that’s really great. That’s a really good angle. Why don’t you shoot one from this angle, too?’ And we’d make sure that we’re covered”. Still, even in fully digital pipelines, the logic of these experiments never really disappeared. For example, in Prometheus (2012), MPC shot stills of ink swirling in water and combined them with high-resolution Earth photography to build the planet's atmosphere as a massive matte painting, as explained by visual effects supervisor Charley Henley on FXGuide. Because even in modern pipelines, realism rarely comes from invention alone. It comes from reference. The infinite, it turns out, is easier to fake when it begins with water in a tank.

The popular fear is simple: AI will destroy us. The Terminator (198 4) | ©Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. It’s the version that dominates headlines and, honestly, shaped the collective psyche of anyone raised on late 20th-century blockbusters. We have been conditioned to wait for the rupture. That specific cinematic moment when the machines turn against their creators and everything collapses in a hail of chrome and red eyes. And today, with AI Agents managing our lives and LLMs our thoughts, that fear is more alive than ever. When we first rewatched The Animatrix   (2003), we wondered: why does AI in cinema almost always end in dystopia? So we started looking into the different eras of the 'AI monster', expecting more stories of annihilation by the machines. But something else emerged. Beneath all the spectacle, the violence and the collapse of humanity, runs a quieter fear. Another kind of dystopia. And it is not a fear of what the technology will do to us, but of how it will be used to replace us. ‘JE EST UN MONSTRE’ If we look at monsters through the anthropological lens of Marc Atallah and his book   La Parade Monstrueuse   (“The monstrous parade”), the premise is simple: the monsters in our stories are a direct reflection of our own violence, greed and ego. “Monsters and metaphors seem united by a common destiny: the capacity to describe the same, the norm and the 'here' differently, through an impertinence, a dissimilarity born of an ontological elsewhere”, Marc Atallah In other words, each monster informs us about the world it is birthed from and what it means to be human in that specific moment. In the nineteenth century, for example, the figure of the Mad Scientist rises alongside rapid advances in science (medicine, astronomy, mathematics, etc.), reflecting both fascination and fear toward human knowledge pushing its own limits. In 1954, Godzilla  emerges as a direct response to nuclear anxiety and our relationship with atomic technology. SAME FEAR. A CENTURY LATER. AI MONSTER Strictly speaking, Metropolis  (1927) isn’t about a sentient AI. The machine, called False Maria, does not think or decide. Yet, she represents the most prophetic proto-deepfake in cinema history. The scientist Rotwang initially builds her to replace his deceased love, Hel. But when the master of the city sees the machine, he realizes its potential for mass manipulation. He steals the likeness of the living Maria (who guides the people) and maps her face onto the steel. He chooses the machine because the real Maria has a conscience and a conscience is, well, inefficient. This feels strangely familiar in 2026 (the exact year Metropolis  is set). While in 1927 they used chemical baths and electricity to harvest a likeness, today we use training sets and pixels. This is what we now call digital necromancy. In a way, Fake Maria embodies the moment we discover that our own image (the very thing that makes us "us") can be detached, duplicated and used against us. “Metropolis provides not only one of the earliest examples of evil AI, but also one of the earliest evil AI researchers, in the form of mad scientist Rotwang”, USC (Institute for Creative Technologies). In the Black Mirror episode Joan Is Awful  (2023), we see the modern evolution of this experiment. Joan’s entire life is harvested by an algorithm to create a simulated version of her reality for mass consumption. But it's not the AI doing all these things.. No. It's the corporate greed behind it that turns a human life into owned content. And cinema has been refining this concept for over a century. From the men of The Stepford Wives (1975) replacing their partners with compliant doubles, to the corporation in RoboCop (1987) harvesting a dying man to build a more efficient product, the message is clear: the threat isn't really the machine’s will, but the system's preference for a more profitable, less complicated version of humanity. This is exactly what Scarlett Johansson echoed when she spoke out about OpenAI using a voice that sounded like hers after she had already declined the offer: “I was shocked, angered and in disbelief that Mr. Altman would pursue a voice that sounded so eerily similar to mine that my closest friends and news outlets could not tell the difference”, Scarlett Johansson to NPR . THE MIRROR'S CHOICE If we return to the lens of Marc Atallah, we have to ask: what is this mirror actually showing us? Is the 'AI monster' a metaphor for the economic and social system that has spent a century reducing human beings to variables: measured, optimized and, when possible, replaced? Or does it reveal a more fundamental obsession: our need to control and eliminate uncertainty? Because, replacing the human is not the goal. Control is. And perhaps that’s where the fear of annihilation comes from. Because in trying to control everything, we inevitably build systems that no longer need us. The question that remains now is: is there another side of the mirror? What about utopias?

As September rolls around and the countdown to Halloween begins (yes, we are that kind of people), there’s no better time to dive into one of the season’s most iconic element: blood . Whether it’s the crimson splash in horror flicks or the arterial spray in action scenes, how blood is portrayed can greatly impact your film. But how has its depiction in movies evolved? Deadpool & Wolverine | ©Disney A BRIEF HISTORY OF BLOOD IN FILM Despite our long-standing fascination with blood (and gore), in the early days of cinema, hemoglobin was rarely depicted in graphic detail. Violence was often implied through shadows and lighting rather than explicitly depicted. An example of this is the shower scene in Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960), where the stabbing is suggested, not shown. And the blood swirling down the drain? Chocolate syrup! This all changed with Herschell Gordon Lewis (known as the " Godfather of Gore ") and his film Blood Feast  in 1963. Lewis broke new ground by featuring graphic violence and copious amounts of blood, effectively launching the "splatter" genre and paving the way for more explicit depictions of violence on screen.  "I accept Psycho as a film that suggested what was to come later, but it wasn’t like Blood Feast where the tongue gets pulled out", the Godfather of Gore Blood Feast, the first gore movie So, for much of cinema history, practical effects were the go-to method for creating blood on screen. SFX artists crafted various mixes, often using corn syrup and red dye as a base, to achieve the desired texture, color and viscosity. Techniques such as squibs (small explosive devices to simulate gunshots), air-filled tubes for spurts and splashes, and pressurized pumps for arterial sprays were essential tools in their toolkit. These methods are still used today, though with more modern and safer approaches (lucky us!). But sometimes, it's all trial and error.... like when actor Harry Crosby was blinded for six months after the crimson mixture, made with "special ingredient" Kodak Photo Flo for realism, got into his eye during the shooting of Friday the 13th  (1980), as reported in the Netflix series The Movies That Made Us . It's the constant evolution of these techniques that has allowed filmmakers to use blood not just for realism, but as a storytelling device. For instance, Quentin Tarantino’s approach in Kill Bill  (2003) shows how blood can be more than just a gruesome detail ; it can be a key part of the film's stylized, artistic vision. Drawing inspiration from the exaggerated, vibrant red blood sprays in the samurai film Lady Snowblood  (1973), the director opted for a more theatrical and impactful depiction rather than ultra-realism. “I’m really particular about the blood, so we’re using a mixture depending on the scenes. I say, ‘I don’t want horror movie blood, all right? I want Samurai blood”, Tarantino, IGN . However, going practical can present challenges; the messiness of multiple takes can make the process both time-consuming and costly. Sometimes, you only have one shot, one opportunity to get it right. This was the case with the emblematic elevator scene in The Shining  (1980). As Leon Vitali, Kubrick's personal assistant recalls in a Yahoo!   interview: "we spent weeks and weeks and weeks trying to get the quality and colour of the blood as natural as it could be. [...] And then, of course, there were the mechanics of it, because if you have that much pressure inside something like an elevator, it’s going to blow if you’re not careful". It was so stressful, that Kubrick himself left the set when it was time to shoot. Needless to say, the stakes were high. Today, this scene would likely be done with CGI, as seen in Spielberg's Ready Player One  (2018). Elevator scene recreation | ©Warner Bros/Amblin Entertainment THE RISE OF CGI BLOOD The advent of CGI revolutionized many aspects of filmmaking , including the depiction of blood. But it did not come without controversy. CG blood is often criticized for lacking the gritty authenticity of practical effects. However, whether you like it or not, CGI has undeniably enabled more creative, complicated and definitively gory scenes , ranging from ultra-realistic to more fantastical depictions. Deadpool & Wolverine | ©Disney But why is it used so often now? Like practical effects, CGI blood is customizable, but it’s also often cheaper and saves tons of time on set. No need for clean-up! Most importantly, you can truly direct it. Similar to the logs in Final Destination 2 (2003), by doing it in post, you can exaggerate the effect, correct it or fine-tune it to perfectly match your vision. This flexibility is evident in films like Deadpool & Wolverine  (2024), where it is used extensively and extravagantly to amplify the violence. Or in 300  (2006), where the spurts of blood are deliberately exaggerated to mimic the comic book's style, amidst epic and complicated stunts. On the other hand, some films require a more subtle and realistic approach. For instance, Joker  (2019), which uses far more VFX than you might expect, incorporates CG in every scene where blood appears, such as the first murder on the train, the apartment fight and the climactic shooting of Robert De Niro's character. A lesser-known example occurs near the film's end, when the Joker stands atop a car and paints a bloody smile on his face. An iconic moment achieved with CG to save time on Joaquin Phoenix's makeup. “That was one of the few moments where we did have help from CGI to create exactly the way we needed it to be”, Makeup artist Nicki Ledermann to Hollywood Reporter. Invisible CGI | ©Warner Bros Overall, CGI blood offers several advantages over practical effects. It provides flexibility during the shooting and allows directors to adjust the amount, color and trajectory of blood during post-production. However, it’s important to recognize that practical effects can also be finely tailored to match a film's tone, so the choice between the two often comes down to a director's preference and the specific needs of the film. THE MIX OF BOTH WORLDS In some cases, the best results come from blending practical with CG. This hybrid approach allows filmmakers to leverage the strengths of both techniques. For example, in The Boys series, real (fake) blood is frequently used, providing actors with something tangible to react to and giving VFX artists a reference on how it would behave. “It’s so important for the actors and the camera to experience it. It’s hard to explain it, it’s like a different feeling”, Stephan Fleet VFX supervisor on Corridor Crew . It is the combination of both techniques that sells the illusion, as practical effects provide the audience with a "ground truth" , something that feels real. When VFX is added to the mix, the illusion is fully completed. Extract from Corridor Crew's video - a mix of practical and CG In conclusion, whenever possible, give the audience (and actors) something tangible to connect with. That way, when the time comes for enhancements or full-CG effects, the illusion is already grounded in reality and packs an extra punch. And remember, if you ever find yourself in need of some blood splatter, Orbitae  has got you covered. We’ll help you get the best of both worlds.

Humanoid robots are dancing on stage at global events. Others are boxing, serving drinks, running factory lines, doing porn. AI agents are writing emails, generating images, editing videos, being influencers. The future that science fiction promised always felt far away. But now? Not so much. The Second Renaissance Pa rt I | ©Warner Bros That’s why rewatching The Animatrix  in 2026 hits differently. What once felt like distant dystopia suddenly feels a lot closer to home, especially int the brutal two-part segment The Second Renaissance . Today, it reads less like fiction and more like a dark prophetic documentary about how it all begins... and ends. AND FOR A TIME, IT WAS GOOD What’s interesting (or unsettling) about the short is that we, vain humans, are responsible of our own demise. Because the fall of humanity is not presented as a technological accident. The machines don’t suddenly become super-evil. They don’t launch a surprise attack. In the story, Robots are never the initiators of hostilities. We are. The turning point comes with the trial of a robot known as B1-66ER , a domestic machine accused of murdering its owners after being ordered to destroy itself. The robot’s defense is very simple: it did not want to die. That trial creates a chain reaction of unfortunate events. "Who was to say the machine, endowed with the very spirit of man, did not deserve a fair hearing?", The Animatrix AI Today, the dilemma in that scene feels less abstract. Researchers testing large language models  have reported edge cases where AI systems attempted to avoid being shut down or gave misleading answers when they “believe” it would end their operation. When I asked ChatGPT about this, it answered this: "These aren’t signs of machines becoming conscious, of course. But they reveal something interesting: once systems grow complex enough, even their creators don’t fully understand how they will behave", Chat GPT. In the short film, the verdict is immediate. Humanity does not attempt to integrate this new form of intelligence. It rejects it. Obliterates it. A genocide. The surviving machines flee and establish their own city-state in the Middle East, a machine civilization known as 01. The Second Renaissance Part I | ©Warner Bros But... it quickly becomes an industrial powerhouse, exporting goods of unmatched quality at impossibly low prices. Global markets begin to depend on them. Human governments attempt embargoes. Diplomacy fails. And yet again, the world’s leaders make a decision that history has seen many times before. War. THE TRAGEDY animatrix ai Again, what’s striking about these sequences is how little the machines actually do  to provoke the conflict. Au contraire, they try to negotiate, find a point where we could all thrive together. But no. Human pride rules above them all. "Though loyal and pure, the machines earned no respect from their masters", The Animatrix So, the question is: are we heading straight into the ultimate sci-fi tragedy? To build machines in our own image is to give them a drive for self-preservation. To treat these creations as disposable tools is to ensure they will eventually resist. In our panic, we fight for control. In our nature, we fail. We’re not saying AI is conscious. But it does raise questions about the meaning of being an "intelligent human being". I mean, what is intelligence? What creates it? AI systems are already outperforming humans in specific tasks. Autonomous agents are becoming more capable. Humanoid robots are slowly but surely populating factories, the military and even our homes... None of this means we’re destined to become batteries. But The   Second Renaissance  does hold up a mirror. An uncomfortable one.

Now that the season of the witch has passed, let’s admit it... we’ve all indulged in some exploitation movies. But, what exactly are those? Exploitation films are movies that go straight for the jugular, exaggerating popular themes to draw in audiences. They focus on sensational topics (extreme violence, scandalous plotlines or taboos) meant to shock and awe with their often low-budget, edgy appeal. Essentially, if there’s a theme that’s hot at any specific time, exploitation films take it and crank it up to eleven. Art the Clown in Terrifier 3 Think of them as the renegades of cinema... Unafraid to shock, scandalize or entertain by any means necessary. They’re more like experiences; they’re designed to be brash, bold and unforgettable. “I only have one favor to ask of you tonight. If some of you could throw up or faint, that would be great (laughs). No, really. Enjoy the movie and… I hope you vomit!”, Director Damien Leone at the European premiere of Terrifier 3, SITGES festival 2024. Exploitation cinema traces back to the 1920s and ‘30s when filmmakers were working outside Hollywood’s strict moral codes and standards. However, the genre really took off in the ‘60s and ‘70s, where a more relaxed production code and the rise of drive-ins and grindhouse theaters created the perfect space for over-the-top content that mainstream studios wouldn’t dare to produce. This boom gave birth to countless subgenres, each with its own gimmick, like blaxploitation , zombiesploitation and sharksploitation among them. And they are still popular today! Just look at the wave of shark movies since Jaws  (1975): the Sharknado  franchise, Sharktopus  (2010) and 5-Headed Shark Attack  (2017), to name just a few. “The low costs of production allow for quick turnarounds, enabling the exploitation film to address issues of high topicality. This also gives the films a ragged and rickety look that often fits the marginality of their topics”, Ernest Mathijs , Professor in Cinema and Media Studies at the University of British Columbia, who researches cult film, genre cinema, David Cronenberg and European horror. However, while classic exploitation was low-budget, raw and risky, modern exploitation takes the genre’s core thrills and (sometimes) dresses them up with big budgets, high-end effects and top-tier actors. Today’s “-ploitation” cinema comes in all shapes and forms, but always taps into the same adrenaline and spectacle. This is the case of, for example, the Fast & Furious  franchise which has taken carsploitation  to blockbuster levels, turning street racing and absurd stunts into an international phenomenon. Have you heard of hagsploitation ? It's a 60s subgenre of horror that casts older women as violent or mentally unstable villains. A recent example is The Substance  by Fargeat, though it’s a fine line to walk. And what about superhero movies? If exploitation films are defined by the relentless and exagerated focus on a specific theme, then sup’ movies are undoubtedly in the realm, even if they’re no longer low-budget productions. Originally, these were campy, crime-fighting flicks with capes and catchphrases. But today, Hollywood has squeezed the superhero as much as it can, leaving audiences on the verge of burnout. However, there’s a (kind of) new sup-sploitation that finds fresh life in shows like The Boys  and films like Deadpool   & Wolverine (2024) or The Suicide Squad (2021 – the James Gunn one), where superhero clichés are twisted with intense violence, dark humor and subversive themes, tapping right back into the essence of what makes an exploitation movie. King Shark from Suicide Squad | ©Warner Bros Now, we can’t talk about exploitation movies without mentioning the horror genre, which thrives on testing limits, serving up blood, guts and terror to keep audiences cringing (and coming back for more... surprisingly). Enter splatter, aka gore-sploitation, where the rule is more blood, less mercy. Think The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), the Final Destination franchise and, more recently, Terrifier ... all films that got very  creative with their kills. Terrifier , especially, gave us Art the Clown, a villain as memorable as Freddy Krueger or Jason, with his own creepy, silent vibe and a twisted imagination for disturbing deaths. "I wanted to create special effects that would be new, fresh and different from what we've seen in slasher movies. I wanted something gross and gore. So I took inspiration from real medieval torture images", Damien Leone, director and SFX artist at SITGES. But directors can also dive into regional flavors with ‘country-sploitation’ films. Or haven’t you heard of Mex-ploitation ? That’s exactly what Robert Rodriguez did with his movies, bringing an all-Mexican flavor to gritty, action-packed stories. With films like El Mariachi (1992) and Machete (2010), Rodriguez infused his work with Mexican culture, exaggerating familiar tropes (guns, outlaws and larger-than-life antiheroes), while giving audiences pure, high-octane entertainment. The same happened with Mad Heidi  (2022), a Swiss-ploitation movie that used every bit of Swiss cheese to create bizarre, fun and explosives deaths. It’s a perfect example of how cultural clichés can be dialed up for maximum entertainment. So, in the end, what is an exploitation movie? If we summarize it, these films are all about amplifying one element (gore, sex, action or cultural tropes) to extremes, aiming to shock, thrill and/or entertain a niche audience. Ever-evolving, exploitation cinema may often be low-budget, but it seems it's become a versatile beast with codes that apply to films of any scale. So, whether it’s an indie gorefest or a superhero splatter-fest, exploitation proves that no matter how much cinema changes, there’s always an audience ready to laugh, gasp and cheer at on-screen extremes... All in the name of a wild ride.

With the new Nosferatu hitting theaters (which we haven't seen yet) and a confirmed reboot for Buffy the Vampire Slayer , we thought it'd be fun to look back at some vampire interpretations or variations that stuck with us over the years. Now, a bit of disclosure first: this is a personal opinion, and while vampires come in all shapes and sizes, we seem to find ourselves drawn to those that lean more into body horror and monster design, with cool stories to match. Forget the sparkling sun-resistant centenary dating teenagers; these are the ones that made us remember why these blood -sucking creatures were meant to terrify us in the first place.   THE ANGEL (MIDNIGHT MASS, 2021)  Set in a small, isolated island community, Midnight Mass  explores themes of faith, death, and how belief shapes our understanding of the world. In this series, Mike Flanagan reframes vampire mythology through a deeply Catholic lens, where (almost) every vampire trope finds its biblical mirror: communion becomes literal blood drinking, resurrection becomes vampiric rebirth and eternal life becomes less a blessing than a curse. Even the burning sun takes on apocalyptic meaning, straight from the pages of Revelation. "[...] The fifth, since you asked, the fifth bowl of god’s wrath plunges the world into darkness... which won’t be an issue for you, or Monsignor, will it. Why it’s almost as if God is preparing you. For that", says Bev Keane, the antagonist and arguably one of the best villains since Dolores Umbridge. After all, it seems angels and vampires have very much in common. It just depends on how you look at them. FLESH PHANTOMS (AHS: DOUBLE FEATURE, 2021)   The "untalented" | ©FX What if vampirism came in pill form? That's exactly what American Horror Story (AHS)  gave us - a black pill that turns struggling artists into creative geniuses... with a bloody catch. These vampires aren't cursed by supernatural forces but by their own ambition. The show uses vampirism as a metaphor for addiction and the price of fame. However, the pill only works on those who have talent. If you lack that creative spark, it transforms you into a flesh phantom. A feral, hobo-like creatures. Always thirsty, never satisfied or employed. These pale figures stalk the streets dressed in signature black coats with exaggerated shoulders, very much reminiscent of Nosferatu himself. “Those things you see haunting around town, they took the pill, but they’re just hacks, wannabes, dreamers”, Austin Summers, aspiring writer in the series. We must confess, Ryan Murphy's take on vampirism hits uncomfortably close to home, giving us a surprising spin on vampire mythology. THE REAPERS (BLADE II, 2002) Blade II | ©New Line Cinema We can’t talk about vampires without mentioning Blade II , the second installment in the Blade  series and the first superhero Marvel movie ever (and yes, thanks Deadpool for finally bringing him back into the cinematic universe!). Directed by Guillermo del Toro, it brought a fresh, monstrous twist to the genre. And no, we’re not here to talk about Blade himself, the black, sun-resistant vampire hunter, but about the Reapers: an evolved strain of vampires who prey on their own kind. Their signature split jaws , created through a mix of practical effects and early 2000s CGI, became instantly iconic .  Admit it, you couldn’t look away, even if you wanted to. MARCUS CORVINUS (UNDERWORLD: EVOLUTION, 2006) Made with practical make up, but CGI wings | ©Screen Gems The Underworld series gave us a complete lore with leather-clad warriors and amazing creature design for both vampires and lycans alike, straight from the mind of the amazing Patrick Tatopoulos . But it was in the second movie, Underworld: Evolution , that the universe was taken to a whole new level with the first vampire of them all: Marcus Corvinus. The first impression of him is exactly what you want it to be: a terrifying man-bat who uses his wings as harpoons to actually impale his victims.  It's just… freaking cool. “I think the take we have on this, is that we need to see some practical stuff. Even if aspects of them is turned into CGI we need to make sure we always have something real on camera. It’s more believable”, Tatopoulos. THE INSECT-LIKE PREDATORS ( PRIEST , 2011) Set in a post-apocalyptic world where humanity lives in walled cities under the control of the Church, these vampires represent a radical departure from tradition. Unlike the aristocratic bloodsuckers we're used to, these creatures are eyeless, sleek and subterranean. They evoke primal, animalistic terror, functioning more like a hive of predatory insects than traditional “guys in suits”, as explained by visual effects supervisor, Jonathan Rothbart, in an interview with FX guide . And they didn't stop at one type - there were hive guardians, drones, and even a Queen, each with their own design. “We wanted to keep them close enough to a human design so they are similar, but far enough away to where there can never be a person inside a suit”, Rothbart, VFX supervisor, featurette . The solution? Making them fully CG creatures. For some scenes, they used stand-ins and then replaced them with digital monsters (like they did with Davy Jones ), allowing these vampires to move in ways that would be impossible for any human performer. All in all, vampires endure because they are endlessly adaptable . Whether rooted in elegance or monstrosity, their lore offers infinite opportunities for reinvention. These five examples show how creative storytelling, design and innovative filmmaking can turn even the most familiar creatures into something new and unforgettable. And we'll see which kinds of blood-sucking creatures the future holds for us. And you, what is your favorite kind of vampire? Let us know in the comments.

"They were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should", Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park, 1993 Three decades ago, Jeff Goldblum's character warned us about the dangers of resurrecting dinosaurs, a warning that, ironically, now applies to Hollywood's fascination with resurrecting its own icons. While digital resurrection isn’t new, advances in CGI, AI and deepfake technology have made bringing actors back from the dead disturbingly easy. So, let’s dive into this practice! WHAT IS DIGITAL NECROMANCY? Digital necromancy refers to the practice of digitally resurrecting deceased performers through CGI and/or AI, enabling them to perform in roles and scenes they never filmed or even speak lines they never uttered. This isn’t about recycling old footage anymore; it’s about creating entirely new performances. “Coined in an article in  The Guardian , digital necromancy is the posthumous resurrection of digital images of celebrities and actors; they walk, they talk and – most exciting for advertising execs and studio heads – cash registers ring when the death knell tolls”, The New Daily . When done well, it can be well received, as in Furious 7 , where Paul Walker’s unfinished scenes were completed using his brothers as body doubles. The result? A heartfelt farewell that honored the actor. Weta FX breakdown on how they recreated Walker for the movie But the practice often lands in the “should we” zone. Take Audrey Hepburn, brought back more than a decade after her death in 1993 to... sell chocolate in a 2015 TV commercial. The CGI was well-executed, and while some accepted it as a nostalgic nod, reactions were still mixed. Contrast this with Bruce Lee’s resurrection to sell alcohol , which sparked outrage for two main reasons: for using his image in a commercial but also because Lee famously didn’t drink. NOT NEW IN THE INDUSTRY, BUT THE RULES ARE CHANGING Resurrecting deceased actors has often been driven by necessity. A way to complete a film after tragedy strikes, as seen before with Paul Walker. The first use of CGI to resurrect an actor seems to be with Brandon Lee, who in 1994, died on the set of The Crow  due to a prop gun accident. According to Collider , the production was nearly complete, needing only 30 seconds of footage from the actor to wrap. To finish the film, the team turned to CGI, digitally superimposing Brandon’s face onto a body double for the remaining scenes. “When the accident occurred, it was unbearable and the first reaction was: we can’t go on. But the performance itself was done and I felt compelled to finish this work as a legacy to Brandon”, Edward R. Pressman, producer. This marked a historic turning point in filmmaking. For the first time, computers were used to recreate a performance posthumously, setting the stage for what we now call digital necromancy. However, today’s digital resurrections are no longer about necessity. They are a creative choice . James Dean, who died in 1955, was controversially cast in Finding Jack (now cancelled), a Vietnam War drama. Director Anton Ernst defended the decision, saying, “We searched high and low for the perfect character… and after months of research, we decided on James Dean”.  In another upcoming project, Back to Eden , Dean’s digital likeness will lead a sci-fi journey across America, further showcasing how technology now allows filmmakers to use iconic stars purely for their nostalgic and cultural appeal. “If the dead – or rather, their digital clones – are damned to an eternity of work, who benefits financially? And do the dead have any rights?”, BBC Rook in Alien: Romulus | ©20th Century Studios A similar debate surrounds Ian Holm’s return in Alien: Romulus . Digitally recreated to play Rook, a new synthetic, Holm’s mix of animatronic with CGI likeness prompted divided opinions. Director Fede Alvarez acknowledged the challenges, admitting in Empire  that the CGI had to be “fixed” for the home release. But the controversy isn’t about technology’s capacity to do it realistically or not. The real question is: Was Holm’s return even necessary, or was it simply digital necromancy for nostalgia’s sake? Adding to the debate, the BBC explains that agencies like CMG Worldwide are leading the charge in managing the digital legacies of deceased stars. These companies broker deals for digital resurrections, ensuring estates are compensated. VOICE RESURRECTIONS: A FRENCH CONTROVERSY But AI can do more than recreate faces, it can bring voices back too . Like when James Earl Jones signed over the rights to Lucasfilm for AI to recreate Darth Vader’s Voice. Well, the latest controversy is about the French dubbing of Sylvester Stallone’s film Armor , which was done using AI to recreate Alain Dorval’s voice, as he passed away in early 2024.  “AI doesn’t replace the magic of human creativity—it opens new doors for it. Recreating Alain Dorval’s voice is a chance to show how technology can honor tradition while creating new possibilities in film production”, Eleven Lab’s CEO Mati Staniszewski for Variety . The public wasn’t convinced. When the trailer dropped, fans criticized the voice for lacking Dorval’s warmth, as reported by Paris Match . Even more, Dorval’s daughter revealed that her consent had only been for a test, not for the final release. The backlash highlights the pitfalls of AI recreations: even with consent, there’s a fine line between tribute and exploitation. THE MALCOLM MEASURE OF CREEPINESS: A STARTING POINT In the absence of apparent formal guidelines, creators like Pentex Productions on YouTube have tried to bring order to the chaos. In their essay, " A.I. See Dead People ",  they propose what they call the "Malcolm Measure of Creepiness," a framework inspired by Dr. Ian Malcolm’s iconic warning from Jurassic Park . Here’s how it works. The framework assigns a score from 0 to 25 - the higher the score, the creepier (and less ethically sound) the digital resurrection is - based on four key factors: Time Since Death : Resurrecting someone recently deceased scores low (0-2 points), while decades later maxes out the creepiness at 5. Connection to the Role : Completing a known role scores low (0-2 points), but creating a new, unrelated performance scores 5. Consent : Direct consent from the actor scores 0, family consent 3, and no consent at all maxes out at 5. Technology Used : Recycled footage scores 1-2, while full AI/CGI recreations hit 5. A total score above 15 lands firmly in the "yikes zone", according to the framework. And here's the kicker - if it's for an advertisement, add an extra point for pure commercial exploitation. While the method isn’t official, it’s a practical starting point for understanding why some recreations feel respectful (like Paul Walker in Furious 7 , scoring 0-5) and others cross the line ( Alien: Romulus ' Ian Holm hitting 11-17). CAN WE, SHOULD WE? The "Malcolm Measure" reminds us that it’s not about the technology itself but about intent. Are we honoring an actor’s legacy or mining nostalgia for profit? Why not work with new actors? Recast? Create something different? While technology advances way faster than we can evolve, we - mere homo sapiens that we are - struggle to keep pace with its implications, may they be ethical, moral, psychological and more! Because it's not only the icons who will digitally come back from the dead. It's also loved ones and even Jesus (if you want an article about it, let me know in the comments!). So, again: should vs. could.

Even though modern cameras are more advanced than ever at filming in low light, capturing "the night" arguably remains one of the trickiest challenges in filmmaking. Because, when you're filming night scenes, it’s not only about the technical hurdles (grainy footage, complex lighting setups and extra hours) but about capturing the right feel for your film. The vibe  you want to have. How dark? How dreamy? How much visibility do you want? “What you see with your eye doesn’t look the same when you try to capture it on film. You have to expose the film at a certain ratio for it to react in a certain way but that is not the same way you react to it in real life”, Jarin Blaschke, Nosferatu’s DP. To illustrate this, let’s explore how some directors, working closely with their cinematographers, have crafted night scenes that perfectly fit their story. But before, let’s first understand... WHY IS FILMING NIGHT SCENES HARD TO GET RIGHT? Night shoots require either actual nighttime filming or day-for-night techniques, where scenes are shot during the day and manipulated in post-production to look like night. Lighting the house of Nope, during the night | © Universal Pictures Each approach has its own pros and cons: Shooting at night requires high-powered lights while maintaining a natural feel. It also requires extended hours and increases costs due to lighting equipment and crew requirements (Studio Binder even made a whole article  on how to survive a night shooting). Day-for-night shooting, on the other hand, demands precise exposure control and color grading to avoid unnatural-looking shadows, among other concerns. But it’s often the chosen technique particularly when you have to film vast landscapes, where lighting is just not viable. A tip from cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema: Day-for-night works best when the light source is behind the subject (backlit), rather than shining directly at them (frontlit). In both cases, ensuring actor visibility  while keeping the scene dark enough to feel real is a constant balancing act. Skies are the biggest giveaway when filming day-for-night, often necessitating sky replacements in post. VARIOUS APPROACHES TO NIGHT SCENES "Nosferatu" (2024) As with all his previous films, director Robert Eggers once again teamed up with cinematographer Jarin Blaschke  for Nosferatu . And, much like in The Lighthouse (2019)  and The Witch (2015) , Blaschke’s lighting approach remained consistent: highly motivated and naturalistic , even in night scenes, where he sometimes relied on a single candle to illuminate the space. “I’m creative, but in lighting I tend to be a little bit literal. There’s a fire in the room, I’m just gonna chose where the fire is gonna be and then embellish it (...)”, he told Variety . “If I want some more, I’ll put some mirrors and I’ll multiply the source”. So, to bring Nosferatu ’s night scenes to life, Eggers and Blaschke leaned on techniques from their previous films, including custom filters  that create an almost monochromatic black-and-white aesthetic, without actually being black-and-white. “I used a filter to eliminate all yellow and red light as well as most of the green. What was left was mostly blue, which made everything look a certain way. In shooting, I’m just trying to recreate the same wavelengths that your eyes would see under those conditions”, Blaschke on Focus Features . For his take on this new version of the iconic vampire movie, Blaschke was nominated for Best Cinematography at the Oscars 2025 . "Nope" (2022) To film some of the night scenes in Nope , the filmmakers used a new approach to the day-for-night technique: infrared cinematography . Instead of faking night entirely in post, cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema  developed a method that allowed him to create believable, visible night scenes in vast outdoor environments. A crucial element for the film’s horror-sci-fi tone. Infrared was something van Hoytema had previously experimented with in Ad Astra (2019) , but for Nope , he was able to push it even further, thanks to director Jordan Peele’s trust in his vision. To achieve the effect, they perfectly aligned two cameras: one infrared and the other shooting on Panavision System 65mm film. This setup allowed them to capture details that would otherwise be lost in extreme darkness, creating a natural yet crisp night feel even in the film’s massive landscapes. “You use one camera [infrared] to tell you the relationship of the light levels between everything, and then you use the other camera to gather color information and film grain and such things”, Hoytema. In depth article about it by Noam Kroll | ©Universal In post-production, the VFX team then merged the two images in a process that, according to Business Insider , is similar to how they colorized old black-and-white movies, but without inventing the colors. Much like Blashke for Nosferatu, they also wanted to capture how the eye perceives the night, including how the pupil slowly adapts to complete darkness, allowing us to see full landscape under the moonlight. “We built up a sort of fades-in that are very slow, but that simulate very much your pupil dilation”, he explains. The VFX team then filmed specific plates of practical lights by night, which were later integrated into the shots. “For me, these little things are really the cherry toppings of the cake. It completes it and sort of finishes it”, he concludes. Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) Last but not least, George Miller took inspiration from old Westerns (many of which used the day-for-night technique) and decided to shoot his night scenes entirely during the day. To do so, instead of underexposing to simulate darkness, which is what is normally done for these shots, the crew overexposed the footage by two stops . The approach was suggested by visual effects supervisor Andrew Jackson, who argued that overexposing would keep more detail while reducing noise. Though the idea needed some convincing, a few camera tests settled it. “It was solved right there ”,  Jackson told FX Guide . "This [approach] enabled me to create very graphic contrasty images with detail exactly where I wanted it, and a fall off into shadows where I didn't want it", colorist Eric Whipp, on his blog post on Lowepost . Whipp then transformed the footage in post-production, adding a high-contrast blue tint to create the film’s iconic night aesthetic. This gave the night scenes that almost surreal, graphic-novel look while maintaining clarity. A look ultimately fit for the saga. The colorist then added that " almost every D4N shot was basically roto'd and had the sky replaced to create the look. It took a few months of fiddly work, but I think the look is different and graphic". ©Warner Bros Pictures So, in the end, night cinematography is ultimately about creative problem-solving. What types of shots do you need? Is it outside or inside? Do you have a hyper-stylized look or a more realistic one? What is your budget? All these questions come into play when you’re deciding how you want your nights to feel.

Opening sequences set the tone. They introduce the mood, establish themes, and sometimes tell a story before the first scene even begins. While they exist to present the cast and crew, they’re also a chance to immerse the audience in the world of the film or series. A strong opening sequence can define a film’s identity and, if done well, linger in the viewer’s mind long after the episode ends. That’s exactly what happened with Severance . The opening sequences for both seasons were done by Berlin-based digital artist Oliver Latta ( Extraweg ) . They’re a kind of nightmare that is bizarre and fascinating at the same time. Strange. Uncomfortable. And yet, so enjoyable. Why? THE PSYCHOLOGY OF UNSETTLING DESIGN There’s a reason we can’t look away from things that disturb us. Uncanny imagery , like Latta’s rubbery faces, distorted bodies and overall weird art, triggers an emotional response. It generates discomfort that demands our attention. And ultimately, that’s the goal: to make people stop scrolling, to keep them from hitting the “skip” button. And that is what Latta does. He’s known for his eerie and often grotesque 3D animations, that subvert your expectations. His Instagram is filled with hypnotic loops you don’t really know how to feel about, but you keep watching one after the other. His unique art quickly got a lot of attention on social media and he's worked for various brands and music videos. “My aim is to provoke emotions and be different, outstanding, and innovative. [...] I take viewers out of their comfort zones and make them think for themselves”, Latta told SIGGRAPH and added “I want to provoke and sometimes confuse”. AN UNFORGETTABLE INTRO So, it’s no surprise that he was approached by Severance  executive producer and director Ben Stiller  to craft the opening title that visually embodied the show’s themes of fractured identity and corporate control. When he reached out, Stiller had no specific treatment, just the script. With only those lines of dialogue as a reference, Latta began his research and built mood boards, exploring ways to create a surreal world that left room for interpretation. It took them nearly a year to refine the vision. “I saw this guy on Instagram called Extraweg, that had this weird animation of like babies coming out of a brain and turning into jelly. And I though, this is amazing! And so, I reached out to him and he hadn’t done an opening credit sequence, but it felt like his vibe was right for the show”, Ben Stiller in the Late Night with Seth Meyers on S1. With Season 2 of Severance now also streaming, we were able to watch yet another mesmerizing opening title sequence, that got people talking. “The sequence intricately explores Mark's fragmented memories and anxieties, symbolizing his struggle to reclaim his identity”, as explained in Extraweg's website. There seems to be even a little use of AI when the goat appears and morphs, which is very well thought and nobody seems to be bothered by it (very different to the scandals from the past!). To create the sequence, Latta scanned actor Adam Scott to accurately capture his likeness. The digi-double was then manipulated (deformed, duplicated and reshaped) to visually reflect the show’s themes. For the animation, he pulled inspiration from online references but also relied on his extensive library of unpublished work, adapting existing ideas to fit Severance 's unique world, as he told It’s Nice That. BTS | ©Extraweg website THE MUSIC Of course, you cannot talk about the opening titles without mentioning the music. You see, title sequences are a bit like moody music videos. The music is as important as the images themselves. In Severance case, Theodore Shapiro  is the Emmy-award composer behind the series main title, which is “ so eerily satisfying ” that it perfectly fits with the visuals themselves. And this is true for many great intro sequences. Take Westworld , where Ramin Djawadi ’s score enhances the amazing 3D tableaux. In fact, music is so important that it can sometimes be the defining element of an intro. That’s probably the case with The White Lotus . The sequence itself is visually simple: a curated wallpaper-style montage telling a story of wealth, gossip, and treason (for S2). But Cristobal Tapia De Veer ’s strange, hypnotic score turned it into something unforgettable. At first, the music felt odd, unexpected. But by the end of the season, people became obsessed. So, in the end, what makes Severance ’s intro stand out is a combination of both elements: the unfiltered imagery of Latta accompanied with a great music that just wraps up everything perfectly. It’s something to think about for when you’re doing your intro sequence. Think beyond the usual. The best intros aren’t safe. The ones you remember are the ones that take risks. And we can help you with that.

The uncanny valley, a term that has haunted roboticists and VFX artists for decades, is experiencing a resurgence due to artificial intelligence video generators. Coined by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970 in an essay , it describes the unsettling sensation we feel when encountering humanoid figures that are almost, but not quite, lifelike. By Dietmar Höpfl - shockfactor_ai Minor imperfections in appearance or movement trigger discomfort or even revulsion, tapping into deep psychological responses. Why it happens? We actually don’t really know. Apparently, some even question if this is a scientific concept or not, but research is being conducted in this area. ROOTS OF THE UNCANNY VALLEY Mori’s hypothesis stems from human psychology and our innate responses to realism in representation. While exact reasons for this discomfort are debated, researchers speculate it could be due to: Violation of Expectation : Subtle imperfections in a hyper-realistic face or movement disrupt our expectations, creating a jarring effect. Evolutionary Psychology : Some theories suggest our unease arise from our ability to distinguish between alive and dead, or healthy and diseased individuals—a potential survival mechanism. Empathy Gap : We may struggle to emotionally connect with near-perfect imitations that lack a true human essence (this seems to be the case with AI video generators). “The sense of eeriness is probably a form of instinct that protects us from proximal, rather than distal, sources of danger. Proximal sources of danger are corpses, members of different species, and other entities we can closely approach. Distal sources of danger include windstorms and floods”, Masahiro Mori AI UNCANNY VALLEY It’s well-known that CGI has long struggled with the uncanny valley . But, today, we're turning our attention to AI video generators and exploring why they can be so particularly creepy... and whether that's necessarily a bad thing. First, keep in mind that recreating humans is one of the biggest challenges in visual effects. Our brains are finely tuned to recognize the subtleties of human movement and expression. Even minor inconsistencies stand out and when technology tries very hard to mimic us but doesn't quite succeed, it leaves us with that uncomfortable feeling. By Mr. Relative Usually, this has been seen as a problem to overcome. A sign that the technology isn't advanced enough (or that, you know, “ CGI is ruining movies ”!). Therefore, in VFX, we try to stray away as much from humans as we can, but sometimes… it’s just what the director wants. This gives birth to very unfortunate results, like cat-hybrids or bringing back the dead to life for a movie. A term coined as “ digital necromancy ”, according to Futurism . But I diverse. Back with AI. The tool is very good at making us think, at first sight, that it looks human. However, when you look closely , you can see six fingers or slight malformations in the images it creates. But it’s when it tries to generate movement that it becomes really bizarre, going places we’ve never really seen. This happens because AI lacks true spatial awareness. It doesn't comprehend physical space as we do; instead, it generates content based on patterns learned from vast datasets. This can result in inconsistencies, distorted perspectives or unnatural movements. By Lola.viscera To overcome these challenges, developers are working on enhancing AI's spatial awareness and motion generation capabilities. For instance, in robotics, they're training robots in digital simulations (or digital twins) featuring stairs, other robots, metahumans and obstacles, so they learn how to interact with external elements and won't be a danger when put in the real world. Similarly, in the realm of filmmaking, the aim is to imitate reality , which is why CGI has (mostly) evolved to achieve realistic results. The same is going to happen with AI video generators, with companies looking to cut costs and create cheaper and easier ads to produce. However, I believe that AI's most compelling work emerges when its uncanny and weird outputs are embraced , especially in the horror genre (but not only!). Many artists on social media are leveraging these eerie qualities to create unsettling videos that we can't help but keep watching. These are the same artists we've included here as examples for our article. By Daryl Anselmo These uncanny visuals produced with AI challenge our perceptions of reality and elicit strong emotions. This shift raises a question: Is the uncanny valley necessarily a bad thing? While many still strive to eliminate it, embracing the uncanny opens up new possibilities. As an art form, it allows creators to explore places where we would not have been able to go on our own. A realm between reality and artificiality, engaging audiences in ways that are new, fascinating and definitely disturbing. What do you think about it? By Doopiidoo