In three, two, one... whichever direction is just point kind of the opposite way. Yeah, when you feel... I've never made a movie of this

size before, or of this genre. I've always been a fan. That's my exit, but it's a

daunting undertaking. That voice there is the voice of this guy. Don't worry about consistency, worry about impact. This is

Jon Favreau. Jon Favreau, and he directed this. That's the coolest thing I've ever seen. Not bad, huh? Yeah, this movie...

everyone's seen this movie. Peace. So last time around we talked about a little movie called 'Swingers.' Vegas, baby, Vegas. Mainly because it introduced the

world to Jon Favreau as a serious writer, serious producer, and a fun filmmaker.

Oh, you're a comedian. Yeah, and an actor, kind

of. But really, I talked about 'Swingers' to explore how Favreau's subsequent career has had a strangely outsized impact on how

modern movies are made, and also I want to work out how it led to this: an extraordinary number of benefits and

advantages for shooting in that environment. It's mind-blowing what that tool is. And if you're confused about the

link between a '90s indie flick and some fancy new tech, well, so am I. So let's jump back a

bit. It's a very interesting time now, and I remember this on other movies, and boy, you don't know what's going to happen.

Coming off directing the super successful 'Elf' in 2003 and the less successful 'Zathura' in 2005, Favreau was

entrusted with a huge challenge. Ladies and gentlemen, Jon Favreau, director, to capitalize on the survival of the superhero genre, make some money,

and maybe, just maybe, launch a franchise. But this is a Marvel movie. We don't test these movies, so I don't know... they don't

want it getting out on the internet. It's a very secret process, so I... I really don't know how people are going to react.

to this thing. Let's face it, this is not the worst thing you've caught me doing, and this was a risk for Marvel on the

one hand. Iron Man shared the wise-cracking DNA of swingers; there was lots of funny dialogue, and he was a good

comedy director. "Beautiful babies, you want to come with? Yeah, why not? Place is dead anyway." So Favreau and Robert Downey

Jr. seem like a great fit. I was just saying, we don't need sleep; we've got talent. That's right, but

Iron Man isn't just dialogue; it's not just jokes; it's a lot of action, big set pieces, and of course, there's a lot of

CGI. We have 162 outstanding shots so far. Favreau had to go back to the drawing board, chuck out his indie film-making

kit, and learn about post-production tech that he didn't quite trust. I've always steered away from using visual effects

whenever possible. I think that there are certain things you can't achieve otherwise, but in the past, I've always

been reticent to use visual effects to the extent that other films do. I am in the map suit in this; this

was a shot we were trying to get the first reveal right. I mean, even up to Elf, there were—we—we had to use some

CGI for the reindeer, but most of that was stop motion or forced perspective. You know, I really embrace the old techniques.

Um, and then only with Iron Man did I become convinced that it could be used well because it was interesting, 'cause

Jurassic Park came out and I was like, "This is amazing!"  My head being right all the

time. And then there was this whole slew of films that used CGI in a way that wasn't nearly as uh, effective, and it

started to draw attention to itself and it became almost lurid in some cases, where it became distracting to the story.

Now, of course, I'm not giving Favreau credit for Iron Man's special effects; that goes to the wonderful people at ILM, based on

the design of the suit. How would he then use this to fly? [Music] And the same can be said for all his

future works. Visual effects studios and the people that run them make these visuals; they're the true innovators

behind basically all of today's beloved blockbusters. They're the ones pushing this stuff forward. And I'm also not

equating Favreau to someone like James Cameron, who has probably been the most technologically cutting-edge director

since *The Abyss* came out. But Favreau's secret source is, and always has been, his curiosity as a director, and

I want to talk about that. I love that stuff as a fan, but I never thought that I would be the person telling those

types of stories. I started off in independent film and in comedy, and I thought that would be my path, but low

and behold, you know, you learn a little bit, you learn a little bit, and then you find yourself in a position to be able

to push the envelope and innovate.  [Sound of clapping and clothes sliding] See how it's sliding? It's got to slide in and then

go. Having been an actor, director, writer, producer, even a dishwasher at Second City in Chicago, Favreau understood the

importance of knowing what everyone else was doing on set, even if it was just surface-level knowledge. And we're

convinced that a human head would actually fit in this thing; right? The ears are right up inside. So, rather than

being a hands-off director during *Iron Man*, he threw himself into it and he took the time and effort to absorb as much

information as possible. Uh, like I learned in *Iron Man*, that when it came to a metal suit back then, you can make very

convincing heart surfaces and so I went from being a latecomer to somebody who embraced CGI some of the time, my

turn now. This apprehension about San 2008 makes complete sense; it's due to its technical limitations. It wasn't very

good at the time, but as CGI improved, so did Favreau's interest. Now I find it's convincing for fur, for water, for fire

simulations, for environments, which brings us to the next iteration of Favreau. He kept evolving, and this brings us to

probably his most divisive projects: the Disney remakes. "You must not go there, Simba!" But I thought a king

could do whatever he wants! Take territory, to get it out of the way... Did we need these movies? No, I'm not an idiot;

of course we didn't. I don't actively hate them, but for this much money, Disney should have made something original. Just

make some original content; don't just make it copy and paste. But... and there was always going to be a very big "but": the

benefit of having this much money and the studio actually hiring someone with this vision and this curiosity is that it

developed some insane cinema tech. I mean, even in *Jungle Book*, uh, many of the best visual effect shots are ones that

you would never suspect.  There's... there's digital doubles from Mowgli. I know where you came from. We use motion

capture; we do it very naturally in that film, so it's made filming much safer, much more efficient. So let's start

with *Jungle Book*. This was kind of a big deal; they filmed with motion capture, which, if you didn't know, is this: we've

mapped the world, and we're moving the camera around, and we're seeing in the camera's viewfinder that person, not on a

green screen, but in a world. You have like an actor and, of course, all the animals and the actual jungle around.

them is being introduced in post-[Music] production, but motion capture isn't new. So, *Jungle Book's* greatest legacy wasn't

the film itself; it was leading to *The Lion King*. Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance. It's the

first time, um, virtual production was ever used here. Here's Mike Seymour explaining the basics of virtual production, like how they film this stuff.

We produce a virtual world, and then we have actual people standing on a set, but they only see that well when they put on

say, VR headgear, or they look at a monitor. And so I might move a dolly, which has a virtual camera on it, so it's

a physical dolly; there's no actual camera on the dolly. But as I move it, it moves the virtual camera in

the virtual world. So hopefully that makes sense. They're filming a virtual world that they've built without a

camera, or as John F. puts it, we built a bespoke multiplayer VR filmmaking game. And so, because we now had this

environment and we had VR, we could have people enter into the digital set and be able to walk around and look at it as

though we were really on a scout. Say, okay, we should probably put the camera here, and let's see that the lion

rehearse the scene, and the AD would hit the button and run the animation cycle, and we watch just like you would on a

regular set. And this right here is what sets virtual production apart from 100% animation or virtual effects: the mimicry

of a real set. And so we had, you know, a full live-action film crew in VR, uh, operating camera equipment as though it

were a live-action set. Part of getting that, that look, that Attenborough documentary look, was to limit ourselves

to the camera platforms that would be available in, you know, if you were out there in nature doing it. So it was a lot

of long lenses, it was uh, sometimes limiting what equipment you'd have, so you wouldn't have a crane or dolly track.

We would go long lenses on a on a notal move, pans and tilts. Oh, how lovely it is

to see the future king with his future queen learning about virtual production. Was another feather in Favreau's cap; he came

from someone who was a self-described VFX layman to now someone who was championing this new technology, but

this brings us to his next evolution as a filmmaker. Like, we're working with uh,

hundreds of artists, but yet you're overseeing the vision of the whole piece and making sure that the quality control

is there. And part of it is having a shared vision. Collaboration is clearly one of the

toughest elements of filmmaking, and the director is supposed to help make this easier for everyone; that's their job. But

with traditional modes of VFX, teams can't always see eye to eye. Why? It's tough to visualize the final product for

everyone. But luckily, this is about the time when Favreau learned about the Volume. The Volume is 21 ft tall, it's 75

ft in diameter. It's basically using game engine technology in video walls and creating parallax, so you can move the

camera, so it's not green screen, right? So, so you could see the set, so the actors could see the background, but allows you

to film and just change over like you would with a video game, what the backgrounds are. I'm sure a lot of you

already knew that basic description of the Volume; it's an LED panel surrounding a large sound stage. But before we look

at what this does differently from other film sets, it's worth looking at what it evolved from and more importantly, what

tech it stole from other movies, as we've talked about. Fabro Drew from his other projects like *The Lion King* and

*Jungle Book*, but it also draws from the tech of a very famous Oscar winner, namely this one.

exploring so gravity. They used a system that definitely inspired what we were doing. It didn't have all the parallax,

but it would create interactive light with LED panels, which is what we surround the set with. They would have

individual panels on a bot and dolly system, which is basically a robot that was used for car construction, so they

could move in and out light sources. I can't see you anymore. Now, the volume provides a lot of filmmaking

benefits. It can provide consistent lighting that can go for a long time that you wouldn't have in natural

settings. The ability to shoot a 10-hour down is extraordinary. It can provide the parallax you need to create a huge

background that would cost a lot of money on a set, but it also streamlines any problems and helps with

yeah, cgi sucks, but c'monnnnn…….

yeah, cgi sucks, but c'monnnnn…….