Friends actor’s infamous movie reboot of classic sci-fi show gets glowing review from VFX artists 26 years later

Visual effects artists offer their breakdown of the movie Lost in space. A Reboot of the classic sci-fi series of the same nameThe 1998 action-adventure sci-fi film tells the story of the Robinson family, who travel to space in order to fight for humanity. Lost in space was directed by Stephen Hopkins and featured a leading cast including Gary Oldman, William Hurt, Matt LeBlanc, Mimi Rogers, Heather Graham, Jared Harris, Lacey Chabert, Jack Johnson, Mark Goddard and Lennie James.

now, Corridor crew Here’s a breakdown of the VFX in Lost in space. In particular, they analyze a shot in which LeBlanc’s space helmet comes down on his face in pieces. In their statement, the VFX artist explained that it is “Absolutely no CG in the shot.” Instead, the shot was taken by filming the scene with and without the helmet, trying to mimic the movements as closely as possible, and then creating a composite and animation to make it look like the suit was down. Check out the corridor crew’s statement below:

1998. Matt LeBlanc, star of Friends. It was a big movie at the time. It has the highest number of visual effects shots of any move released up to that point, with 750 shots.

I remember them being so particular about their helmet shot. Matt LeBlanc turned and aimed his gun, and the helmet came down across his face.

Oh, okay, is that real at the end there?

That’s some cool composition that they did there. I know what they did. Because he wears the real helmet all the time

But what about the CG helmet, how to animate them?

It looks like they only have pictures of the actual helmet in this shot, and they’re just shrinking and moving the elements around to make it appear. But it’s definitely like a filmed after the fact Joey Tribbiani head, sorry, Matt LeBlanc.

There is absolutely no CG in this shot.

Is it all image cutouts and movement?

Essentially all they had was they had two names, or I assume they had many different names. One of him without the helmet and one of him wearing the helmet. Doing the exact same movement, trying to get the timing of the movement perfect. And they only animate on additional images of the helmet. And they just take slices of the helmet and expand it out.

That’s just very clever rotoscoping at the end of the day. But you know what makes this shot work so well? The attention to detail on the shadows under the blades. You just go and lock it in the frame at the moment when it is supposed to appear. And then all you need is three frames of it going up.

It is very similar to the effect you often see on social media where a person poses and his hand falls down, and locks in where his hand is in the future. That’s basically what this shot is. That’s a classic shot, man. I haven’t seen that in a while, but I remember it being really really iconic.

How was lost in space received at the time?

Critics didn’t appreciate the 90s reboot

In their analysis, the Corridor Crew also mentioned as standouts Lost in space was at the time. Before the 1998 film, No film has had more than 750 VFX shots. Now, there are films such as Avatar: The Way of Water Or Dunn: Part Two, In which the majority of the film includes VFX shots and high levels of computer intervention in post-production. In the late 90s, however, this was much less common, making the creation of Lost in space Even more impressive. In the absence of advanced CGI, the film found creative alternatives.

Despite the visual wonder that was Lost in space, The film was not well received at the time of its release. The critical consensus was a rotten 27% approval on Rotten Tomatoes, with 84 reviews. Audiences didn’t like the film any better, giving it an even worse 24%. Critics at the time said that despite the film’s commitment to its visuals, the movie had very little charm and lacked strong dialogue and character.

It also struggled at the box office at the time of its release. Lost in space was made for a massive budget of $80 million, but only ended up grossing just over $136 million Worldwide at the box office. Because most films need 2x to 2.5x their budget to make a profit, Lost in space Probably lost money. Despite the poor performance at the time, however, Corridor Crew’s analysis helps prove important Lost in space is in visual effects history.

Like other films of this era used creative VFX methods

Corridor Crew has found value in many 90s films

Lost in space Is Far from the only ’90s film that Corridor Crew has taken a closer look at over the years. Earlier this year, the VFX artists looked on The pagemasterA part-animated part-live-action Macaulay Culkin film from 1994. They Broke How The pagemaster used “Pretty low-level CGI“and combined this with hand-drawn animation to create a scene in which a live-action world transforms into an animated book universe. As in the case of Lost in space, The pagemaster Team used creative mechanisms to create this effect, instead of advanced technology.

Perhaps the most Apt point of comparison for Lost in space Is 1997s Starship Troopers. Another sci-fi film, its budget was even higher than that of Lost in spaceComing in at an estimated $105 million. The film also underperformed at the box office, earning $121 million worldwide. In March, Corridor Crew dissected Starship Troopersexplained what went into creating the movie’s massive-scale CG and “Texture detail on the models.” Much like Lost in space, Starship Troopers has also become a cult classic sci-fi film as the years have passed.

Looking at all three examples, it’s clear how creative films got during this period. The ’90s were something of a transition period in the VFX space; CGI technology was developing, as was interest in the medium, but it was not nearly as fine-tuned as it is today. This led to some interesting hybrid projects whose charm is not quite matched today, because CGI can be impressive and overly perfected. Lost in space is a great example of this phenomenon.

Source: Corridor Crew/YouTube