'Frankenstein' Rises Before Going On A 'Fantastic Voyage'
               
(latinoreview.com)           

   Shawn Levy Likely Taking On 'Frankenstein' Before Going On A 'Fantastic Voyage' Director, Shawn Levy has been attached to the reimagining of the 1966 classic, 'Fantastic Voyage' for some time. Recently, things have hit a snag however, as the director is reported to want actor, Will Smith in the starring role, and if he's not able to have him, he wants an actor of the same status. 20th Century Fox isn't really buying into the idea of the film needing such a renown star as Smith since it already has the selling point of being a remake of a film that has become a part of popular culture.

Deadline reports that while things get sorted out with 'Fantastic Voyage,' 20th Century Fox is trying to line Levy up with another one of their films, 'Frankenstein.' The film has 'Predator' and 'Predators' producer, John Davis attached, with a script from Max Landis. His most recent work is showcased in the horror themed television show, 'Fear Itself' in an episode titled 'Something with Bite.'

20th Century Fox's 'Frankenstein' is just one of many projects based on the novel from author, Mary Shelley that is trying to get off of the ground. The studio hopes to get theirs out first for obvious reasons, so they're shooting for production to get underway by this winter. After the fourth or fifth 'Frankenstein' film, audiences might get a little bored and confused. In reality, many of the projects will likely end up getting canned, so it's kind of a race to the starting gate.

Levy's next to hit theaters is the robot boxing film, 'Real Steel,' which stars Hugh Jackman as a traditional boxer who makes the high-tech transition. Buzz has been solid for the film. It hits theaters in a couple of months on October 7, 2011.




"Pacific Rim" Director Making Rounds With VFX & Design Teams

(comicbookmovie.com)             

Where are you with Pacific Rim?

    GDT: We are in the height of preproduction, scouting locations, finishing the design of the monsters, storyboarding; we are literally two and a half months away from shooting. It’s happening. That’s the movie that, as a director, it occupies my mind entirely. I have no other projects as a director at this time.

How hands-on are you with your special-effects team and your artistic and set designers?

    GDT: I would say incredibly hands-on, unfortunately [laughs]. I try to get involved with anything visually or aurally that comes into the screen — any sound, audio track, color, shape, any texture. So, essentially, if you visited my offices, [you’ll see] they are right in the middle of the concept department. I am right in the middle of the designers because I make the rounds. Or I make them come into my office every hour, every day, around the clock.





KATIE HOLMES: DIGITAL DOMAIN DIVA

(fadedyouthblog.com)                    Flanked by her minders, Katie Holmes was spotted arriving at the Digital Domain Studios in Marina del Rey, CA on Wednesday (August 24).

What could the 32-year-old actress be up to? Well, Digital Domain is a visual effects and animation company founded by film director James Cameron, Stan Winston and Scott Ross. The company is known for creating state-of-the-art digital imagery for feature films, television advertising, interactive visual media and the video game industry.

Full articlet:   http://fadedyouthblog.com/2011/08/25/katie-holmes-digital-domain-diva/




Developing Games: Dream Job or Serfdom?

(zdnet.com.au)                       For many developers, the opportunity to work in the gaming industry seems like a fun-filled and glamorous proposition, but the reality doesn't always live up to the dream.

Working conditions in game studios has received increased scrutiny over the last decade, with the enduring example of the entire discussion arising in November 2004, when an anonymous blog post by the partner of an EA Games developer working on The Lord of the Rings, The Battle for Middle-earth detailed a studio-wide, 85-hour work week.

"The stress is taking its toll," the blogger wrote. "After a certain number of hours spent working, the eyes start to lose focus; after a certain number of weeks with only one day off, fatigue starts to accrue and accumulate exponentially. There is a reason why there are two days in a weekend — bad things happen to one's physical, emotional and mental health if these days are cut short. The team is rapidly beginning to introduce as many flaws as they are removing."

The blog post gained widespread media attention and, later, saw EA settle over US$30 million in overtime to staff at its California studio following three class-action lawsuits. The "EA Spouse" saga, led by blogger Erin Hoffman, shone a spotlight into the dark corners of game development. For the first time, it seemed, gamers were made aware that making video games for a living isn't necessarily as fun as it sounds.

The "EA Spouse" saga centred around the overtime working conditions on EA's The Lord of the Rings, The Battle for Middle-earth.
(Credit: EA)

A similar incident in early 2010, ahead of the release of Red Dead Redemption, saw the "Determined Devoted Wives of Rockstar San Diego employees" publish a scathing attack against that studio's management on industry website Gamasutra and threaten legal action if their partners' working conditions were not improved. It is unclear whether that situation was resolved, although it appears that no lawsuits were filed against Rockstar Games. More recently, Team Bondi, the Sydney-based developer of the Rockstar Games-published L.A. Noire, was revealed to have instigated what former employees referred to as an "ominous crunch" (the intensive period before a deadline) that lasted for years, and a revolving-door staff policy that saw over a hundred employees leaving throughout the game's seven-year development.

Those three games — Battle for Middle-earth, Red Dead Redemption and L.A. Noire — achieved Metacritic ratings of 82, 95 and 89, respectively. Collectively, they were enjoyed by an audience of millions across the PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 platforms. In the grand scheme of things, it's all too easy to sweep a few months — or, in the case of L.A. Noire, years — of long working hours under the rug and bask in the shining glory of the final products. But to do so would be a mistake, argued Kenneth Yeast, who was the engineering development director at Electronic Arts during the Battle for Middle-earth project.

The development team — which consisted of around 100 full-time staff, including management — worked "60-something days straight" until the game shipped in November 2004, said Yeast. Staff were required to be in the office by 9:30am and would go home typically around 9pm — sometimes, as late as 11pm.

"It was insane," he remembers. "[Management] refused to cut any feature, or adjust anything to change the scope of the delivery, in order to fit the deadline. It was rough. I was warned when I was hired that they were expecting to go into crunch. It has its effects. I know I'm getting older, but I felt my eyesight got worse, even during that period of time. It was stressful."

Yeast — who is currently the director of engineering at California-based mobile game developer Bad Juju Games — compared game development to a sausage factory.

"You may like to eat sausages," he said, "but you don't want to see how they're made."

Jason Della Rocca was the executive director of the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) between 2000 and 2009. The "EA Spouse" incident occurred right in the middle of his tenure. Before that event, he said, the industry had a "blind faith", where the prevailing attitude seemed to be, "We have no clue what we're doing, just work harder! If I code more, things will get worked out!"
You might be interested in:

"It came from the lack of maturity of the industry, of the people, of the art form," said Della Rocca. Since then, "things have gotten better on average". The IGDA moved to establish a quality-of-life "special interest group" and began discussions with game development studios regarding employees' working conditions, "but you still end up with these extreme scenarios like on L.A. Noire", he said.

Despite the revelations, smoke and mirrors still dominate a necessarily secretive industry. As tens of millions of dollars are being poured into each AAA title, and as competition for gamers' wallets grows fiercer than ever, studios and publishers have few reasons to embrace transparency. It's a point not lost on Chuck Hoover, chairman of the IGDA's production special interest group and studio production director at Schell Games in Pittsburgh.

"How can we expect a gamer to know which studio to support, and which studio is churning through their staff with 80-hour weeks?" he asked. "What I would love to see is a world where the game industry sheds light on quality of life, so we can educate gamers on these issues. Something like an IGDA 'good studio' seal of approval based on overtime hours, work-life balance and employee treatment; that's where we need to start."

Full article:   http://www.zdnet.com.au/developing-games-dream-job-or-serfdom-339321115.htm





Why "Jurassic Park" Has Better Visuals Than Nowadays

(rihot.com)                If you look at the latest cgi and jurassic park you will find a big difference in cgi. You can see a big difference in realism. Nowadays there are all over the top cgi stuff.

It all depends on how much money you can spend on CGI effects. And of course how much time you give the people whose working on it to complete it. And remember even seconds of CGI can cost in the millions and millions of dollars because of the complexity of it. So truely some movies just cant afford the best CGI they make do with what they can

Because they had the special effects GOD Stan Winston. Poor guy died last year… :(

And they used a lot more animatronics on the dinosaurs. =)

Source:    http://rihot.com/why-does-the-movie-jurassic-park-has-better-visual-than-nowadays/




Downey Working On "Iron Man 3" While Shooting "Avengers"

(comicbookresources.com)                 Between director Joss Whedon dropping hints as to the group dynamic and photos of Chris Evans in modern Captain America gear hitting the web, it would seem that all the attention of Marvel Studios (or at least their fans) is focused on next summer's "The Avengers" film. But today, one of Marvel's mainstay stars is already focusing on the next phase of the movie universe as he still completes his team player role.

The LA Times Hero Complex blog has a new interview up with actor Robert Downey, Jr. where Tony Stark himself hints that he's already prepping to team up with director Shane Black for "Iron Man 3." A legendary (and legendarily young) Hollywood crime writer whose directorial debut – "Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" – was an early example of Downey's comeback potential, Black's signature wit (honed in the early "Lethal Weapons" films) will be on display moving forward...but not as much as viewers may think. “The thing about Shane is that it will be anything but one of those moments,” Downey told the paper of the more madcap parts of "Kiss Kiss," ”unless we come up with something that is so cheeky and character-driven and perfect that it has to be in the movie.

“He’s more than the sum of his parts and he’s also kind of been a sleeper for a long time,” Downey added. “We’re not talking much about [the script] right now because Shane is off writing and we talked before that and when we are talking again the talking is going to be over pretty quick [because we're on the same page]. It’s kind of like we’re fighting on the same side and at the same time we’re circling each other.”

The article purports good will between Downey and previous "Iron Man" helmer Jon Favreau – especially since his replacement comes with such high credentials. ”Bringing in Shane Black to write and direct ‘Iron Man 3′ to me is basically the only transition from Favreau to a ‘next thing’ that Favreau and the audience and Marvel and I could ever actually sign off on...the fun thing is going to be getting Happy [Hogan] in the movie.”





The Art of VFX:  HARRY POTTER -  David Vickery,  VFX Supe – dNeg

(artofvfx.com)               What is your background?
When I left school I enrolled in an Art and Design foundation course, from there I went to De Montfort University to study a degree in Industrial Design and Engineering. 3D was a discipline I learnt to love whilst designing products and when I finished my degree I changed tack slightly to reflect this and enrolled in the MA in Digital Moving Image at London Metropolitan University. Double Negative was my first job in feature film. I joined D-Neg in 2002 as a General 3D Artist and worked my way up to the role of CG Supervisor on films such as BATMAN BEGINS, CHILDREN OF MEN and CLOVERFIELD. I’m currently one of Double Negative’s VFX Supervisors and have recently completed work on Guy Ritchie’s SHERLOCK HOLMES and HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PARTS 1 and 2.

What sequences have you made on this show?
We completed 410 shots for THE DEATHLY HALLOWS Part 2, which spanned over 50 sequences! Our team was split into two distinct ‘units’ to make working on the hugely varied content more manageable. The ‘Dragon’ team were responsible for the arrival at Gringotts, the cart ride down to the dragon’s vault and then all the shots with the dragon as it makes it escape across the Diagon Alley roofscape. We also did a large part of the look development and R&D for the multiplying treasure sequence which we eventually handed over to Tippett Studios to finish.

Any time you see the exterior of Hogwarts or the surrounding environment it was handled by our ‘Hogwarts’ crew and we completed all the FX work that goes with it. The shield creation and subsequent destruction, the collapse of the wooden bridge and the massive destruction that was wrought across the school by Voldemort’s army. All of this is D-Neg. It was a huge challenge for us – there were over 50 completely CG shots for the Hogwarts team alone.

About the Gringott ride sequence, how did you choreograph it? Were there a previs or a storyboard for it?
We started pre-production on THE DEATHLY HALLOWS Part 2 back in summer 2008 – whilst we were still working on THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE. Kieron Helsdon, one of our environment leads was installed in the production art department at Leavesden studios to begin constructing the previs for the cart ride. David Yates envisaged the sequence as a truly bone shaking, INDIANA JONES style mine cart chase so the shoot had to be planned meticulously to make sure that we got the live action elements that we needed. We spent a long time getting the previs right.
We then had to figure out a way of translating our carefully choreographed previs into live action footage. We used Maya to build a digital replica of the practical cart rig that John Richardson’s’ SFX team had built. Then wrote Maya scripts to transfer all the cart previs animation into a format that would drive the practical rig to move in the same way. We essentially ran the entire cart sequence as one massive motion control shoot.

Can you tell us how you build so huge an environment?
Stuart Craig’s team had crafted a beautiful clay sculpt of the Gringotts cavern. It was huge – measuring 6ft x 10ft and detailed the types of rock structures, location of the dragon vault and waterfall. It even included the helical twisting cart rails clinging to the rocky surface of the vast cavern. Kieron Helsdon went to an area on the west coast of Scotland called Ballachulish and photographed the vast slate edifices there as inspiration for the slate-like rock formations in the cave. These were later interspersed with towering limestone stalactites.

We started out in Maya building a digital replica of the art department clay model. We divided high resolution Lidar scans and manual theodolite surveys into many small manageable sections and rebuilt them as clean low resolution polygonal geometry. These pieces were then textured using a combination of projected photography and hand painted Photoshop textures with Mudbox sculpts to add a fine level of displaced detail. It was built in modular sections to allow multiple artists to work on it concurrently and so that it was more versatile when the composition of shots didn’t work and we had to start moving individual rocks and stalactites around.

How did you design and create the Gringott dragon?
Some of the first concept images we were given for THE DEATHLY HALLOWS Part 2 were of the dragon. They depicted an emaciated yet feral looking animal, sprawling in a dank and cavernous environment. We were also given concepts of the creature’s destructive climb to freedom through the foyer of the bank. Individual still images often give you a false impression of an objects shape. When you look around that same object in 3D it suddenly looks very different. We wanted to get the creature modelled as soon as possible to avoid this and really start to understand its form from all angles. Tim Burke envisaged the creature as an emaciated, malnourished, mistreated wild animal and David Yates insistent that the audience needed to emote with the creature – to sympathise with it but at the same time be terrified of it.

We began work on the dragon in summer 2008 with a small team. Two of our 3D artists, Kristin Stolpe and Andy Warren, created a series of 3D Maya models, Photoshop texture studies and Mudbox sculpts using the production artwork as a basis for their work. Even though Tim Burke was working on the THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE and prepping for THE DEATHLY HALLOWS Part 1 he still had time to come in and review our work on the dragon. We would show him our designs every couple of weeks. At this early stage the creature went through a lot of changes. We designed shackles, muzzles and harnesses that could be used to restrain the creature and painted high res textures to show how the dragon could be wounded, scarred and disfigured. There were hundreds of subtle tweaks and variations made to the design of the creature during this phase.

We also had Creature TDs scripting lots of new pipeline tools to handle the many layers of cloth, muscle, bone, skin and tendon simulations we knew would be required to create a convincing animal. Later the Dragon team grew to include almost 100 crew; a small army of Lighting Artists, Creature FX TD’s, Compositors, Matchmove and Rotoscope Artist.




Are All Canadian VFX Artists Really Canadian?

(vfxsoldier.wordpress.com)                I came across a CBC documentry made in 1980 called Tax Breaks For Canadian Movies. It focuses on the “use and abuse” of Canadian taxpayer dollars for film subsidies.

There are interviews conducted with film commission representatives arguing that while Canadian taxpayers are funding up to 50% of the film costs, the intention is to create a film industry where they will make their own commercially viable films.

30 years later Canada’s film industry is even more dependent on US studios and commercially viable Canadian films are as rare as poutine in California.

The difference then was that the films that were able to win a subsidy had to be Canadian productions. These days most of those subsidies are going to US productions. If you want to have some fun you can play with this Canadian subsidy calculator. I put in $1 Trillion and was able to get $538 Billion back!

Now the subsidies in Canada are meant to be used for Canadian workers but with so many vfx studios opening shop I’ve heard a producer say they can’t find workers. Remember my post on the fallacy of infinity scalability?

I am aware that some VFX studios are able to subsidize the salary of American workers with Canadian taxpayer money by claiming they’re residents even though many of them move after the project is over.




Ouija Goes into Turnaround at Universal

(comingsoon.net)              Universal has put its adaptation of the Hasbro board game OUIJA into turnaround, reports Vulture. The project has McG attached as director and Michael Bay as producer. Simon Kinberg (SHERLOCK HOLMES) penned the most recent version of the script. Bay and McG will start talking to other studios next week.

Three weeks ago the studio dropped the CLUE adaptation. Universal signed a big licensing deal with Hasbro in 2008. As part of that deal, Universal will have to pay Hasbro $5 million for dropping OUIJA project. Universal still has CANDY LAND and STRETCH ARMSTRONG in development and BATTLESHIP will hit theaters next summer.




Coming this December: TRANSFORMERS The Ride Makes Debut at Universal Studios Singapore

(etravelblackboardasia.com)                 Universal Studios Singapore announced that it will debut the world’s first TRANSFORMERS ride this December, allowing its guests to be among the first to experience the blockbuster theme park attraction, aptly named TRANSFORMERS The Ride.

Based on the iconic brand from Hasbro and the popular film franchise directed by Michael Bay, who is also the creative consultant for the thrill ride, it will tell an original TRANSFORMERS tale using realistic high definition 3D media, sophisticated visual effects, and one of the most elaborate roaming flight simulator systems ever integrated into a ride-car vehicle.

Setting a new standard in immersive theme park attractions, TRANSFORMERS The Ride brings to life the story of the battle between the heroic AUTOBOTS and the villainous DECEPTICONS. Guests will be transported into the world of TRANSFORMERS as members of the Human-AUTOBOT alliance called N.E.S.T., giving them the chance to ‘Live The Movies™’ and putting them right in the thick of the action protecting the Allspark from the DECEPTICONS.

Mr. Dennis Gilbert, Senior Vice President of Attractions at Resorts World Sentosa, said: “The extension of the TRANSFORMERS movie franchise into a theme park thrill ride is an exciting part of the natural progression. This blockbuster, which made waves around the world with its stunning special effects and non-stop action, is the perfect recipe for a dynamic, thrilling theme park ride like none before it.”

Mr. Mark Woodbury, President of Universal Creative, said: “This ride is truly one of a kind, pushing the boundaries of hyperrealism. We are proud to continue the traditions of partnering with filmmakers to bring movie magic to our attractions. Working with the immensely talented director Michael Bay as the ride’s creative consultant has been extraordinary. TRANSFORMERS The Ride will tap into the larger-than-life characters and deliver an epic ride experience of a lifetime, thrilling guests from around the world when it opens at Universal Studios Singapore in December 2011 and Universal Studios Hollywood in Spring 2012.”

Licensed from Hasbro, Inc. and in association with Dreamworks SKG, the attraction also enlisted the award-winning Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), a division of Lucasfilm Ltd., which created the visual effects for the movie franchise, to produce ground-breaking visionary special effects and 3-D images exclusively for the ride.





Compare the new CGI Yoda from the Blu-Ray Star Wars Episode One With the Original Puppet

(io9.com)                   Compare the new CGI Yoda from the Blu-Ray Star Wars Episode One with the original puppet Everybody knows that George Lucas loves to change his movies, so it shouldn't really surprise anyone that Lucas has yet again changed something else on the Star Wars Blu-Ray saga release. He's scrubbed out Frank Oz's Yoda puppet from The Phantom Menace and replaced it with a CG monster.

But don't panic, they didn't do it to the original trilogy — yet, anyway. Here are two clips one with puppet, and one sans for your scrutiny. Is it better, or worse?

VIDEO:   http://io9.com/5834189/compare-the-new-cgi-yoda-from-the-blu+ray-star-wars-episode-one-with-the-original-puppet





Oscar Watch: Rango & Winnie the Pooh Likely Contenders In Animation

Every year, UK statistician Andrew Sidhom keeps running charts of the best-reviewed movies of the year (one for US/UK productions and one for foreign productions), using Rotten Tomatoes’ average rating. He also tracks current box office totals and theater counts. Over the past few years, the results closely matched the films that ended up being nominated for end-of-year awards and Oscars in the best picture category, provided that they were box office winners that were not in such Academy-unfriendly genres as sci fi, animation, horror, or sequels. The 2010 chart is pretty impressive: it’s led by The Social Network, Toy Story 3, The King’s Speech, True Grit and Black Swan.

View the mid year chart:  http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2011/08/24/oscar_watch_best-reviewed_movie_charts/




Flying Tigers 3-D Film Awarded To Identity FX

(awn.com)            Hollywood, CA • Genson Entertainment, helmed by veteran producer Bob Larson ("Coal Miner's Daughter", "Continental Divide", "Gorky Park", "Play Misty For Me") announced today it has entered into a partnership with Identity Studios to begin production on Chennault, the maverick story of General Claire Lee Chennault's Flying Tigers in China during World War II.

The two companies are currently in high-level talks with several industry icons for their participation in the film, from legendary directors to A-List talent, and expect to reach additional agreements in the coming weeks.

The partnership has taken up the torch first ignited sixty plus years ago when General Chennault accepted the daunting task of defending half a billion Chinese from the invading Japanese Air Force. General Chennault died in 1958, but not before collaborating with his fellow China Campaign Veteran, Captain J. Gen Genovese (Gen Genson) on his Flying Tigers' screenplay. Genson promised General Chennault that he would do everything in his power to bring the General's true story to the big screen. Just prior to his death in 2010, at the age of 99, Genson transferred that promise to his longtime friend Bob Larson. "Identity Studios brings a wealth of talent to the project on both the creative and technical sides" says Larson. "General Chennault was a courageous and honorable man, who never wavered from his ideals, and I can think of no team better equipped to help tell his story."

Identity, a Digital Production Studio based in North Hollywood and led by Producer Alison Savitch, Stereoscopic Supervisor Leo Vezzali, and Writer/Producer David Scott Van Woert, is most-recently known for its role as a stereoscopic conversion provider on Namia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Green Lantern, and Conan the Barbarian. The studio opened its doors in 2004 as a visual effects shop and has since garnered more than 80 vfx, title design, and stereoscopic credits.

As a period aviation epic and an account of actual events, Chennault will require strict attention to historical detail. Identity will be taking on the task of bringing to life the vintage aircraft and historic locales necessary for the authenticity of the film. "We feel uniquely positioned to help bring the real story of Chennault to the big screen," says Alison Savitch, longtime Chair of the Producers Guild of America New Media Council. "Our team combines expertise in visual effects, stereoscopic production, and trans-media exposure with a strong sense of storytelling and a passion for World War II aviation."

Legendary reporter Walter Winchell once wrote in his New York column, "General Chennault's place in history is beyond anyone's power to add or subtract." In fact, the Flying Tigers brought about what is widely considered by military historians to be nothing short of a miracle. Utilizing their many years of experience as combat pilots, General Chennault and his fellow Flying Tigers successfully drove the much larger and better equipped Japanese Air Force out of South East Asia, shooting down ten Japanese planes for every one American plane lost.  Larson adds, "Chennault himself has tasked us with the telling of an epic tale of adventure, love, and war - a tale that he not only collaborated on, but personally acted out across the vast stage of World War II in China. We are honored that we have been entrusted with this story and excited by the possibilities our new partnership with Identity Studios brings."



LucasArts Pushes Star Wars Kinect

(eurogamer.ne)                    Star Wars Kinect won't make its planned holiday 2011 release window, Microsoft has announced.

The platform holder told OXM that the game needs a little more development time before it's ready to face the public.

"Microsoft and LucasArts have elected to move the launch of Kinect Star Wars beyond holiday 2011 to ensure the full potential of this title is realised," explained a spokesperson.

"This move applies to both the Kinect Star Wars stand-alone game and the Kinect Star Wars Limited Edition Console. We will communicate additional timing information at a later date."

Eurogamer's Christian Donlan jumped into the Terminal Reality-developed effort last month.




Practical FX Artist Feels Defrauded by Adobe

(drgoresfunhouse.com)                  Tom Sullivan’s career as a special effects artist and filmmaker has spanned over three decades and includes the ‘video nasty’ classic The Evil Dead. Having met Sam Raimi, Bruce Campbell and Robert Tapert at Michigan State University where his wife studied, Sullivan was hired to create the FX for Raimi’s first foray into horror, a thirty-minute short entitled Within the Woods.

When the story was adapted into a feature film, Sullivan was once again brought onboard to help design the ghouls and The Evil Dead was born. The movie’s success allowed him to forge a professional career in the industry and soon Sullivan found himself working on such hits as Evil Dead II and The Fly II. Over recent years he has gained acclaim through his website DARKAGEPRODUCTIONS, creating replicas of his movie work.

Tom Sullivan talks about the innovation of digital effects, his upcoming documentary and his desire to return to the Evil Dead franchise.

In the thirty years since you made your first movie special effects have made several significant changes, specifically with the innovation of CGI. What challenges have you faced adapting to this new technology and how do you feel about digital effects??

“I think Alvin Toffler’s book Future Shock sums it up. I haven’t adapted well at all to digital filmmaking. I am okay with Photoshop but hardly a master at it. I bought the Adobe Creative Suite with Premiere Pro and After Effects and other programs ten years ago. The tutorials and instructions were incomprehensible. I bought the Dummy books and I couldn’t even get the instructions to match the screen. I never edited a frame, much less did any effects. Hundreds of dollars down the drain. I feel defrauded by Adobe. Several times I asked their Customer Support what courses I could take in a local college to understand their manual. They never had an answer. Their Premiere Pro manual comes with no glossary so I was lost. Grrrr. I’m not a computer engineer and they can’t explain how to use their product. Not made for each other I guess. With my own failings at digital filmmaking aside, I do love what is being done with digital filmmaking and I wish I could participate.”

Many modern filmmakers have chosen to replace practical effects with fully digital characters, yet the most effective are those that incorporate both. Which movies do you feel have best demonstrated this??

“At one point I’d have said the Jurassic Park films but today’s digital composites are almost impossible to detect. This subject comes up at my convention appearances and the fans and I are in agreement. We prefer the “old school” approach to the digital deluge. Bottin’s Thing comes to mind. I’m curious what the prequel’s approach and reception will be. I’m not as hard as some on the digital FX results. There are clearly many digital FX houses that have the talent, time, budgets and finesse to produce miracles. When I see Weta’s Kong, I see a living, thinking animal. And many more spectacular images and characters are being developed by growing armies of creative artists. That can only be a good thing. I just saw Captain America and Battle L.A., both extensive greenscreen films. I can’t tell where the set ends and the magic begins unless I use deductive reasoning. And that’s cheating.”

Full Article:   http://drgoresfunhouse.com/interviews/tom-sullivan/





Disney Exec Still Pulling for 'The Lone Ranger,' With or Without Gore Verbinski

(blog.moviefone.com)                   First it got shut down, then we heard there was going to be werewolves in it, but despite everything that's happened, 'The Lone Ranger' might still be a possibility. In a recent interview with Deadline's Pete Hammond at Disney's D23 Expo, Disney chief Rich Ross gave his two cents on the status of what could have been Disney's next big Western.

According to Ross, "I'm hoping to do it. I'm certainly hoping. I think it's a compelling story and no one wants to work with Jerry [Bruckheimer] and Johnny [Depp] more than me, so we'll see how it works."

Not only does Ross seem to think 'The Lone Ranger' is far from dead, but he also failed to mention director Gore Verbinski's name alongside producer Jerry Bruckheimer and Johnny Depp who was slated to play Tonto. Considering Ross' long relationship with the director who helmed the first three movies in Disney's 'Pirates of the Caribbean' franchise, one would assume that Verbinski would earn a mention.





In Defense of Andy Serkis

(dorkmanscott.wordpress.com)                 The recent release of RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES — starring a completely digital ape named Caesar, performed by Andy Serkis — has set off another round of what’s become a perennial argument about whether or not an actor should be recognized, specifically by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, for performing a character which is ultimately realized synthetically.

The argument began with Serkis himself, when he portrayed Gollum in THE TWO TOWERS and THE RETURN OF THE KING. It surfaced again when he proceeded to portray KING KONG, and has since been raised in conjunction with Bill Nighy’s portrayal of Davy Jones in PIRATES 2, Brad Pitt’s starring role in THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON (for which, it should be noted, he did receive an Oscar nomination), the various Na’vi performances in AVATAR, and now we’ve come full circle back to Serkis for his turn as Caesar, leader of the ape rebellion.

For those not in the film or VFX industry, if the controversy here is not apparent, it’s like this: can an actor really be said to have portrayed a character when none of the actor’s original performance makes it to the screen? It has been interpreted, manipulated, reconfigured and translated into a digital creation, passing through multiple hands — possibly dozens or even hundreds — before arriving on the screen. Does the actor deserve recognition for a performance that has been filtered through so many other peoples’ contributions?

Many in the VFX industry, at least the ones who blog and tweet, say no, and have attacked Serkis for what they perceive as slighting or disrespecting the contributions of the visual effects artists. I disagree with them entirely.

I currently make my living as a VFX artist — in fact I’m writing this post during renders on a big freelancing project I’m in the middle of — but I’ve been an actor. It’s something I enjoy, and for a while I thought I would pursue it as the focus of my career. I decided a few years ago that I was going instead to focus on my career behind the camera, but being a director, IMO, means in large part understanding actors. I know what it is to be an actor, to care about the craft, and I have many friends who are actors still.

So here’s what you’ve got to understand, if you’re not an actor or someone who has a lot of experience with them: actors are not well-respected. Sure, actors have the highest visibility and the greatest potential for fame — when an actor becomes successful, the world will know their name. The only other crew positions that can even dream of becoming household names are the director and the producer, and only the most successful in their respective field — someone with hit after hit after hit — ever get attention outside the industry. Anything else, forget it. The last superstar VFX artist was probably Harryhausen, and only because he was effectively the only guy doing what he was doing. Dennis Muren is a god in the VFX world, and rightly so, but nobody outside of VFX or FX-interested film circles would know his name.

All that to say, acting seems very glamorous and the sky is the limit to the possible rewards. But for the 99.8% of actors who are not Name Actors, it’s not glamorous. You show up and you do your thing and a lot of times if you’ve done it right, it’s part of the tapestry of the film and doesn’t call attention to itself. If you’ve done your job well, much of the time, people watching the film unfold aren’t supposed to realize you’ve done anything. (Sound familiar, VFXers?)

To give a good performance — let alone a great one — you have to reach into yourself, find the part that connects with and understands the character, and bring that up into the open. You have to find the part of you that is that character and show it to the world. When an actor gives a great performance and you can look into her eyes and see the pain of what she’s going through, you can’t fake that. She had to really feel it so you could see it. If she faked it you’d spot it instantly.

A lot of hay is made whenever an actor does a nude scene, and with the exception of the completely classless/tactless it’s understood by everyone that the actor is in a highly vulnerable position and they need to be able to trust that they will not be made to look foolish, that they will be given a certain degree of respect for laying themselves bare.

What is not understood is that an actor who cares about his/her job does the emotional equivalent of nude scenes every single day. It’s easy to dismiss actors as having an easy gig — they get paid well to play pretend all day long — but what they do isn’t easy. If it were there would be no such thing as bad acting. Bad actors aren’t incapable of behaving like human beings. Presumably they do so all the time when the cameras aren’t rolling, most of them anyway. What they lack is the ability to tap into  their emotions at will, and be sad or angry or whatever on cue. For some it’s a lack of ability to imagine being in that moment, or a lack of introspection, but I believe for many it’s because they’re afraid to make themselves vulnerable for the camera.

This goes double for working with VFX. Think of how it has to feel to run and jump and yell and scream and throw yourself around when there’s nothing there. It feels ridiculous. It looks ridiculous. But the actor has to throw himself in with complete abandon and accept the reality of the effect, and trust that the VFX team will hold up their end of the bargain and pay off his investment.

The relationship is symbiotic. If the actor doesn’t give a good performance in a situation where he’s interacting with effects, then nothing the effects team does — short of outright replacing aspects of his performance — will make it work. But if the VFX team doesn’t bring their A-game, he’ll look like an idiot on the screen. They both need the other to be giving their all.

What I’m trying to impress upon my VFX brethren here, who may not have much direct experience with actors or acting, is this: you know how you feel when you hear someone say, of VFX, that “the computer does all the work” and that you “just press the buttons”? How angry and insulted and demeaned you feel? How much of an ignorant asshole you think that person is? That’s how actors feel when they’re told they’re “paid to play dress-up” or, in the case of a performance capture character, they “just provided the reference for the real work.” That’s right. You’re being the asshole now.

I won’t deny the way Serkis described the VFX process — “painting over the character frame by frame with pixels” — was oversimplified and ignorant to the point of being kind of insulting, but I don’t believe he fails to appreciate the contributions of the VFX team at all. He just doesn’t work in that field. If I tried to explain to you how my car works, I’d probably sound like just as much of a tool as Serkis does explaining VFX, but that doesn’t mean I don’t need and appreciate it, or always want and appreciate the best people I can get keeping it in working order. The appropriate response to an ill-informed statement is information. It’s not to make insulting oversimplifications back.

Let’s get real: performance capture adds something valuable to an animated character. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t do it. And we’ve seen the results. Once animated characters became based on actual human actors, and not just talented animators working off vocal tracks, the reality and impact of those characters took a quantum leap forward. I knew it was Bill Nighy portraying Davy Jones, and not because I had foreknowledge of him in the role, and not because I recognized his voice. I recognized his performance. The VFX artists deserve all the accolades and awards for having the skills and artistry to take that performance and translate it into a completely digital character with such fidelity that I could recognize it. No one wants to take that away from them. But it is absurd to pretend that he never contributed the performance at all.

Yes, the performance would have been altered, interpreted, recontextualized to the extent that perhaps some of the most successful moments were flourishes by a VFX animator and not in the actor’s intent at all. But how different is that, really, from the way a brilliant editor can extract a completely different performance in the edit bay than was delivered on the set? No one would argue that the actor was ineligible for awards because the performance that reached the screen is different than what was shot. And few (besides editors) would argue that the editor deserves an award for the actor’s performance. The actor performed, the editor cut, together they made magic; each is appreciated for his or her particular contributions to the magic.

Now, of course, it’s worth asking the question: does Serkis even deserve an Oscar nomination anyway? Is his performance that good? Would anybody be even talking about it if it weren’t filtered through what is a best-in-class digital character’s performance?

Think of it this way. Pretend we’re not talking about a movie about apes at all. It’s about a GATTACA-esque future world where the mentally handicapped are treated like animals, used for science experiments, etc. Then one of them gets smart, and after briefly trying to assimilate in society he realizes that he doesn’t WANT to be part of this world, and rebels. It’s a mute role, for whatever reason.

Serkis plays the role, and delivers the same performance that he did for Caesar. No special makeup or VFX necessary. Does that role earn him an Oscar nomination?

I say if it doesn’t, he’s been robbed.

Caesar, the thinking ape, is magic. That particular version of the character could not have happened without actor and VFX working in harmony. But the performance in itself is a thing of beauty, and would be quite as powerful in a non-ape version just as well. So if you’re going to judge the performance, then judge the performance. And the performance came, primarily, from Serkis.

I think the most asinine comment I’ve seen made has been along the lines of “if he deserves an award, then so do the riggers and the modelers and the guy who programmed the subsurface scattering shader.” Might as well say that if a DP wants to be nominated for best cinematography he had better be the one who designed and manufactured the lights he used. Or that the fact that a colorist made changes in the DI suite likewise makes the DP ineligible for recognition. No one is denying that skill was needed on all fronts of the visual realization of the character, but if we’re talking about the performance, then the rest of that is irrelevant.

We have a category for outstanding achievement in visual effects. Andy Serkis and other performance capture actors don’t want to take the recognition of your achievements away from you, VFX guys and gals. They just want the appropriate recognition for theirs, because right now, as the anti-Serkis VFX bandwagon has so aptly demonstrated, they are not getting it.

I don’t know the guy, but I’d bet anything that Andy Serkis respects and appreciates and in no way intends to denigrate the VFX artists into whose hands he entrusts his performance and, to a large extent, his reputation and livelihood. He’s a fierce and vocal advocate for a cause he believes in, so why don’t we help him believe in ours instead of just attacking him? If he’s ignorant to what we’re dealing with, the answer isn’t to fire ignorance back at him. The answer is education — for both sides. Instead of getting into a cockslapping contest about how each of us feels like we’re the less respected industry, how about we work to start respecting each other more, and that’ll be a small step toward solving that problem?

Yes, actors have it better than us in a lot of ways. They get to be famous in the best cases and they’re paid well and usually treated well with various perks that they can benefit from due to collective bargaining that we don’t have. But I don’t see why they should be punished and demonized because they’ve got their shit together and we don’t. VFX artists need to come together and protect our own, we need to get the respect our work deserves in terms of its contributions to the overall film industry. But what we don’t have to do is try to knock down and disrespect other groups as a way of building ourselves up. This doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.

Solidarity among VFX is a worthy and important goal, but ultimately the fight for fair treatment isn’t between us and every other organization in the chain. It’s between those who are here to make money, and those who are here to make magic. Instead of seeing enemies everywhere, let’s start learning to recognize our allies.