(mtv.com) The broken-down robot at the center of "Hugo" beat out two groups of much more advanced robots, a bunch of rebellious apes and the magical moments in the final installment of "Harry Potter" at the Oscars. The visual-effects team behind filmmaker Martin Scorsese's first-ever children's movie, the 3-D period adventure "Hugo," won the Oscar at the 84th annual Academy Awards.
Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossmann and Alex Hennig took the stage to accept, quipping, "I know it's a huge thrill to be nominated. But it's awesome to win and really underrated." "Hugo" earned the most nominations of any 2011 film and had already racked up five Oscar wins Sunday by the time the film crushed the competition in the Visual Effects category.
"3-D is now an art form, not a gag that is thrown in at the end," Legato recently told the Asbury Park Press. "Every shot is planned and composed and lit to take advantage of the depth that it gives you."
"Potter" fans had hoped "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2" might enjoy some "Lord of the Rings"-type vindication at the Oscars but were disappointed when it failed to land nominations for Best Picture or Best Supporting Actor for the great Alan Rickman. MTV News' Talk Nerdy team were among those hoping the last "Potter" flick would at least dominate the Visual Effects category, but it was not to be. (Of course, as Oscars host Billy Crystal pointed out, the franchise has made $7.7 billion worldwide.)
"Transformers: Dark of the Moon," the third entry in Michael Bay's series based on the classic '80s toys, was similarly defeated. "Real Steel" featured robots as well — boxing robots (and Hugh Jackman!) at that — but was also shut out. "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" featured motion-capture work from Andy Serkis, whose "Apes" co-star (and last year's Oscar co-host) James Franco openly campaigned to see him rewarded in an acting category this year.
"Hugo," based on the novel "The Invention of Hugo Cabret," is the story of an orphan who lives at a train station in post-World War I Paris and unwittingly encounters one of the pioneers of silent film, played by Ben Kingsley. Sasha Baron Cohen co-starred.
'Star Wars: Phantom Menace' Crosses $1 Billion Mark at Box Office
(hollywoodreporter.com)
It's the first individual Star Wars title to join the $1 billion club.
Since opening worldwide less than two weeks ago, Phantom Menace has earned $73.4 million, pushing its cume to $1,000.4 billion through Wednesday.
PHOTOS: 10 Billion Dollar Babies: Movies That Have Crossed the 10-Figure Mark
And it's only $1.5 million from matching and then overtaking The Dark Knight ($1,001.9 million) to become the 10th-highest-grossing film of all time, not accounting for inflation.
The Phantom Menace rerelease has earned $35.8 million domestically and $37.6 million internationally. It is the 11th film to earn $1 billion or more globally.
Fox also is celebrating an Alvin and the Chipmunks milestone: The third entry in the series, Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked, has grossed $200 million in Latin America, a franchise best. The threequel has grossed $326.4 million worldwide.
DreamWorks Poised to Overtake Pixar
(jhunewsletter.com)When we talk about animated movies, the first name off our lips is Pixar.
Pixar this, Pixar that, coming out with a powerful animated movie generally once a year for the past 15 years, give or take.
In fact, since the awards' inception in 2001, Pixar has been nominated for eight Academy Awards and has won six for Best Animated Film (Finding Nemo in 2003, The Incredibles in 2004, Ratatouille in 2007, WALL-E in 2008, Up in 2009 and Toy Story 3 in 2010).
But, lo and behold, we have a year where the nominees don't have to contend with the Pixar incumbent (Cars 2, their 2011 film, hit "average" right on the buzzer.)
And so, for the first time since 2005, all those distant seconds and thirds have to fight it out for the coveted Oscar.
And here's the thing, in Pixar's huge, domineering shadow, the other animated production companies are less well known.
There's DreamWorks, famous for Shrek (2001), but nowadays making headway with popular films like Kung Fu Panda (2008), How to Train Your Dragon (2010) and Madagascar (2005).
Blue Sky Studios hit it big with Ice Age back in 2002, but can really only claim Rio (2011) and Robots (2005) as their other properties.
Disney came out of their decade-long slump with Tangled in 2010, and a hodgepodge of bigger film studios such as Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, etc. produce animated works every once in a while when they really like the project.
But now that we're actually taking the time to look, Pixar doesn't seem so great and daunting.
In fact, maybe Pixar is just the best among greats, rather than the stand-out we all seem to think it is.
Lately, Disney hasn't made as much of an impact on the animated scene.
Their heyday in the early ‘90s has since been supplanted by Pixar's rise to fame and power and other studios (namely DreamWorks) that proved they could make just as defining movies. And since they acquired Pixar as a company, they've certainly been under less pressure to pitch out childhood defining films.
But, at least in their most recent years, they have.
Bolt (2008), Tangled and even The Princess and the Frog (2009) all received better reviews from critics and saw a better turnout than films like Brother Bear (2003) or Home on the Range (2004).
Their two upcoming films Wreck-It Ralph and Frozen have taken on tremendous manpower and fame in order to up their ante again.
But still, Disney exists firmly in the distant third category when it comes to animation studios.
And then there's Blue Sky Studios. Hitting it big in 2002 with Ice Age, Blue Sky has stuck to a tried and true bi-annual schedule, releasing movies every two years like clockwork. But it seems like they've been hit with the sequelitis like no other.
This summer marks the fourth Ice Age feature, while all their other franchises (of which there are three) remain untapped, despite the critical and financial success therein.
Whether we'll see a Robots 2, another animated Seuss or another attempt at Rio, is up in the air, while lower and lower quality Ice Age movies keep coming out in the end.
But now that Pixar has taken the year off, we begin to see the true underdog: DreamWorks.
Formed around the same time and debuting their first movie (Antz in 1998) alongside Pixar's own bug-themed tale (A Bug's Life, also in 1998), Dreamworks has actually produced more movies, especially early in its inception.
While Pixar had a total of four films under its belt by 2003, DreamWorks had seven.
In fact, DreamWorks is the only reason I'm writing this article.
Chicken Run, their 2000 prison break movie, was so popular and acclaimed that it received a nomination for Best Picture, the first animated film to do so.
The next year, the Academy rolled out the Best Animated Feature as its new category.
Since then, DreamWorks has won two (Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Wererabbit (2005) and Shrek) while getting another seven nominated.
And now that they have new franchises to follow the studio-founding Shrek films, DreamWorks is poised to actually take a big chunk out of Pixar's fame, especially since Pixar gave them this year.
Ask anyone. What animated films dominated this year? There were three: Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots and Rango, all nominated for Best Animated Feature and all critical darlings. Two of these are DreamWorks and both of them are sequels (Puss in Boots technically being a spin-off.)
In the end, DreamWorks may come out ahead in the next decade.
Toy Story 3 marked the end of Pixar's first and favorite franchise, and Cars 2 demonstrated a certain inability to handle a sequel. And with their switch into a franchise base (having announced Monsters University as their 2013 film), they may be on the way down from their incredible 10-year high.
'Rango,' First Chameleon in History to Win an Oscar
(canada.com) HOLLYWOOD - After four years of Pixar movies winning at the Oscars, Paramount’s Johnny Depp-voiced "Rango" took the top animated film prize at the Academy Awards on Sunday.
The colorful chameleon beat rivals including "Kung Fu Panda 2," "Puss in Boots" and two foreign bids — France’s "A Cat in Paris" and Spain’s "Chico & Rita."
The Academy’s choice of a swivel-eyed reptile could be said to be brave, given his lack of the usual child- and merchandise- friendly qualities associated with blockbuster animated movies — pandas, cats or toys.
The movie’s quirky tone and offbeat humor are striking.
"Tone is everything. I love films with that singularity of voice," said Gore Verbinski, director of "Rango" and of the first three "Pirates of the Caribbean" films starring Depp.
"We tried to make a movie that made us happy and luckily we found an audience... I think if you work the other way around, ideas become diluted," he told AFP.
"Rango" tells the story of a lonely chameleon who is used to making up stories — playing out scenes with a fellow cast of inanimate objects — and who finds himself stuck in the middle of the desert after a road accident.
He ends up in the parched village of Dirt, whose inhabitants ask him to become their sheriff — after a tour-de-force made-up bar-room scene in which he invents his own back story and name — to help them find water.
For Verbinski, who had never made an animated film before "Rango," the biggest difference between live action and animation is that the latter lacks the spontaneous input of actors.
"There are no gifts in animation. Every blink, twitch and compression of the eye is a result of weeks of discussion.
"You have complete control on the one hand and the burden of that on the other. In live action, you never quite control the chaos, but there can be happy accidents along the way," he said.
To help the sense of authenticity, Verbinski recorded most of the voices — Depp’s vocal co-stars include Britain’s Bill Nighy, "Little Miss Sunshine" actress Abigail Breslin, and London-born actor Alfred Molina — in the presence of the whole cast.
"One of my biggest fears was having the film become clinical or sterile somehow," he said.
"The computer lends itself to perfection so easily. Having all the actors in one room was essential because it was one of the only opportunities in the entire process to react intuitively as things occurred."
For example they "could not have done the bar scene with one person and a microphone," he said.
"Rango" had been both a critical and commercial success, even before its Oscar triumph.
The movie has 88 percent of positive scores on the respected movie ranking website Rottentomatoes.com, and made more than $240 million at the box office globally, including $123 million in North America alone.
VFX Artists Petition US President & VES
(vfxsoldier.wordpress.com)This week VFX Artist Joe Harkins started a petition to the US President and Visual Effects Society to end illegal subsidies:
You agree that we need to create an organization that will lobby political action to enforce the WTO guidelines. Specifically the free trade agreements against foreign subsidies. You also agree that our elected officials need to do something about WTO violations that hurt our industry.
Since day one of my blog I have railed against subsidies and I support this petition. As you can see in the above video, the current President is interested in combating these subsidies. We need to let him hear our voice. One way to do this is by having you, your family, your relatives, your friends, and your co-workers sign Mr Harkins’ petition.
You can sign it here:
http://tinyurl.com/vfxpetition
So What Is This All About?
The narrative in the trades is that VFX is going to cheap locations like India and China. That actually isn’t what’s happening. It’s going to expensive places like Vancouver, London, New Zealand, Sydney, and Singapore. Some of these places are the most expensive places to live in the world.
The reason VFX jobs are going to these regions are mostly for one reason: Subsidies.
Governments are essentially engaging in protectionism by paying US studios like Warner Bros, Paramount, Universal, Fox, and Sony from 25-50% of the costs to lure VFX work from regions like California where the VFX industry has traditionally been agglomerated.
According to international trade law experts like Claire Wright, these subsidies are illegal:
The question addressed in this article is whether, under U.S. and WTO law, a foreign government can artificially lower the costs of production in an industry to such an extent that a number of U.S. companies choose to establish local production companies in that country and forego production in the U.S., thereby decimating the industry in the U.S.
There Are Rules To Globalization
International tariffs and subsidies are heavily regulated by the World Trade Organization. The US and many other countries entered into an agreement many years ago to liberalize trade barriers to encourage a more free market system. In order to do this, the parties agreed to get rid of policies that distort trade: tariffs and subsidies.
So How Do Subsidies Affect The VFX Industry?
There is nothing to stop a facility or producer from choosing to do work in a region because the labor is cheaper but there are rules that prevent a producer from choosing a region because a foreign government has offered money to do the work there. It artificializes the price and leads to a race to the bottom.
In the case of the VFX industry, facilities around the world competitively bid against each other to be awarded contract work by one of the big 5 studios. Even if California facilities could beat their competitors bids, studios would still be inclined to do the work in Vancouver, London, or another subsidized region because of the generous rebate offered by the local government. This is not about business taxes, this is a subsidy, a direct exchange of free money: corporate welfare.
So How Does This Affect The Facilities We Work For?
Most people make the mistake to think that the facility they work for gets this money. As some facility owners revealed in a post I wrote, they don’t. They are coerced into opening facilities in these subsidized regions just so they can get the work. They still must provide a competitive bid and they must also take upon the burden of extra overhead costs in infrastructure, management, and personal relocation to maintain 2 facilities. The studio gets the same film for the same price with an extra amount of money from the government.
So How Does This Affect The VFX Workers?
For the worker the ramifications can be very sobering. Consider one of my recent posts about how expensive it is. Read the comments and you will find people who have to chase VFX jobs around the world working project to project.
The costs of moving are tremendous. You will have to pay foreign taxes, state taxes, and federal taxes. If you own a home you will have to rent in your new region and take upon the burden of paying a mortgage at the same time. Some regions are so expensive that VFX workers are renting rooms from local families to avoid the costs. Many of them are not able to own any tangible items as they are constantly moving and living out of a suitcase. Some of them must leave their families for long periods of time and must pay huge traveling costs to visit them for short breaks in between projects. Regions like Canada, and London have weak overtime laws allowing you to miss out on overtime pay.
So How Does This Affect VFX Workers At The Studios?
If you think that you are immune to this because you work directly for the studio at places like Pixar, Disney, and Dreamworks think again. As the VFX facilities are weakened this will provide less leverage for those workers to negotiate better wages. As there are less opportunities for you to jump to another facility in the region, managers will have more opportunities to lower your wage.
In other words, VFX workers and facilities are working harder to chase the work, paying more to get the work, getting paid less to do the work, and their standard of living is going down. All of this is so rich US conglomerates can take advantage of what essentially is a bribe.
If you want to put a stop to this then you must start now. Sign the petition and unite for this cause.
'John Carter': Disney Scrambles to Save its $250 Million Gamble
(hollywoodreporter.com)When the tracking numbers for John Carter became public Feb. 16, it confirmed what many already knew: Interest in the big-budget sci-fi movie was soft just three weeks from its opening. With the clock ticking on the March 9 launch, Disney is now acting with renewed urgency to save the film from causing a big writedown.
"We're treating this like a global tentpole," says a studio spokesperson. "This is a huge movie. Everyone's focus right now is merely on getting as many people to see the movie as possible."
The challenge is due not only to its cosmic budget -- Disney and writer-director Andrew Stanton insist that the film came in at $250 million, but sources peg the number at above $275 million -- but also to its century-old source material, unfamiliar to many moviegoers. High-profile TV spots during the Super Bowl and the Grammys prompted online derision rather than excitement, drawing comparisons (not in a good way) to Star Wars: Episode I -- The Phantom Menace, while an indistinct billboard campaign has left some unclear that the film is an Avatar-like 3D epic.
"They are doing an extraordinary job of not selling what they think it is," snipes a rival studio marketing head.
Observers also have taken aim at the studio's decision to drop "of Mars" from the title, arguing that the property loses definition and scope without it. Insiders say the title change was hotly debated a year ago when the word "Mars" was verboten in the wake of Disney's March 2011 bomb Mars Needs Moms. According to several sources, the studio conducted a study of how the word would play with potential audiences. The results were pointed enough -- Disney's 2000 sci-fi film Mission to Mars and Warner Bros.' 1996 sci-fi comedy Mars Attacks! weren't hits, either -- that the studio stripped out mention of the red planet. ("It was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard," says one person who was privy to the research.)
"You lose any kind of scope the movie has," says another insider of the generic title. "John Carter of Mars gave the movie context."
At the same time, the trailer campaign has showcased the film's Mars setting rather than risk turning people off with shots of star Taylor Kitsch in Civil War-era garb (he's a soldier transported to a battle on Mars). Critics say the fear of Carter being labeled a period film also has muddied the property's core identity and sacrificed an opportunity to explain its narrative arc that could have hooked fans.
Ousted Disney marketing president MT Carney has taken blame for suggesting the title change and driving the ad campaign, but insiders point out that the creative team -- Stanton and his Pixar producers -- had to sign off on everything. Stanton, hot off the mega-grossing Finding Nemo and WALL-E, was given license to adapt the Edgar Rice Burroughs novels by former Disney chairman Dick Cook, who a source says greenlighted it without the studio's production team having read the script. (Another source disputes that account.)
Former Participant Media production executive Ricky Strauss, hired Jan. 13 as head of worldwide marketing, has been working with his team to change perceptions. The studio is spending north of $100 million on a worldwide campaign, typical for a major tentpole. No outside consultants have been brought in, and much of the remaining campaign will roll out as planned. Carter's Los Angeles premiere Feb. 22 will be followed by an international premiere in Moscow and a junket with cast and crew in London, where a portion of the movie was shot. Meanwhile, stars Kitsch and Lynn Collins will work the late-night talk show circuit, and Stanton will appear at the TED conference Feb. 28.
Additionally, the marketing team is pushing out a new TV campaign loaded with storyline-heavy spots. The ads will strive to better explain how Carter makes his way to Mars and discovers superhuman powers when he joins the fight to save a Martian princess. At the same time, the studio has seen an uptick in the film's attractiveness to men in the most recent tracking data. An action-heavy trailer will go out in front of Act of Valor on Feb. 24.
But critics point to what Disney is not doing: While some merchandise is available, there is no plan for a large toy line that might help lodge a fantasy adventure in young consumers' minds. "It needs to feel like an event, and right now it doesn't feel like an event," says one marketing expert, who notes that tentpole franchise launches typically establish a much bigger presence long before this point in the release (see: Disney's own Tron: Legacy rollout).
Meanwhile, Stanton has become a much more public advocate for the movie, vigorously tweeting messages and rebuttals to fans and using a recent media junket to deny that he went over budget or added days during production. In the end, it might be his talent and force of will that keep audiences on John Carter's side.
Notes one rival marketing chief, "This is the guy who made a movie about a fish and turned it into a hit."
5 Reasons to be Excited About John Carter: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/02/26/five- reasons-you-should-be-excited- about-disneys-john-carter/
Is Hugo A Win For 'Best VFX ART' ?
(/ibnlive.in.com)New Delhi: Martin Scorsese's 'Hugo' gave all other films a run for their money when it bagged five Oscars. Though it did not score above the other competitors for 'Best Picture' - it bagged the 'Best Visual Effects'. The men behind that achievement were Rob Legato, Joss Williams (absent), Ben Grossman and Alex Henning.
Here's the backstage interview with the winners -
Q. I have a question about the locomotive accident scene. I was, uhm, I read somewhere that that was actually good old handmade, uhm, visual effect and not using the graphics of computer graphics. Could you please tell me why you chose that route.
A. [Legato] We actually had a combination of the two. The last drawing was specifically designed for a physical model to crash through to imitate the Montparnasse famous black and white shot, and we added two more shots that were real traditional models and the rest of them were computer graphic models that were modeled to be able to be seen side by side with the real one and be, you know, indistinguishable from the two. [inaudible]
Scorsese's 'Hugo' won the Oscars for Best Visual Effects.
Oscars: Backstage interview for Best Visual Effects - 'Hugo'
A. [Grossmann] The reality is the question was: Why did we choose to use a model a modern day miniature instead of the newer modern technology digital. We used digital where it was appropriate and we used a model where it was appropriate too. And models and miniatures are classic techniques. Aside from being an homage to the subject of the movie, Georges Melies and his techniques, there's still the better solution you get when something looks real, and when you can do that, you should. And we did.
Q. Hi congratulations. In the category that was filled with a lot of really great computer animation and the flight motion capture excuse me how does it feel for you guys to have this tribute to Georges Melies to have used some of his actual techniques and to have won an Oscar for a blend of practical and computerized visual effects?
A. It was a particular thrill for us because a lot of what we did is very subtle things to be basically the same level of the art form of the other categories photography, and art direction, and all that it encompasses within a visual effects into the celebrating the life of those early pioneers. We chose on every occasion we could to use techniques that might have been used by Georges Melies himself, and some to great effect, and the subtle blends of all those things and what we were trying to achieve with a, hopefully, a degree of art that we would want to evaluate our portion of the program. So, that kind of is our drive and we are very proud of the fact that we got recognized for the art of it as much as the technology of it.
Q. Congratulations everybody.
A. Thank you.
Q. You won for visual effects and the marriage of visual effects and stereo. Talk about that marriage, and how this movie has helped to change that.
A. [Legato] I will start. I'll give it over to Ben. What we are trying to do with the 3D of the movie itself is to basically extend the art form of cinema by using the depth that you get and every shot was designed to take advantage of the depth that we would enhance the model of the story. So, every shot was literally made to be in 3D and designed to give you some depth or emotional response from it. Then the hard part is what these gentlemen had to do which is to actually perfect the 3D in a very complicated way, but I'll turn it over to them and they can explain.
A. [Grossmann] I don't think it needs to be explained too much better. Really, we had fun with it. And there's a lot of science behind it, but we try to take the science and distill it down to something that is so simple that it doesn't interfere with your instinctive creativity so you can hear Marty or Dante or Bob, and say what they feel the shot should emote. And then have the technology and the skills down to a simple direction, so that we can move in that direction effortlessly, I think, without encumbering ourselves with 10 pages of science and research; although, it's all still there. Alex can probably explain some of that.
A. [Legato] Alex will say something.
A. [Henning] Well, like they said, I think it's just about keeping it to be a story telling device. More than anything else and not just doing for the sake of doing it. I think that's what Marty really set out to do, and what his whole crew was after and by extension, us. And, uhm, evidently, it kind of worked, because here we are.
A. [Legato] And it's very complex, these guys are underselling to make it appear to be seamless.
A. [Henning] I was looking up Euclidian formulas quite often, and that's not a joke.
Q. So, you are up against these gigantic visual effects extravaganzas like TRANSFORMERS and even APES. And you guys won. I'm just wondering what you think this means about the state of visual effects and the appreciation of visual effects at least by the Academy?
A. My feeling is, and it's sort of when we finished the movie and how the movie was and the fact we are up against these incredibly technologically, beautifully done films that the blending of the art forms which is, in fact, what I believe cinema to be, which is the combination of all the music, sound effects, lighting, costumes, is all of that. There's a perfect blend and ours does not stick out but assists that and becomes part of the art form that the Academy sort of growing up with the visual effects world, and saying, we are now going to also appreciate the art of what you tried to achieve, what's literally on screen. Which is worthy of being onscreen. So, for us, you know, because there's other films that are fantastic and work is outrageous. They deserve to win just as much as we do, and if I were to put words in the mouth of the Academy, I would say that they judge them on the merits of art just as much as they do on technology produced.
A. [Grossmann] Those films are really amazing. All the other nominees in our category were stunning films that we would never expect to even be up against or stand a chance to compete against.
A. [Legato] We are kind of surprised to be up here.
A. [Henning] Yeah, it's a terrific honor.
Q. Being involved in special effects, can you talk about that participation and how that came about.
A. [Henning] That is an odd question.
A. [Grossmann] I got nominated. Yeah. I picked someone that was the backbone of what we had to do for the majority of visual effects here, and the structure that they had sort of around the world that allowed us to move quickly with more artists working in their hometowns which is something I've only come to appreciate just now is that we don't take people from the countries they are from and put them in Los Angeles. We allow them to sort of try and stay in their home countries and then use them as an artistic resource and network around the world, which was done with this German company, who put together a team of nearly 400 plus artists. Not to belittle any of the vendors, because the vendors the other vendors that were not picked also did some fantastic work on the show. So, I think really, it was just being able to take so many people and make them a community of artists that could work on this movie was really, really amazing.
A. [Legato] In particular, I have to say that every time we came up with a difficult shot, not to belittle any of the other people, I always said, "Give it to the Germans," because they really nailed it. And I think I've said that many times.
A. [Grossmann] It does happen, even when it wasn't the Germans we gave it to.
A. [Henning] Sometimes it's just guys with German last names.
Q. Thank you very much and congratulations.
Weta Misses Out On Oscar
(news.ninemsn.com.au - stuff.co.nz) New Zealand's Weta Workshop has missed out on claiming another Oscar.
Weta Digital's visual effects team of Daniel Barrett, R Christopher White, Joe Letteri and Dan Lemmon had been nominated for Rise of the Planet of the Apes. But the Academy Award went to Hugo shortly before 4pm, New Zealand time, today.
The entire Weta Digital team is in Los Angeles for the awards ceremony.
The 84th annual Academy Awards started in Los Angeles at 1pm New Zealand time.
As McKenzie hit the red carpet in Los Angeles members of his family still in Wellington were watching the Oscars live from Miramar.
Brothers Justin, 39, and Jonny, 27, and other family members are watching the ceremony on the big screen at the Roxy Cinema.
McKenzie's father spoke to his son on the phone before today's ceremony.
''It's a full on day,'' Peter McKenzie said.
''Everybody is highly excited," Peter McKenzie said.
Meanwhile, a separate Weta crew party is happening this afternoon at Foxglove on Queens Wharf in central Wellington.
The Official Channel of Industrial Light & Magic
VIDEO - Take a look: http://www.motiongraphicsspain.com/ industrial-light-magic/
The Oscars’ Performance-Capture Problem
(wired.com) Is it live or is it Memorex? Caesar is a digitally created chimp, based on a motion-capture performance by Andy Serkis, that appears with James Franco in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Image: Weta Digital/20th Century Fox
When you see Sunday’s Oscars telecast, note two glaring omissions.
One: The Adventures of Tintin was not nominated in the Best Animated Feature category.
Two: How did Andy Serkis not nab a Best Actor nomination for his performance as the super-intelligent chimp Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes?
In a word (or two): performance capture, also called motion capture.
Ever since the Lord of the Rings films, it seems the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences doesn’t quite know what to do with this technology, which translates an actor’s movements into the digital realm. Is it animation? Special effects? Trickery? Do performances have to be “live” to qualify as acting? And what exactly defines animation?
Adding to this controversy — and causing trouble for the Academy — is this inconvenient truth of how actors work today. Actors are appearing as digitized selves not only in TV and movies, but they are “acting” as videogame characters (either by providing voice work or having their body movements captured). Should voice work for a cartoon or videogame be Oscar-worthy? Does the Academy need to consider videogames as a subset of film? Or, perhaps, consider them a kind of TV? Other award-bestowing groups like the Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globes look at television performances. Why not have a category called “motion capture,” too?
Andy Serkis plays Captain Haddock, and Tintin is played by Jamie Bell, in The Adventures of Tintin.
Image: Weta Digital/Paramount Pictures
At least the Golden Globes did give Tintin an award for best animated film. Meanwhile, the Academy won’t, and not because the film didn’t qualify for the Best Animated Feature category. Oscars rules state that to qualify, “a significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than 75 percent of the picture’s running time.” Three motion-capture movies were OK’d — Tintin, Mars Needs Moms and Happy Feet Two — as well the live action/animation hybrid Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked. (The other hybrid, The Smurfs, was disqualified, but no great loss there.)
Looking at Tintin, clearly it’s as good as if not a superior film to the cartoons that were nominated: Kung Fu Panda 2, Puss in Boots, Rango, A Cat in Paris and Chico & Rita. So why did the Academy snub the Peter Jackson/Steven Spielberg juggernaut? I’d argue that most voters in the animation category probably find something intrinsically fake or cheap about motion-capture-generated cartoons, that they’re a shortcut compared to old-school, animate-each-frame-of-movement cartoons.
It’s an ironic shift in perception, because only a decade or two ago, traditionalists protested against the wave of digital animation Pixar was pushing as not being “true” animation, compared to old-fashioned, drawn “cel” animation. Now what defines animation clearly encompasses digital 3-D cartoons. Animation enhanced by motion capture gets no respect.
Now, on to Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Andy Serkis faced the same respect problem when he played Gollum in the Lord of the Rings films. (Serkis also played Tintin‘s Captain Haddock, but that performance was less noteworthy.) Everyone agreed his performance as Gollum was mesmerizing, but the Academy turned up its nose. Now, as Caesar the chimp, he’s as much an actor as James Franco, or even a better one. We don’t end up caring about Franco’s scientist Will Rodman. We care about Caesar. As Caesar, Serkis carries the film. To my mind, it doesn’t matter if we see part or all of Serkis’ “real” face or body, or if that performance isn’t “pure.” What matters is the performance.
Clearly, performance capture is redefining what is acting, just like, historically, other technologies have challenged our notion of acting and performance. Think how special makeup made the Tin Man “tin” in The Wizard of Oz. Or how prosthetics in The Elephant Man, The Mask or Mask enhanced performances. Or puppetry (Yoda) or costumes (Darth Vader or C-3PO). Here’s another example: As the serial killer Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs, Anthony Hopkins won a 1991 Best Actor Academy Award. It was a role he largely played behind glass, and behind a mask. Isn’t that much like playing behind the “mask” of digital enhancement?
Digital performances are simply another step in film’s ongoing evolution. No need to panic, Academy. They deserve to be recognized. If it makes an Oscar more palatable, give them their own category: “Best Performance-Capture Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.”
The only question is, when the Oscar is someday awarded for a motion-capture performance — and some day, it will be — does the actor accept the award solo? Or, accompanying him or her onstage, should there also be the team of animators, artists and technicians who made the entire performance possible?
Luckily, the Academy has time to revise its rules and get a second chance: Serkis will be reprising his role as Caesar in a Rise of the Planet of the Apes sequel.
Also see: How the Academy’s animation rules fight the progress of the art form - http://www.avclub.com/articles/soft-cels-how-the- academys-animation-rules- fight-t,69793/
Bringing Cloud Power to Hollywood Digital Effects
(datacenterknowledge.com)Hollywood digital effects specialist Digital Domain is using storage gear from Avere Systems to harness distributed computing nodes in a cloud rendering system.
Avere announced today that Digital Domain has implemented its FXT Series NAS appliances at a data center in Las Vegas to maximize IOPS (input/output operations per second) and minimize latency of its cloud-based infrastructure to ensure quick access to massive amounts of computer-generated imagery data.
Digital Domain is a visual effects and animation company that has delivered innovative visuals for more than 80 movies — including Titanic, Apollo 13, the Transformers trilogy and TRON: Legacy. When creating effects for movies the company uses rendering nodes in a Las Vegas colocation center that are accessed from Digital Domain servers in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Vancouver to convert into media frames. The company leverages Avere FXT products to reduce latency introduced by accessing data across such geographical distances.
“We couldn’t do this without Avere in the picture,” said Mike Thompson, Sr. Systems Engineer of Digital Domain. “The WAN latency would have killed the applications’ IOPS to the filers. We simply wouldn’t have been able to render frames remotely. In order to grow, we would have been forced to increase our data center footprint in cities with much higher costs for space and power.”
Avere’s FXT Series of appliances feature a tiered file system that organizes data across RAM, Flash, SAS and SATA tiers to effectively provide a 5:1 reduction in disks, power and rack space. The new FXT 3000 and FXT 4000 series hardware platforms are designed for even greater scalability and efficiency, doubling the amount of appliances that can be clustered to 50 and providing as much as 7 TB of RAM and hundreds of terabytes of SAS or SSD capacity on a single cluster.
“Colocation data center facilities can be enormously beneficial in helping companies such as Digital Domain leverage cloud computing and lower costs; however, without the ability to minimize the latency introduced by geography, the performance degradationis so great that it can’t be offset by cost reduction,” said Ron Bianchini, Avere President and CEO. “Colocating Avere appliances with compute nodes removes the latency penalty and opens up a new world of possibilities for companies seeking to build highly efficient global storage infrastructures without sacrificing application performance.”
‘Star Trek 2′ is Being Partially Shot in the IMAX Format
(screenrant.com)Just before the 2011 winter holiday break got fully underway, J.J. Abrams revealed that he had been giving serious consideration to shooting parts of his Star Trek sequel in the IMAX format. The sci-fi film’s casting thereafter dominated headlines during the buildup to the start of production in early 2012, leaving question about the movie’s technical attributes without a surefire answer (officially speaking).
While the recent spate of Star Trek 2 set photos has primarily re-ignited discussions about the identity of actor Benedict Cumberbatch’s villainous onscreen counterpart in Abrams’ movie, one of the set pics also confirmed that the new Trek installment is indeed being filmed in part via the use of IMAX cameras.
New Movie Trailer
Friends With Kids - Written and Directed By Jennifer Westfeldt.
FriendsWithKids.com
Ads by Google
For the definitive proof (tip of the hat to /Film for catching this) check out what’s right next to Cumberbatch’s right arm in the Star Trek 2 set pic below:
star trek sequel set photo stunt double benedict cumberbatchCLICK FOR LARGER VERSION
Here’s where things get even more interesting: since Star Trek 2 is going to be post-converted into 3D – rather than shot natively in the stereoscopic format – which suggests that fans could get to see the Trek sequel in regular 2D IMAX rather than IMAX 3D in theaters. In fact, the film might not even be released in IMAX 3D at all, given how tricky it will undoubtedly be to convert the portions of Star Trek 2 originally shot for true 65mm IMAX presentation into three dimensions (with excellent results, that is).
This also puts Star Trek 2 in a curious position as the movie is going to be a far more CGI heavy project than previously-released tentpole titles which were partly shot in the IMAX format (see: The Dark Knight, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol). Movies that mix live-action material with large amounts of CGI are known for suffering after they’ve been blown up to IMAX size, as the higher resolution and frame rate calls extra attention to the weaknesses in the digital effects. That could also ring true for the non-native IMAX portions of Star Trek 2.
Bryan Singer's Star Trek: Federation TV series
How do you prefer the crew of the Enterprise? In IMAX or 3D?
Cinephiles are already going to be hard-pressed to provide a tentative answer to the “IMAX or 3D?” issue which will be very much put to the test in 2012, thanks to highly-anticipated upcoming titles like The Dark Knight Rises and Prometheus promising to utilize the different technologies for a more effective viewing experience.
Star Trek 2 should only add more fuel to that ongoing debate, as it seems moviegoers could be able to view the sci-fi sequel in both 2D IMAX and regular 3D, so as to better compare and contrast how the formats affect the same film, and thus determine which one really does enrich the viewing process by offering a more immersive experience.
Look for Star Trek 2 to soar into theaters around the U.S. on May 17th, 2013.
The Rise And Fall Of Practical Effects In Cinema
(attackthefilm.com)This summer you are probably going to go to the movies to see some huge blockbuster movie packed with lots of explosions, flying robots, maybe a few CGI space ships and probably a monster or two. Unfortunately, all of these explosions, robots, space ships, and monsters – are completely fake.
You moron! Of course they are fake, it’s a movie! Yes yes… What I mean is that the effects are fake.
See, back in “the old days” we actually blew things up with real explosives, built robots, hired make-up artists, and made models of space ships that were bigger than you are. What we are missing from cinema today is a “how did they do that?” factor.
Think about it. Say you go to see the latest sci-fi film “Prometheus” this summer and there is a shot of a space craft flying through space. Are you going to just let it fly by and not let it affect you, or are you going to sit there for a minute trying to imagine how they did that? The answer is you are going to let it fly by and not phase you at all, not only because it’s been done before. But because it will have been done by computer animation. If you grew up during the 1950s through the 1990s, you will remember watching movies like Forbidden Planet, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Godzilla, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Alien, Blade Runner, Terminator, Apollo 13, Total Recall, Independence Day, and of course Star Wars, just to name a few. These movies are mentioned because most of the effects in these movies were actually filmed, they were not fabricated in a computer.
Remember that shot where the White House is blown up in Independence Day? Of course you do, it was awesome. It was also a model. They built a model of the White House, and then blew it up using real explosives. Win.
Space craft like the Star Destroyer, X-Wing, and Millennium Falcon from Star Wars were all models, and were actually filmed by real cameras and then combined with a star field background using film techniques and optical printers. The Discovery One space craft from 2001, the USS. Enterprise, the Nostromo, and all the flying cars in Blade Runner were done the same way.
You could really appreciate these effects when you saw them because you knew that these things were real, and you had no idea how they did it. Sure it was a model, but why did it shine like that, and why does it look so big? Even today when I watch one of these older films I respect the talent and time required to construct these awesome models, set up miles of explosives, and film these things in one take.
When I watch the Star Wars prequels, or the new Star Trek movie, or even special effects wonder Avatar. I understand that days of work went into making these amazing CGI models, animating them, and adding a bunch of lens flares to make it look more realistic. But I know they are fake, and I know exactly how it was done. Because of this I respect them less than if I saw a 6 foot model flying in front of me.
Unfortunately, it seems as though we may never again see space ships made from plastic models. Real explosions, practical effects like fake blood, squibs, miniature cities and people in rubber suits are becoming less and less used, with Hollywood opting for the cheaper and safer CGI alternative. One day we won’t even have actors, just CGI replicas.
Classic Quickie: The Special Effects of Darby O’Gill and the Little People
Motionographer Classic Quickie: Peter Ellenshaw’s special effects in Disney’s Darby O’Gill and the Little People (1959)
VIDEO - Take a look:
Part 1: Matte Paintings - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMW0j-Ywflk&feature=player_ embedded
Part 2: Forced Perspective - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYQofxCTyuA&feature=player_ embedded
Tintin & Friends - A Video Tribute to Those Snubbed by the 2012 Academy Awards
Now that all the winners of the 84th Annual Academy Awards have been revealed, with Hugo and The Artist both coming away with a decent handful of Oscars, there will likely be some dwelling on who really deserved the golden statue, but didn't receive one other than the chocolate replicas from Wolfgang Puck. However, a recent video made by JoBlo has decided to focus on all the movies and talents who weren't even honored with a nomination with Snubbed 2012 - An Oscar Tribute. Made in the same style as the In Memoriam tribute video of those lost each year in cinema, this film remembers the non-nominees. Watch!
For me, one of the biggest and most glaring exclusions this year has been The Adventures of Tintin for Best Animated Film, and I'm pretty sure Billy Crystal even shouted something about it during the traditional movie mash-up introduction at the beginning of the ceremony. There's some questionable inclusions like Attack the Block for a couple awards, but others such as Tilda Swinton for Best Actress in We Need to Talk About Kevin, Michael Fassbender for Best Actor in Shame and more love for Warrior and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo are right on the money. Plus, I like the tribute to Michael Giacchino for his Super 8 score, as a track from the film is the driving force of this video which really makes you feel sad that these films and talents weren't nominated for Oscars.
VIDEO - Take a look: http://www.firstshowing.net/2012/see-a-video-tribute-to- those-snubbed-by-the-2012- academy-awards/
No comments:
Post a Comment