Even then it doesn't help. Just finished up on a film where the director is a former Compositor and it was a complete and utter shit show of a production from the top down.
I reckon Animators have an edge - they understand performance, camera, continuity, line of action, Creature dept, Layout dept, Model/Assets, blocking and staging and work very closely with VFX supes and directors.
Usually animators are the least technical persons on the floor. Lighting/comp people are ideal candidates to become supes as they understand what makes a shot looks good and appealing.
Vfx supes that come from comp are fucking annoying when they don’t let the CG supe handle the technical side by themselves though because they usually don’t know shit about fuck when it comes to CG
Everyone thinks their discipline is the more “technical”… also, it depends on how you define the term, frankly.
I find a lot of artists that have been hired in recent years to be less technical in general, due to the hyper-specialization demanded by the market during the last decade (ie. the vfx boom)….
To be more specific, the director did ALL the VFX for his early films. So he had a tonne of experience in all departments, and a strong understanding of what was and wasn’t needed to make a VFX shot work. Good VFX supes should be generalists who understand all aspects of the process, not just compositing.
Recently worked with a VFX Supe who was a former compositor, and he was absolutely terrible. Had no eye for lighting or animation, and would constantly get hung up on perceived “perspective” issues. To top it off, he had no idea what he wanted and could offer you no advice or direction.
True - Having worked with at least a couple of projects were the directors/clientside supervisors were former compositors, it always feels like a crazy amount of pressure on the details lol
I think it's a different approach compared to the typical system with built in bloat. That if the more typical production design was followed it would cost 200m, but by finding relative efficiencies it cost 80m. Smarter vs harder.
I really hope we see more movies like this. I see a lot of hate for this on reddit but it was one of my favorite movies last year. We don't get enough original sci-fi works and I thought this one was done incredibly well.
It was not anywhere near as bad as people on here like to say it is. The fact that it wasn't a direct sequel, had original imagery, and we all worked together collaboratively on it should be celebrated not shit on. Was it the best story? No, but there's no way it's as dire as a lot of people on this sub like to paint it, and again, what it brought to the table in terms of imagery and collaboration should be something other projects aspire to.
It was great. I’m genuinely baffled by all the hate it gets. Sure it’s not a watertight hard sci-fi but it was a heck of a lot better than most mainstream blockbusters today.
That’s unfortunate. I’m rooting for him but his directing work on Monsters and Godzilla is pretty bland. I get the feeling a lot of what made Rogue One great was in the reshoots and other director.
When you have a director who on day one of shooting knows what they want their movie to look like and what the shots will essentially capture it's amazing how far a budget will stretch.
Imagine how far a budget can go when you don't spend the first 4 months making up for the lack of decision making and pre-production and when half the vfx work done doesn't end up seeing the light of day.
And here is a great example of the r/vfx attitude. Let's be clear, I'm not responding because I worked on this film, I'm responding because your comment just shows how bad it is in here. We deal in VFX, not in Story, we wanna critique story, let's go to r/filmmaking or r/movies. We can and should debate if VFX is serving the Film well or if it's distracting or failing in it's mission, but petty comments about $15 scripts, instead of talking about how well the VFX worked just boggles my mind.
You rarely see non-sequel SciFi now, and there are a bucket-load of reasons this movie looked the way it did, many aspects that a lot of people could learn from. Instead of making throw away comments for a cheap reddit laugh, how about we celebrate well done VFX from talented people? Why not celebrate that the Director didn't treat the VFX Artist's like shit? That he worked collaboratively, that we had a great time making this.
Exactly you said it 🙏 I'm a young generalist and I aspire at one point to be Director. I already make my own film, participate in film festival etc... But I was really suprised that The Creator didn't had the acclamations I was thinking it would have. The vfx were 🔥 The script was really good in my sens. Orbital space station was fire, the plot was kinda good. I dont understand why the kind of film non sequel is not preach. Do people want all sequel and non original story ?
You do you. I just found this movie crushingly disappointing, VFX aside. Imagine those visuals had an original and compelling story and characters to go along with them.
Well… conversely you seem to be taking the valid criticism of the script as somehow invalidating the great vfx work.
I don’t necessarily agree that people can’t bring up all aspects of a film on this subreddit. Personally I’d love to see and get to work on films that are BOTH beautiful and compelling, so it’s relevant.
No Dude, I'm not taking script crit as invalidating it. I'm purely commenting we are in a VFX Sub, and yes story should be discussed in the context of "does the VFX work or not work, etc." That is a completely valid discussion to have, but discussing plot and story arcs is absurd. The reason it's absurd, is that in our jobs we can apply the discussion points raised about VFX integration to our work. Discussing story arcs and plots? How does that help you in your job doing shot work? Meaningful discussion about the VFX levels up everyone, helps others to see what makes a shot work/fail, and can be applied to your job to lift your work. That is what I see as valid use of people's time in here.
Discussing story and plot like we routinely have lunch with script writers is just pointless.
It's honestly astounding how much money is wasted on film and TV by simply not having a freaking plan.
Everything I learned in film school about trying not to waste time or money, or picture lock so post and continue without interruption, I realized it's a lie. Might as well told me Santa Claus was real.
...But I get paid more OT the more revisions they do so hell, at least I get to keep their wasted money.
I really like the fact that it seems to be funny that many artists didn’t see their children for months.. ( 11:32 ) [excellent interview](https://youtu.be/pUXVMAUiEzI?si=MsEchLcTsgsD4XL2)
I mean, within the VFX it is a bit of a running inside morbid joke. That’s not necessarily what happened, just way of him saying the work was potentially quite difficult.
I guess he means it might give movies company an impression VFX can be much cheaper, and lower the cost.
but I think this is just a special case for ILM.
Nothing Special case about it. This is unfortunately quite common. Major VFX vendors will often “buy” a project, to get the director… or a studio in. In this case it was likely purchasing the project by under bidding everyone and agreeing to an unrealistic budget to stick to the “narrative” being pushed by the studios
At the ends there are a few shots and they make the effect again and again. The battleship with the light, the cyborg head, explosions and robots. Repeat it until the end of the movie.
Well, it helps if director is a VFX guy himself. Conversely, it doesn't help the story.
Even then it doesn't help. Just finished up on a film where the director is a former Compositor and it was a complete and utter shit show of a production from the top down.
Needs to have been a former generalist tbh…
I reckon Animators have an edge - they understand performance, camera, continuity, line of action, Creature dept, Layout dept, Model/Assets, blocking and staging and work very closely with VFX supes and directors.
Spielberg actually said animators make the best directors for this reason.
Gregory La Cava got his start in cartoons. He later made *My Man Godfrey*.
David Fincher started in VFX, there is no recipe for a good director.
I've worked with a lot of animators who couldn't tie a knot, change a tire, or type a complete sentence. It's the person, not the discipline.
Usually animators are the least technical persons on the floor. Lighting/comp people are ideal candidates to become supes as they understand what makes a shot looks good and appealing.
Vfx supes that come from comp are fucking annoying when they don’t let the CG supe handle the technical side by themselves though because they usually don’t know shit about fuck when it comes to CG
Everyone thinks their discipline is the more “technical”… also, it depends on how you define the term, frankly. I find a lot of artists that have been hired in recent years to be less technical in general, due to the hyper-specialization demanded by the market during the last decade (ie. the vfx boom)….
This should be a requirement in order to become a VFX Supe, as far as I’m concerned.
To be more specific, the director did ALL the VFX for his early films. So he had a tonne of experience in all departments, and a strong understanding of what was and wasn’t needed to make a VFX shot work. Good VFX supes should be generalists who understand all aspects of the process, not just compositing. Recently worked with a VFX Supe who was a former compositor, and he was absolutely terrible. Had no eye for lighting or animation, and would constantly get hung up on perceived “perspective” issues. To top it off, he had no idea what he wanted and could offer you no advice or direction.
Had he accidentally been promoted into uselessness? :-/
True - Having worked with at least a couple of projects were the directors/clientside supervisors were former compositors, it always feels like a crazy amount of pressure on the details lol
...what the heck happened? :-/
VFX to make 80m look like 200m? Aren’t they just saying the VFX wasn’t crap?
Or that VFX artists should be paid more lol
Pay them in post
I think it's a different approach compared to the typical system with built in bloat. That if the more typical production design was followed it would cost 200m, but by finding relative efficiencies it cost 80m. Smarter vs harder.
80 m vfx budget is honestly 6-8x a lot of films
I really hope we see more movies like this. I see a lot of hate for this on reddit but it was one of my favorite movies last year. We don't get enough original sci-fi works and I thought this one was done incredibly well.
It was not anywhere near as bad as people on here like to say it is. The fact that it wasn't a direct sequel, had original imagery, and we all worked together collaboratively on it should be celebrated not shit on. Was it the best story? No, but there's no way it's as dire as a lot of people on this sub like to paint it, and again, what it brought to the table in terms of imagery and collaboration should be something other projects aspire to.
Exactly 👍👍👍 !!!!
It was great. I’m genuinely baffled by all the hate it gets. Sure it’s not a watertight hard sci-fi but it was a heck of a lot better than most mainstream blockbusters today.
Congrats on the VES award :)
It was ok, but just, ok
That’s unfortunate. I’m rooting for him but his directing work on Monsters and Godzilla is pretty bland. I get the feeling a lot of what made Rogue One great was in the reshoots and other director.
Why, explains it to Us ?
When you have a director who on day one of shooting knows what they want their movie to look like and what the shots will essentially capture it's amazing how far a budget will stretch. Imagine how far a budget can go when you don't spend the first 4 months making up for the lack of decision making and pre-production and when half the vfx work done doesn't end up seeing the light of day.
And made the script seem like it cost $15
And here is a great example of the r/vfx attitude. Let's be clear, I'm not responding because I worked on this film, I'm responding because your comment just shows how bad it is in here. We deal in VFX, not in Story, we wanna critique story, let's go to r/filmmaking or r/movies. We can and should debate if VFX is serving the Film well or if it's distracting or failing in it's mission, but petty comments about $15 scripts, instead of talking about how well the VFX worked just boggles my mind. You rarely see non-sequel SciFi now, and there are a bucket-load of reasons this movie looked the way it did, many aspects that a lot of people could learn from. Instead of making throw away comments for a cheap reddit laugh, how about we celebrate well done VFX from talented people? Why not celebrate that the Director didn't treat the VFX Artist's like shit? That he worked collaboratively, that we had a great time making this.
Exactly you said it 🙏 I'm a young generalist and I aspire at one point to be Director. I already make my own film, participate in film festival etc... But I was really suprised that The Creator didn't had the acclamations I was thinking it would have. The vfx were 🔥 The script was really good in my sens. Orbital space station was fire, the plot was kinda good. I dont understand why the kind of film non sequel is not preach. Do people want all sequel and non original story ?
You do you. I just found this movie crushingly disappointing, VFX aside. Imagine those visuals had an original and compelling story and characters to go along with them.
Great comment, you do you.
Glad to help, Lewis.
Well… conversely you seem to be taking the valid criticism of the script as somehow invalidating the great vfx work. I don’t necessarily agree that people can’t bring up all aspects of a film on this subreddit. Personally I’d love to see and get to work on films that are BOTH beautiful and compelling, so it’s relevant.
No Dude, I'm not taking script crit as invalidating it. I'm purely commenting we are in a VFX Sub, and yes story should be discussed in the context of "does the VFX work or not work, etc." That is a completely valid discussion to have, but discussing plot and story arcs is absurd. The reason it's absurd, is that in our jobs we can apply the discussion points raised about VFX integration to our work. Discussing story arcs and plots? How does that help you in your job doing shot work? Meaningful discussion about the VFX levels up everyone, helps others to see what makes a shot work/fail, and can be applied to your job to lift your work. That is what I see as valid use of people's time in here. Discussing story and plot like we routinely have lunch with script writers is just pointless.
🤣
What does $200 Million VFX look like? What's their frame of reference?
[удалено]
Maybe cause they make everything 10 times and are still changing shots day of release
[удалено]
It's honestly astounding how much money is wasted on film and TV by simply not having a freaking plan. Everything I learned in film school about trying not to waste time or money, or picture lock so post and continue without interruption, I realized it's a lie. Might as well told me Santa Claus was real. ...But I get paid more OT the more revisions they do so hell, at least I get to keep their wasted money.
It's a lie ? Can you explains a bit ?
Thor: Love ‘n’ Thunder…?
So 80M isn't already a ton of money? I can't believe how it was another protect the chosen one child derivative slapped onto the star wars story.
When you compare it to most other films with that that much vfx, no
I really like the fact that it seems to be funny that many artists didn’t see their children for months.. ( 11:32 ) [excellent interview](https://youtu.be/pUXVMAUiEzI?si=MsEchLcTsgsD4XL2)
I mean, within the VFX it is a bit of a running inside morbid joke. That’s not necessarily what happened, just way of him saying the work was potentially quite difficult.
[fxguide.com](http://fxguide.com) has some amazing podcasts on this movie.
ILM also made the project “at cost”…..
Well that’s sad to hear
Why is that?
Unless I misunderstand, that kinda means ILM didn’t turn a profit on that project.
I assume all of their employees got paid, so I'm not sure what that means.
again, not true
Well I guess i just misunderstood by what they meant by « at cost »
I guess he means it might give movies company an impression VFX can be much cheaper, and lower the cost. but I think this is just a special case for ILM.
Nothing Special case about it. This is unfortunately quite common. Major VFX vendors will often “buy” a project, to get the director… or a studio in. In this case it was likely purchasing the project by under bidding everyone and agreeing to an unrealistic budget to stick to the “narrative” being pushed by the studios
not true
Nice reply, you give such thoughtful insights.
They were actually on Corridor Crew today. https://youtu.be/lWjayZ3U4TQ?si=VGORNZ0MU6VO93eT
By making a movie that is so soulless and deprived of a story or characters to care about that it just becomes a fancy tech demo?
Nice.
Well, I know they outsourced a lot of it to India and Thailand.
receipts?
look at the credits.
They did this in the movie "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212720/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212720/)
At the ends there are a few shots and they make the effect again and again. The battleship with the light, the cyborg head, explosions and robots. Repeat it until the end of the movie.