No, there is another: Other vfx companies and general discussion thread

Look, I'm not even an Academy member, and to be honest, I think I'd definitely have voted for The Golden Compass, because I really think it had the best effects in the context of the narrative, of all of the movies nominated. I'm not really sure whether there's any requirement that the people who actually vote should have to watch the whole movie. And, being the Academy, I'm also not very sure how much industry politics plays a factor in the decision. It could even come down to who spends more in those "For Your Consideration" ads in Variety and other industry publications.

But, to be honest, I do think it makes sense to choose The Golden Compass on the basis of how effective the effects were in creating a unique and compelling world that totally transported you away for 2+ hours. Neither of the other 2 movies were really effective in that regard, IMHO.

 

But most of the Academy doesn't even see the effects within the context of the plot (the plot shouldn't have anything to do with this anyways), they see the clips that the film's producers give them.

 

Do we know this for a fact? I don't dispute that they may not be required to watch anything more than the clips they're given, but what happens if they happened to have watched the movie, regardless?

 

Then they may be influenced on whether they like the movie or not, not necessarily only on the quality of the effects.

 

But does the Academy actually prohibit them from watching the whole movie if they feel like it? And how would such a prohibition be enforced? I don't think it could be done.

 

No, they don't. In fact, I belive it is encouraged.

 

Here's is just one of the reasons why ILM is still #1:

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/index.html

Go to Episode 4 > The Special Edition > clonk "An Expanded Universe."


Pretty amazing stuff,IMHO.

 

No, the Academy doesn't force or make it mandatory for the members to see the films (though it's encouraged). As such you might have the situation in VFX where most members have not seen the nominated films simply because some big VFX movies are either bombs or simply the kind of movie the older membership wouldn't be interested in seeing. Also the Academy rules on VFX are pretty vague, which as mentioned, can be interpreted as choose the movie you like the most in the VFX category.

The way the 3 nominees are chosen is this:

 

I've got 2 questions for you guys.

1. Is there any CGI in the latest Rambo installment? At IMDB not even a special effects company is listed. I think, despite Stallones statements against CGI, that they used some, am I right?

2. How did ILM create Dagobah seen in the deleted scene of Episode III? Was this full CG, miniatures, or a set (like in TESB) with digital set extensions?

Thank you in advance!

 

1. Is there any CGI in the latest Rambo installment? At IMDB not even a special effects company is listed. I think, despite Stallones statements against CGI, that they used some, am I right?

2. How did ILM create Dagobah seen in the deleted scene of Episode III? Was this full CG, miniatures, or a set (like in TESB) with digital set extensions?

1. There was a ton of CG in Rambo 4 for most of the gore, massacre and general mayhem. The main facility involved was Worldwide FX in Bulgaria:

Worldwide FX

2. Dagobah in Ep. 3 is a miniature.

 

I thought ILM did a great job on Iron Man, though I know it's a shared credit.

 

Although they were the main provider. But they (and the other facilities) did a fantastic job on the VFX.

 

ILM did some tremendous work on Crystal Skull. And I assume they didn't farm any of it out to other companies. SPOILER BELOW...















I thought the final spectacular shot of the ship and the destruction of the Kingdom was once of the greatest shots in any of the Indy films.

And the mushroom cloud shot was amazing.

 

Yes, ILM was the ony provider, except for Kerner Optical doing the miniature work, but since they're the old model shop anyway, it's about the same thing ;-).

Stan Winston Studios handled some of the physical stuff.

 

ILM is still leading the way. It's nice to see some other effects houses like Weta rising to the challenge.

 

The effects in KOTCS were amazing.

 

It would be my guess, based on what he's done in the past, that Stan Winston Studios was given the task of creating the physical version of the Crystal Skull itself.

That is one heck of a convincing prop.

 

I think SWS did the mummies but they might have also been involved in some of the practical gags in the temple.

 

they did a great job erasing all the stunt rigging and wiring that was used to secure Harrison for the motorcycle stuff

 

I'm unlocking this so we have a place to discuss other vfx companies besides ILM and how their work compares and contrasts to ILM's. What type of methods they use, vfx news, and so on.
This is a place to discuss specific examples and ask questions about the industry at large. The ILM thread is for ILM-centric news and info.

So here we go.

 

Interesting read: http://www.lightsabre.co.uk/Interviews/rickmccalluminterviewpartone.htm

Quote:
"Q ? Yeah, because I think a lot of people misconstrue the fact that Lucasfilm is an independent film company.

A ? It is, I mean we?re a film company with about 1800 people but there?s only five of us in the film division of the company. The rest is ILM, which is a client based company, we?ve got Skywalker Sound which is a client based company and those two companies are in motion and in existence to push the limits of sound and visual effects so that they?ll be ready when we?re ready to make a film. And we want other people to pay for that, to keep them going and living and making a life and having an incredible thing, but we?re still 50 or 60% of the total film effects business worldwide."

I have two questions:
1. Only 5 persons of Lucasfilm are in the film division? Am I misunderstanding something?
2. ILM still 50-60 % of worldwide film effects business? The interview is from 2007. I remember an article, where it was stated, that ILM was about 75%.
So how do they measure such things. I mean, it's just numbers, but regarding the money or number of vfx-shots provided in a year, it would be interesting to see how certain companies grow or shrink.
For example I would think that WETA has some kind of a downfall since King Kong, whereas Digital Domain is growing the last 2 or 3 years.
It will be interesting if ILM provides effects for the live action star wars serien and how they will manage it so that they don't have to turn down big movies because they don't have the ressources anymore.

 

Most companies would kill to have 50-60% of any given market. That's analogous to Microsoft's software dominance.

Except that ILM doesn't suck.

 

1.

No you're not misunderstaning anything. The thing is Rick (and article) doesn't explain this very well, and the reorganization ofhe Lucas companies in recent years makes this a bit confusing. Basically Lucafilm can refer to 2 things: the whole of the Lucas companies, especially since in the last reorganization all companies were brought under the Lucasfilm banner, including the disolution of Lucas Digital.

The second use is to Lucasfilm Ltd. which is the production company that develops projects (film, TV, etc.). It's like sa Imagine Entertainment for Ron Howard, Castle Rock with Rob Reiner and Amblin with Spielberg.

So in this case McCalum is refering to the production company, so yes 5 people in film production sounds about right. After all the only project in production is Red Tails.

2.

75%?!?!? Maybe only back in the early 80s when there were just a handful of VFX studios (I'm not counting studio teams or teams specifically assembled just for one project).

Nowadays it would be hard for any studio to have a portion of the worldwide business (which justmeans Hollywood movies) into the double digits regardless how you measure it: number of shots, number of projects, budget, etc. And of this only the solid number is number of projects. Getting number of shots is difficult to get for all projects.

Currently I would guess Imageworks is the biggest simply because they have the backing of a huge company and get a lot of projects every year. I wouldn't call Weta on the way down, they are a bigcompany though they woron a smaller number of projects but some of those are among the biggest of the year, including Avatar this year. DD at one point seemed to be doing less film projects but they have consistenly done a ton of TV commercials and music videos and they have the Tron sequel next year.

As far as the Star Wars TV series remember that they have more capacity, especially with Lucasfilm Animation in Singapore which has helped with VFX work for films, includings Transformers.

 

So 5 people in film production sounds right? But Indy IV was in production?
Generally speaking, the numbers of people involved in film producction increases when there's a shift from pre-production to principal photography?
Malducin, do you know how many people at Lucasfilm work approximately in film production when a film like the prequels, Indy IV or Red Tails wraps pre-production and starts shooting. Are people like David Tattersall Lucasfilm employes or do they belong to a Fox production company?

Was McCallum exaggerating when he spoke of ILM 50-60 % of worldwide film effects business in 2007?



I didn't know that Lucasfilm Animation did work for Transformers (which part by the way?). What was the reason for this decision?
What other films did they work on?

You really think Imageworks is right now the biggest? I mean ILM has a large number of high profile films this year, with Avatar still to come (ok, not the main provider here). Which big films did Imageworks work on this year? According to IMDB which I know is not allways trustworthy Imageworks did not have such a great slate this year.

Sorry if I ask so many questions, but I always appreciate your expert-answers!!!

 

McCallum exaggerating? Never.....ever........except often.