Research in Visual Effects Practice & Technology

I am writing a monograph based on a course I taught in the previous century at NYU.  Maybe it will never get done (likely) or maybe it will be self-published on the internet (also likely) or maybe it will even become a book.  Who knows.  But since things will be written down, it makes sense to try and research it and see if I know what I am talking about.

The course/book is a study guide to visual effects, talking about the use of the different technologies as they evolved and in context.  Its about other things as well related to animation and visual effects.  I have lots of eccentric opinions and colorful anecdotes, some of which may even be true.  It turns out a lot of what I have picked up over the years is highly debatable or at least there are other stories out there.  

What kind of things am I talking about?  Here are two examples.  One of the great scenes in film from 1949 is the Ferris wheel meeting between Harry Lime and Holly Martins in The Third Man.  Another is a big chunk of the start of Lost Horizon that takes place in what is supposed to be a DC-2 over the Himalayas.  In both cases, I am pretty sure they built a set of the interior that would make it easier to shoot, sent a photographer out to shoot some plates, and then shot the hero sequences using (probably) rear screen projection of the exterior footage. In the latter case, shooting in a real DC-2 high over the mountains would be cramped, noisy, cold and difficult to light. Your actors would hate you and besides you would have to do the sound again later. So I am pretty comfortable that something like I describe here happened.  But it would be nice to know.

The Third Man and Lost Horizon are famous films and I may be able to find a book or article about production and it may have what I need. There may also still exist an actual shooting script from the production which is a very different thing from what purports to be scripts on the Internet.  My hope was that there would be Am. Cinematographer articles is not working out because it was only in the mid-late 70s that Am Cine started doing articles on things like this.  There may be old Cinefex's that go over classic films.  The Academy Library has a great collection of "oral histories" which are available.  They have interviewed a lot of interesting people over the years.  That is lucky because most of the people who worked on these films are no longer with us.

My guess is that there is no general solution, but just a lot of research to do in different places for the different films.  5 Million Years to Earth (the Hammer version) will not have the same sort of sources as Fantastic Voyage.  So I think I just have to tough it out, baby.  In some cases, I am just going to have to rely on surmise and deduction and document it as that.

I think this is going to take years.

Underbidding in Visual Effects: Coercion, Communication and Trust

In our previous two discussions of “underbidding in visual effects” (here and here) we discussed the reasons why a facility might intentionally underbid (for example, to drive a competitor out of business) and we discussed why a facility might underbid by mistake. But we have only scratched the surface of what the glamourous and rewarding motion picture industry means by underbidding in visual effects.

The first thing to realize is that most of the time the label of underbidding is applied retrospectively to a job. Oh, something went wrong, it must have been underbid. For example, suppose the client turns out to be an asshole who says one thing but wants another but doesn't want to pay for it. Then if you are in a big fight with this client, it can be said that you underbid the project, because frankly it wasnt worth the trouble to deal with that asshole at the rate you are charging. In that circumstance, you may say that you underbid the project, it is a judgment by the facility after the fact.

But lets take another scenario. Lets say that the client is being unreasonable, doesn't know what they want, change their mind constantly, yet wants more and more but doesnt want to pay for it and wants you to pay for it. Then the client will want to pin the blame on the facility and will say that ha, you were incompetent, you underbid the project and therefore it is your responsibility to bend over and do whatever the client wants.

There are also a number of types of underbidding by coercion.

Here are two case studies from the 1990s in which the names have been changed to protect the guilty.

In scenario #1, a large motion picture studio has built a very expensive visual effects studio on their lot in order to keep all that big money spent on visual effects internally. A large special effects project is scheduled and the director, who is known to be insanely difficult, wants a deal on the visual effects in order to use the on-lot facility. He refuses to do the picture unless he gets a deal, and the facility, therefore does make a deal, they agree to do a certain number of shots for a fixed amount. That was a big mistake because the director had every intention of packing as much into that limited number of shots as he could in order to ream the effects studio a new asshole and basically help finance his film by making the vfx studio lose money. And thats what happened, after a lot of screaming, the vfx studio did as they were told and lost their shirt on it. But since it was a part of this larger studio, that financed the film, it was really the studio that got fucked but blamed the vfx studio. This project was “underbid”.

Keep in mind, the last thing a producer or director wants to do is to use an in-house effects facility.  As long as the vfx is outside the studio, then the director and producer have complete control.  But when it is in-house, then studio politics come into play, on both sides.   You get to complain if the facility is too expensive or too slow or not doing the quality of work that you want, but they get to complain too.  That you change your mind, that you want them to work for free and so forth.  They are inside the kimono, inside the sacred square, they know where some of the skeletons are buried and they can fight back.  So you would much prefer to work with an established reliable off-lot facility that you have relations with, that you have worked with before.   And from the facility point of view, working with an in-house film means that they have to navigate all the forces that are applied to them from the studio to lower prices, etc, that is outside of your judgment of how much time and money it should cost.  In other words, you are being coerced. 

In scenario #2, a director has a limited amount of money for their film, and awards it to a very competent smaller effects studio, very little money very little time. This was basically a favor by the vfx studio for the director, but they also wanted to do this movie, so it was mutual.  In other words, the director did not have enough money but the vfx studio offered to do what they could for the money available and the director promised to work with them to get it all done.  But the director had every intention of demanding the most expensive work no matter how long it took, and fucked the effects facility as hard as he could. Then the studio pulled the job and gave it to ILM, forcing ILM to manage the director because they, the studio, did not have the balls to do so. The movie did come out and was a big success. The original vfx studio was no doubt damaged by this bullshit, none of which was their fault. When ILM did the work, they charged an arm and a leg, why not? And the studio that made a huge amount of money on the film, it was a big hit, had not forgiven ILM 10 years later. 10 years later they were still complaining that ILM had charged them real money for a movie that was in trouble because of the choices that the director and the studio had made. Oh yes, it goes without saying, that when ILM was involved, the studio found the time and the money needed, the time and money that was not available when the little vfx studio was involved.

So what is the real problem here? Is it underbidding by the VFX studio? No, I dont think so. Sure thats part of the problem. But maybe the real problem is incredibly difficult clients who want the world for nothing combined with asshole visual effects studios who are always trying to undercut each other and put each other out of business, in a business that is fundamentally a work-for-hire production service one the facility can not be profitable most of the time anyway.

And why can't visual effects be profitable? That is a topic for another time.

The Visual Effects Bakeoff for 2013

Tonight is the so-called Bakeoff  at the Academy for the Visual Effects nominations. The screening is for the Visual Effects subsection but anyone can attend, space permitting. Ten minutes of each film under consideration is shown, there is a question and answer period which guests can only listen to, and then the subsection members vote on which films will be nominated for visual effects.  This is a very long, very loud night.  I find it annoying but useful.

It is always nice to have an opportunity to see old friends.   And I don't really mind seeing the others as well.  

This year Gravity is going to win the Academy Award.   I have foreseen it with my tremendously expanded mental powers and the use of the esoteric knowledge.

The films which will be screened tonight, in no particular order, are

1. Gravity
2. The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug
3. Pacific Rim
4. Star Trek Into Darkness
5. Iron Man 3
6. World War Z
7. Oblivion
8. Elysium
9. The Lone Ranger
10. Thor: The Dark World

This is an interesting list. Not necessarily any great films here, but certainly a few entertaining ones. I have seen worse years.

Obviously everyone wants to win. But winning is very difficult so getting a nomination is much more likely and is also incredibly valuable to one's career. If one is trying to be an effects supervisor, to be nominated for an Academy Award is a big deal and explains some of the politics around who gets to be one of the "four" who are selected by the producer to be in consideration.

There is almost always a surprise that comes from seeing ten minutes from all these films at one time, or perhaps from the questions and answers from the effects team. But in advance of the screening, here is my take on why this is a very important year.

1. This is the year of solid state lighting.

This is the first year that the revolution in solid state lighting completely takes over on stage production in visual effects. Its been coming for a while, and many of the ideas are quite old, but the availability of arrays of LED's at reasonable prices has enabled this in a major way. Using film as a projection map was never very flexible, and using normal wheat lights would generate too much heat to be very practical. But using arrays of solid state lights to project environments brings a whole new level of sophistication to the "blue screen" plate photography process.  Now we can integrate live action photography into the visual effects, and visual effects into live action photography, with a whole new level of sophistication and accuracy.

Historical footnote: wheat lights used to be a significant part of model creation. The Bladerunner pyramid buildings, such as the Tyrell Headquarters, were models made with a lot of wheat lights. I saw the famous Las Vegas model made for One From the Heart years ago. Supposedy the lights on the thing either used to blow out the power supplies or melt the thing down from all the heat that the lights emitted.   Although one could and did build grids of this thing, and one could control them with computers, I doubt it was done much.  It just wan't practical.   LED's are now practical and there are lots of good components around to control them.  And you wont have to wait all the time to replace the damn little lights as they burn out.

A selection of wheat lamps from Bladerunner and EEG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_lamp

2. This is the second part of the synthetic human breakout

The first element of the breakout was "Benjamin Button". This is the second. There may have to be a third before the tsunami of shit emerges of computer generated lead actors, or this may be sufficient. I am not sure, perhaps I will have an opinion after tonight.

3. Gravity wins and was in part distinguished by its effects

The award is for the film where the visual effects most support the movie and the story.  It is not for the best visual effects per se.  The classic example of that, for me, was the first Matrix movie which was truly enhanced by the visual effects.

For the second year in a row, a movie is distinguished and made notable by its visual effects (last year was Life of Pi). I do not know if this is a good thing or not, but its probably not a bad thing. If visual effects is to be worth all the money, this is a useful thing to have happen. If visual effects people are to rise above being considered commodities, having work that distinguishes themselves and is not just like everyone else's is also helpful.

4. American dominance of this award is completely over

This has been coming for a while.  American companies no longer dominate this award.   No one else beyond ILM or Sony is left except for maybe Digital Domain (I do not understand their status).  This has been true for quite a while now, but this year sets the pattern, I think.   I am less certain what this means for the nationality of the effects supervisor, however.  The award goes to the four people identified by the producer, but the facility that did the work also gets credit in practice.  Every year some films will be done at ILM or SONY, but the vast majority of effects will be done at facilities in London, New Zealand and Canada.

5. The nominations are ...

I think that Gravity and The Hobbit will be nominated.   I am rooting for Pacific Rim to be nominated because I think it is important to have giant mutated sea monsters in cinema from a content point of view.    

I will report back what happens.

Always Look on the Bright Side of Subsidies

Part 3 of a series.

When Brian was nailed to the cross in the 1st century Roman province of Judea, a thief is alleged to have told him to cheer up, and remember to "always look on the bright side of life".

With that thought in mind, lets review some of the effects, or affects as it may be, of international subsidies and tax exemptions on the industry of visual effects and try to find our silver lining. Sure, the American industry has been crushed and there is massive unemployment in this country and misery. But its not all bad. Here are a few ideas I have come up with and submit for your consideration why this might have some "socially positive" aspects.

1. The tax exemptions and subsidies may result in better films.

It is possible that many of these movies that are made under this system are better because of these subsidies and tax exemptions. Often movies want more visual effects than they can afford. With subsidies, which result in a lower price for the effects, it is possible that producers choose to spend the same amount of money as before but get more work for their money. In the rare case where visual effects actually contribute to the quality of the film instead of being merely stupid, this could result in a better film. To the extent that you believe that the cinema has a role to play in our culture and civilization, then certainly having better films is good for all of us.

2. The tax exemptions and subsidies may result in more films.

The same argument as above but elaborated to include that some films which may not be completely financed and would not ordinarily be made, but under this system do get made either because the discount given to effects encourages the investors to believe that the film is less of a risk, or maybe just lowers the cost of the effects element sufficiently to make the entire budget achievable. In any case, under this scenario, we would get some films that otherwise we would not see at all under the free market, and if the films are good, then we all, theoretically, benefit.

3.Through adversity, character and moral fiber is enhanced.

How lucky are the poor for they will inherit the kingdom of heaven!   Of course they will be dead by then, as I understand the way this works, but still its something to look forward to.  They will have an opportunity before that to learn new skills and work in new industries!  This is America so anything could happen.  They could learn to clean out old sewage lines while their wife and children work in under-regulated garment production, showing great initiative by working 12 hours a day 7 days a week for less than minimum wage.  You know, like minority groups in this country have to do.  Their children could drop out of school and help support their parents by programming stupid web pages for the Internet.  Anything could happen because this is America and both initiative and hard work are ALWAYS rewarded, I hear.

4. Relentlessly competitive, they live by the sword and die by the sword

The companies that went under were not always the nicest companies, made up of decent human beings, or anything like that.  These are/were fairly vicious competitors in a field that shows or showed no mercy.  So they got outmaneuvered and destroyed by structural elements beyond their control, but some of that is their responsibility for failing to deal with the political issues.  We should not weep bitter tears for them.  These companies were for the most part not centers of idealism, good will or progressive anything.     Most of them were snake pits of politics to say the least.    

5. The government subsidies may lead to a more stable industry.

Everyone knows that visual effects companies are (or were) flaky.  The studios would brag about how they put their subcontractors out of business.  So why not just use companies that are supported by other people's tax dollars or supported by large corporations?   These companies are likely to be more reliable and they will complain less than the whiny locals.

6. Failure to organize was a strategic mistake and you lost.

The failure of the digital artists to organize and stand up for their rights,  to get the government to pay attention to them the way their British, N. Zealand and Canadian comrades were able to, led inevitably to the doom of the American worker in this industry. See what "not making waves" gets you. To this day the American worker, the so-called "digital artist", still have not organized.  Of course, at this point getting organized probably would not help, but it couldn't hurt.  Compromised, confused,  and unwilling to do the right thing, so now they suffer what the "free market", quote end quote, under Mercantilism (I mean Globalization, excuse me, I must have forgotten), buys them: a one way trip to the unemployment line. (1)

7. Why not emigrate ?

Why not apply for a junior position in England? Sell your house, leave your kids, or uproot them from school, live in a shared, shitty apartment in London.  After spending 20 years of your life working your way up in the field, you are now unemployed and unemployable in an industry that arguably you helped invent.   Why not apply?  What do you have to lose?  You might get the job. Maybe. Probably not, though.

So what is the problem here? Maybe no problem at all. The "free market" (wink wink) just has winners and losers and overall maybe the industry is stronger and the films are better. After all, the government of those three countries are pouring big money into it, putting their wallets where their mouth is so to speak. So if the US of A fails to respond and it screws the little guy, who cares? The big film companies still make money, more money than ever in fact, and if it is at the expense of the worker or of the people who invented the field, well in America that is just too bad.

In Hearts of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, our narrator says to himself, "He wanted no more than justice. No more than justice!"

Grow up, you're in Hollywood now, and this is what we call justice in this town.

_______________________________________________

The previous posts in this series are at

Part one: Vast Government Subsidies are as American as Apple Pie
Part two: Recent Events in International Finance and Visual Effects

The Roman Province of Judea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea_(Roman_province)

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M

________________________________________________

Notes:

1. A corollary to this is the failure of "magical thinking".  I have had 20 year professionals in the field tell me with a straight face that studios were going to start giving points of their films to visual effects studios "just because".   Thats just crazy, completely disconnected from reality.  Thats my point, the so called digital artists here, who along with the local production companies are now unemployed, are guilty of the worst kind of magical thinking.

Revised 1/12/2014

Recent Events in International Finance and Visual Effects

This is part two of a series on recent events in the area of international finance and government subsidies that affect the business of visual effects.   This process has been going on for at least 15 years and it has severely affected the existence and survival of visual effects companies.  The events that I describe here, some of them a continuation of older policies and some of them new initiatives, will have a structural impact on the visual effects industry in the world for years to come.

It is probably helpful to recall that it is only since the early 1980's that visual effects has been significant enough to attract government attention.  It was Star Wars (1978) that started the process, but it was sometime in the mid-1980's that the scale of the industry started to increase.  It was the tsunami of shit that came from the digital take-over of visual effects in the early 1990's that increased the scope of visual effects and trendiness thereof such that this industry was seen as a likely subject of tax exemptions and subsidies to increase and control employment within a national film community.  Keep in mind, that at various times over the last 15 years, there have been thousands of people paid roughly $100K / year working in this industry.   Perhaps as many as 5-7 thousand people, although this number is not formally known to the best of my knowledge, and it includes to some extent the people who were working in "feature length computer animation" as distinct from visual effects.  Thus, the real numbers are probably not as high as suggested here, but are very substantial.  We are talking about 1000's of people in the Los Angeles and San Francisco area who have lost their jobs as a result of these subsidies.

So keep in mind as you read about these events that the story did not begin this year, but that all of these events probably have a background and history that I know nothing, or very little, about.   Also, we are relying on the popular press to describe these events and so we can be sure that the information is at best incomplete, if not entirely misleading.

All of these events described below have had or will have a very negative impact on the existence and future of visual effects in this country.  However, every silver lining has a cloud and in another post in this series, I will go over some of the reasons that these subsidies and tax allowances can be seen in a positive light, as long as you have no intention of working in the field in America or to make a living here.  Only a very few people in this country should be expected to work unless they are a visual effects supervisor, if then.

1.  The European Union extends rules on subsidies

The European Union has decided to extend and expand their rules on subsidizing domestic film production. Now up to 50% of a film may be financed by that government. Governments may require that 50 to 80 percent of the subsidized amount be spent within the country. A few months ago, France threatened to boycott talks between the US and the EU until this sector was exempted from the negotiations. In other words, they will not permit discussions with the United States in this area. How that boycott fits in with other international trade agreements on economic subsidies will require more investigation.

Read more:

EU Pleases France, Widens Film Subsidy Rules

Film Subsidies Save as Europe Backs Co-Production Friendly Regulations

2. The UK Special Effects Industry gets a tax relief plan

The UK Government has agreed to change the rules to make it easier for American producers to receive tax credit for work done in the UK. I don't believe these are new subsidies per se, but I think it addresses the issues whereby certain producers were not qualifying for the credits even though they were doing some of the work in the UK. The article in the Guardian seems to think that it is primarily the visual effects sector that will benefit.  The amount of rebate seems to be about 25% reduction in taxes for eligible projects, so the kind of numbers we are talking about here are significant.  See

The Guardian: UK's Special Effects Industry Cheered by Tax Relief Plan

3. Jim Cameron receives large New Zealand subsidy for 'Avatar 2 and 3', will do all visual effects work in New Zealand

The Avatar films are huge and would normally be broken up among many facilities. But now that New Zealand has put in a large chunk of cash, both films in their entirety will have their effects done at WETA in New Zealand, at least as large a project as Lord of The Rings was for them.

Read more here:

NY Times: New Zealand Increases Incentives for 'Avatar' Sequels

Article in the Mirror about Avatar Financing

To these events we need to recall that (a) the ongoing Canadian rebates for work done in their country, up to 40% of the amount spent, (b) Other countries such as India and China have made substantial efforts in this area although not formal subsidies to the best of my knowledge (India has very liberal "intern" laws that allows entire crews to be hired and not paid in order to "get the experience"), China has set up a 2,500 person 3D studio in Beijing in order to educate their own workers), (c) special subsidies by the New Zealand government to the Peter Jackson projects, all of which are major visual effects projects done at WETA in New Zealand.

From the point of view of a film producer, this is all good.  Talking some innocent investor out of their money to help finance a film, especially when they get nothing in return (e.g. no points in the film), is part of the Producer's job.  If New Zealand wants to give Mr. Cameron 500 million dollars over 6 years (or whatever the amount will be) why not ?

These events, which all represent long term structural changes to the "free market", means that in the fiercely competitive visual effects industry, any company that lacks one or more of these advantages will not be able to compete.   Which is exactly what we see today.   Asylum, Rhythm and Hues, VIFX/Video Image, The Orphanage, most of Sony Imageworks not to mention many other smaller companies have gone away.   Others, such as Digital Domain and Tippet, are clearly marginal.

ILM is a bit of a mystery to me.  They seem to be hanging in there, and of course they have the new Star Wars films from their parent company, Disney.

Here are some conclusions and questions:

1. The collapse of visual effects in this country is a result of structural changes in the international community which are beyond the ability of any company to deal with.  

2. This collapse has resulted in the unemployment of thousands of people on the West Coast, some of whom have moved to other industries, some have gotten jobs overseas if they could.

3. You should expect this process to continue with more visual effects companies in this country going out of business or moving overseas.

4. Any discussion of unemployment or the "business model being broken" that does not take into account the primary cause of government subsidies and tax exemptions is worthless.

5. Globalization is just Mercantilism by another name.  Our government could do something about this if they cared, but they do not care.

For those of you who believe that there is nothing our country could do to change this situation, please take the time to read any economic history of the last few hundred of years.  There are many things that countries can do in these circumstances, if they care to.

_____________________________________________________

1. In the early days of computer animation, many of us were not aware that "computer animation" and "visual effects" were completely different industries.  To us it looked nearly the same thing with a tremendous overlap of technologies and skills.  Well, yes and no, but mostly no.   I will write a post on the issues here at some point.  They are not subtle and its an example of how naive some of us were.

The North Korean Style of Insult

It would seem that the art of insulting people and character assassination has gone downhill in recent years with nowhere near the elegance and power that it has had in the past.   This great art is a pale shadow of its former greatness, at least here in the West.

A repetitive use of simple slurs, repeated over and over again, has become the standard fare when insulting someone's personality, ethics and morality. The same old watered down insults generally applied in a very generic form merely demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy and shallowness of the would-be character assassin.   How many times have we heard "He's an asshole. What a shithead. Scumbag!   Moron!"   These insults have no originality, they are mere placeholders for what used to be an honored part of rhetoric.

This decline may or may not be of practical importance depending on what field you are in, as some fields make more use of the insult and verbal backstabbing than others.  The culturally important field of visual effects and animation is known throughout the world for the shallow insults members of the field shower on each other.  Only paleontology is believed to be more verbally vicious and cutthroat.

This decay of this formerly great artform is just one example of the general collapse of America which can be seen in so many areas of our culture.  Whether the area is pop music for underage girls, pulp novels, sexist imagery or drive-in movies, all of these genres have lost much of their integrity and vigor.   Still, we must do what we can to shore up what is left and try to move on.

As is often the case when we have a civilization in collapse, the collapse is fortunately uneven and there continue to be regions that have maintained the art and sciences of the past with great integrity. Although the American style of insult and sarcasm have not been preserved to the best of my knowledge, other cultures have preserved their own traditions in this area.   If we are willing to let go of some of our pride we can learn from some of our neighbors to our benefit.

One esteemed style of insult, one of the greatest in history, was created during the Cold War by the various Communist governments. Although almost all the former practitioners of this style have abandoned their own traditions in their haste to embrace capitalism, one country has stood firm and maintained its traditions.  And that country is none other than the proud but misunderstood nation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) as led by their Dear Leader Kim Sung-un.

Just recently I came across a fine example of this art when I read about the purge of Kim Sung-un's uncle, Jang Song-thaek, formerly the second most powerful person in the DPRK.   Tears came to my eyes as I read the announcement of Jang's execution so struck was I by the sincerity and venom of the text.

Despicable Human Scum

Here are some excerpts: 

Every sentence of the decision served as sledge-hammer blow brought down by our angry service personnel and people on the head of Jang, an anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional element and despicable political careerist and trickster.

However, despicable human scum Jang, who was worse than a dog, perpetrated thrice-cursed acts of treachery in betrayal of such profound trust and warmest paternal love shown by the party and the leader for him.

Jang encouraged money-making under various pretexts to secure funds necessary for gratifying his political greed and was engrossed in irregularities and corruption. He thus took the lead in spreading indolent, careless and undisciplined virus in our society.

He let the decadent capitalist lifestyle find its way to our society by distributing all sorts of pornographic pictures among his confidants since 2009. He led a dissolute, depraved life, squandering money wherever he went. 

The era and history will eternally record and never forget the shuddering crimes committed by Jang Song Thaek, the enemy of the party, revolution and people and heinous traitor to the nation.

You can read the full text of the announcement on the execution of Jang here.

I think this is truly a magnificent example of a classic Cold War style of character assassination in all its glory and it is certainly much more eloquent and impressive that merely calling Jang a scumbag or a shithead. I hope that our own nation can rise to this example. I particular hope that my field of visual effects and computer animation that puts so much store on attacking other people's character, yet does so in such a boring and stupid way, can also learn to do a better job.  (1)

Thank you, Dear Leader Kim Song-un for showing us the way.

Dear Leader

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea
http://www.korea-dpr.com/

______________________________________________________

1. But keep in mind, if attempting to apply these techniques of rhetoric to the field of visual effects, that many of the practioners in the field do not know the meaning of most words over two syllables or at least pretend to be that ignorant.  So keep it simple for them, pithy and filled with color, but only simple words.

Rodents of Unusual Size Found in Ancient Italy

When life imitates art, one must ask how the artists knew what they knew and when they knew it. Did they just make a lucky but inspired guess, or were they diligent enough to research the topic and talk to a specialist and then make a considered and informed extrapolation of what is known into the unknown? (1) Movies about the future and the distant past know in advance that they must make predictions where certain knowledge is missing, but even in these cases the filmmakers shrug off an obligation to make solidly grounded predictions and lapse into the cheap or predictable.

I would say that cheap and predictable is Hollywood's metier.

However it occurred, in the case we have here the filmmakers have unexpectedly triumphed when they probably just thought they were creating an inexpensive but exciting moment in a film that has a certain reputation for being unusually entertaining. I am referring here to the "rodents of unusual size" in the esteemed movie The Princess Bride (1987).

To refresh your memory, the kidnapped princess and the Dread Pirate Roberts, revealed to be her former servant and lover, Wesley, try to escape their pursuers in the Fire Swamp, known to be inhabited by horrible ROUS, which are "rodents of unusual size". Of course they are attacked by ROUSes (ROUSi?) in the swamp and a terrible battle ensues before they are able to defeat the ROUSes and escape the swamp. The ROUSes are not a shining moment in the history of visual effects, being somewhat cheesy and, well, ratty in appearance.

Although filmgoers of today demand the highest quality in visual effects, the best that technology can imagine for their quota of zombies, giant robots, and superheroines, it wasn't always so. Back in the day, long ago, movies were often about telling a story and made economic use of the resources available. The effects only had to be good enough to move the story forward. In some cases, one could even accuse the filmmakers of being tongue-in-cheek cheesy. The gopher in Caddyshack (1980) comes to mind.

So we might dismiss the ROUSes as being merely enlarged and fictional examples of an imaginary rodentia, until science made the following amazing discovery. Apparently, in ancient italy, rodents of unusual size, giant hedgehogs, roamed the countryside, eating and otherwise annoying the other flora and fauna of its time. Although this is probably just a lucky guess on the part of the filmmakers, I think you will agree that it is an amazing resemblance.

It may be a hedgehog but it certainly looks like a rodent to me

Since one of the theme's here at Global Wahrman is to analyze the process by which one can successfully predict the future, we plan to use this example in our case studies of successful, if inadvertent, predictions.

Read more about the Ancient Rodent

http://www.sci-news.com/paleontology/science-deinogalerix-masinii-new-giant-fossil-hedgehog-italy-01535.html

________________________________

1. In this case, I think we can rule out the use of Atlantean Crystal Wisdom. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the filmmakers were aware of and using the Esoteric Knowledge.

Comments on the VES "State of the Global VFX Industry" White Paper Part 1

(this is a draft and is in progress... send comments to michael.wahrman@gmail.com or leave a comment below).

The Visual Effects Society issued a report on the global visual effects industry right before SIGGRAPH 2013. I have been meaning to review this report for Global Wahrman for some time, but I have not because I did not understand it.

Its not that the report is unclear or badly written, it is in fact very well written in some ways. The problem for me was that I could not figure out what it was trying to accomplish or for whom it was intended. In particular, I could not figure out what its point of view was.

So now I have read it several times, and I think that I have the answer to my questions. It is studiously trying not to have a point of view, to be all things to all people, as it were. But to paraphrase Frederick the Great, he who defends everything defends nothing. And that is what I think we have here, a report that does mention many of the issues and many of the proposed solutions, and asks some of the right questions, but not all of course, but ultimately leaves us where we were before. Which is nowhere.

You are going to have to look up the report for yourself. Right now, Google Chrome is not letting me get the URL here for the report. Search for "VES global vfx industry report" and it should come right up.

As I understand it, this report was initiated because in light of recent events, particularly the demise of Rhythm and Hues in the aftermath of Life of Pi, the VES felt that it had to do something, anything, to respond to the dismal situations of so much unemployment, uncertainty and so forth. So they assembled a group of worthies in the industry (leaving out many who could equally be there) but certainly including a group of people who I would want involved in such a report. Nancy St. John, Mike Fink, John Nelson, Scott Squires, Bill Taylor, Peter Chiang, Ray Feeeney, Warren Franklyn, Sari Gennis and so forth. All of these people are worth listening to, that goes without saying. I felt that it was a little light on the VFX workers (e.g. digital artists) themselves, but whatever.  There was one token technologist that I noticed.

Ok, yes, there are some things I could quibble with. Did I see a mention of ageism?  I dont think I did, but hey maybe I missed it. I felt that the issue of proprietary software needed expansion, the situation is an icky one and one is kind of screwed either way (damned if you write your own software, damned if you don't). I felt that the section of what describes "the business model is broken" could be greatly expanded and frankly it would be a very dark part of the report.  IMHO the so called business model never really ever worked.  Two of the biggest problems that I see in visual effects, the fierce competitiveness between facilities and between individuals that leads to things such as underbidding a project to put a facility out of business and the character assassination that is an everyday occurrence are not mentioned that I noticed.

But I think that the problem here with this report is actually structural with the VES.  In other words, the same problem that the report has the VES has.  Arguably.  The VES does not want to say "end subsidies" because there are lots of international people out there who like subsidies (of course) even though subsidies are the number one cause of the demise of a dozen worthwhile visual effects firms in this country.  Thats pretty darn politic of them, an outsider might say, or one might use the word spineless as well.  The VES does not want to complain about facilities making people move all over the planet then laying people off, because they are also trying to represent the interests of the facilities. Somehow the VES does not see recent events as a complete disaster (the laying off of not less than 1000 people in the west coast in the last year by my estimates). Somehow the demise of the Los Angeles visual effects community is not a cause for concern (which it may not be).  The VES does not want to take a position on the massive oversupply of artists (quote end quote) but until that is dealt with no one but the facility owners or studio executives are likely to have a secure job in this field, except that these two groups don't have secure jobs either.

Subsidies? What subsidies?

Before I get into some specific suggestions, I want to pose to you the following question: is visual effects a reasonable career for a young person (or any person) to get into? Is it likely that they will have a career that lets them do such things as have a family, have a life, build a retirement fund, all those boring things that become so important as you grow older and do not have a trust fund. Is it? Is it a reasonable career? I want to suggest to you that it is not, except for a privileged few and that is the fundamental dilemma here.   To be specific, I am saying that visual effects is not a reasonable career for a person to have and that people are being duplicitous and unethical by encouraging people to go into it.   I have written much more on this topic, you can find the posts on my blog if you care to look. 

So here are some specific suggestions, some of these may be redundant to the report, but it doesn't matter. I am sure I am going to be ignored anyway.

1. Finally put together a matrix of positions / skills in visual effects to try to bring some order out of chaos of who does what and what you need to be qualified for it.  

2. Issue a strong statement about a union, I think that visual effects should have one in order to represent the interests of the workers of the USA in visual effects. An organization that can ask why their elected representatives have sat on their hands and looked dumb while thousands of jobs left S. Cal without worrying about whether it annoys the studios. Of course it annoys the studios.  (By the way, why did our representatives sit on their hands while thousands were unemployed and have to leave the county?  It must have affected their tax base.  It couldn't be slavish obedience to the studios, now could it?)

3. Issue white papers whose purpose is to educate clients on fundamental principles. A fundamental principle might be to explain why changes late in the day might be easy, or it might be very hard and explain why.  I doubt it will do much good but 1 in 100 producers actually wants to do a good job and not just fuck people to make a dollar, and so that 1 person will benefit.

4. Help create a professional development path (paths) for people in the field. This is what they should be learning, doing, whatever if they want to progress in the field and be better professionals.  Instead of just saying every person for themselves, yahoo, go say you're an effects supervisor, no one will know the difference anyway.

5. Help create a way for out of work individuals to have access to the tools they need to stay current. Without the tools, they can not practice and their skills will get both rusty and out of date and then they are completely, as the French say, es fucque.

6. Take a strong position on subsidies.  Subsidies destroyed employment in Los Angeles where a huge number of your workers have/had lives.   Sure LA may be a sucking sewer of smog and corruption, but it is *our* sucking sewer and we should defend it.

7. Finally I think that one of the largest problems visual effects has is that everyone tries to be like everyone else.  As long as they do that they will be treated like the commodity that they are.   Only by creating their own vision as artists will they be unique and be able to command a better price, or so I argue.  We do see a little bit of that in this field, but I think we should see a lot more.

I will elaborate on all of these in future posts.

I want to thank the people who took the time to write the report. No, its not what I would ideally want, but it may be the best the VES can do, given the various interests they have to accommodate, and it certainly was a lot of work and I certainly appreciate it.

Why I Did Not Attend the Keynote Speech at SIGGRAPH 2013

When I declined to attend the SIGGRAPH 2013 Keynote Speech, a friend was surprised and concerned. The Keynote speech was a collection of talks by successful directors of computer animation as organized by the Academy (of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences). He simply could not understand why I would not want to listen to the publicity machine grind out more material about those chosen by the powerful to be successful, but I will try to explain.

The reason was not because I fundamentally believe that a Keynote speech by a healthy organization is going to be by someone in the field who helped to create it, and who has something to say about how the field is doing, where it has been and where it might be headed. SIGGRAPH has gone away from that years ago, in fact the last talk of that type that I recall was Ed Catmull, president of PIXAR, and even he might have been selected for the wrong reasons.

But I understand why we do not have a keynote speech of that more serious type, and instead usually have someone else who has nothing to do with the field.  The reason is that SIGGRAPH uses the Keynote speech as a way of advertising the conference to the people who might not attend otherwise. Its also a way to generate publicity for the conference, seeing as how our media could not care less about a computer science conference, but give them Hollywood and they jump to. So they choose people who have media appeal to give a "Keynote" speech that isn't.

But that is ok with me because I think that they do need to attract people and there are other ways to get the effect of a Keynote speech. In fact, I think that the Awards speeches which was initiated this year come very close to what I am looking for.

I did not attend because of something else entirely, something ineffable. Something about my past. Something about being in computer animation in Los Angeles in the 1980s.

Voice echoes and camera defocuses to indicate a flashback.

In the 1980s, I chose to destroy my life by working to help invent computer animation. (1) Being an intellectual out of water (any intellectual in Los Angeles is out of water) I attended no less than 20 or so courses at UCLA, the American Film Institute, and attended many lectures at the Academy. Had I not been a complete idiot, I would have enrolled in a degree program and gotten my terminal degree in some field, that would have done me some good. But instead, I decided to learn about the glamourous and rewarding motion picture industry from a series of continuing education classes taught by working professionals. Not less than 300 individual lectures by my reckoning.

And I had a wonderful time. I attended Robert McKee's story structure course when it was ten 4-hour lectures (and not the weekend thing it became). I attended classes with Lynda Obst, Debra Hill, Lauren Shuler, John Dykstra, Bruce Berman, the VP of Finance of Warner Bros, John Badham, Richard Donner, Joel Schumacher, George Roy Hill. Directors, writers, producers, and even a few "movie stars" (Jody Foster, Women in Film, etc).

Writers on writing. Producers on producing. Directors on directing. And I learned a lot, I think. But after a while one has a diminishing return from such things. Hearing Martha Coolidge speak at WIF is entertaining but it does not pay the bills. Hearing Douglas Trumbull talk about doing all the effects on 2001 is enlightening until you realize that he did not do all the effects on 2001. He just managed to figure out how to get the credit for the work (2)

Then, as with anything, knowledge and experience begins to show you the dark side of these innocent events.

So what do we have with these seven so-called "directors of computer animation".

First, very few of these people are directors in the way that term is used in the rest of the motion picture industry. They are at best managers of part of the production process whose creative content (e.g. script, design) has been created by a studio system that may have nothing to do with the director, who in general is partnered with another person to spearhead and organize the production process.

Second, the people chosen to be directors are chosen for a variety of reasons, of which talent and accomplishment are only two, and probably not the most important ones. The people doing the choosing are people who do not have a clue about computer animation, for the most part.

Third, how many of the people up there sacrificed anything to help bring computer animation into existence? None, I reckon. Why in fact, one of them is a stop motion animator who hates computer animation and was dragged into it kicking and screaming.   To glorify such a person at SIGGRAPH is at best ironic but probably worse.

Fourth, isn't it rude to have a presentation celebrating and glorifying people who had nothing to do with inventing a field at this conference while so many of the inventors of the field are unemployed and impoverished for doing so, are walking around outside?

I think it is rude.

There are two other reasons why I did not attend.  First, I do not have enough time at SIGGRAPH as it is to do the work I need to do there and thus consider it a waste of time to listen to talks I could just as easily hear at some other time or venue.   There was nothing about those particular talks that was unique to SIGGRAPH.    Second, I know, from vast personal experience, that while talks of this type might be entertaining, they do not lead to anything.  Ever.

So that is why I did not attend.

_____________________________________________

1. In order to do so, I had to turn down opportunities that almost certainly would have made me independently wealthy. Those opportunities are gone, they were part of that time. And being involved in computer animation did not result in being able to make a living. Therefore, since I did not come from a wealthy family and since being wealthy or being able to generate wealth is a sine qua non of our society,  I had destroyed my life by making this choice.

2. He was so egregious at this that Stanley Kubrick took out an ad in the trades reminding everyone that the credits for visual effects for 2001 had five names, the first being Stanley Kubrick.  I think the ad ran about 1982 but I am not sure.

Experimental Uses of Analog Reflectance Mapping in the Pre-Digital Cinema

As we move into the new world of digital cinema is it time to embrace modern aesthetics and criteria of excellence and move away from the tired old notions of story, plot, character and dialog?  These latter elements served their purpose in their day but now hold us back, some would say.  Who cares about a story when you can have giant robots?   What is the point of having sympathy for a character when you can have 1200 effects shots instead?   The answer is there is no point.

If "new art requires new artists" then it also requires new criteria, new standards, which we can use to judge and appreciate this new work  Our modern cinema has clearly transcended these old ideas and moved ahead.  I believe it is time we moved analysis and criticism forward as well.

What are the new criteria that more properly embraces and embodies our new art form?   This is not yet known for certain.  We are feeling our way in a dark room filled with sharp edges.

I propose that one such new aesthetic will be an appreciation of the power and nuance of a well-placed "reflection map".   Consider how pointless it would be to try and appreciate a movie like Gravity (2013) without deconstructing its reflection maps that underlie its mere surface reality. 

For those of you who are not familiar with the terminology of the new cinema, let us review the basis and origins of the "reflectance map".   

A reflection map is subtlety incarnate. Just out of sight it informs the scene subliminally. It is the distorted lens through which we do not see this world, but another world, a world around the corner or above our heads, a world of light that fills the space between the objects.

The origins of the reflection map predates digital cinema, it predates all cinema. Its beginnings are in the history of theatrical lighting and set design of different cultures, both of narrative theatre as well as the religious and other cultural events of these earlier periods. It is in the history of theatrical lighting, the projector, the lime-light, the mirror, the torch, the well-placed pane of glass, the unscrolling panorama, and in the world of theatrical magic that we should seek the origins of the reflection map.  (1)

The reflection map is not new to the cinema, it is has been in the background, in the art form of the cinematographer since the beginning. There have also been some early examples, ahead of their time, that elevated the reflection map to a more prominent place in the structure of the film. There are four films that I describe here that demonstrate mastery of the reflection map, all of them classics of the traditional cinema. I think you will agree that all four films are recognizable at once merely by describing their use of reflection mapping, as analog as it may be.

That is right, in all four examples below, the maps (reflection, projection, etc) are all analog, which obviously could not be as good as digital, that goes without saying, but has value nevertheless.  

Film 1:

The film begins with a minute of solid black with white titles in a classic type. The audio fades up from silent to the background sound of people in a public space and, slowly after a minute and maybe twenty title cards, what appears at first glance to be a stylized impressionist painting appears. A very subdued color palette with unrecognizable shapes of what may be a cafe or group of people. The painting begins to move (it is actually in slow motion), it appears to be animated or abstract in some way. As color is faded into the picture, an orchestra becomes to warm up in the background audio and the painting is revealed to be a distorted mirror of a club in Berlin between the wars. The reflection map itself becomes an element of the scene as it is a backdrop to the stage which is slowly pulled up to the ceiling where it acts as a reflector of the stage beneath it.

Film 2:

A black and white film about a young man who is color blind. However, he became color blind as a young adult, in his early childhood he could perceive color. When he sees something that he saw as a child or which reminds him of his childhood, that element will be in color. This is particularly noticeable in a scene involving a dark room with a back-lit aquarium and the reflections it casts in the room. (2)

Film 3:

A 1960's film about space travel. We often do not see what the character sees directly, but only indirectly in the visor of his space suit, or the reflections on the wall or window. Even when we think we are seeing what he sees directly, we are not, as the imagery is created with an analog technique called slit scan, a technique that uses imagery in a motion control process to create new animated abstract imagery on film.

Film 4:

A black and white film about love and death, with death and death's mechanism personified in the character of a woman (4) and her male assistant. The boundary between the worlds of the dead and the living are mirrors. In an attempt to bring someone back from death, the assistant to death guides the protagonist into and through the world of the dead on his mission. The imagery is composited, either optical or rear projection, of photography at night moving through ruined cities.   The plates are then used as both backgrounds and projections on the characters.  

The four films are of course Cabaret (1972) by Fosse , Rumble Fish (1983) by Copolla, 2001: A Space Odyssey  (1968) by Kubrick and Orpheus (1950) by Cocteau.

These are all analog films of course, and all but one of them, 2001, can only tease us with the promise of reflection mapping.  It will take the advent of digital techniques for the tsunami of reflection mapping to truly find its voice.

2001: A Space Odyssey

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062622/

Rumble Fish

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086216/

Orpheus

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041719/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Cabaret

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068327/

_________________________________________

1. For those who think that reflectance mapping was invented in 1982, sadly I must disagree.  At most it was demonstrated in digital form in that year.  Reflectance mapping has been with us since long before.   Anyone writing a renderer in that period, as I was, was well aware of its promise and possibilities.

2. Rumble Fish also used projected time-lapse photography which is another example of the use of reflections for narrative purpose.

3. Story has become the victim of the new economy.   By economizing on a writer, the total film budget may be lowered by many thousands of dollars.  This allows them to spend more on what is important, to bring value to the film, such as more visual effects.

4. Yes, death is portrayed as a woman in this film.  I do not know what the gender issues are, but they must exist.

Scorsese on the History and Nature of Film

The online version of the New York Review of Books (August 2013) has an essay by Martin Scorsese about the history and meaning of film.   

See The Persisting Vision: Reading the Language of Cinema here. 

Aside from a great picture of Georges Melius working on a special effects painting, we have a pointer to the worlds first stupid cute cat video (by Thomas Edison) and a discussion of the original Day the Earth Stood Still (1951).

Art, Fine Art and Ender's Game

If one wants to know the very essence of Hollywood creativity, look no further than Ender's Game. It is the very height of what makes Hollywood great: shallow, stupid, yet empty of ideas, it contains the most predictable twist ending in the history of science fiction.

I first read the screenplay, or at least a screenplay, for Ender's Game in 1991. A very good friend who was trying to find me work after my studio, dWi, crashed and burned, gave it to me with the hopes that I would be so enthusiastic that I would literally bubble up with a billion ideas (I guess about how to use computer animation on it, which was by no means an accepted technique at the time), that all my free ideas would somehow magically make me a consultant to the project, to "be attached" in some way. What I knew and he knew (but would not admit) is that those who are associated with a project early on are rarely called to the altar when the project goes for real. The reason is simple: when the director is selected everything changes. It is the director (and his/her producer) who selects the team. Anyone associated with the project from before that has a less than average chance of being involved unless you are contracturally written into a project (which is unlikely, very unlikely, unless you are "above the line" (1), and people in visual effects are not).

Presumably our hero getting his suit calibrated on the game grid in Ender's Game

And so my friend was one more time disappointed in me when I refused to show any enthusiasm for this crass and juvenile property. Misplaced enthusiasm is a sine qua non for participating in Hollywood, and a worthless tool such as myself is expected to be endlessly enthusiastic and work for free in the hope that the Master will smile on their broken and exhausted slaves sometime in the future.

As I read this worthless piece of space kiddie porn, I thought, who are they kidding ? The book is a well-known and trite sf book for children by a well-known and well-meaning hack who has not, so far as I know, emerged from his very serviceable but pedestrian writing youth. Its an entertaining piece of fiction for children, relatively young children, about how studying for video games in an elite academy leads to saving the solar system from the alien menace.

Ender's Game in its original form.

Can you say "Last Starfighter"? Good. Now, say "Last Starfighter only much bigger" and you will get the idea.

But at least Last Starfighter (1984) had two things going for it.  First, it was the last film performance of the great Robert Preston.   And second it was a genuine use of computer graphics & animation in entertainment.   I am pretty sure that this is a III (Information International) project and one that John Whitney, Jr had a hand in selling (e.g. getting the filmmakers excited about using computer animation in their film).   

The youthful video game player, notice the graphics game control in the heavens above him.  Look familiar?

Our future savior of the galaxy or solar system (I forget which) playing what used to be known as a "video game" in its "coinop" days.  I love the term "coinop".

But don't worry. They have major actors to "open the movie" as we say in Hollywoodland. We have Harrison Ford! Well, thats nice, I like Harrison Ford. But having Ford is not going to make a shallow plot less shallow, or an obvious ending less obvious.

And how sad for Digital Domain, the prime effects supplier, (2) to end their long streak of movies on this piece of overhyped crap. From Titanic to Ender's Game? Is that it? Now that they have their new Chinese Masters, controlled by the Tong and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Chinese People, we will see where they go from here. I wish them all the best.

After all we are all going to be working for the Chinese, so its really not so different from what the rest of us will experience.

Ender's Game (2013) on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/

The Last Starfighter (1984) on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087597/

__________________________________

1. "Above the line" is a Hollywood term meaning many things.  In classic Hollywood there was literally a line in the budget separating the producer, wrtier, director and stars from the rest of the crew.

2. Nancy St. John is the effects producer for the production and is one of my favorite people in this so-called business.  Among other things, she is an alumni of Robert Abel & Associates, Digital Productions and Industrial Light and Magic.

Richard Yuricich on Event Horizon

Richard Yuricich, ASC is one of my favorite people in the world.   Here he is on the set at Pinewood and in London on the movie Effects Horizon (1997).    As the date back on my little camera says, this must have been 1996.

 

Somehow Richard got me to London to help design "blood in space".  RY is a stickler for detail and he had accumulated zero G fluid photography from the Soviet space program.   We had lunch at the Commissary at Pinewood Studios, where Hitchcock ate every day.  I doubt there has been any production that has treated me with so much courtesy.




Effects Horizon on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119081/combined

Star Wars Production Stills Circa 1976

Someone has posted over 1,000 production stills from the first Star Wars film on imgur.

http://imgur.com/a/0RmF7#58

They are great. It is fabulous to see photography from the late 70s visual effects production process, back when we had cameras and models and not just a bunch of computer weirdos.

The model photography would probably have been shot at the original ILM, on Valjean in Van Nuys, where Apogee was later located.  There are also photographs from the shoot in England and Tunisia.

This would have been about 1976 for the most part.