Support Cinefex Classic on Kickstarter

I made this little personal video to illustrate how important Cinefex magazine is to me.

Cinefex magazine has played a very important role in my life. Without it, I probably wouldn't be doing what I'm doing today.  The foundation of my visual effects knowledge comes from Don Shay and the team at Cinefex. When I heard about the Cinefex Classic project, I was absolutely thrilled.  I hope it succeeds.  I'm not affiliated with the Kickstarter project in any way - I just want to see the project get funded, so I can have the entire back catalog of Cinefex, searchable, with restored photos, on my iPad.

Read Stu Maschwitz' Prolost blog post, "Cinefex Classic on Kickstarter" for another firsthand account of a visual effects professional's relationship with this important publication.

Here is the Cinefex Classic Kickstarter video.

Cinefex Classic on Kickstarter
If you like movies and special effects, please consider kicking in a few bucks to this project.

UPDATE: It's been funded!  Hooray!  Here's a special video for backers, and keep spreading the word and pledging to this project.

The Aspect Ratios and Cinematographers of Steven Spielberg

larger

Here is one of my many half-finished FXRant articles and graphics. I decided to just tidy it up and post it because, well, why not.  Plus, I wanted to publish it before Spielberg's next film was released.

I don't really have any grand, cogent conclusions to share, I just really wanted to visualize the aspect ratios, lens and film formats and cinematographers used by filmmaker Steven Spielberg over his 39 year film career. I've also indicated Oscar nominations and wins for cinematography on the graphic.

Notable notes:

• Spielberg began his heralded career with no less than five anamorphic films in a row ("The Sugarland Express", "Jaws", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "1941" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark").
• After "Raiders", 14 out of his next 18 films were shot in 1.85 aspect ratio with spherical lenses.
• With 1993's "Schindler's List", Spielberg began his relationship with cinematographer Janusz Kaminski. Kaminski and Spielberg have now collaborated on 14 films in a row
• All five of Spielberg's recent films have all been photographed in the 2.35 aspect ratio; all but one were shot with spherical lenses (Super35). The lone anamorphic film was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".

The "Die Hard At The White House" Franchise

larger

Ten years ago, "The Matrix" sequels "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" were released within 178 days of each other, and held the record for shortest time between blockbuster franchise sequels. This year, that record has been broken.

2013 marks the year a film and its sequel were released within the tightest timeframe.  In March, the Gerard Butler thriller "Die Hard At The White House" debuted in theaters.  A mere 98 days later its sequel "Die Hard At The White House 2", directed by Roland Emmerich, will be released.

Some audiences might be a bit confused since Channing Tatum has taken over the role of the heroic Secret Service Agent (from Gerard Butler), and apparently the President is now Jamie Foxx (perhaps original President Aaron Eckhart was impeached between films). Producers of "Die Hard At The White House 2" plan to excite audiences with even more high-octane machine gun fights, action sequences of helicopters shooting up Washington D.C. monuments, the White House exploding in giant fireballs and general, garden-variety-White-House-destruction-porn.

The sequel also promises to have even bigger, flappier American flags triumphantly being raised, exciting visual effects shots of Air Force One completely blowing up mid-flight, and apparently much more comedy than the original.  Producers also promise to explain how the White House could be rebuilt so quickly after the events of the original film.

Also, U.S.A!  U.S.A.!!

Movie poster parodies of "Olympus Has Fallen" and "White House Down".

Leonardo DiCaprio Can't Stop Toasting

larger

The latest toast is from Martin Scorsese's "The Wolf of Wall Street".  Previous toasts include "The Great Gatsby" (2013) and "Titanic" (1997).  Come on internet, someone make a YouTube supercut montage of DiCaprio toasting.

This Poster Does Not Exist

larger

A poster with Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter and Jason Lee" headlining "The Incredibles" does not exist because Pixar casts voice talent based on voice talent, rather than celebrity and name recognition.

Sam Elliott, "Beef... It's What's For Dinner" Radio Spot

If you remember one of my earliest posts from 2007, I have an affinity for Sam Elliott.

I found an MP3 of a radio commercial narrated by Elliot around 2002, and have been obsessed with it ever since. I treasured this MP3. I'd play it for my co-workers, constantly.  I'd even play it over the old ILM intercom on Fridays after 5pm.  The commercial is hypnotic. And now I will share it with you, my friends.


It's a radio spot for Beef, narrated by the man himself, the voice of Beef, created by the Cattlemen's Beef Board and National Cattlemen's Beef Association, with Aaron Copland's "Hoe-down" (from Rodeo) underneath.

"Beef stroganoff. Beef Bourguignon. Irish Beef Stew. Beef Brisket. Chateau Brion. Saubraten. Roast Beef. Catalonian Beef Ragu. Mongolian Beef. Chicken Fried Steak. Steak Diane. Grilled Steaks Balsamico. Hamburgers. Sizzling Beef. Spicy Braised Beef. Barbecued Beef Ribs. Beef Wellington. Pepper Beef. Beef Jerky. Beef with Broccoli. Beef Burritos. Beef Fajitas. Beef Tacos. Do you see where I'm going with this? Beef. It's what's for dinner."

 
Beef.

Do Not Attempt

Here's proof that, perhaps, lawyers run the world.

This is the most bizarre disclaimer I've ever seen on a television commercial; far more peculiar than the standard "Do Not Attempt" disclaimer on most car commercials, even branding "Do Not Attempt" on commercials that are realized almost entirely with visual effects and cannot possibly be attempted in any way shape or form.

 larger image

The actual disclaimer from the new BMW 5 Series commercial, "What You Love", underneath shots of a contented young boy sticking his hand out the window of a moving car:

"Sticking your hand out the window is dangerous. Caution children not to engage in this activity."

An activity as innocuous as sticking one's hand out a moving car's window to feel the breeze, as depicted in the commercial that I'm looking at right now with the sultry tones of Chris Pine's voice guaranteeing my son will be so satisfied with life if I drive a BMW he will ponder the poetry of the universe by feeling the wind against his hand, is considered to exceed a level of risk for the lawyers at BMW such that it forces such a dire warning. A hand. Out the window.

The commercial is saying "You see that thing you can do with our product? Yeah, don't do that. It's dangerous!"

In a few years, we will reach to volume of disclaimers seen in the "Happy Fun Ball" commercial.

Movie Marketing is Hard! "From The Director of TRAINING DAY"

UPDATE: This post has been updated with an additional film. Click here to read.

Since directing the magnificent "Training Day" twelve years ago, Antoine Fuqua has directed five more feature films. Every single film predominately featured the exact same card in its trailer: "From the director of TRAINING DAY". 

click here for a larger view

Showing my work-- feel free to click on these links: Tears of the Sun, King Arthur, Shooter, Brooklyn's Finest, Olympus Has Fallen.

John Parenteau's Thoughts on the VFX Industry

Hugo

Last Friday, visual effects veteran John Parenteau wrote a long status update concerning the visual effects industry on his Facebook page.  With his permission, I've reprinted it here.

John Parenteau's Thoughts on the VFX Industry, March 15, 2013

I was unfortunately not able to attend the VFX Solidarity town hall meeting last night, but I wanted to share some thoughts about the current state of the visual effects industry, and propose some possible solutions for all our futures. This might also help some of my non-VFX friends understand what's going on. So here I go!

As we all know, the visual effects industry has faced some challenging times recently, though most of these challenges have existed for years, and only now have reached a boiling point, and thus become visible on a national stage. Though the times are tough for many facilities and artists, it's this boiling point that will help to create change, and that in the end will be a good thing.

I feel there are some significant issues that face the industry as a whole. No single solution will fix the problems we face. A long term and competent solution for the industry will require, in my opinion, all of these items to be addressed simultaneously. This would, of course, seem to be an insurmountable task, yet if we are to survive as a vital business it is imperative that we work together to achieve results. 

This is, of course, my opinion, but it is based on experience since the beginning of desktop technology, when visual effects unfortunately became a tangible commodity instead of an art form, where it should be. From about 1992 on, a large part of the business was comprised of eager artists who were simply excited to be part of the movie industry. Many of these artists went on to form companies, and though it was well intentioned, the problem was that none of these people (and I include myself in this) had any experience or training in running a business. Beyond our lack of ability to manage employees or create budgets, we lacked the backbone to form a real business model, and to enforce this with our clients. Instead, we fell in to a bizarre and truly ineffective (from a business perspective) method of operating that is the source of our problems today. 

I will say here that though I feel outsourcing is a major problem, I also believe strongly that we cannot make our fight about that alone. The world will continue to expand, the artists in other countries will continue to learn, and it is only a question of time when those same artists have the skill set to produce visual effects on level with the best in our industry here. Even if we manage to force countries to remove incentives, which is highly unlikely, we are still faced with the fact that many other countries have lower cost of living, and thus will always be able to offer visual effects at an aggressive price. 

What is important is to be leaders. Visual effects started here, and will continue to be here, if we are smart about how we approach the next phase of our existence. If we productively yet firmly work to create a solution between artists, facility owners and studios, we will continue to lead the industry worldwide, and thus ensure our jobs for a very long time.

Red Tails

So here are my suggestions to help solve our current problems:

1) Formation of a trade organization - The only thing that speaks in this industry is strength in numbers. The fact that every VFX studio works independently, with no standard of practices between them, no common bidding techniques, and NO ability to push back with the studios, makes us completely helpless to their needs. The heads of the VFX houses insist that they can stand alone, but they do so as their compatriots fall around them. At the same time, every facility bids viscously against each other, cutting our rates lower and lower simply to win an award. But many of these aggressive bids simply serve to keep the doors open, not to help build, and thus can be very damaging to the facility's future. Every visual effects company needs to realize that there is strength behind an organization, that working on common bidding practices based not on how aggressive you're willing to be, but rather a proper cost-plus model, will greatly strengthen each company. A trade organization will also give the group political strength to fight illegal incentives around the world, something any single house lacks the clout to tackle. But it is imperative that every company be a part of this organization. It will be impossible to show strength unless every company, large and small, works together in this.

2) Formation of an artist union - When I first started in the visual effects industry, I was working for Universal and Amblin Entertainment, both of which are located on a union lot. Because of this, the IATSE tried to unionize us. Unfortunately the attempt failed, and I believe that failure has led to some of our difficulties today. The combination of a trade association AND an artist union would provide the industry a strong voice in all visual effects matters, while ensuring both facility and artist are protected now and in the future. The big problem is that the cost of going union is too big for VFX houses to bear right now. At current rough estimates, an additional $8 an hour would be added to each artists' rate (not counting current facility contributions for health and pension, which would be replaced by the union). I have strongly encouraged the union to look carefully at this, and develop a plan to reduce this cost initially, and thus diminish the impact to facilities in a grander effort to achieve the union goal. Margins for facilities are essentially non-existent today, and there are no owners walking away with large profits, regardless of rumors you might hear. The largest argument against unionization has been the cost, and that is simply because there isn't the added money available. If the union works closely with large and small facilities to create a new paradigm, allowing artists to unionize for a small fraction of the current costs (perhaps with limited benefits at first), and then create a plan with those same facilities to slowly and carefully increase rates over a few years, it will allow the costs to be slowly incorporated in to future budgets. This is the only way that unionization will be embraced by facilities.

3) Create a new bidding model - From the beginning, VFX has been treated as a mechanical process, using computers and engineering as if we were creating widgets or tangible goods. But the truth is, what we create is art. I have bid extensively over the past years, often directly against some of the major facilities and teams in the business. I have realized that bidding is in no way an accurate process. Nearly every shot that is produced is a unique entity, never before created. It is next to impossible to accurately estimate the cost of producing a completely unknown effect before you actually create it. Imagine you are asked to create a shot of a giant alien creature rising out of the water. You are shown a single piece of artwork as reference. Sitting in front of an excel document, you have to guess how many days it will take you to create it, using a wide variety of disciplines. And you will be held to that number regardless of any complexity, known or unknown at that point. How does any artist know how much his or her art is going to take to produce, before they produce it? Has that exact shot ever been done? Most likely not, since every filmmaker and studio wants something unique and spectacular. So when we bid, we are totally guessing. Perhaps it's an informed guess, but it's still a guess. Combine that with the fact that most production-based VFX supervisors are looking not at the complexity of the shot in detail, but rather at an "average" cost per shot, based on their own "guestimate" in an effort to meet an overall budget mandated, often, by a producer who has to accommodate all the other aspects of producing that film. But because we are treated as if VFX is a mechanical process, we are being forced in to numbers that are often incredibly unrealistic. There needs to be a better way to bid that doesn't require us guessing long before any part of the show is created. 

Red Tails

I believe, utilizing the trade organization mentioned above, that we can create a new paradigm in costing projects. In production, a producer hires a production designer who has a base level of staff they typically bring along; art director, concept artists, construction, designers, storyboard artists, etc, based on the type of project they are producing. When the scope of the work grows, and there is a need for another concept artist, for example, the production designer simply asks the producer for the added budget, and it is approved, or not based on the available budget. There is no reason visual effects cannot be treated the same. Any project, as it begins, can book a base staff at a chosen facility. This staff might include a visual effects supervisor, producer, CG supervisor/lead, comp supervisor, and perhaps a base level of additional artistry. A certain number of shots for the project can be produced with that team, and any additional shots, much like the production designer's dilemma, would require added crew. A percentage of this total budget would be added on for overhead and profit at that facility, but this would be above the actual costs of the artistry. Much like a production crew, the visual effects crew would be billed based on number of people, not on the estimated cost of a shot. 

This may not be the perfect solution, but it is a way to ensure that the right amount of crew is hired, their costs are covered, and visual effects facilities are actually allowed a small amount of profit, while still covering their overhead. The important, and painful part, will be the negotiations between the trade organization and the studios (with an artist representative at the table), to establish what a base crew is, a standardized cost for said crew, and how much work this crew could create without adding additional team members. This base level might cover simple projects under 200 shots, for example, or simply be a negotiated starting point to build a crew that is capable of producing larger amounts of VFX for a blockbuster film. The process would be transparent between studio and facility, just as hiring a camera crew is transparent to production. But, with careful negotiations, and after some time, a new standard will be set, and the pain will subside. If this sounds like an unusual way to produce visual effects, just consider how the actual film production crew is hired and paid. This would be similar, with only the added component of adding cost for profit and overhead for the facility. 

As I said above, this may not be THE solution, but it is a starting point toward A solution. We, as a community, both artist and facility owner, must solve this dilemma to avoid the continuing "race to the bottom" visual effects has become. Note that the studios have no interest in a trade organization, or to unionize artists. The current disarray of the business only serves to help them produce content as inexpensively as possible. And they cannot be blamed for this. We live in a capitalist society, and the studios have shareholders to appease as well. Their job, because it is show BUSINESS, is to make money. But many years ago, the unions faced similar challenges when it came to unionizing studio lots or film productions, and in the end the studios learned that they could still profit under what is now most likely perceived as the "reasonable conditions" the unions have set for crews. VFX is no different. There will be pain through the process, and there will be more challenges, but in the end these solutions will serve to revamp the industry in a way that is palatable to all parties, and we can return to the craft we all chose, namely telling stories.

Thank you for reading.

John Parenteau

John Parenteau is an Emmy-award winning visual effects professional whose credits include "Star Trek: Voyager", "The X-Files" and "seaQuest DSV", and was general manager of Pixomondo Los Angeles.  He now runs Silverdraft, a supercomputer technology company.  Read more at http://www.johnparenteau.com/

We've Been Busy

... finishing up this one film.   Oh, look, here's a new teaser for a film that has some pretty nifty visual effects.   direct YouTube link

The VFX Predictinator and The 85th Academy Awards

 

The visual effects team behind "Life of Pi" took home the Oscar for visual effects at the 85th Academy Awards.  Congratulations to Bill Westenhofer, Guillaume Rocheron, Erik-Jan De Boer and Donald R. Elliott and everyone involved with the visual and special effects of the amazing film.

This also marks another victory for The VFX Predictinator, our formula for predicting the winner of the visual effects Academy Award.  We created a unified formula that correctly predicts the outcome of the visual effects winner from 1989-2008; we used that same formula to correctly predict "Avatar" in 2009, "Inception" in 2010 and "Hugo" in 2011.  Well, we got it right again for "Life of Pi" in 2012.

 

Before the awards ceremony, hundreds of visual effects professionals rallied for a VFX protest, complete with a plane flying a banner overhead that read "BOXOFFICE + BANKRUPT = VISUAL EFFECTS VFXUNION.COM".  Read FXGuide's coverage here.

The awards ceremony itself was a debacle for the visual effects community.  First, presenters of the visual effects Oscar Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Mark Ruffalo and Samuel L. Jackson, all of whom have benefitted greatly from partnering with visual effects throughout their careers, joked around awkwardly with some poorly rehearsed schtick about respecting the artistry of visual effects.  The winners were read, and midway through Bill Westenhofer's speech, the 'play-off' music began to rumble (John Williams' "Jaws"). Before Westenhofer could finish his statement, his mic was cut off and the director cut away to Nicole Kidman and her husband.  Then, accepting the Best Director Oscar, Ang Lee failed to thank any visual effects members of his team.  In addition, Oscar winner Claudio Miranda (for "Life of Pi"'s cinematography) also failed to thank any members of the visual effects team; strange for a film whose cinematography was extensively created by visual effects artists.  Read The Hollywood Reporter's coverage here, and read Stu Maschwitz' article here for a classy recap. 

My emotions are all tied up in strange knots; I'm thrilled and inspired by the current state of artistic achievement of our industry, and also saddened by our relative powerlessness in Hollywood.

With and Without Rhythm & Hues

A protest at this year's Academy Awards is taking place today to draw attention to the current state of the visual effects industry. While visual effects films are making billions of dollars at the box office, visual effects facilities are declaring bankruptcy and going out of business. The situation has never been more bizarre and ironic than the recent bankruptcy announcement of Rhythm & Hues, the visual effects shop that created the creatures of "Life of Pi", a film that has earned $580M worldwide, and, which many believe is the frontrunner to win the Oscar for visual effects at today's awards show.

"Piece of the Pi" Protest at the Academy Awards https://www.facebook.com/events/102072926647311/

I created these two graphics to illustrate the importance of visual effects to a film like "Life of Pi", and I'm thrilled that they've been passed around the internet to help with awareness of the current crisis state of the visual effects community.

see full size

see full size

Visual Effects, Oscars and Box Office

Just like last year, I thought it would be interesting to see a breakdown of the average box office earnings of each of this year's 85th Academy Award nominees, per category.

And, just like last year, it is completely lopsided.  Here is this year's chart, indicating the average domestic and international box office take of the nominees for each category, as of February 5, 2013.  Click here for a larger version of the chart.

The average Oscar nominee for visual effects earned $763M (up from $662M last year).  By comparison, the average nominee for Best Picture this year earned $202M, which is a particularly strong box office year for Best Picture nominees.  Leading the pack in the visual effects race was "The Avengers" (which earned $1.5B), "The Hobbit 1" ($956) and "Life of Pi" ($548M).

The second highest grossing category is Best Music (Song) with an average of $503M box office earnings per nominee; the category was buoyed by hits like "Skyfall" ($1.1B),  "Life of Pi" ($548M) and "Ted" ($529M).

Again, this should surprise virtually no one.  I wrote all my caveats and explanations last year, so I won't rehash them here.  This only proves that in each major cinema discipline that the Academy chooses to reward with a statuette, the average box office take of 'the best' visual effects films far exceeds any other discipline's 'best' work.

I wrote this last year when I charted the box office averages for the 84th Academy Awards:

It also illustrates the sad state of the visual effects community. The average Oscar nominee for visual effects made over $662 million globally, and yet our industry has relatively little power in Hollywood.

This is still true, of course.

Showing my work; a CSV of the data is here.

Oscar Pool Ballot, 85th Academy Awards

It's time for the Awesomest Oscar Pool Ballot In The History Of Oscar Pool Ballots.

Every year I create a special ballot based on the oscar.com printable ballot -- but on my ballot, each category has a different point value. The highest valued category is "Best Picture," while the mainstream films' categories are valued at two points. The non-mainstream categories (like the documentary and short film categories) are valued at one point.

This way, in a tight race for the winner, the winner most likely would not be determined by the non-mainstream films (i.e., blind guesses).

Download the ballot here for the 85th Academy Awards and use it at your Oscar party.

And if you're wondering why Tom Cruise is on my ballot... he's been on every one of my Oscar ballots. Because he's soooooooooo cool.

The VFX Show Oscar Preview Podcast

Mike Seymour, Matt Wallin and I talk about the 85th Academy Award nominees for Best Visual Effects in FXGuide's The VFX Show #162.  I had a great time chatting about all things visual effects.

Of course, we go into detail about this years' VFX Predictinator results and what it all means.

Mike Seymour, Todd Vaziri and Matt Wallin discuss the five Academy Award nominated films in the VFX category and Todd Vaziri’s VFX Predictinator!

 

Show notes and link:  http://www.fxguide.com/thevfxshow/the-vfx-show-162-2013-oscar-preview-show/

iTunes link