Lukas, how would you compare Night Sky to The Old Man (if you have watched it)? I haven't watched Night Sky but both seem to have stupendously compelling leads surrounded by potentially interesting but very cagey supporting casts. I don't know about Night Sky but The Old Man is not a fast show.
Old Man is acclaimed and renewed.
On the cancelled shows front, I liked The Time Travelers Wife. But that was done in a way that at the end of the season I was ready for more but satisfied that a story had been told. If The Old Man had ended where it did that would have been terrible.
Interesting piece but I’m a little confused. You say you got pissed off by YouTuber comments about the FX looking like a video game cut scene but then go go on to say that was what you intended because you wanted a retro look and to keep the FX shots distracting the audience’s attention.
So, respectfully, I have a few questions:
1. If the video game aesthetic was what you were going for, why be annoyed when people say the FX look like a cut scene?
2. Do you really believe your audience would be distracted by complex effects than simple ones? If so, on what is that belief predicated? Surely if an audience is so easily distracted by complex FX directors would insist on simpler ones for their movies, Which would delight the studios because the FX budget would be way smaller. Take Avengers: Endgame for example - in the climatic battle with Thanos there is a LOT going on and it’s all FX driven - green screen, wire work, practical work, models, false perspective, opticals. And some of the action IS hard to follow on first showing because you don’t know where to look. But that complexity didn’t stop Endgame making gazillions of loot at the box office.
I’m not trolling (indeed I thought your short was neat and well shot and my only real criticism is that some of the color grading seemed a bit inconsistent but I watched it on an old iPad so the issue could be with me) but just genuinely curious about what you were saying about the FX.
PS Really think the project would benefit from a name change from Sky Fighter. Just saying!
What makes that Vulture piece even sadder is the fact that a lot of Marvel film visual effects are not very good, even after all that weeping and long hours.
Interesting piece but I’m a little confused. You say you got pissed off by YouTuber comments about the FX looking like a video game cut scene but then go go on to say that was what you intended because you wanted a retro look and to keep the FX shots distracting the audience’s attention.
So, respectfully, I have a few questions:
1. If the video game aesthetic was what you were going for, why be annoyed when people say the FX look like a cut scene?
2. Do you really believe your audience would be distracted by complex effects than simple ones? If so, on what is that belief predicated? Surely if an audience is so easily distracted by complex FX directors would insist on simpler ones for their movies, Which would delight the studios because the FX budget would be way smaller. Take Avengers: Endgame for example - in the climatic battle with Thanos there is a LOT going on and it’s all FX driven - green screen, wire work, practical work, models, false perspective, opticals. And some of the action IS hard to follow on first showing because you don’t know where to look. But that complexity didn’t stop Endgame making gazillions of loot at the box office.
I’m not trolling (indeed I thought your short was neat and well shot and my only real criticism is that some of the color grading seemed a bit inconsistent but I watched it on an old iPad so the issue could be with me) but just genuinely curious about what you were saying about the FX.
PS Really think the project would benefit from a name change from Sky Fighter. Just saying!
Thanks for your feedback and questions!
I guess I was annoyed by the YouTube comments because we had a limited budget and we tried to be as creative as possible.
I believe that, for the purposes of our spaceship holograms, if the holograms were too dazzling and complicated, it would slow down the storytelling and be a detriment to the film.
I used the example of Apple interfaces to the artists: look at how iPhones have simple interfaces. The screen shows you the important pieces of information. It doesn't show you 12 things at once.
I think this is more like George Miller's philosophy than Marvel's, which is why I think the action in Fury Road is far superior to The Avengers.
I think this is more like George Miller's philosophy than Marvel's, which is why I think the action in Fury Road is far superior to The Avengers.
FURY ROAD, which was nonstop action, had two things going for it, which some Marvel movies don't:
1. At any minute in the movie, you knew what it was about. You didn't just see action, you knew what was going on. Every action followed out of a previous action. And it felt like there was something at stake.
2. Great mixture of practical effects enhanced by CGI (instead of the other way around), which kept the whole movie, even though it was completely over the top and outrageously so, grounded and believable.
I think this is more like George Miller's philosophy than Marvel's, which is why I think the action in Fury Road is far superior to The Avengers.
FURY ROAD, which was nonstop action, had two things going for it, which some Marvel movies don't:
1. At any minute in the movie, you knew what it was about. You didn't just see action, you knew what was going on. Every action followed out of a previous action. And it felt like there was something at stake.
2. Great mixture of practical effects enhanced by CGI (instead of the other way around), which kept the whole movie, even though it was completely over the top and outrageously so, grounded and believable.
To Nicolai's point, you knew what was happening in FURY ROAD because the effects sequences were planned out to tell the story. In ILM's heyday, they did the same thing with their miniature effects sequences, carefully planning what the purpose of the shot was, where the camera would be, what was the focal point, etc. A lot of CG effects now are afterthoughts, achieved in a 3D sandbox where you can put the camera anywhere and do anything. As a result, a lot of CGI sequences lack specificity and therefore coherence. FURY ROAD was essentially a practically-shot film with CGI enhancements.
For Lukas' SKY FIGHTER holograms, he made the smart decision. I mentioned this about music in a different thread, but the "film nerd" approach by some young people working in the industry leads to lackluster decisions based on what "looked cool in that other movie" rather than gaining the discipline of the craft. Holograms can be some of the laziest effects in a sci-fi film, and most of the time I hear the same lazy approach of copying "the Minority Report interface" or "Star Wars" or "Blade Runner". The people saying that have no idea how to set dress or set design.
In Lukas' case, the simplified holograms and technology much more effectively communicate information about what the technology is doing in the story rather than being the mere visual decor it usually is in most movies, including Marvel movies.
A lot of directors today don’t understand coherent visual storytelling. I bet for most of these mega franchises the directors have very little impute or say. They film the live action stuff then hand it over to the CGI Director.
Marvels visual effects have gone way down hill. I think mostly because of the rush to crank out content and the audience don’t seem to care if the CGI looks like crap.
Do they still storyboard like they used to? That goes a long way in cutting down on waist and having a plan to follow.
I've had conversations about this effects issue with several friends in the movie industry.
One actor who has worked in action films for decades said to me "It used to be, if you had a scene with forty soldiers, that was a lot. And you had to plan out exactly what each of them did. Now, they can do a hundred digital soldiers, and then somebody says 'Why not make it five hundred?' and before you know it, you can't tell what's going on."
The thing is, a lot of it (as always) comes down to executive panic. One director friend of mine who's done several big effects movies has bemoaned that whatever intentions one has at the beginning, by the end, people are dead to the film, and only a big camera move or some new sparkly something will make them excited again.
And at that point, yes, coherence often goes out the window. The trench run in Star Wars is laid out graphically so you can understand every element of it. Long trench, hole at the end, eventually just one fighter being chased by three more fighters en route to the hole. Now they can put a thousand ships going in every direction, and it's spectacular but dramatically inert.
But when they made that movie, just getting anything down on film felt like a miracle. It's not that everybody has forgotten how to do it. The irony is that pressures from all sides when every image is possible make it in some ways harder to make a coherent sequence than when it was nearly impossible to shoot anything.
As the great quote from Truffaut's Day for Night goes, "Shooting a movie is like a stagecoach trip. At first you hope for a nice ride. Then you just hope to reach your destination."
And at that point, yes, coherence often goes out the window. The trench run in Star Wars is laid out graphically so you can understand every element of it. Long trench, hole at the end, eventually just one fighter being chased by three more fighters en route to the hole. Now they can put a thousand ships going in every direction, and it's spectacular but dramatically inert.
The Last Battle in Star Wars remains brilliant and enthralling. Far more than most big action sequences nowadays. The Snow Battle in Empire, The Battle In The Nebula in WOK as well show how to put together a well read thrilling action sequence. Of course the music helps too!
Orville season three has gone CGI crazy. I find most of the shots boring and very hard to read. Episode 8 had one shot where the ship was slowly turning around in a nebula and the gases were floating off of the Orville. That one shot (while its been done before) was cooler than all the other shots that had dozens of things whizzing around on screen at the same time.
But when they made that movie, just getting anything down on film felt like a miracle. It's not that everybody has forgotten how to do it. The irony is that pressures from all sides when every image is possible make it in some ways harder to make a coherent sequence than when it was nearly impossible to shoot anything.
To this point, you were given a bit more latitude on special effects in the ILM-miniature age because it took more time to do photochemical compositing, and the technical awareness of executives was such that far more trust was put in the technicians doing the work. It's true that now with the tools being much easier, it has led to more filmmaking by committee than usual.
That said, in my experience there is also a level of discipline that doesn't always occur. Making a film isn't just about the film itself, but the process as well - how updates are communicated, maintaining schedules, keeping stakeholders happy. A lot of productions are disorganized and just don't have A+++ people working on them so some executives are right to be worried and putting pressure on the production team. If your approach is run-of-the-mill boiler-plate in the pre-production phase and your teams aren't defining the creative approach early in the process, it's going to pile up really fast in the end. To Schiffy's point though, there are still good people working in the film industry who know what they're doing, but if a team of all-stars is being led by someone who isn't cutting it, they can only do so much.
I don't know precisely why a lot of Disney's purchased IPs are hit-or-miss now, but my guess is a lot of them are pushed into production as a business-led decision as opposed to being a creative-led decision. So in the end you have Disney farming out the creative work to a bunch of disconnected creative agency teams doing their best, but all disconnected from each other and too late in the process.
But when they made that movie, just getting anything down on film felt like a miracle. It's not that everybody has forgotten how to do it. The irony is that pressures from all sides when every image is possible make it in some ways harder to make a coherent sequence than when it was nearly impossible to shoot anything.
To this point, you were given a bit more latitude on special effects in the ILM-miniature age because it took more time to do photochemical compositing, and the technical awareness of executives was such that far more trust was put in the technicians doing the work. It's true that now with the tools being much easier, it has led to more filmmaking by committee than usual.
That said, in my experience there is also a level of discipline that doesn't always occur. Making a film isn't just about the film itself, but the process as well - how updates are communicated, maintaining schedules, keeping stakeholders happy. A lot of productions are disorganized and just don't have A+++ people working on them so some executives are right to be worried and putting pressure on the production team. If your approach is run-of-the-mill boiler-plate in the pre-production phase and your teams aren't defining the creative approach early in the process, it's going to pile up really fast in the end. To Schiffy's point though, there are still good people working in the film industry who know what they're doing, but if a team of all-stars is being led by someone who isn't cutting it, they can only do so much.
I don't know precisely why a lot of Disney's purchased IPs are hit-or-miss now, but my guess is a lot of them are pushed into production as a business-led decision as opposed to being a creative-led decision. So in the end you have Disney farming out the creative work to a bunch of disconnected creative agency teams doing their best, but all disconnected from each other and too late in the process.
Good point. Nowadays with the magic of the keyboard you can make changes or add a thousand new elements on screen in seconds. There's really no restrictions. I'm exaggerating a bit, it still comes down to time and money, but the ease of going over board is far to tempting. Back when they shot models and did optical they had to be precise because it took half a day to do one shot. They couldn't afford to mess it up or go overboard.
In those bygone years everyone had a specialty. You hire people based on their skill sets. Industrial designers designed the hardware and sets, model makers made the models, painters painted the models, etc. Then you got the camera operators who knew how to set up and light a shot. Nowadays everyone has their hands in every aspect of the production and you just end up with a mess. Everyone is a Jack of all trades, master of none.
New on our “Screenplay Power Hour,” Charlie Vignola and I talk to writer Isabel Dréan, who has no less than five Christmas movies in various stages of production. We hear about the doors it’s opened and what comes next. Thanks Isabel for a great chat!
Obi-Wan was another bait and switch. The mini series was an excuse to shoe horn in Reva as the main protagonist. Her story was vapid and rang hollow. Her redemption was a disgrace. While Leia shouldn't have been in the story the actress was fine and I really believed she was a 10 year old Princess Leia. What failed her was the writing and directing. The script was so profoundly bad one could write a book critiquing the mini-series. Ewan McGregor was exceptional and I feel really bad for him. He clearly was into this but the producers, writers and director did him bad.
Yet another "people had a problem with this because they're racist!" excuse.
No, that is not what I said. This is what I said:
"The real problem is that, narratively, it’s Third Sister Reva’s story. She is the one with the “arc.” And I liked Moses Ingram, who apparently was on the receiving end of a bunch of racist harassment online—which is just so depressing and pathetic.
What is wrong with people? Wait, don’t answer that."
You can criticize the character, the actor, her acting, the show, whatever!
I'm talking about "fans" who sent the actor racist messages.
