In all kinds of productions there seems to be a heavy reliance on the director. That's the standard I guess. Should not we, the vfx-artists, be the authority of our own domain?
We know the pains of each new change and the cost penalty associated with it. Because we feel the direct effects when doing the extra work. It has been said in a few different ways in this thread; great leading artists can nip those pains in the bud. Working exhaustingly to find that "this wasn't what the client wanted" is surely a great waste of talent, money and passion. But we all get why things get delayed before it leaves the house. Questions like these appear; "is this up to par with the quality the client expects?" And; "if we show this, will the director suddenly change the direction and narrative?" I do not claim to have any solutions, yet. I simply state that the director cannot possibly be expected to know the repercussions each decision could have. But at this point, it seems like VFX vendors carry the risk while the directors/producers gets away with it. Why? Because we want the movie to be made. Bad decicions should be costly, VFX-houses who did everything right shouldn't be paying the price. /Elias 20 mar 2014 kl. 23:24 skrev Frank Rueter|OHUfx <fr...@ohufx.com>: > I think all we can all do is collect scenarios that worked well and figure > out why they worked well. > > I was part of a small team (6 or so artists) delivering some pretty complex > commercials that involved cg creatures, ray tracing deforming surfaces, fluid > simulation, deep compositing yaddayadda. > The director was one of the team and had his desk next to us. We delivered > all spots in about 6 weeks and in all that time I worked a few hours overtime > twice (half of that because I couldn't be bothered to sit in my hotel room > and stare at the wall). > The job was welled paid, the team was awesome, the client loved everything, > and I can't remember when I was able to witness such efficiency, most of > which stemmed from, as pointed out by others, the ability to have the > director to make decisions fast. Of course the team's competence played a > huge role as well, as every single one could manage themselves and > communicate, take criticism from each other and not let ego get in a way of a > good suggestion, even if it came from the cleaning woman. > > Comparing that to high end feature film work almost makes me cry. One of the > biggest time and money wasters, in my opinion, is the fact that directors > aren't accessible to the people whos work needs to be directed. Too many > supes of all sorts get (or are put) in the way who all have a different > opinion and different priorities. In one instance I counted 5 supes between > the "final" comp and the actual director (not counting producers with > opinions), and sometimes weeks went by with potential finals sitting on the > shelf, waiting for the director to look at them - only to get notes for huge > changes that needed more time than what was left. > > Also, and more importantly, many producers tend to shift down a few gears > once the shoot wraps and often don't bother putting a competent (!) post > production manager in place. If post production was managed like a shoot > (where everything costs money every minute you are on set), things would be > radically different; director feedback would be weighted against the > financial repercussions, and concessions would be made to achieve "good > enough" every single day. Work and time would be valued and not treated like > a throw away commodity. > But often there is no controlling the director in post, and he/she can make > any calls they like. As long as the vfx vendor doesn't put up a fight, the > producers tend to not get involved anymore and just make sure there are no > change orders coming there way. > > Imagine the same approach on set - shoots would take forever, crew would get > burnt and costs would explode uncontrollably... sounds familiar, doesn't it. > > > > > > > On 3/21/14, 4:45 AM, Ron Ganbar wrote: >> Well, I didn't say I have all the answers. Some a few good, rewarding >> experiences. >> It doesn't seem like anyone has the answers. >> >> >> >> Ron Ganbar >> email: ron...@gmail.com >> tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK] >> +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel] >> url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/ >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Randy Little <randyslit...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Yeah Ron but how do you manage that when there are 10 VFX houses working on >>> your movie? Big companies like Technicolor/MPC and Deluxe/Method/(all of >>> former Ascent Media) are huge corporations that aren't in the creative >>> business for any other reason then to make money. So if the management of >>> those power players can get it cheap and don't care about burn out and turn >>> over because schools will replenish the supply yearly. They Keep there top >>> staff happy and everything and everyone else is disposable as long as it >>> keeps the bottom line in the black. That then forces most others into >>> that game to compete. I don't know if it affects ILM, Weta, and Pixar but >>> i'm sure it does at some level. I have a friend that is a mid that was >>> just hired at $18/h (canadian) and they wouldn't budge. He either took it >>> or didn't get the job. This is one of the largest VFX houses in the world >>> doing this. I wish it could be like smaller movies with 200-400 shots >>> all done at one place. I just don't see how that works on a movie with >>> 2400 shots spread across multiple companies. There must be a way to do >>> it with cinesync and dailies and such but maybe its just to much when its >>> not planned out well at the very get go. Look what happened with Red >>> Tails. Whole sections of animation just totally redone after delivery. >>> OUCH. That then put a hurt on some companies Money and time wise. So now >>> they can't afford to higher seniors and by measure can not afford to not >>> hire seniors. What a mess. >>> >>> Randy S. Little >>> http://www.rslittle.com/ >>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2325729/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Ron Ganbar <ron...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I had a similar experience on three separate occasions. >>>> The teams were always smaller (up to 60 people including producers and >>>> everyone else), and the director was ALWAYS IN THE ROOM with us. I must >>>> say it was so rewarding and everyone felt we got the best value for the >>>> money spent, and that every cent of the meager budgets we worked on ended >>>> up on the screen. >>>> However, whenever the director was not an integral part of the post >>>> production process, working this efficiently has always proven very >>>> difficult. >>>> You spend a lot of time second guessing what the director will want, what >>>> he meant. The turnaround becomes slow. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ron Ganbar >>>> email: ron...@gmail.com >>>> tel: +44 (0)7968 007 309 [UK] >>>> +972 (0)54 255 9765 [Israel] >>>> url: http://ronganbar.wordpress.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Fredrik Pihl <fre...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Feeling the urge to comment.... :) >>>>> >>>>> Been comping for 20something years - and do my daily chores as VFX >>>>> producer nowadays. >>>>> I find our business pretty mis-managed on so many levels - so no wonder >>>>> all the growing pains we've started to go through recently (we're not >>>>> even close to done with that yet). >>>>> There is so much to be done in this area, how to manage projects, >>>>> artists, tech and clients, and pretty radical measures need to be taken - >>>>> and I now know it makes all the difference in the world. >>>>> >>>>> I was asked to take over a project that had more or less completely >>>>> crashed. The project involved some 3600 shots in three features, and at >>>>> the time it crashed one flick was >>>>> nearly done but one company was bankrupt and all money was used up. And >>>>> the remaining two films w their 2200 shots was not even close to start >>>>> being worked on. >>>>> I was most hesitant to the task - because the extra money asked to >>>>> complete the project was - not very much - even by "eastern standards" >>>>> (still remember the reply of a Bombay manager with his typical indian >>>>> accent - "Dat iz not wery much money... are you joking?"...). >>>>> But I asked the production company to get complete freedom in how to >>>>> manage the project - and in the dire straits the were in - I got a GO to >>>>> be "unorthodox". >>>>> >>>>> This is actually a very long tale >>>>> that should be told in detail, some day.. - it almost became an >>>>> "involuntary" pilot test project of how things can be done, in resonance >>>>> with what Scott Ross et alumni have been talking about... >>>>> >>>>> But in short - by extreme managing use of resources, artists and a >>>>> specially tailored pipeline.. trying new schemes and ways of having a >>>>> good mix of leads and juniors, we got it done on time, on budget.. in a >>>>> good enough quality - without sending it abroad - without underpaying >>>>> people - without unpaid overtime (in fact no overtime) - >>>>> without giving artists stomach ache. And by ridding >>>>> the word "post" out of postproductionVFXs... we got the client extremely >>>>> involved so that every cent spent ended up as a pixel and nothing else. >>>>> >>>>> It has been a really exciting thing to be able to do it on such a meager >>>>> budget and NOT having people suffer > _______________________________________________ > Nuke-users mailing list > Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ > http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
_______________________________________________ Nuke-users mailing list Nuke-users@support.thefoundry.co.uk, http://forums.thefoundry.co.uk/ http://support.thefoundry.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nuke-users
