Open discussion about ILM and the magic they create. Also VFX and movies in general. Anyone can post topics here.

Moderator: malducin

#33747
vfx fan wrote:Not sure where this belongs, but I'm subscribed to this thread and can easily direct myself to it in case anyone responds, but...am I the only one irritated that the new Cinefex cover isn't STAR WARS?


What is the cover?

Me and Kevin have had discussions about this in the past: Cinefex's covers are rarely the highlight of the magazine. In fact, many of their covers I find....lacking.
#33749
vfx fan wrote:It's the dragon on GAME OF THRONES.


Ahh....well vfx for that show and others on tv is really starting to rival feature vfx(except in the case of the very best character animation front, where I think features still has an edge). I can see why they would put that on the cover. But yeah, I think Star Wars earned a cover on all previous films so it is a bit disappointing TLJ failed to get one.

As I've said before, Cinefex covers have over the years veered from great to...ehh...to what the hell were they thinking? so it's not that surprising. My biggest issue(hehe) with Cinefex issues are films they fail to cover at all. Going bi-monthly has corrected that a bit but there are still gaps that simply can't really be addressed in a physical publication. There is simply too much vfx today to cover it all.
That's why I've long thought they should have embraced online more aggressively and used that as a supplement or addition to their subscription rather than merely a addendum to the existing coverage.
#33750
I think one of Cinefex's worst covers was Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. I understand having Nicholson's Joker and DeVito's Penguin on the front, as they were pretty impressive makeup feats...but Bane was just Tom Hardy in a mask. I don't think there was anything major done with him fx wise, seeing how Nolan refuses to use CGI.

Their covers for RAGNOROK and BLADE RUNNER 2049 weren't so great either.
#33751
vfx fan wrote:I think one of Cinefex's worst covers was Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. I understand having Nicholson's Joker and DeVito's Penguin on the front, as they were pretty impressive makeup feats...but Bane was just Tom Hardy in a mask. I don't think there was anything major done with him fx wise, seeing how Nolan refuses to use CGI.

Their covers for RAGNOROK and BLADE RUNNER 2049 weren't so great either.


Yeah you can find several over the years that were really WTF. I can somewhat see them putting stars on the cover as maybe some people might see an actor and go "oh yeah, he is in that movie" etc. Maybe there is a bit of an uptick in counter sales because of that? The covers sometimes just seem at odds to what Cinefex is actually covering, which is the vfx.
#33753
Yesterday during the Super Bowl there was a commercial announcing JJ Abram's production of The Cloverfield Paradox(formerly known as The God Particle)would stream in Netflix after the game.

This is one of those ILM vfx management shows so Jason H. Snell and Russell Earl were the vfx supervisors and Base Fx and Atomic Fiction did the vfx.
It was a very confusing show, not as good as 10 Cloverfield Lane and certainly not Cloverfield.

JJ needs to reteam with Matt Reeves and do a proper sequel already.
#33777
I saw BLACK PANTHER. Not the best MCU film, but far from the worst. I'd likely rank it somewhere in the middle of all the films, maybe a notch or two above DOCTOR STRANGE, and certainly better than all the THOR films, but I haven't created a thorough list of my film rankings in this category. THE WINTER SOLDIER remains my favorite.

Interestingly, Method Studios is the first fx studio to be credited at the end, even though ILM is credited on the poster, which would lead me to assume they were the main vendor...though they didn't get a movie poster credit in THOR RAGNOROK but got listed first in the credits for that. What is the pattern anymore?

Don't know who was involved in what.
#33782
Yeah, a lot of the action scenes looked a little cartoony for a movie that was one of the more serious films in the canon.

To me, both this movie and Wonder Woman seemed a product of a talented filmmaker that is just inexperienced with big CGI shots. Another example that springs to mind is Sam Raimi and the first Spider-Man.

A lot of the environment work was really good and beautiful to look at.
#33795
vfx fan wrote:I saw BLACK PANTHER.

Interestingly, Method Studios is the first fx studio to be credited at the end, even though ILM is credited on the poster, which would lead me to assume they were the main vendor...though they didn't get a movie poster credit in THOR RAGNOROK but got listed first in the credits for that. What is the pattern anymore?

Don't know who was involved in what.


Well this is an entirely huge subject on its own. In many cases, vfx credits are arbitrary, political, and truncated. And the number of shots doesnt address the complexity of shots or their sophistication or even their importance in the narrative.

The other thing I have noticed over the last several years is those studios residing in places with large subsidies also have a tendency to have HUGE crews. Now, I don't know if there are other issues like large shot counts, tight schedules, etc that makes that also a reason for the large staff. But some of those shows done by facilities in subsidy countries appear, at least on initial examination, to have huge crews larger than otherwise.
It makes me wonder why that is. I do know that vfx margins are said to be slim or non-existent, so I'm not sure it is an issue of subsidies leading to inflated staffs. I doubt that. But, there does appear to be an interesting correlation, if not causation. Is it just a matter of some vfx companies have different methods requiring larger crews? Is it an issue of some vfx companies have more political sway in obtaining larger credits in a film?
It is an established fact that ILM in the 80s had a reputation that did lead to their credit, "visual effects by Industrial Light and Magic", placed on the official movie posters and filmmaker listings. You even mentioned their placement in Marvel film lobby posters and movie posters. But then that leads to the question: is that mostly a corporate synergistic move because Disney is also Marvel and Disney is also ILM, etc?
There doesn't appear to be a common pattern to the placement of vfx crews, their numbers, their omission, or who is listed first, etc.
Method did do look dev and conceptualization on Black Panther so maybe they were the first onboard the film and so were listed first?
It is hard to say.
  • 1
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 83