Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Variety: In this golden age of television, visual-effects artists are often asked for “feature-quality” effects, but with a fraction of the budget and time feature film vfx artists enjoy.
4 comments:
Noah Hull
said...
I really wish this article had gone more in depth about what the effects where and how they had been created, perhaps including a video or two of the effects they mentioned so readers could see what the article was talking about. As it is its really just a list of who got nominated, a brief description of the show, and maybe a quote from someone involved with the creation of the effects. That being said, I liked Joe Bauer’s point about how sometimes the best way to make something look real is to use the real thing. I know its not always practical or safe, but when it can be done the results can be amazing, as the dragon fire in Game of Thrones can prove. With the amount of pressure these shows are under I’d love to know more about the process they go through to decide when to use vfx and when to use practical effects.
I often have wondered about the technical differences between film and tv production, being relatively unfamiliar with both. As illustrated by this article, visual special effects (vfx) are perhaps one of the most glaring differences. time and monetary budgeting for these two different forms of filmed entertainment are wildly different, so it's understandable that one would find a few differences in the production management methodology (if that's even the correct term) used on both. However, differences in management, put aside, I was not expecting to find vfx responsible for so much in the television world. As the article states, the amount of time and money that TV vfx artists receive is much lower than their film counterparts, and yet they manage to create essentially the same magic. Technology has a definite role to play in this, but I simply find the differences and similarities oddly placed, and as an uneducated theater plebian, would like to know a little bit more about the challenges faced by both.
It always has amazed me the scope of television visual effects of some shows, with still such a fraction of the budget of most films. I do believe there is a bit of a "work til you drop" mentality among animators and visual effects artists that isn't mentioned here - I read about it in depth after the visual FX company responsible for almost the entirety of Life of Pi went under mere months after the movie won an Oscar or something. Animators and visual FX artists are woefully underpaid for the amount of work needed to put into a realistic looking shot, not compensated correctly, and expected to work long hours and overtime to complete a show by the deadline. Sound familiar? We are one of the same kind, as many artists are.
A funny blog is called ClientsFromHell, and is a collection of horror stories from artists and other designers about terrible clients. An extremely reoccurring theme is a client saying, "Well, can't you just work unpaid overtime?" Or, "My niece could do what you're doing FOR FREE!" Which unfortunately is a common theme in freelance designer and artists lives. This mentality of not respecting an artists work or the skills needed to create such work, sucks.
With visual-effects developing and growing faster than ever, this article along with many other articles/videos about vfx make me wonder how this transition is like for actors. I've seen makings of many movies today where the actor is, instead of at an actually realistic set, acting in front of nothing but a green screen for the majority of the film, which is an interesting contrast to how the producer of the Titanic 1997 called his wife telling her that they did it and no one died right after they wrapped up the last scene. This spurt in technology is definitely more convenient and safe (and expensive), but I wonder how or if this would affect the actors' acting with the sudden lack of "world" that their characters are supposed to be in. It's interesting to see that although the vfx supervisor for Game of Thrones believes that sometimes less vfx is the way to go, but it's only to make the vfx look better.
4 comments:
I really wish this article had gone more in depth about what the effects where and how they had been created, perhaps including a video or two of the effects they mentioned so readers could see what the article was talking about. As it is its really just a list of who got nominated, a brief description of the show, and maybe a quote from someone involved with the creation of the effects. That being said, I liked Joe Bauer’s point about how sometimes the best way to make something look real is to use the real thing. I know its not always practical or safe, but when it can be done the results can be amazing, as the dragon fire in Game of Thrones can prove. With the amount of pressure these shows are under I’d love to know more about the process they go through to decide when to use vfx and when to use practical effects.
I often have wondered about the technical differences between film and tv production, being relatively unfamiliar with both. As illustrated by this article, visual special effects (vfx) are perhaps one of the most glaring differences. time and monetary budgeting for these two different forms of filmed entertainment are wildly different, so it's understandable that one would find a few differences in the production management methodology (if that's even the correct term) used on both. However, differences in management, put aside, I was not expecting to find vfx responsible for so much in the television world. As the article states, the amount of time and money that TV vfx artists receive is much lower than their film counterparts, and yet they manage to create essentially the same magic. Technology has a definite role to play in this, but I simply find the differences and similarities oddly placed, and as an uneducated theater plebian, would like to know a little bit more about the challenges faced by both.
It always has amazed me the scope of television visual effects of some shows, with still such a fraction of the budget of most films. I do believe there is a bit of a "work til you drop" mentality among animators and visual effects artists that isn't mentioned here - I read about it in depth after the visual FX company responsible for almost the entirety of Life of Pi went under mere months after the movie won an Oscar or something. Animators and visual FX artists are woefully underpaid for the amount of work needed to put into a realistic looking shot, not compensated correctly, and expected to work long hours and overtime to complete a show by the deadline. Sound familiar? We are one of the same kind, as many artists are.
A funny blog is called ClientsFromHell, and is a collection of horror stories from artists and other designers about terrible clients. An extremely reoccurring theme is a client saying, "Well, can't you just work unpaid overtime?" Or, "My niece could do what you're doing FOR FREE!" Which unfortunately is a common theme in freelance designer and artists lives. This mentality of not respecting an artists work or the skills needed to create such work, sucks.
With visual-effects developing and growing faster than ever, this article along with many other articles/videos about vfx make me wonder how this transition is like for actors. I've seen makings of many movies today where the actor is, instead of at an actually realistic set, acting in front of nothing but a green screen for the majority of the film, which is an interesting contrast to how the producer of the Titanic 1997 called his wife telling her that they did it and no one died right after they wrapped up the last scene. This spurt in technology is definitely more convenient and safe (and expensive), but I wonder how or if this would affect the actors' acting with the sudden lack of "world" that their characters are supposed to be in. It's interesting to see that although the vfx supervisor for Game of Thrones believes that sometimes less vfx is the way to go, but it's only to make the vfx look better.
Post a Comment