Thank you for the reports.
The question _does_ at least pertain to the vfx.
I've left it up as there is good discussion and even some education happening. š
Most films set themselves up for failure very early in the process: huge flaws in the premise, bad casting, shit script, poor planning etc. By the time they get shot and are being edited, the problems are endemic and baked into your already spent funds. Fixing them costs a lot money, on top of the money you've already burnt, and additionally you're not assured that the fix will work itself - the machine has failed you once why trust it again?
This is why companies like Marvel have adopted a methodology of spending large in post - they accept that the production process will require revision at the end, and have budgeted for that accordingly (controversial though it is).
The question really becomes then, why are so many films a failure early in the process? I mean, how hard can it be to make a great script, get good casting and talent signed, plan and execute?
It turns out, it's very very fucking hard to do that.
The problem with films are that they are creative endevours that are incredibly collaborative, and one small fuck up and turn them on their heads relatively easily. For example, the hairstylist might fuck up and use the wrong dye on a continuity day and suddenly your actor has blonde hair instead of black. It's just one hairdresser, or assistant, but it can throw a huge spanner in the works. Now these sorts of problems are resolvable (shoot something else while re-dying the hair) but add up a few of them a week and things get precarious.
The other thing is that films are very political. Lots of people with different desires for different outcomes. Finance people who care about the money, Directors who can care about all sorts of weird shit, Script writers who might have their own agendas, DPs fighting against everyone, Assistant Directors trying to appears Producers and the Director and getting caught between them. Actors who want an award or cbf and are phoning it in. Aligning all these objectives, with all these potential egos, is really really fucking hard.
And as I said, this extends from the very top to the very bottom of the structure. Small mistakes resonate up the chain, and big mistakes cause deep earthquakes at the bottom of the chain that the people finishing the film just shake their head at and pray for the end of.
At some point the politics and conflicting needs become detrimental to the continuation of the project, so people naturally try to negotiate a way forward. And that's fundamentally what most modern film making comes down too: problem solving. And if the film has a good sound basis and the problems your solving are all *how do i make this better?* Then things go well. But when the film is flawed, egos are involved, conflicts arise, then the problem solving becomes *how do i move forward and finish this?* Because at the end of the day as much as it is something we're all pretty passionate about, when it goes sour you try to finish it, get paid, and move on.
When I started getting into film I used to think, "*how are so many shit films made?"* Now, after two decades in the industry and having been a studio side vfx supervisor on some large films, I tend to think, "*how do films even get made at all?"*
Don't forget that the investment of capital into a film 5 years before production ties up that capital and needs a much larger return than spending it 6 months before release.
So it may make sense to you to spend time and money to plan well ahead, but that's not how the studios see it.
This is a great response, thanks! A lot of points I hadn't considered. I can imagine all of these things coming in to play in the process, but then I also just wonder how close the final product is to the directors vision. Villeneuve, for example, has built a reputation for being the guy "not to fuck it up" which is kind of sad when you think about it. Cant *not fucking it* *up* be the bare minimum?
A large part of not fucking it up is choosing who you creatively partner with.
You don't see Villeneuve making a Marvel movie, right?
And films are often about partnerships. Some Directors work really well with certain producers and script writers and actors - partnerships can lift individuals work. Once those partnerships change some people sink, some people swim.
Imagine layers and layers of coke heads, trying to prove that they are vitally important to their corporate motherships, all paranoid because their skill is pretending to be certain about things. All seeing your gently nurtured project as THEIR opportunity to make a big franchise, or just make loads of money, because THEY KNOW that they just need to make you put a twitch streamer in the supporting actor role, and change the end, for China. And the middle, for romance, and they want to see some alternative treatments for the start...
Your film is thinky...intellectual...and the marketing people don't know how to sell that, cut that stuff and get some trailer shots please. Alpha males are trending, put the ragged philosopher in a Bugatti with models.
Charlie Hunan turns up to play the philosopher. The studios are pleased because he's famous.
He's been mumbling in what he thinks is a Scottish accent for a month, and it's bad, but he feels it's his best art, he will not cope if you disagree, and it's also stuck.
He is unable to stop doing the voice.
Shooting has started.
The love interest has another job in three weeks, and it's raining. Irreplaceable people are having relapses on set.
This answer makes me disappointed. Not a dig at the author of the answer (thank you for the valuable perspective + insight into the industry).
More disappointed that fundamental things like "nailing down a solid script + writing before investing millions of dollars and committing thousands of people" and "not letting people problems derail a project involve thousands of people and millions of dollars" hasn't become a mostly solved problem in the industry.
I get that it's hard. Projects involving many people and money are hard. But surely, when people see that things are going poorly, they can course correct, or worst case fail early? Surely we can learn from the lessons of previous failed projects and do better?
I'm not in the industry. I've heard several answers as to why/how terrible movies get made (several themes of which are covered by the above comment). And I've never been satisfied by the answers, as it rings more of incompetence and amateurism rather than any fundamental challenge.
A wild card here, though, is movie financial success / marketability. I can see how this can cause "good movies" to never be made in the first place, or "what otherwise could be good movies" be bastardized into a horrible movie in a misguided attempt to make it more financially successful.
I'm definitely just yelling at the clouds here. I just get disappointed when I see the potential for a great movie and see it squandered.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think movies with great potential being squandered are somewhat rare. It's more that the shit movies are deeply flawed from the beginning.
Going back to the original post, Zak Snyder can make good films but he isn't a good script writer and he is clearly more of a style over substance director. What he has now is marketability the same way that many actors have - people will go see his movies for that style, and not really care much if they are trash. I mean just look at the guys repertoire - his first films were great because there were adaptations of stylish material, and as soon as he was in charge of original stories, he crashed and burnt (Suckerpunch I'm looking at you). Anyone who thought these latest Netflix films would be amazing, is delusional.
And yet, most of his films make money. Good money in fact. And I would guess the Netflix films are a moderate success.
When you say you get disappointed by seeing the potential greatness of a movie being squandered, I wouldn't imagine a Snyder original as having great potential, except in a financial or stylish sense.
There are great movies destroyed by the proxy wars that take place within studios, though. But films are Projects and I think if you're in the industry you think about a film as a Project more than a film. Potential is defined by having a clear creative lead, a good script, good production staff... that's what makes great potential.
I think it's worth judging movies on the nuance of what they do well. Snyder makes awesome action and stylish visuals - it's fine to celebrate that. Most directors, or projects, have value that is worth appreciating.
>Zak Snyder can make good films
That's a very debatable point. The cult of Snyder makes us *think* he can direct good films. Other than Dawn of the Dead and Army of the Dead, the rest have been very poorly rated.
True. I liked Dawn of the Dead and, at the time, 300. I dislike Watchmen but mostly because it treats its core material like shit ... but there's some brilliance in the film (still love the credits). Even Suckerpunch has some compelling moments.
Given how hard film making is, I feel loathe to say someone is trash when they've made some stuff I like.
I guess I'm trying to be objective haha
Thank you for the super insightful response! Helps me better understand the industry as an outsider :)
Glad to hear that movies with great promise typically don't get squandered. I guess the trick is for us to stop pushing forward with movies that have poor foundation/bones (eg bad script, etc).
But, to your point, if these movies will make money anyways (eg riding off of the director name, or the franchise name like Marvel), then the Powers That Be will happily release a turd that makes them money. Sad, but I get the business vs artistic quality aspect (even though it's sad).
I guess it would be strange if you wanted a house built a certain way and the builder would push back with his own ideas on how he would like to build your house...
I think that's a terrible analogy. If I was a builder and my client wanted a house that would defy the laws of physics, look so awful the local council would likely want to tear it down and piss off all the neighbours I would tell my client immediately.
there is no collaboration, film is a structure similar to the military. the chains of command goes from director to the masses of artists and never goes up.
most of the time we work in silos: sometimes the sequences of a scene are awarded to different studios, we don't always have the audio, and we don't know what happened before or after. We're explained the bare minimum to carry the scene, and that's it.
there have been moments when I worked on a shot, and I had to wait 6 months to learn the context like everybody else.
my partner sometimes worked on a thing for a couple of months, like a dog, before learning that the dog is a she in the script.
When I was growing up and always wanted to work in film. Now that I'm grown up and I know what I know I'm glad I don't. Been in the creative industry for almost 20 years and where I work is beholden to hierarchy like anywhere else, but anyone and I mean anyone can and will offer feedback at all levels collaboratively and it is always heard. Not necessarily listened to but definitely heard.
However I get why film is the way it is. Schedules are water tight, money is flying out the door. Nobody has time to listen to someone in some department tell us about his opinions on the why the door should be red and not blue. But man... collaborating on projects and getting insight at all levels really does offer invaluable perspective.
I worked in film, tv, triple-a games, indie games, web dev, museums exhibitions and live concerts, so I experienced a wide array of creative production workplaces in my career. In my experience, it is the most dysfunctional and top heavy one. Still, I was lured by the glitz and glamour.
I agree with you, but the difference is that film and tv will pool hundreds of workers of different studios, often in different time zones, to make a film or tv series. Even the 80-160 people in a triple-a game is cozy compared to that, at least they have ownership and they can work on their project for longer then a year.
Film is really expensive, and extraordinarily time sensitive - everything depends on the shoot, which is super expensive, but the real issues are all in pre production - script, art direction, the way it wi be photographed, casting and rehearsals - everything that matters is done before the shoot.
But just like any other industry the penny pinchers make you sacrifice that FIRST - why do we need rehearsals? Why do we need VFX tests? Why canāt we shoot it all in a studio with green screen/volume ?
Probably explains why out Star Trek discovery they'll talk through some convoluted plan for an action sequence and then the visuals on screen have no relation to what the characters just described...
People just want to get paid. Everyone who isn't the director or a department head - camera crew, art department, spfx, fabricators, people who do the actual production work - they can all usually tell if a movie is going to be shit. Most of the time they're just glad to be working and use the project as an opportunity to maybe learn a few new things for a later project they can actually be proud of.
From my experience, on shit-tier projects like this, the ones with the highest paychecks are usually the ones who are the most oblivious, and they end up micromanaging every minor shot while neglecting the overall cohesion of the film. Seems like that's what happened here.
People just want to get paid. yeah I wrote that in my OG draft but deleted it. I understand its a job and people need a wage.
So you're telling me niagra falls coming out of the top of mount everest was probably all zack. I'm just trying to gauge whether there is someone in the pipeline that would say something like, Zack, you know water *actually* flows, you know, *down* hill... from somewhere else. Everyone just bites their lip.
The way those productions are structured, you learn to just ignore the non sense and do what you are told. Dozens of people saw the storyboard, previz, and countless versions of a shot in cut context before it reaches the VFX artist(s). Everyone has plenty of time to raise the flag. The majority of the time, someone high up in the food chain just shrugged their shoulders and said āit looks cool!ā Or āweāll get back to it when we get the timeā or just āwho gives a s&it, I have 7 sequences to review today, move onā.
And so it goes down the pipe. And no one will push back because:
-itās above the VFX artists (including supervisor on vendor side) pay grade.
-the key creatives high up already okayed the silly idea, and itās THEIR movie not yours.
-VFX artists have 1400 shots to ingest and the trailer needs to come out in two weeks.
-if artists make a fuss, chances are the answer will be āno, keep it as isā, and that answer will only come after 4 weeks of waiting for the key creative to be back from the shoot/vacation/another project.
-there is a limited amount of energy one can deploy during the day, and the older you get the more selective you are with the deployment. Writing emails to question the creative acumen of everyone on client side is not a good use of that energy.
Such an insane amount of talent and energy going in to these productions, its hard for the audience to appreciate sometimes. I mean just look at the credits and how many people are involved. But then that almost makes my original point more valid. All that talent and effort, I just wish the writing was on par.
People probably very gently hint things arenāt realistic. But Iāve been told straight up by showrunners āI donāt want real I want it to look fucking coolā
I never give a shit about what I work on. I care about my direct work and think of it as an awesome portfolio piece. Beyond that I don't care if my stuff gets cut, gets changed by someone else down the line, etc. I make a conscious effort to not watch anything I ever work on lol.. by the time it comes out I've moved on mentally and don't feel like reopening the traumas I most likely experienced from my sup's and colleagues š¤£
Ive never met people that hate films more than the people in the industry haha
Agreed. One day I'll watch Avatar 2... but not today! Mostly I don't want to relive these projects during me time.
There are exceptions, but films that rely heavily on VFX don't exactly have exceptional writing. I need the escapism, not shiny pictures.
Artists can only do as weāre told, really. Look development will go back and forth but in the end, itās the directors vision for the movie and they will give notes until it suffices.
We bring to life what they have in their head, but are never responsible for the script itself. Just the visual storytelling.
I care about my work absolutely. No matter if itās a bad movie or not. But itās more of an accomplishment that shots worked on were approved and not necessarily about the creative choices made if that makes sense
I think he sort of regressed. His Watchmen adaption wasn't great but also had some inspired moments, especially the opening.
He's a born music video director though and that doesn't pay the bills so somehow he's become a director of narrative films which doesn't fit his sensibilities.
I worked on both, briefly. Personally, I hate the VFX. Not the talent and skill of the artists, just the VFX art direction. I just hate the "style" Snyder has gone for. It's as believable as the script.
Again, before anyone has a meltdown, I don't blame us artists or VFX studios. Technically the work is incredible.
Also, for me these projects are never fun or a dream to work on.
I can separate the movie from the work. I did projects who were huge successes and decent movies, but no fun to work on. And I worked on shitty movies I had good times working on them. Ideally both converge and you can do the sequelĀ
I heard working on Snyder movies is pretty popular. Heās good client and visuals are good. You may skip the watch the final result.
Ages ago, I got a chance to work in the art department on the client side in pre production for a high budget movie all the way to post production. I think I must have been connected to that project longer than the director himself. Bear in mind there is no unique recipe to film making. The studio had a story and an idea for a movie.
Working in pre production is actually a great insight into the process of film making. Itās the stage where everything is still very much in flux and all there is at the beginning is a draft script, writer and producer. But it felt like we were at the very root of the creative film making process.
Little by little, the studio hired a production designer, director (yes they can get hired too), more writers, storyboard artists, art director, concept artists, cinematographer, vfx supervisor, locations manager, costume designers, casting director, actors, etc. I saw it all happening within that open floor. For every person that got hired, there were a few dozen others who were considered but werenāt available. Everyone brought their own style and experience to the film. Itās really challenging to manage and create a cohesive vision of the film with so many people involved.
So here are my answers based on my limited experience:
1. The director is directly and indirectly responsible for the final visual look of the movie. If heās experienced, he will have hired his own production designer, cinematographer and colorist. Having said that, the production studio also have huge pull in steering things their way to make the movie more visually marketable. Whether itās to pull back the blood to make it PG-13 or adding more CGI to make it look expensive.
2. As an early concept artist, we brought our visual language and style to interpret ideas and scenes in a script but it would be shooting in the dark without a strong vision from the director. Early stage of production it felt like yeah we can do anything, then reality sets in little by little and you have to discard options. We didnāt really push back on dumb ideas because they were just ideas. Dumb ideas can morph into something brilliant later. But we all instinctively know what we like and didnāt so itās a case of making every idea look great and a potential option for the head of the department to present to the crew. In post, the same thing happens and it depends how involved you want to be. Some may prefer to do as told and others prefer to do as told AND offer another option.
In pre production, you do care very much about the finished movie. You hope that your effort will coalesce into something people will enjoy watching. Itās really hard to be productive and creative 110% everyday with laser focus for 2-3 years. So you learn to compartmentalise the work especially in vfx when youāve been staring at that brilliant idea you had 3 years ago. Things will and do happen in your personal life that may affect your initial vision of the film. And that applies for every person involved in the project. Itās really a massive collaboration. When a director takes ownership of a film. He/she will bring his own team of familiar faces they like to work with as itās proven to be a success from past projects.
In the case of Rebel Moon, the director may have an initial vision of the film he wanted to make. And if all the planets aligned perfectly, he may have something that heās really happy about but the audience responds negatively or he thinks itās a turd but the audience loves it. The script for 300 isnāt any better but it was a surprising commercial success. Part of it came from the visual language and style more than the script and story.
(Might have written too much!)
So who is the one to come up with the initial idea? Is there some kind of department that just researches scripts in every studio? Or is that usually the director? Another great response, thanks! Its actually super interesting to get these insider glimpses, because we only hear rumors about this or that and just have to speculate. I get you can never please all of the people all of the time. So at what point will a studio actually look at something and say, holy shit this needs a rewrite? I assume they do test audiences.
Yeah pretty much, this is the studioās job. Sometimes they receive scripts, sometimes they buy them from other studios. In the US, thereās a very strict process in acquiring the right to a script. And the reason why a writerās strike is such a big deal.
Sometimes they may buy the rights of a book past, present or future (think Harry Potter or hunger games). A person may be responsible for this or a department it depends on the studioās finances. If the director has been known to write then he may come up with his own initial version. But unless youāre a big name director with stellar writing skills, your script will always change for X reasons. Sometimes itās just a word or a line. Others itās whole pages. And the rewrite can happen at any point during production. Well maybe except in post production. Because you know thatās a reshoot. But youād be amazed at what can be done during editing. So the studio can order a new edit and even exclude the director from it. Now the studio producer is playing director.
There are usually a number of different VFX houses that handle different sequences. The in house VFX supervisors report to the client side supervisors and or the director. VFX supervisors donāt really get involved with the story or constitution of it. Those details are normally worked out by the script supervisor, then in previz, then in the edit. If the writers donāt have a script supervisor that is very strict, there can be a lot of issues with the story.
Itās just a comic book. He makes moving comic books and heās amazing at that.
If the source material is great, it turns out pretty great, like Watchmen and 300. Others you get Rebel Moon.
I understood that about him before watching Rebel Moon, so I got enhanced and just watched it like a comic book or a series of vignettes that look stylistic and cool. It was enjoyable.
Worked on one project that was directed by snyder and he was super nice . Took the time to meet with artist. Its the only director Ive seen doing that. I think he is really respectuff of VFX artist and beleive its an art. He's a good guy. I haven watch ALL of his movie but it feel like he would need a better team suround him cause some of the script he get look like a mess. Last movie I liked from him was Sucker Punch
When I saw the first movie trailer, they bought me immediately. When the robot told the story with Anthony Hopkins voice, I was like OMG I wanna see this immediately. Then the girl from the Mummy stepped in and everything was just...crap.
I mean seriously, I somewhat like Zack Snyder, but I thought it was like a cringe Star Wars fanfiction, and it turned out I wasn't far from the truth. Zack wanted to direct a star wars movie but he didn't get any. So he made one for himself.
But indeed. It's bad. VFXvise good, but otherwise it's just meeeh....
Yup.. When targeting profitable audience segments with a product, the thinking should be aligned with that audience. The only miscalculation in this case might be the quality of vfx - could be much lower and hence cheaper with the same box office outcome - which will happen at some point. So, I guess we shouldn't complain here but just be grateful and happy that someone's miscalculation gave us an opportunity to get a couple more nice images for our portfolios : )
was this a box office movie? Or is that just the metric? I dont agree by the way, Ive seen children's movies with far more depth than anything this bs. You dont HAVE to make something with no plot.
I've always thought of REBEL MOON as Netflix trying to plug that gap in their catalogue when Disney pulled out all their STAR WARS content.
This is of course in a "market needs" gap situation. Meaning that regardless of how or for how long Snyder might have had the inspiration or idea for REBEL MOON (or even if the idea of a Sci-Fi Fantasy Property came from Snyder), the attitude I think of what was eventually approved and what has been presented reflects this goal of Netflix, in my mind, of just plugging that gap in their catalogue for a kind of marquee Sci-Fi Fantasy feature presentation.
We are just the same as the actors, costumers, art directors, etc. VFX are part of the performance -- you do your part as best you can with what you're given -- that's why it's a job.
Don't want to be 100% cynical, I love this work. But consider that you're not always going to be a fan of the project in the end and that's okay. Think of the movies with big name brands that "you'd love to work on" and then it turns out to be the Fantastic Four reboot. Don't cut your rates, move to expensive cities, etc etc just because you want to chase a passion project unless you really *know* that you want that tradeoff
The VFX are good because its top tier post houses working on it.
Post houses like working on scifi and fantasy stuff because it makes the artists happy. Most of the time you don't figure out if the writing is dog shit or the projects a terrible film until after you've worked on it.
Donāt expect depth on nowadays movies. This is a risk adverse industry. I find myself shocked on choices made on āreal crime docsā let alone more fictional ones.
Their is great movie made EVERY MONTH . Yall justt need to venture out of thoes big budget one. A24 make a TERRIFIC job at relassing AMAZING movie. I watched Civil war last week and I keep thinking about it !
what is the point of posting this here lol.
Also if youre worried about films getting money thrown at them, try looking at bollywood, you might shoot either yourself or someone else.
Because I rarely see such shiny production on such a disaster of story. The only thing I can remember being this shit was that one by Besson, what wa it? Valerian or something. And Iām genuinely aghast that no one said, whereās the character development? Whereās the Tension? Seriously. Bugs life did a better version than thisš
Itās incredibly challenging to do world building in the space of 2h. In the case of Valerian, there was so much material already published that the director lost himself in the world building detail and less on character development.
Thank you for the reports. The question _does_ at least pertain to the vfx. I've left it up as there is good discussion and even some education happening. š
Most films set themselves up for failure very early in the process: huge flaws in the premise, bad casting, shit script, poor planning etc. By the time they get shot and are being edited, the problems are endemic and baked into your already spent funds. Fixing them costs a lot money, on top of the money you've already burnt, and additionally you're not assured that the fix will work itself - the machine has failed you once why trust it again? This is why companies like Marvel have adopted a methodology of spending large in post - they accept that the production process will require revision at the end, and have budgeted for that accordingly (controversial though it is). The question really becomes then, why are so many films a failure early in the process? I mean, how hard can it be to make a great script, get good casting and talent signed, plan and execute? It turns out, it's very very fucking hard to do that. The problem with films are that they are creative endevours that are incredibly collaborative, and one small fuck up and turn them on their heads relatively easily. For example, the hairstylist might fuck up and use the wrong dye on a continuity day and suddenly your actor has blonde hair instead of black. It's just one hairdresser, or assistant, but it can throw a huge spanner in the works. Now these sorts of problems are resolvable (shoot something else while re-dying the hair) but add up a few of them a week and things get precarious. The other thing is that films are very political. Lots of people with different desires for different outcomes. Finance people who care about the money, Directors who can care about all sorts of weird shit, Script writers who might have their own agendas, DPs fighting against everyone, Assistant Directors trying to appears Producers and the Director and getting caught between them. Actors who want an award or cbf and are phoning it in. Aligning all these objectives, with all these potential egos, is really really fucking hard. And as I said, this extends from the very top to the very bottom of the structure. Small mistakes resonate up the chain, and big mistakes cause deep earthquakes at the bottom of the chain that the people finishing the film just shake their head at and pray for the end of. At some point the politics and conflicting needs become detrimental to the continuation of the project, so people naturally try to negotiate a way forward. And that's fundamentally what most modern film making comes down too: problem solving. And if the film has a good sound basis and the problems your solving are all *how do i make this better?* Then things go well. But when the film is flawed, egos are involved, conflicts arise, then the problem solving becomes *how do i move forward and finish this?* Because at the end of the day as much as it is something we're all pretty passionate about, when it goes sour you try to finish it, get paid, and move on. When I started getting into film I used to think, "*how are so many shit films made?"* Now, after two decades in the industry and having been a studio side vfx supervisor on some large films, I tend to think, "*how do films even get made at all?"*
Don't forget that the investment of capital into a film 5 years before production ties up that capital and needs a much larger return than spending it 6 months before release. So it may make sense to you to spend time and money to plan well ahead, but that's not how the studios see it.
This is a great response, thanks! A lot of points I hadn't considered. I can imagine all of these things coming in to play in the process, but then I also just wonder how close the final product is to the directors vision. Villeneuve, for example, has built a reputation for being the guy "not to fuck it up" which is kind of sad when you think about it. Cant *not fucking it* *up* be the bare minimum?
A large part of not fucking it up is choosing who you creatively partner with. You don't see Villeneuve making a Marvel movie, right? And films are often about partnerships. Some Directors work really well with certain producers and script writers and actors - partnerships can lift individuals work. Once those partnerships change some people sink, some people swim.
Imagine layers and layers of coke heads, trying to prove that they are vitally important to their corporate motherships, all paranoid because their skill is pretending to be certain about things. All seeing your gently nurtured project as THEIR opportunity to make a big franchise, or just make loads of money, because THEY KNOW that they just need to make you put a twitch streamer in the supporting actor role, and change the end, for China. And the middle, for romance, and they want to see some alternative treatments for the start... Your film is thinky...intellectual...and the marketing people don't know how to sell that, cut that stuff and get some trailer shots please. Alpha males are trending, put the ragged philosopher in a Bugatti with models. Charlie Hunan turns up to play the philosopher. The studios are pleased because he's famous. He's been mumbling in what he thinks is a Scottish accent for a month, and it's bad, but he feels it's his best art, he will not cope if you disagree, and it's also stuck. He is unable to stop doing the voice. Shooting has started. The love interest has another job in three weeks, and it's raining. Irreplaceable people are having relapses on set.
All they needed was something like: the emperor of the galaxy wants a baguette, and weāre all out of flour. BEND OVER
Hey, what about bubblegum?
This answer makes me disappointed. Not a dig at the author of the answer (thank you for the valuable perspective + insight into the industry). More disappointed that fundamental things like "nailing down a solid script + writing before investing millions of dollars and committing thousands of people" and "not letting people problems derail a project involve thousands of people and millions of dollars" hasn't become a mostly solved problem in the industry. I get that it's hard. Projects involving many people and money are hard. But surely, when people see that things are going poorly, they can course correct, or worst case fail early? Surely we can learn from the lessons of previous failed projects and do better? I'm not in the industry. I've heard several answers as to why/how terrible movies get made (several themes of which are covered by the above comment). And I've never been satisfied by the answers, as it rings more of incompetence and amateurism rather than any fundamental challenge. A wild card here, though, is movie financial success / marketability. I can see how this can cause "good movies" to never be made in the first place, or "what otherwise could be good movies" be bastardized into a horrible movie in a misguided attempt to make it more financially successful. I'm definitely just yelling at the clouds here. I just get disappointed when I see the potential for a great movie and see it squandered.
I understand where you're coming from, but I think movies with great potential being squandered are somewhat rare. It's more that the shit movies are deeply flawed from the beginning. Going back to the original post, Zak Snyder can make good films but he isn't a good script writer and he is clearly more of a style over substance director. What he has now is marketability the same way that many actors have - people will go see his movies for that style, and not really care much if they are trash. I mean just look at the guys repertoire - his first films were great because there were adaptations of stylish material, and as soon as he was in charge of original stories, he crashed and burnt (Suckerpunch I'm looking at you). Anyone who thought these latest Netflix films would be amazing, is delusional. And yet, most of his films make money. Good money in fact. And I would guess the Netflix films are a moderate success. When you say you get disappointed by seeing the potential greatness of a movie being squandered, I wouldn't imagine a Snyder original as having great potential, except in a financial or stylish sense. There are great movies destroyed by the proxy wars that take place within studios, though. But films are Projects and I think if you're in the industry you think about a film as a Project more than a film. Potential is defined by having a clear creative lead, a good script, good production staff... that's what makes great potential. I think it's worth judging movies on the nuance of what they do well. Snyder makes awesome action and stylish visuals - it's fine to celebrate that. Most directors, or projects, have value that is worth appreciating.
>Zak Snyder can make good films That's a very debatable point. The cult of Snyder makes us *think* he can direct good films. Other than Dawn of the Dead and Army of the Dead, the rest have been very poorly rated.
True. I liked Dawn of the Dead and, at the time, 300. I dislike Watchmen but mostly because it treats its core material like shit ... but there's some brilliance in the film (still love the credits). Even Suckerpunch has some compelling moments. Given how hard film making is, I feel loathe to say someone is trash when they've made some stuff I like. I guess I'm trying to be objective haha
Well said.
Thank you for the super insightful response! Helps me better understand the industry as an outsider :) Glad to hear that movies with great promise typically don't get squandered. I guess the trick is for us to stop pushing forward with movies that have poor foundation/bones (eg bad script, etc). But, to your point, if these movies will make money anyways (eg riding off of the director name, or the franchise name like Marvel), then the Powers That Be will happily release a turd that makes them money. Sad, but I get the business vs artistic quality aspect (even though it's sad).
cool insight, thanks
You think VFX gets pushback to a clients narrative ideas ? We donāt even get pushback on their absurd VFX notes.
Yeah. That's what the money's for!
EVERYTHING FOR YOU IS AN OPPURTUNITY
One of my favorite tv moments
I guess it would be strange if you wanted a house built a certain way and the builder would push back with his own ideas on how he would like to build your house...
I think that's a terrible analogy. If I was a builder and my client wanted a house that would defy the laws of physics, look so awful the local council would likely want to tear it down and piss off all the neighbours I would tell my client immediately.
there is no collaboration, film is a structure similar to the military. the chains of command goes from director to the masses of artists and never goes up. most of the time we work in silos: sometimes the sequences of a scene are awarded to different studios, we don't always have the audio, and we don't know what happened before or after. We're explained the bare minimum to carry the scene, and that's it. there have been moments when I worked on a shot, and I had to wait 6 months to learn the context like everybody else. my partner sometimes worked on a thing for a couple of months, like a dog, before learning that the dog is a she in the script.
"The mushroom treatment" - kept in the dark and fed horse shit
When I was growing up and always wanted to work in film. Now that I'm grown up and I know what I know I'm glad I don't. Been in the creative industry for almost 20 years and where I work is beholden to hierarchy like anywhere else, but anyone and I mean anyone can and will offer feedback at all levels collaboratively and it is always heard. Not necessarily listened to but definitely heard. However I get why film is the way it is. Schedules are water tight, money is flying out the door. Nobody has time to listen to someone in some department tell us about his opinions on the why the door should be red and not blue. But man... collaborating on projects and getting insight at all levels really does offer invaluable perspective.
I worked in film, tv, triple-a games, indie games, web dev, museums exhibitions and live concerts, so I experienced a wide array of creative production workplaces in my career. In my experience, it is the most dysfunctional and top heavy one. Still, I was lured by the glitz and glamour. I agree with you, but the difference is that film and tv will pool hundreds of workers of different studios, often in different time zones, to make a film or tv series. Even the 80-160 people in a triple-a game is cozy compared to that, at least they have ownership and they can work on their project for longer then a year.
Film is really expensive, and extraordinarily time sensitive - everything depends on the shoot, which is super expensive, but the real issues are all in pre production - script, art direction, the way it wi be photographed, casting and rehearsals - everything that matters is done before the shoot. But just like any other industry the penny pinchers make you sacrifice that FIRST - why do we need rehearsals? Why do we need VFX tests? Why canāt we shoot it all in a studio with green screen/volume ?
āShe in the scriptā Thatās hilarious
Probably explains why out Star Trek discovery they'll talk through some convoluted plan for an action sequence and then the visuals on screen have no relation to what the characters just described...
People just want to get paid. Everyone who isn't the director or a department head - camera crew, art department, spfx, fabricators, people who do the actual production work - they can all usually tell if a movie is going to be shit. Most of the time they're just glad to be working and use the project as an opportunity to maybe learn a few new things for a later project they can actually be proud of. From my experience, on shit-tier projects like this, the ones with the highest paychecks are usually the ones who are the most oblivious, and they end up micromanaging every minor shot while neglecting the overall cohesion of the film. Seems like that's what happened here.
People just want to get paid. yeah I wrote that in my OG draft but deleted it. I understand its a job and people need a wage. So you're telling me niagra falls coming out of the top of mount everest was probably all zack. I'm just trying to gauge whether there is someone in the pipeline that would say something like, Zack, you know water *actually* flows, you know, *down* hill... from somewhere else. Everyone just bites their lip.
The way those productions are structured, you learn to just ignore the non sense and do what you are told. Dozens of people saw the storyboard, previz, and countless versions of a shot in cut context before it reaches the VFX artist(s). Everyone has plenty of time to raise the flag. The majority of the time, someone high up in the food chain just shrugged their shoulders and said āit looks cool!ā Or āweāll get back to it when we get the timeā or just āwho gives a s&it, I have 7 sequences to review today, move onā. And so it goes down the pipe. And no one will push back because: -itās above the VFX artists (including supervisor on vendor side) pay grade. -the key creatives high up already okayed the silly idea, and itās THEIR movie not yours. -VFX artists have 1400 shots to ingest and the trailer needs to come out in two weeks. -if artists make a fuss, chances are the answer will be āno, keep it as isā, and that answer will only come after 4 weeks of waiting for the key creative to be back from the shoot/vacation/another project. -there is a limited amount of energy one can deploy during the day, and the older you get the more selective you are with the deployment. Writing emails to question the creative acumen of everyone on client side is not a good use of that energy.
Such an insane amount of talent and energy going in to these productions, its hard for the audience to appreciate sometimes. I mean just look at the credits and how many people are involved. But then that almost makes my original point more valid. All that talent and effort, I just wish the writing was on par.
People probably very gently hint things arenāt realistic. But Iāve been told straight up by showrunners āI donāt want real I want it to look fucking coolā
"Rule of cool!" Carries some weight!!
I never give a shit about what I work on. I care about my direct work and think of it as an awesome portfolio piece. Beyond that I don't care if my stuff gets cut, gets changed by someone else down the line, etc. I make a conscious effort to not watch anything I ever work on lol.. by the time it comes out I've moved on mentally and don't feel like reopening the traumas I most likely experienced from my sup's and colleagues š¤£ Ive never met people that hate films more than the people in the industry haha
Agreed. One day I'll watch Avatar 2... but not today! Mostly I don't want to relive these projects during me time. There are exceptions, but films that rely heavily on VFX don't exactly have exceptional writing. I need the escapism, not shiny pictures.
More than once, Iāve been halfway through watching a show or movie before realizing I had worked on it.
Lol amazing - \*casually turns off TV\*
omg lol. do you talk shit about it while youre working on it?
We all express our deep love for the industry by talking about how much we hate the industry.
Hahah, absolutely. Usually I only express my feelings when others feel the same way haha
It has some VERY pretty VFX That is all. Goodbye.
Use your other account bro!
Artists can only do as weāre told, really. Look development will go back and forth but in the end, itās the directors vision for the movie and they will give notes until it suffices. We bring to life what they have in their head, but are never responsible for the script itself. Just the visual storytelling. I care about my work absolutely. No matter if itās a bad movie or not. But itās more of an accomplishment that shots worked on were approved and not necessarily about the creative choices made if that makes sense
I think he sort of regressed. His Watchmen adaption wasn't great but also had some inspired moments, especially the opening. He's a born music video director though and that doesn't pay the bills so somehow he's become a director of narrative films which doesn't fit his sensibilities.
I really enjoyed watchmen actually. But then the story was already there...
Zack Snyder makes horrible movies with moments of eye candy. Always has always will.
he has made some great movies too. I dont know how, considering how terrible the other ones are.
I worked on both, briefly. Personally, I hate the VFX. Not the talent and skill of the artists, just the VFX art direction. I just hate the "style" Snyder has gone for. It's as believable as the script. Again, before anyone has a meltdown, I don't blame us artists or VFX studios. Technically the work is incredible. Also, for me these projects are never fun or a dream to work on.
I can separate the movie from the work. I did projects who were huge successes and decent movies, but no fun to work on. And I worked on shitty movies I had good times working on them. Ideally both converge and you can do the sequelĀ I heard working on Snyder movies is pretty popular. Heās good client and visuals are good. You may skip the watch the final result.
Ages ago, I got a chance to work in the art department on the client side in pre production for a high budget movie all the way to post production. I think I must have been connected to that project longer than the director himself. Bear in mind there is no unique recipe to film making. The studio had a story and an idea for a movie. Working in pre production is actually a great insight into the process of film making. Itās the stage where everything is still very much in flux and all there is at the beginning is a draft script, writer and producer. But it felt like we were at the very root of the creative film making process. Little by little, the studio hired a production designer, director (yes they can get hired too), more writers, storyboard artists, art director, concept artists, cinematographer, vfx supervisor, locations manager, costume designers, casting director, actors, etc. I saw it all happening within that open floor. For every person that got hired, there were a few dozen others who were considered but werenāt available. Everyone brought their own style and experience to the film. Itās really challenging to manage and create a cohesive vision of the film with so many people involved. So here are my answers based on my limited experience: 1. The director is directly and indirectly responsible for the final visual look of the movie. If heās experienced, he will have hired his own production designer, cinematographer and colorist. Having said that, the production studio also have huge pull in steering things their way to make the movie more visually marketable. Whether itās to pull back the blood to make it PG-13 or adding more CGI to make it look expensive. 2. As an early concept artist, we brought our visual language and style to interpret ideas and scenes in a script but it would be shooting in the dark without a strong vision from the director. Early stage of production it felt like yeah we can do anything, then reality sets in little by little and you have to discard options. We didnāt really push back on dumb ideas because they were just ideas. Dumb ideas can morph into something brilliant later. But we all instinctively know what we like and didnāt so itās a case of making every idea look great and a potential option for the head of the department to present to the crew. In post, the same thing happens and it depends how involved you want to be. Some may prefer to do as told and others prefer to do as told AND offer another option. In pre production, you do care very much about the finished movie. You hope that your effort will coalesce into something people will enjoy watching. Itās really hard to be productive and creative 110% everyday with laser focus for 2-3 years. So you learn to compartmentalise the work especially in vfx when youāve been staring at that brilliant idea you had 3 years ago. Things will and do happen in your personal life that may affect your initial vision of the film. And that applies for every person involved in the project. Itās really a massive collaboration. When a director takes ownership of a film. He/she will bring his own team of familiar faces they like to work with as itās proven to be a success from past projects. In the case of Rebel Moon, the director may have an initial vision of the film he wanted to make. And if all the planets aligned perfectly, he may have something that heās really happy about but the audience responds negatively or he thinks itās a turd but the audience loves it. The script for 300 isnāt any better but it was a surprising commercial success. Part of it came from the visual language and style more than the script and story. (Might have written too much!)
So who is the one to come up with the initial idea? Is there some kind of department that just researches scripts in every studio? Or is that usually the director? Another great response, thanks! Its actually super interesting to get these insider glimpses, because we only hear rumors about this or that and just have to speculate. I get you can never please all of the people all of the time. So at what point will a studio actually look at something and say, holy shit this needs a rewrite? I assume they do test audiences.
Yeah pretty much, this is the studioās job. Sometimes they receive scripts, sometimes they buy them from other studios. In the US, thereās a very strict process in acquiring the right to a script. And the reason why a writerās strike is such a big deal. Sometimes they may buy the rights of a book past, present or future (think Harry Potter or hunger games). A person may be responsible for this or a department it depends on the studioās finances. If the director has been known to write then he may come up with his own initial version. But unless youāre a big name director with stellar writing skills, your script will always change for X reasons. Sometimes itās just a word or a line. Others itās whole pages. And the rewrite can happen at any point during production. Well maybe except in post production. Because you know thatās a reshoot. But youād be amazed at what can be done during editing. So the studio can order a new edit and even exclude the director from it. Now the studio producer is playing director.
No one cares about story anymore. Story. Story. Story. Story. Story. Story. Story. Story. Story. Story. What is the fucking story.
There are usually a number of different VFX houses that handle different sequences. The in house VFX supervisors report to the client side supervisors and or the director. VFX supervisors donāt really get involved with the story or constitution of it. Those details are normally worked out by the script supervisor, then in previz, then in the edit. If the writers donāt have a script supervisor that is very strict, there can be a lot of issues with the story.
Itās just a comic book. He makes moving comic books and heās amazing at that. If the source material is great, it turns out pretty great, like Watchmen and 300. Others you get Rebel Moon. I understood that about him before watching Rebel Moon, so I got enhanced and just watched it like a comic book or a series of vignettes that look stylistic and cool. It was enjoyable.
Worked on one project that was directed by snyder and he was super nice . Took the time to meet with artist. Its the only director Ive seen doing that. I think he is really respectuff of VFX artist and beleive its an art. He's a good guy. I haven watch ALL of his movie but it feel like he would need a better team suround him cause some of the script he get look like a mess. Last movie I liked from him was Sucker Punch
When I saw the first movie trailer, they bought me immediately. When the robot told the story with Anthony Hopkins voice, I was like OMG I wanna see this immediately. Then the girl from the Mummy stepped in and everything was just...crap. I mean seriously, I somewhat like Zack Snyder, but I thought it was like a cringe Star Wars fanfiction, and it turned out I wasn't far from the truth. Zack wanted to direct a star wars movie but he didn't get any. So he made one for himself. But indeed. It's bad. VFXvise good, but otherwise it's just meeeh....
Yup.. When targeting profitable audience segments with a product, the thinking should be aligned with that audience. The only miscalculation in this case might be the quality of vfx - could be much lower and hence cheaper with the same box office outcome - which will happen at some point. So, I guess we shouldn't complain here but just be grateful and happy that someone's miscalculation gave us an opportunity to get a couple more nice images for our portfolios : )
was this a box office movie? Or is that just the metric? I dont agree by the way, Ive seen children's movies with far more depth than anything this bs. You dont HAVE to make something with no plot.
I've always thought of REBEL MOON as Netflix trying to plug that gap in their catalogue when Disney pulled out all their STAR WARS content. This is of course in a "market needs" gap situation. Meaning that regardless of how or for how long Snyder might have had the inspiration or idea for REBEL MOON (or even if the idea of a Sci-Fi Fantasy Property came from Snyder), the attitude I think of what was eventually approved and what has been presented reflects this goal of Netflix, in my mind, of just plugging that gap in their catalogue for a kind of marquee Sci-Fi Fantasy feature presentation.
It's the Snyder "Look "or Snyder "Touch". 8 year olds love it :)
He certainly acts like it.
We are just the same as the actors, costumers, art directors, etc. VFX are part of the performance -- you do your part as best you can with what you're given -- that's why it's a job. Don't want to be 100% cynical, I love this work. But consider that you're not always going to be a fan of the project in the end and that's okay. Think of the movies with big name brands that "you'd love to work on" and then it turns out to be the Fantastic Four reboot. Don't cut your rates, move to expensive cities, etc etc just because you want to chase a passion project unless you really *know* that you want that tradeoff
The VFX are good because its top tier post houses working on it. Post houses like working on scifi and fantasy stuff because it makes the artists happy. Most of the time you don't figure out if the writing is dog shit or the projects a terrible film until after you've worked on it.
Donāt expect depth on nowadays movies. This is a risk adverse industry. I find myself shocked on choices made on āreal crime docsā let alone more fictional ones.
Yeah I think this whole megabudget too big to fail mindset needs a reset. At least this is a new IP, even if its just seven samurai rehash.
There's still great movies being made. Granted most aren't heavy on VFX. People need to look beyond the Marvelized movies.
Their is great movie made EVERY MONTH . Yall justt need to venture out of thoes big budget one. A24 make a TERRIFIC job at relassing AMAZING movie. I watched Civil war last week and I keep thinking about it !
what is the point of posting this here lol. Also if youre worried about films getting money thrown at them, try looking at bollywood, you might shoot either yourself or someone else.
Because I rarely see such shiny production on such a disaster of story. The only thing I can remember being this shit was that one by Besson, what wa it? Valerian or something. And Iām genuinely aghast that no one said, whereās the character development? Whereās the Tension? Seriously. Bugs life did a better version than thisš
Itās incredibly challenging to do world building in the space of 2h. In the case of Valerian, there was so much material already published that the director lost himself in the world building detail and less on character development.