|
|
ANIMATION WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 5.12 - MARCH 2001
|
The Technology Circle BM: Lately smaller boutiques are doing special effects on big films using out of the box software. How is that affecting larger studios? RT: If the product is television, which is low-res, you can get a G4 and glue together some stuff in a Winnebago and have the most powerful visual effects studio on wheels, if you wanted too! It depends on how much work and how many scenes that particular boutique can do. Digital Domain, Rhythm and Hues, or Sony, those places get most of the big work. These large firms are sub-contracting a lot of their work to these smaller boutiques and you don't even know it. Many of the smaller boutiques will get a job, or a scene, or a movie, and that's it. They'll do a movie, one project. To keep the momentum of a place going you need a sales force, the right representation in the meetings at the right time, bidding on multiple movies. You can get one movie and the major studios aren't afraid to burn some little effects studio down to do their movie. Smaller companies will buy the job and the large studios will say, 'We need that scene,' again and again. It's not right. The smaller companies will do whatever it takes to keep the door open. The big studio doesn't care if they're successful after the movie or not. All they want is their effects the best they can get, for the best price. BM: Can the price of new technology put companies out of business? RT: People are still using hand drawn animation. Nothing kind of goes away. Maybe you work a little slower than somebody, but if you do quality work, it doesn't matter. When do I get rid of my VHS and when do I buy DVD? It's a constant problem. When do I get rid of my DSL and put in a T1 line? It's a continual battle. All it really relates to is speed and versatility in the end. There are ways to make slower machines do clever things. It's an economic battle, just like anything else. The new technology always makes you better, but sometimes it's not worth the high investment. You have to decide that for yourself.
BM: Are movies better now with the technology boom in software? Look at movies like Star Wars, Close Encounters and Aliens, mostly done with optical printers. RT: Yes, technically they are better. They're more seamless. You can do things more perfectly now. You can do things now, you never would have considered ten years ago. To compare opticals to the digital world, that's like comparing the space shuttle to a stagecoach. Once things became digital, it became another reality. In the digital world, we see movies like Independence Day and X-Files. The visuals are so complex today, compared to what they used to be. Being able to do particle glow and organic creatures and things. There's no comparison with the things that were done with optical printers. Digital is better by far. Whether they're better stories, or better movies, that's another question. BM: Are moviegoers more sophisticated now? RT: I don't know if they are more sophisticated or more worn out by the incredible barrage of visual stuff they see. There's so much stuff that's so complex, and so well done. But a special effect in a movie for a young kid doesn't mean anything anymore; it's just another gun barrel flash to him. People expect an incredible amount of complexity. The amount of visual information in today's society is barraging people so much that they just kind of expect more. It's not intellectual. It's kind of reactionistic, visceral. People watching television don't watch the whole content of the movie, they just kind of skip around, to see what catches their eye. You have to make something that cuts through. Either a great idea, or something visually stunning. When they come together, that's the best. That doesn't happen much. You have movies that have phenomenal special effects in them, which people don't give a shit about. If your heart's not into it, they're not good stories. Special effects are no value in themselves or by themselves.
|
||
1 |
2 |
3 | 4 |
5
 |
)