They're actually making a concerted effort to pronounce it "SMOW-g" in all of the publicity coming out of Wingnut, even though a lot of people grew up with it being "SMOG." You can hear Gino on the production diary call it "Smog" (I'm surprised he didn't get corrected on the spot!).
Movie Theater The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug
- Thread starter Dogtown
- Start date
good question for you my friend,,,,, have you been able to personally meet any of the cast / crew from the hobbit?
Most people in the post-production side like me aren't on set, especially when they're shooting. Actors come and go during the shooting process and ironically it's the off times outside of work that I've run into cast members, mostly because we go to the same restaurants, gyms, bars, etc especially in the little suburb where all of the work is done. Some are warm and friendly while others just want to be left alone or like to sneak in and out of places, but there's generally an unwritten rule in this biz that you don't act like a teenage girl around big name actors. They're just people. That of course didn't stop a legion of guys from leaving their busy desks and dashing across the street to one of the facilities to catch a glimpse of a certain female actress with a legendary ass doing some sword training.
Okay guys, if you didn't like the first Hobbit film, thought it was slow or were generally underwhelmed, this new one is what you've been waiting for. It's action packed, full of adventure and paced well with lots of excitement for teens on up (still some stuff that's too scary or gory for kids). I highly suggest seeing it in 2D @ 24fps and if you like it that much and want to see it a second time, then go for the 3D @ 48fps.
going this Saturday! thank you for your hardwork on these films... talk about an awesome job!
Most favorite book from Tolken. Gonna see that bitch in IMAX, pretty stoked!
Why would you want to see it in IMAX?
The 3D @ 48fps works better if it really fills your FOV, and IMAX's giant screen helps that. Though keep in mind there some conversion going on for IMAX as the film wasn't shot or rendered beyond normal cinema 2k.
3D is rubbish. It's a stupid gimmick that adds nothing to the experience and almost always takes away a lot.
That really depends on several factors, most notably if the 3D was done correctly, which is time consuming and difficult. "Avatar" was shot in stereo and the entire post-production pipeline was built with that in mind; that's why that film works so well in 3D and why it's so immersive, making you almost forget it's a 3D film. Most 3D films these days however are shot in 2D and converted in one of several post processes, creating depth in layers and often suffers from a number of problems because of that. It's why you get this kind of Viewmaster feel to it where everything feels like it's on two or three cards offset in depth (Z-space) and when the film's been shot and edited with lots of quick-cut action, you get this very disjointed 3D feel. Animated features like we see from Pixar and Dreamworks work really well in 3D because, like "Avatar", they're essentially shot in 3D because all of the scene geometry is already in 3D to begin with and rendering left/right eye stereo cameras is almost trivial in comparison to live action. "Gravity" worked so well in 3D primarily because so much of it was CG to begin with and on top of that, instead of the quick-cut editing, it was lots and lots of long, slow shots letting the stereoscopic effect trick your brain rather convincingly without constantly pulling you out of the film or assaulting your senses.
So truth, I agree with you when it comes to many of those films that are post-converted, but completely disagree with you on the films that are shot in stereo or planned and executed with stereo in mind, not as an afterthought.
So truth, I agree with you when it comes to many of those films that are post-converted, but completely disagree with you on the films that are shot in stereo or planned and executed with stereo in mind, not as an afterthought.
You know, I thought the very same thing. I had seen a few films in 3D and it did noting for me besides give me a headache. And I'm a film effects and 3D animation guy like Dogtown. Really I thought it was just a gimmick. But I took my 4yr old to see Cloudy with a chance of meatballs in 3D, it was the only screening we could see that day. And it was actually enjoyable! The 3D actually added to the experience. I was surprised. So never say never.
And it worked because it was an all CG feature so it was essentially done correctly, with a separate camera rendering each eye and not a post-process conversion. Now that I think of it, I think the only modern animation feature that was actually post-converted to 3D before hitting theaters was "Meet the Robinsons." I was at Digital Domain when they hired an army of noobs to rotospline that entire film to post-convert it, which was really weird because it was a CG feature to begin with.
Fair enough...but honestly, having seen Avatar in both formats I really didn't feel it offered much in 3D over my original 2D experience. It's just not necessary, at least for me. Maybe I'm biased by doing most of my viewings on a 110" projector in a dedicated theater room but I'm a fan of film and a photographer by trade and thus tend to be pretty critical of visual media.
They showed us the 3D @ 48fps with Dolby Atmos sound, which was still pretty damned cool. It's a better 3D situation than most films out this year (ie "Man of Steel", "Ironman 3"), but since so many people are not digging it, I still suggest going the 2D route first. What sucks about having worked on it is that all we see are the mistakes, things we tried to hide or things that we just ran out of time on. Those mistakes show up in a big way in 3D because there's no room to hide.
Yeah...that's the nature of any commercial creative endeavor. Time and budget always determine when something is finished. I can't remember the last image or story I sent off that I didn't do so begrudgingly and cringe over some nuanced detail when I finally saw it run in whatever home it ended up. There's a photo on the back of Canadian market Reece's Puffs cereal boxes right now that I'd rather not be associated with.
Yeah, no shit! It's always how much goodness is possible within a particular budget. It's that production triangle of time, energy, budget, something like that. I have let stuff out the door that still runs like the Frys commercials where I just go "ahhh shit, gahhhh."
A slightly different situation comes to mind, where the client changes things radically two-thirds of the way through production and you're forced to deal with the fact that no amount of money or people can make the end result as good as it could be.
Haha, yeah your correct. I have seen this a few times. Not mentioning names here, but yeah, it's called to the hell with pre production.
Yes....along with Maverick, Goose and Slider and they're all flying the Milenium Falcon.....
In the posts right above yours it states it is Evangeline Lilly. Not Kate Beckinsale.
I actually don't mind the pace of the first film but this is coming from someone who enjoys movies like The Counselor, The Road, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. I hope it's not too action packed. I guess at 2hrs & 41 minutes it can't be. Either way i'm excited.
I like the first one, but I like the story so I wasn't in any hurry. The world you have created is so lush it's fun to just linger in it.
I don't like 3d, mostly because I feel like I'm working a bit to watch the flick. All I really want to do is just let myself go and enjoy. Plus, after a lifetime of 2d that just looks right to me.
Well 2d or 3d I can not wait to see your work Dogtown, I bought the tickets yesterday only because of your recommendation but the only showing that worked for me and my other half was the Imax 3D.
If the story is good and the action keeps you involved, I think you tend to notice the "mistakes" a lot less. I seem to be more critical of the production of crappy movies than ones with a good story line. I also think it is fantastic that NZ has become such a big player in movie production. Wellington is amazing, when I lived in OZ I ventured over 3 times and was completely blown away with the scenery of the South Island.
Best skiing in the world in August as well.
If the story is good and the action keeps you involved, I think you tend to notice the "mistakes" a lot less. I seem to be more critical of the production of crappy movies than ones with a good story line. I also think it is fantastic that NZ has become such a big player in movie production. Wellington is amazing, when I lived in OZ I ventured over 3 times and was completely blown away with the scenery of the South Island.
Best skiing in the world in August as well.
Shit! What a great film. I think one of the best this year. The VFX are so spectacular, it really is a spectacle, and Smaug was the bad ass he was meant to be. Not a kids film tho, but not bad. I would be shocked if it does not get nomination for best VFX. I'm betting on an Oscar.
This is something that has to be seen on the big screen, noting else is going to do it justice.
This is something that has to be seen on the big screen, noting else is going to do it justice.
Lol that was Colbert? Anyways i liked it well enough but i cant help but think that it could have been done in 2 parts, or just one 3hr feature, rather than a trilogy. As for the 3d and special effects i thought they were top notch. It is amazing what movie makers are doing these days.
Wow,,,, just got back from the hobbit2!!! awesome! the ending makes you want more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think I might need to see it in the theatre twice.... was not impressed with the 3D.... I would see 2D.
Agreed Dogtown it was paced very well. Honestly so far it might be my second favorite LOTR/Middle earth movie out there under the fellowship. That movie was freaking great. 180 degree turn from the first. Which i still like. I highly recommend this movie it's epic. Damnit Evangeline Lilly is beautiful seriously couldn't take my eyes off her.
Jeremy Jahns' review
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug movie review - YouTube
Smaug was brilliant excellent work of CGI i might add too dogtown, much like Gollum in an Unexpected Journey he was done to perfection. I'm pretty shocked by the outcome of this movie again it was fantastic wanting to see it again.
I'm curious for those hobbit fans. Who is your favorite Dwarf? Mine by far is Dwalin he's a badasss
Jeremy Jahns' review
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug movie review - YouTube
Smaug was brilliant excellent work of CGI i might add too dogtown, much like Gollum in an Unexpected Journey he was done to perfection. I'm pretty shocked by the outcome of this movie again it was fantastic wanting to see it again.
I'm curious for those hobbit fans. Who is your favorite Dwarf? Mine by far is Dwalin he's a badasss
Last edited:
Yeah Smaug was awesome. That has to be the best Dragon I have ever seen done. Not be a spoiler, that sequence with him coming out of the gold to the point where he shakes it off... That was incredible.
I saw it in 3D Imax and yes, you can definitely see some of the shortcomings you mentioned. But the dragon work was clearly the best part of the whole move. Gandalph fighting saurin was also very impressive work.
Nice Job. I can't wait to see what you guys do with Smaug in the next film.
I saw it in 3D Imax and yes, you can definitely see some of the shortcomings you mentioned. But the dragon work was clearly the best part of the whole move. Gandalph fighting saurin was also very impressive work.
Nice Job. I can't wait to see what you guys do with Smaug in the next film.
I just told Anton, the guy who did that gold effect you're talking about, what you said. You just made a Ukrainian smile* 
On this movie there was so much seriously complex and difficult stuff to do and a lot of it uncharted territory that we had no clue how we were going to do it. Often in those situations you can find yourself working day and night over and over and over trying to make something that ultimately ends up being forgettable. It either devolves into something less impressive than originally envisioned or ends up playing such a small part of the overall shot (or is even a blink of an eye short). Only you and the people around you will realize how much hard work went into making those pixels, so it's really rewarding when the end result is something amazing and worth all of that time and effort.
* on a side note, we're both in our mid-40s, so we came of age during the Cold War. He was conscripted into the Soviet forces around the time I enlisted in the Army. In 1988 we could have easily found ourselves engaged in combat against each other, but all these years later we're both working on a Hobbit movie in New Zealand. Whowouldathunk?
On this movie there was so much seriously complex and difficult stuff to do and a lot of it uncharted territory that we had no clue how we were going to do it. Often in those situations you can find yourself working day and night over and over and over trying to make something that ultimately ends up being forgettable. It either devolves into something less impressive than originally envisioned or ends up playing such a small part of the overall shot (or is even a blink of an eye short). Only you and the people around you will realize how much hard work went into making those pixels, so it's really rewarding when the end result is something amazing and worth all of that time and effort.* on a side note, we're both in our mid-40s, so we came of age during the Cold War. He was conscripted into the Soviet forces around the time I enlisted in the Army. In 1988 we could have easily found ourselves engaged in combat against each other, but all these years later we're both working on a Hobbit movie in New Zealand. Whowouldathunk?
I haven't had a chance to see it yet but I did come across this interesting piece on it that I think Dogtown probably has some insight on. I'm still going to see it and I'm sure I'll enjoy it but I find the issues mentioned in the article interesting.
The Desolation of Smaug shows Peter Jackson still hasn't perfected HFR
The Desolation of Smaug shows Peter Jackson still hasn't perfected HFR
Watched it in 24fps. I'm not sure how 48 would look. The only thing i can relate it to is video games which i do play at 120fps on a PC but that is completely different as part of it is related to feel. I heard 48 seemed unnatural. Didn't have an issue with the 24fps version. 48 is only 3D right?
Since I've worked on both movies in 48fps so far, I'm quite used to the format. Where it really shines is in 3D, slow-motion and epic landscape shots. The higher frame rate prevents a lot of the weird effects you get with 3D displays at 24fps, "tearing" in particular with fast moving action; 48fps really smooths it out essentially giving your brain twice as much data to work with. I'm not 100% sure why the slow-motion shots look so good at 48fps, but my guess is that again, you're given so much more data for your brain to absorb and process. And the epic landscape shots are just that much more epic in 48fps, feeling very natural.
All that said, we are very accustomed to 24fps; it's got a "cinematic feel" that while completely arbitrary is still the standard we associate with movies. Going to 30fps (or 60 fields per second) like you do with NTSC video and instantly you get the "soap opera" look that we're accustomed to. Ultimately, I think it comes down to your brain having to get used to the difference. On the first film it took a while for me to really get used to it but now I'm so used to it that I actually prefer 48fps (for viewing; working on 48fps is just more of a hassle).
But bottom line, I still suggest the average person go see it initially in 2D @ 24fps, like the original LOTR films. If you like it enough to see it again, then go see it on a big screen in 3D @ 48fps. Avoid 3D @ 24fps at all costs! And I would only do IMAX if it's 3D @ 48fps too. The way IMAX can really fill your FOV will help the 3D as will 48fps. A giant screen running 3D @ 24fps would be a disaster.
All that said, we are very accustomed to 24fps; it's got a "cinematic feel" that while completely arbitrary is still the standard we associate with movies. Going to 30fps (or 60 fields per second) like you do with NTSC video and instantly you get the "soap opera" look that we're accustomed to. Ultimately, I think it comes down to your brain having to get used to the difference. On the first film it took a while for me to really get used to it but now I'm so used to it that I actually prefer 48fps (for viewing; working on 48fps is just more of a hassle).
But bottom line, I still suggest the average person go see it initially in 2D @ 24fps, like the original LOTR films. If you like it enough to see it again, then go see it on a big screen in 3D @ 48fps. Avoid 3D @ 24fps at all costs! And I would only do IMAX if it's 3D @ 48fps too. The way IMAX can really fill your FOV will help the 3D as will 48fps. A giant screen running 3D @ 24fps would be a disaster.
Last edited:
I find it interesting that at 48fps the complaint seems to be that it is too detailed in it's appearance to the average mans eye. I'm curious if this will raise the bar for prop makers/FX to up their game or if it will be avoided by directors or only used for certain shots or in movies that are primarily CG in nature. Whats your take on it Dogtown?
Well, back in the late 70s visual effects pioneer Douglas Trumbull envisioned the film "Brainstorm" to be a traditional 24fps film that would switch to a larger format, 60fps playback for the shots that are viewed through the device (ie Showscan). Ultimately there were huge technological hurdles to overcome and pretty much no theater owner back then would put up the money to upgrade their systems for just a single movie (back then most were mom & pop privately owned theaters, not the vertical monopoly you see today with chains owned by the movie studios themselves). Things are quite different now and in fact modern digital projectors you find in the average theater are capable of playing back anywhere from 96 to 144fps. But the actual workflow of film production at higher frame rates was a major tech hurdle that couldn't be reasonably dealt with until the move from optical film to digital.
But more to your point, 48fps doesn't require us on the post-production side to really up our game so much as it just requires us to generate a LOT more data and generally take longer to do certain things. It's actually 3D that is our biggest headache at the moment, preventing us from using any number of tricks to make things look good because whatever fix we do has to work in stereo. For example, something as simple as painting out a splash particle digitally has to be done for both the left and right eye and if you don't do it with meticulous care, people watching the film will notice that something's just not right here. In fact, low budget 3D films suffer from this all over the place, which is why they often give you a headache. On something I worked on very recently, there are still problems that couldn't be fixed in time, as much as we tried and a sizeable portion of that blame went to the fact that we were working in stereo, not so much 48fps. I think the move to 4K @ 48fps or higher will in-fact require us to up the bar on certain levels of detail, though we may still be another 5-10 years off from that.
What we do is already dynamic enough and every year requires us to raise the bar to crazy levels above the year before. In years past it was a technological bar. Take a look at CG characters back in the late 90s compared to now. A big reason why they look so much more realistic than they did in the past is because we can do sub-surface scattering of light in the skin, making it look extremely realistic. Characters are also very anatomically driven these days with bone, muscle and skin systems whereas not too long ago they were really just CG surfaces with an invisible internal skeleton where every muscle and flab was faked by hand. The same goes for things like fire, water and smoke. Go back to "Reign of Fire" in 2002 and you'll see some of the first ever CG smoke effects don't with actual fluid simulations vs "dumb" particle systems. These days we're doing extremely complex fluid simulations of increasing scale and detail, generating TBs of data by the minute. But as much as that technological bar rises, since about 2005 it's been a production pace bar. We're now expected to nearly double the amount of work we've done over the previous year...year to year. That's why we often find ourselves working insane hours and going months without a day off. That production bar is the one that's unsustainable, I'm afraid.
Yet it's crazy how far we've come over time but there will always be a demand to do more, faster and cheaper and it's really difficult when every other studio is trying to outmatch you at every turn. Thankfully, this is a highly collaborative industry with everyone showing off the new things they've come up with and sharing them. Some call that bad business, but deep down it's driven by artists and technicians who do it because they love it (most of the time).
Well...that was a bit of ramble
But more to your point, 48fps doesn't require us on the post-production side to really up our game so much as it just requires us to generate a LOT more data and generally take longer to do certain things. It's actually 3D that is our biggest headache at the moment, preventing us from using any number of tricks to make things look good because whatever fix we do has to work in stereo. For example, something as simple as painting out a splash particle digitally has to be done for both the left and right eye and if you don't do it with meticulous care, people watching the film will notice that something's just not right here. In fact, low budget 3D films suffer from this all over the place, which is why they often give you a headache. On something I worked on very recently, there are still problems that couldn't be fixed in time, as much as we tried and a sizeable portion of that blame went to the fact that we were working in stereo, not so much 48fps. I think the move to 4K @ 48fps or higher will in-fact require us to up the bar on certain levels of detail, though we may still be another 5-10 years off from that.
What we do is already dynamic enough and every year requires us to raise the bar to crazy levels above the year before. In years past it was a technological bar. Take a look at CG characters back in the late 90s compared to now. A big reason why they look so much more realistic than they did in the past is because we can do sub-surface scattering of light in the skin, making it look extremely realistic. Characters are also very anatomically driven these days with bone, muscle and skin systems whereas not too long ago they were really just CG surfaces with an invisible internal skeleton where every muscle and flab was faked by hand. The same goes for things like fire, water and smoke. Go back to "Reign of Fire" in 2002 and you'll see some of the first ever CG smoke effects don't with actual fluid simulations vs "dumb" particle systems. These days we're doing extremely complex fluid simulations of increasing scale and detail, generating TBs of data by the minute. But as much as that technological bar rises, since about 2005 it's been a production pace bar. We're now expected to nearly double the amount of work we've done over the previous year...year to year. That's why we often find ourselves working insane hours and going months without a day off. That production bar is the one that's unsustainable, I'm afraid.
Yet it's crazy how far we've come over time but there will always be a demand to do more, faster and cheaper and it's really difficult when every other studio is trying to outmatch you at every turn. Thankfully, this is a highly collaborative industry with everyone showing off the new things they've come up with and sharing them. Some call that bad business, but deep down it's driven by artists and technicians who do it because they love it (most of the time).
Well...that was a bit of ramble
Last edited:
As someone who goes to the Opera every season, I think probably the easiest way to describe watching it in 3D 48fps done right (like this movie) is that it feels like you are watching an opera, in other words, it feels very much like you are there in the scene in a more real life like sense.
I'm not sure if this is actually correct or just my imagination, but this second movie, it seemed like the 3D was done better to where the whole scene looked more realistic as compared to the first hobbit movie where in my opinion the 3D looked a bit more forced to where the front object was in focus but just about nothing else was. I might be just imagining it, but the 3D on this one was the best I have seen so far.
it would be soooo awesome to have a job like yours!
a couple questions:
1.) where the hell did you learn all of this? school? screwing around on the computer / own personal time?
2.) did you have any part in the huge golden dwarf that melted down at the very end? that was rather awesome!
the movie was a+ in my book... the ending really really makes you look forward to the next movie... everyone in the theatre at the end was like.....ahhhhhh no way! LOL
a couple questions:
1.) where the hell did you learn all of this? school? screwing around on the computer / own personal time?
2.) did you have any part in the huge golden dwarf that melted down at the very end? that was rather awesome!
the movie was a+ in my book... the ending really really makes you look forward to the next movie... everyone in the theatre at the end was like.....ahhhhhh no way! LOL
Well, back in the late 70s visual effects pioneer Douglas Trumbull envisioned the film "Brainstorm" to be a traditional 24fps film that would switch to a larger format, 60fps playback for the shots that are viewed through the device (ie Showscan). Ultimately there were huge technological hurdles to overcome and pretty much no theater owner back then would put up the money to upgrade their systems for just a single movie (back then most were mom & pop privately owned theaters, not the vertical monopoly you see today with chains owned by the movie studios themselves). Things are quite different now and in fact modern digital projectors you find in the average theater are capable of playing back anywhere from 96 to 144fps. But the actual workflow of film production at higher frame rates was a major tech hurdle that couldn't be reasonably dealt with until the move from optical film to digital.
But more to your point, 48fps doesn't require us on the post-production side to really up our game so much as it just requires us to generate a LOT more data and generally take longer to do certain things. It's actually 3D that is our biggest headache at the moment, preventing us from using any number of tricks to make things look good because whatever fix we do has to work in stereo. For example, something as simple as painting out a splash particle digitally has to be done for both the left and right eye and if you don't do it with meticulous care, people watching the film will notice that something's just not right here. In fact, low budget 3D films suffer from this all over the place, which is why they often give you a headache. On something I worked on very recently, there are still problems that couldn't be fixed in time, as much as we tried and a sizeable portion of that blame went to the fact that we were working in stereo, not so much 48fps. I think the move to 4K @ 48fps or higher will in-fact require us to up the bar on certain levels of detail, though we may still be another 5-10 years off from that.
What we do is already dynamic enough and every year requires us to raise the bar to crazy levels above the year before. In years past it was a technological bar. Take a look at CG characters back in the late 90s compared to now. A big reason why they look so much more realistic than they did in the past is because we can do sub-surface scattering of light in the skin, making it look extremely realistic. Characters are also very anatomically driven these days with bone, muscle and skin systems whereas not too long ago they were really just CG surfaces with an invisible internal skeleton where every muscle and flab was faked by hand. The same goes for things like fire, water and smoke. Go back to "Reign of Fire" in 2002 and you'll see some of the first ever CG smoke effects don't with actual fluid simulations vs "dumb" particle systems. These days we're doing extremely complex fluid simulations of increasing scale and detail, generating TBs of data by the minute. But as much as that technological bar rises, since about 2005 it's been a production pace bar. We're now expected to nearly double the amount of work we've done over the previous year...year to year. That's why we often find ourselves working insane hours and going months without a day off. That production bar is the one that's unsustainable, I'm afraid.
Yet it's crazy how far we've come over time but there will always be a demand to do more, faster and cheaper and it's really difficult when every other studio is trying to outmatch you at every turn. Thankfully, this is a highly collaborative industry with everyone showing off the new things they've come up with and sharing them. Some call that bad business, but deep down it's driven by artists and technicians who do it because they love it (most of the time).
Well...that was a bit of ramble
I had a very unusual path, coming from an active duty career in the Army, but was self-taught when it comes to computer graphics. A lot of the guys from my generation of VFX folks were self-taught as well; it's less so these days especially now that it's so accessible. I worked really, really hard to get to the organization I served in but in the mid-90s it was kind of a weird time to be in the service and there was this digital revolution happening with movie visual effects, something I always wanted to do since I was a kid. So when it was time for my second re-enlistment, at a time when there was still lots of downsizing going on, I decided to ETS and try to be a visual effects guy. That was seriously one of the most difficult decisions of my life; leaving something I had literally bled to be a part of, something I was good at too and throw it away to start a completely new career with zero guarantees. It was extremely difficult and I spent about 3 years learning on my own and later with friends, barely scraping by the whole time.
I never went to college or used my GI Bill, instead I was just doing CG 24/7 and developed a pretty tight group of friends who were all in the same boat. We all eventually got noticed and I went off to do VFX and they all went to Blizzard of all places to work on Diablo and Starcraft. I did VFX work full time for peanuts but had a hell of a lot of fun doing it, honing my skills during that time. Honestly, my Army background was the biggest plus as I went into the industry a hard working, mature individual with leadership training and experience. Eventually I made the move to LA and the big time, but I really missed the Army...in a bad way. There were still things I wanted to do and I quite honestly just missed jumping out of aircraft and humping a rifle up through the brush. But I had worked so hard to get where I was in such a dynamic industry that I was afraid if I bailed and went back to active duty for another 3-4 years or so then I would have to start all over again at square one. So I made a decision that over time I regretted, which was to go back in as a Reservist (huge, fucking waste of time). So during the GWOT I bounced between doing VFX work at studios in LA and deploying.
In hindsight I should have just gone back on active duty, but either way eventually you hit your 40s and it's a young man's game, so I got out a second time and have been doing VFX full time since. It's a tough job that requires incredible focus at times, constantly improving your game (both artistically and technically) and can be consuming (I've worked more holidays than most cops or EMTs and I've gone up to 5 months without a single day off), but it has its rewards. I make really good money for a guy with a high school education, it doesn't matter what I wear at work, I get to seriously work both sides of my brain, and often I get to make really cool stuff in the process. Still, that doesn't mean I'm not seriously considering taking a couple years off, moving back CONUS and using my GI Bill to go to gunsmith school
Well shit, now you guys know all about me...
As for the golden statue, that was one of the last things completed and it was all hands on deck with it. I did some placeholder work for the animators, but that's it. Instead the vast majority of my focus was water, especially towards the end. It ultimately was a tricky blend of viscous fluid simulations that had to be blended and timed by hand to hit key moments, which is all part of the cinematic storytelling process. One of the supremely frustrating aspect of this work is that often you can make a simulation that is technically correct on just about every level, yet it doesn't look aesthetically pleasing or doesn't match the timing required to sell the shot's story. That's why we go through so many iterations, mixing and matching data all throughout and it's often such a subtle and nebulous moving target that seems impossible to hit. The worst is when you've spent months doing that only to have the director decide to redesign the whole shot or sequence or in my case, just completely axe the effects you're making deciding "yeah, I don't think we really need this anymore." Context is a bitch and is constantly evolving during the edit process. Sometimes it's enough to make me want to quit and just start selling fruit at the intersection.
I never went to college or used my GI Bill, instead I was just doing CG 24/7 and developed a pretty tight group of friends who were all in the same boat. We all eventually got noticed and I went off to do VFX and they all went to Blizzard of all places to work on Diablo and Starcraft. I did VFX work full time for peanuts but had a hell of a lot of fun doing it, honing my skills during that time. Honestly, my Army background was the biggest plus as I went into the industry a hard working, mature individual with leadership training and experience. Eventually I made the move to LA and the big time, but I really missed the Army...in a bad way. There were still things I wanted to do and I quite honestly just missed jumping out of aircraft and humping a rifle up through the brush. But I had worked so hard to get where I was in such a dynamic industry that I was afraid if I bailed and went back to active duty for another 3-4 years or so then I would have to start all over again at square one. So I made a decision that over time I regretted, which was to go back in as a Reservist (huge, fucking waste of time). So during the GWOT I bounced between doing VFX work at studios in LA and deploying.
In hindsight I should have just gone back on active duty, but either way eventually you hit your 40s and it's a young man's game, so I got out a second time and have been doing VFX full time since. It's a tough job that requires incredible focus at times, constantly improving your game (both artistically and technically) and can be consuming (I've worked more holidays than most cops or EMTs and I've gone up to 5 months without a single day off), but it has its rewards. I make really good money for a guy with a high school education, it doesn't matter what I wear at work, I get to seriously work both sides of my brain, and often I get to make really cool stuff in the process. Still, that doesn't mean I'm not seriously considering taking a couple years off, moving back CONUS and using my GI Bill to go to gunsmith school
Well shit, now you guys know all about me...
As for the golden statue, that was one of the last things completed and it was all hands on deck with it. I did some placeholder work for the animators, but that's it. Instead the vast majority of my focus was water, especially towards the end. It ultimately was a tricky blend of viscous fluid simulations that had to be blended and timed by hand to hit key moments, which is all part of the cinematic storytelling process. One of the supremely frustrating aspect of this work is that often you can make a simulation that is technically correct on just about every level, yet it doesn't look aesthetically pleasing or doesn't match the timing required to sell the shot's story. That's why we go through so many iterations, mixing and matching data all throughout and it's often such a subtle and nebulous moving target that seems impossible to hit. The worst is when you've spent months doing that only to have the director decide to redesign the whole shot or sequence or in my case, just completely axe the effects you're making deciding "yeah, I don't think we really need this anymore." Context is a bitch and is constantly evolving during the edit process. Sometimes it's enough to make me want to quit and just start selling fruit at the intersection.
That's similar to how I described it here last year: like looking through a window into a house and seeing what's going on inside.
Here's a short bit about how the spiders of Mirkwood were made...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/movies/the-spiders-of-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/movies/the-spiders-of-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug.html
I preferred the 1977 animated version honestly compared to this warped rendition. I would go into detail but it would be pure spoilers. Lets just say all of the dragon scenes, laketown and the black arrow dealings, the crush(love in the hobbit really?), all the extra garbage to get this story to mesh with the LOTR. Way to long of a movie trilagy...the hobbit is a short book this really could of been 1 movie, 2 tops even with the extra mumbo jumbo. Peter Jackson got way of track if you ask me.
We watched it in IMAX 3d and I liked the graphics, while it made my wife feel sick.
We watched it in IMAX 3d and I liked the graphics, while it made my wife feel sick.
I want the third installment NOW dang it NOW! I am liking this series better than LOTR. Excellent movie. Watched in 2D but still great.
I went to it last night with the my uncle that introduced me to Tolkien when I was 6, REALLY enjoyed this one in 2D.
Great job Dogtown, you guys made an epic movie. The visual effects were awesome, I loved the Smaug scenes. Tauriel was a heartbreaker, I can see why you would double take on that.
While it did stray from the book, just like the LOTR trilogy did a bit, I think it stayed true to Tolkien (that is Jackson's gift) and I for one am happy to have three movies instead of one for the Hobbit.
Can't wait until the third one!
Great job Dogtown, you guys made an epic movie. The visual effects were awesome, I loved the Smaug scenes. Tauriel was a heartbreaker, I can see why you would double take on that.
While it did stray from the book, just like the LOTR trilogy did a bit, I think it stayed true to Tolkien (that is Jackson's gift) and I for one am happy to have three movies instead of one for the Hobbit.
Can't wait until the third one!
I'm planning on hitting the theater this week to see this movie. Thanks for all the behind the scene info on the movie. Looks like everyone puts in a lot of hours to make something like this happen!
I saw it, and it was a lot faster than the first one. I really liked it, though I wished for the "roads go ever ever on" song from the cartoon will Bilbo poked his head up through the canopy.
The effects on Smaug were wonderful, he really looked like a living moving monster. I saw it in 2d so he didn't look larger than life, but I am sure he looked amazing in 3d (even though I hate films in 3d).
I was a little surprised with some of the water and liquid gold effects, they looked to me like they were done in the late 90s, just really rough and flat textured. The rest of the effects were so rich and wonderful that the liquid effects just kinda jumped out like a sore thumb.
Super excited for number three.
The effects on Smaug were wonderful, he really looked like a living moving monster. I saw it in 2d so he didn't look larger than life, but I am sure he looked amazing in 3d (even though I hate films in 3d).
I was a little surprised with some of the water and liquid gold effects, they looked to me like they were done in the late 90s, just really rough and flat textured. The rest of the effects were so rich and wonderful that the liquid effects just kinda jumped out like a sore thumb.
Super excited for number three.
Similar threads
