公開信其一

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118059176

Deadly dull vfx undermining the biz
Innovation in visual effects focused on 'pipelines,' 'workflows'
By David S. Cohen
“Avatar”

“Avatar”
It was about 2 a.m. on Tuesday when I hopped out of bed, woke my laptop and settled in to cover the Digital Domain bankruptcy along with my colleague Jill Goldsmith in New York.

Since that long night I've realized that DD's bankruptcy was the most exciting thing that's happened in the vfx beat in a long time. That's kind of a drag for me, but it's a bigger drag for the movie business, because the only thing more dangerous for studio movies than an unhealthy vfx business is a boring one.

At the risk of sounding like a "back in my day" coot, when I started covering the vfx business, it was about huge strides in what could be put on the screen. The new vfx were unleashing filmmakers' imaginations and creating amazing new images for audiences.

Nowadays, though, the innovation in visual effects is focused on "pipelines" and "workflows" and "efficiency," which is really all just code for cost-containment.

These days most vfx news is about incremental beneath-the-hood improvements (Standardized software! Cloud rendering!) and global economics (Offshoring! Outsourcing! Tax incentives!). And oh yeah, lots of obituaries (Another American vfx company shuts down!).

Compared to 2005, it's boring and sad.

Boring the press is one thing. Boring the pros is another. One respected vfx veteran told me he's thinking of getting out of the business for exactly these reasons.

I think moviegoers are getting bored too. When I started covering this space, studios felt a tentpole had to have a star as well as effects, because vfx alone couldn't be counted on to open the picture. Several years ago, the calculation shifted. Vfx spectacle won out over star power, so "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, "Avatar" and many of the big Superhero movies did without A-list stars. The vfx became the real stars and auds ate them up.

But as innovation has shifted from the screen to the pipeline, vfx have become less startling. This year's vfx movies have ranged from fun ("Avengers," "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter") to forgettable ("Battleship" and... you know, that other bloated thing, what was the name of it?) but they haven't made me think "Wow, I've never seen that before" -- even when I haven't. No wonder movie attendance is flat or falling. There aren't enough films being made to build and sustain auds' relationships with stars, and vfx are losing their novelty value.

So here's my question for Hollywood: If vfx lose their box office allure, what's next?

A couple of other things about the Digital Domain bankruptcy are also bugging me.

First, whatever you think of DD's former CEO John Textor, his analysis of the vfx business was spot on: There's no money in it. His answer was to take DD where the money is, to government subsidies, military contracts and oil. DD got millions from the state of Florida to expand, tried to get into military simulation and training, and announced a plan to build in Abu Dhabi.

It's ironic that Textor, whose politics and political donations lean conservative and Republican, decided to suckle his company at the government teat, but at least there was a logic behind that strategy.

Now DD is split in two, and all the Florida/Abu Dhabi initiatives are split off from vfx. So the new Digital Domain Prods. is proudly, excitedly, back where it started, in a low-margin business that is fleeing the U.S.

And finally, who's ruined by this bankruptcy? Remember "ruined?" Such a quaint idea. No one in DD management seems to be ruined. 280 DD employees in Florida people lost their jobs. Some are ruined, or close to it. But Textor made millions as CEO of a money-losing company. He'll be just fine.

That's everything that's wrong with U.S. business in a nutshell. Executives and managers commit their companies to huge risks while protecting themselves from personal consequences. Meanwhile employees feel the pain when things go bad. I think we'd be better off in the long run if we heard more howls of "I'm ruined!" from executive offices.

Bits & Bytes:

Athena Studios, a new company providing production services for TV, film, advertising and multimedia, has opened in Emeryville, Calif. Jon Peters is founder/CEO of Athena. New venture is the production arm of AthenaOnline, which produces corporate educational videos. Athena Studios has already hosted High Noon Entertainment for their pilot of "Collection Intervention" for SyFy.

5D Institute and USC School of Cinematic Arts will present "The City & The Book," a two-evening design summit, Sept. 20-21 from 7-10 p.m., with a reception following on both nights.

Deluxe's vfx subsidiary Encore is creating vfx for CBS's hourling skein "Vegas."

Yabazam has upgraded its 3D VOD service app for LG smart TVs. ..

Band Pro will offer a Canon EOS Hands On Workflow Q&A Sept. 24 at Loyal Studios in Burbank. ... Createasphere will present its Post-Production Master Class in New York on Sept. 27 and in Los Angeles on Nov. 8. ...

Barco is using Auro 11.1 sound for the Canadian debut of Royal Opera House's presentation of "Madam Butterfly 3D." Auro is one of several emerging sound technologies, and is an alternative to object-oriented systems like Dolby Atmos. ... Barco LiveDots has launched a line of LED displays for branding, advertisement and sports. ...

Cinegy has announced version 9.2 of Cinegy Multiviewer...Fox International Channels Turkey has deployed a Cinegy Archive and MAM solution. ... Grass Valley has launched version 3.5 its EDIUS Neo nonlinear editing software. New version works natively with images from Canon DSLR cameras. ... Cinedeck is shipping Cinedeck MX, its newest multi-channel recorder. NBC Universal and All Mobile Video are among the first customers for the Cinedeck MX. ...

At the GSCA conference next week, Qube Cinema will demonstrate its XP-I server, which can stream 4K 3D through Qube Xi 4K integrated media blocks in Barco projectors. The system is already in place in the Houston Museum of Natural Science's Giant Screen theater, which switched from 70mm film to the Qube system in March.

Autodesk has demonstrated its 20th Anniversary Edition of Flame software for visual effects and real-time grading.... At IBC in Amsterdam, Autodesk presented the first public presentation of its Smoke 2013 video editing software. ... Maxon is shipping Cinema 4D release 14 for 3D motion graphics, visual effects, painting and rendering.

Want to comment or suggest a column topic?

Email

Contact David S. Cohen at

Google君不負責任翻譯

致命的沉悶的視覺特效，破壞了商務
“管道”，“工作流程，專注於創新的視覺效果”
由 大衛·科恩
“阿凡達”

“阿凡達”
這是凌晨2點左右上週二，當我跳下床，醒了我的筆記本電腦，以支付數字域名破產的，與我的同事吉爾·史密斯在紐約定居。

從那個漫長的夜晚，我已經意識到，DD的破產是最令人興奮的事情，發生在視覺特效打在很長一段時間。 這對我來說是一種拖累，但它的電影業是一個更大的拖累，因為唯一比不健康的視覺特效業務更危險的工作室電影是一個無聊的。

聽起來像一個“早在我的一天”脫光的風險，當我開始覆蓋VFX業務，這是巨大的跨越式發展，這可能是在屏幕上。 新的視覺特效釋放出電影製作者的想像力，為觀眾創造驚人的新的圖像。

然而，現在的重點是創新的視覺效果上的“管道”和“工作流程”和“效率”，這是真正的成本控制都只是代碼。

這些天最特效的消息是有關增量正下方的引擎罩的改進（標準化的軟件！雲渲染！）和全球經濟（Offshoring!外包！的稅收獎勵！）。 哦，是的，很多的訃告（另一位美國視覺特效公司關閉！）。

與2005年相比，它的枯燥和悲傷。

無聊的新聞，是一件事。 鏜的優點是另一回事。 尊敬的視覺特效的資深人士告訴我，他的思想，正是這些原因的業務。

我認為電影觀眾感到厭煩。 當我開始覆蓋這個空間，工作室覺得tentpole必須有一個明星以及效果，因為視覺特效不能單獨算的上打開圖片的。 幾年前，計算轉移。 特效奇觀贏得了超過明星的力量，所以“指環王”三部曲，“阿凡達”，許多大的超級英雄電影沒有一個明星。 視覺特效成為真正的明星，AUD中吃了起來。

但創新從屏幕上轉移到管道，視覺特效變得不那麼令人吃驚。 今年的VFX電影的範圍從樂趣“復仇者”，“亞伯拉罕·林肯：吸血鬼獵人”遺忘“（”戰艦“......你知道的，那其他臃腫的東西，它叫什麼名字？），但他們的避風港“做我覺得”哇，我從來沒有見過前的“ - 甚至當我沒有。 難怪電影觀眾是持平或下降。 沒有足夠的電影正在建立和維持AUD中的恆星之間的關係，和VFX正在失去他們的新奇性價值。

因此，這裡是我為好萊塢的問題：如果VFX失去他們的票房魅力，接下來會發生什麼？

數字域名破產一對夫婦，其他的事情都還纏著我。

首先，任何你覺得DD的前首席執行官約翰·Textor，他的VFX業務的分析點上：有沒有錢。 他的回答是，，採取DD有錢的地方，政府的補貼，軍事合同和油。 DD從佛羅里達州擴大了數百萬，試圖進入軍事模擬和訓練，並宣布了一項計劃在阿布扎比建立。

這是具有諷刺意味的是，其政治和政治捐款瘦保守，共和黨Textor，決定在政府乳頭吸吮他的公司，但至少有一個背後的戰略邏輯。

現在，DD是一分為二，所有的佛羅里達/阿布扎比舉措的分裂從視覺特效。 因此，新的數字域名PRODS。 是自豪，興奮地回到了它開始，在一個低利潤的業務，逃離美國

最後，誰毀了這個破產嗎？ 還記得“毀了嗎？” 這樣一個古色古香的想法。 DD管理中沒有一個人似乎被破壞。 280 DD員工在佛羅里達州的人失去了工作。 有些人毀了，或接近它。 但Textor賺了幾百萬，作為一個賠錢的公司的CEO。 他會好起來的。

這一切都與美國的商業概括地說這是錯誤的。 管理人員和經理提交他們的公司面臨巨大風險，同時保護自己的個人後果。 同時，員工感到疼痛，當事情壞。 我想我們會更好，從長遠來看，如果我們聽到更多的嚎叫：“我毀了！” 從行政辦公室。

位和字節：

朱茵影城，新公司提供生產服務，為電視，電影，****及多媒體，目前已開通的Emeryville，加利福尼亞州的喬恩·彼得斯是創始人/ CEO雅典娜。 新的合資公司是生產部門AthenaOnline，生產企業的教育視頻。 雅典娜工作室已接待了正午娛樂“收藏干預”SYFY試點。

5D學院，南加州大學電影藝術學院將展示“城市書”，兩個晚上設計峰會，九月20日​​至21日7-10時，具有接收後兩晚。

CBS的hourling絞“拉斯維加斯豪華的視覺特效公司的Encore創建視覺特效。”

Yabazam已經升級了其3D視頻點播服務的LG智能電視的應用程序。 ..

樂隊Pro將提供佳能EOS手中的工作流程Q＆A 9月24日在伯班克的忠實工作室。 ... Createasphere將展出其後期製作大師班於9月27日在紐約和洛杉磯11月8日。 ...

巴可使用AURO 11.1聲音在加拿大首次亮相的皇家歌劇院演出“蝴蝶夫人3D。” AURO是一些新興的無害化技術之一，是另一種面向對象的系統，如杜比大氣。 ... ，巴LiveDots推出了一系列的LED顯示屏品牌，****和體育。 ...

Cinegy已經宣布9.2版Cinegy多畫面福克斯國際頻道土耳其已經部署了Cinegy的的歸檔和MAM解決方案。 ... 草谷公司已經推出了3.5版本的新的非線性編輯軟件EDIUS。 新版本佳能數碼單反相機的圖像本身。 ... Cinedeck是航運Cinedeck MX，其最新的多通道記錄。 NBC環球和所有的移動視頻Cinedeck MX是其中的第一批客戶。 ...

GSCA會議下週，QUBE影院將展示其XP-I服務器，它可以4K 3D流通過QUBE西4K的綜合性媒體的塊巴可投影機。 該系統已經在休斯頓美術館，自然科學巨幕影院，從70mm膠片轉換到Qube三月。

Autodesk已經證明了它的20週年紀念版Flame軟件的視覺效果和實時分級.... 在阿姆斯特丹IBC中，歐特克提出的第一個公開展示其煙2013年的視頻編輯軟件。 ... Maxon公司是航運4D影院14版3D動畫，視覺效果，繪畫和渲染。

要發表評論或建議的列主題？

電子郵件david.cohen @ variety.com

聯繫大衛·科恩在david.cohen @ variety.com



公開信其二

http://www.fxguide.com/quicktakes/o...-cohen-variety/


Open letter response to David Cohen, Variety
By Mike Seymour
September 13, 2012

contact us about this article
Comment5

If you are bored with the VFX industry, may I suggest changing jobs?

David Cohen, a respected and talented writer published a piece in Variety and then tweeted about it and another piece which, among other things, seemed to claim:

• he was bored with visual effects

• the public was bored with visual effects films

• there was nothing new

So in the spirit of healthy debate, I would like to respond, as both a writer (here since 1999), a VFX artist – mainly as a compositor and VFX sup – and as a filmgoer. But I would also like to say I like reading Cohen’s articles and Variety is a great trade publication.
Bored with vfx

Firstly, let’s address the issue that he is bored with covering visual effects, and that when he started covering the VFX business in 2005 it was about huge strides, and “compared to 2005, (today) it is boring and sad.”

The reason for this, according to Cohen, is in part that the “innovation in visual effects is focused on ‘pipelines’ and ‘workflows’ and ‘efficiency,; which is really all just code for cost-containment.”

I will assume for this reply that Cohen is focused on just the feature film end of the business and that all the other amazing innovations such as remarkable real-time rendering of human faces, with dials to change things in real time, increased skin moisture until sweat beads on the brow of a photo real / sub-surface scattered human face, or the ability to film live action and produce from one camera complete 3D surface maps based on the natural way light polarizes as it reflects off any surface, or the introduction of remote editing via brilliant server software innovations by Adobe Anywhere – are all outside Cohen’s Variety beat. Those three innovations alone were all either published at SIGGRAPH or at IBC in the last month. Personally I find these monthly advances stunningly interesting and completely exciting…but maybe that’s just me.

But let’s limit ourselves to just major feature films. It is true that there is an expansion of innovations in pipelines and workflows, and I am happy to accept an entertainment writer from Variety may not find that interesting. I remember the technical Oscars from 2005 well, as four fellow Australians received Scientific and Technical Awards for their pioneering work in film effects. Lindsey Arnold, Guy Griffiths, David Mann and David Hodson were awarded for their work in creating the world’s first film-quality 2D digital compositing system. But in that year there were also a lot of technical Oscars for improvements in cranes. Now you may find innovation in cranes. I love Technocranes and Louma cranes, but I would not have written how dull the technical side of the industry was in 2005 because there is so much about cranes – which is code for ‘lifting cameras’.

My point is this: if you find innovations in complex process management dull, that does not represent the whole industry. Report on other stuff, go beyond the press releases – you’re a good reporter, you can do it. Why is there a lot about workflow? It is because it is a real problem and it is workflow’s turn. We as an industry go through cycles of problem solving. For example, digital cameras were a big innovation in the gap between 2005 and 2012. Once most of the industry has gone through the issues and changed approaches and solved the initial problems, then the next thing comes along.

Is workflow ‘code for cost-containment’? No. The complexity of producing a major film is daunting. You need to bring a team together, have them work on a vast amount of data, solve often very complex if not previously unsolved problems, meet deadlines and do it creatively. The process is the IP of many companies. It is the genius of being able to breakdown a spaceship coming out of the water and looking like it is huge, with water dripping off it, on the open seas, with actors interacting off the coast of Hawaii and deliver 1200 shots by the summer release deadline on razor thin margins with a temporary workforce of highly technical and creative people (- and often at locations all over the world).
Public vs. visual effects films

The next issue is the question of whether moviegoers are ‘getting bored too’?

Cohen says: “But as innovation has shifted from the screen to the pipeline, vfx have become less startling…No wonder movie attendance is flat or falling. There aren’t enough films being made to build and sustain auds’ relationships with stars, and vfx are losing their novelty value.”

Firstly, there is clearly some truth in here. The idea that movies moved to being less about the stars and VFX began playing a bigger role has occurred. To put this in perspective, I don’t think Cohen blames the artists involved for being so successful in the past that more and more films ended up having visual effects. I will say he avoided recalling that back in these glory days of 2005, the top grossing films were Star Wars: Ep III, Narnia, Harry Potter (Goblet of Fire), War of the Worlds and King Kong – all VFX films. But there was also a reaction going on to huge star salaries. Hollywood A-list stars were commanding vast salaries and yet film such as Bewitched, Cinderella Man and Miss Congeniality 2 were not delivering star power box office results on those star power names.

The top grossing films of 2012, according to Box Office Mojo, are The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, The Amazing Spider-Man and Brave. All contain VFX if not 100% computer graphics. All are also good films that found an audience, clearly. So the question comes do audiences not go and see “Battleship and…you know, that other bloated thing, what was the name of it?” (to quote Mr Cohen) due to VFX or because those films were badly marketed or poorly written.

I would say that while Battleship had good VFX, the problem was that when the film was first discussed – when it was green lit – people were already laughing about the idea of a feature film from a simple board game. I don’t think Battleship had a lot of momentum in the market at the start, forget good VFX or bad. Now I grant you that Pirates of the Caribbean was huge and that was based on an old Disney theme park ride – so who am I to point, but it is also true that Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley were all stars going into Pirates and the success of the film was that much more directly due to their talents.

But I also say this whole argument is flawed.

Visual effects is not meant to be the reason you see a film. Visual effects are not meant to replace stars. Visual effects are meant to help tell the story. It is fine to love period costume dramas, but the textile industry moving to China is not the fault of Merchant Ivory films not working these days! It is not enough to have great costumes, in a film, you need an engaging story – see Marie Antoinette (2006).

Finally I would like to address the issue of Cohen’s further comment: “they haven’t made me think ‘Wow, I’ve never seen that before’ even when I haven’t.” Notwithstanding my last comment regarding the role of VFX is to serve the story, not make you wonder about the filmmaking process, I leave you with these recent examples of wonder, no actually I won’t … Mr Cohen you say nothing makes you go wow…here is an example from every year since 2005 that I personally felt humble to be involved any way in visual effects, times when I said something out loud like “Wow, how the heck did they pull that off?”

2006: In X-Men: The Last Stand, when the camera pulls back and we see Magneto and Charles Xavier sitting – but it isn’t them, it is the younger them, but it is the actors.

2007: The first time you saw the gears and sheer complexity of a Transformer – transforming, did you not look at the sheer intricacy of the model and say, “how the heck did they even plan that?”

2008: As Benjamin Button sits under a table in the still of night talking to a young Daisy, the depth of the performance and, even thinking you’re an ‘expert’, being stunned to learn that for the first 52 minutes of this epic motion picture – The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – the head of Brad Pitt’s character is a CGI creation.

2009: Having Jim Cameron’s effects team make me care about a tree being destroyed in Avatar.

2010: Watching Paris fold back on itself in Inception, or watching a weightless escape – both stunning, but the death of a small house elf on a beach cant not pass without special note either.

2011: Staring – I mean staring – at the screen for minutes in disbelief at the character Steve Rogers as a wimp in Captain America, trying to work out if it was actually Chris Evans or an unknown wimpy brother, unable to believe scene after scene of interaction, dialogue and brilliant visual effects (although I would say Hugo’s mega Steadicam shot came close to matching it).

2012: And this year alone, stunned at the realism of an alien map room in Prometheus, or a fight in a school hall in Amazing Spider-Man with not only digital characters but an entire digital ‘live action world’ or a (finally) believable and successful Hulk “puny God” attack on Loki in The Avengers in the middle of a universe of stunning fights and characters. Really, you didnt once think how did they do that? Really?

This year alone has seen magnificent advances in sub-surface scattering, jumping two generations of technology by Weta and Sony. Sure it may not work as a single picture in Cinefex, but the genius, inventiveness and sheer complexity of getting this right. Sure it is in computers these days – we don’t use rotary dial phones, we don’t use typewriters, most of our lives are computerized, but I for one could pick a miniature sub on water “back in the day” almost every time versus the water realism coming off the Avengers heli-carrier which was flawless – just beautiful.

Please excuse me – I have to buy some tickets online for The Hobbit, Cloud Atlas, Looper – is it too early to buy tickets to Pacific Rim or Gravity? Oh wait that’s next year…can’t wait.

Google君不負責任翻譯

大衛·科恩，品種的公開信回應
由麥克·西摩
2012年9月13日

有關這篇專題文章與我們聯繫
評論 1

如果你覺得無聊的VFX行業，我建議換工作嗎？

大衛·科恩，尊重和天才的作家出版了一本在品種，然後啾啾權利要求，除其他事項外，似乎它與另一塊：

他很無聊的視覺效果

•公眾無聊的視覺效果電影

•有什麼新的

因此，在精神健康的辯論，我想回應，作為一個作家，自1999年以來，一個VFX畫家 - 主要表現為合成器和VFX支持 - 作為一個影迷。 但我還要說，我喜歡閱讀科恩的文章和品種是一個偉大的貿易刊物。
厭倦了視覺特效

首先，讓我們解決這個問題，他厭倦覆蓋的視覺效果，而且，當他開始覆蓋的VFX業務，2005年，這是巨大的跨越式發展，與“相比，到2005年，今天很無聊和悲傷。”

據科恩，這樣做的原因，是部分“創新的重點是在視覺效果上的”管道“和”的工作流程“和”效率，這是真的都只是代碼的成本控制。“

這個答复，我將承擔科恩重點的專題片末的商家和所有其他驚人的創新，如顯著的實時渲染中的人臉，帶撥號盤的實時改變的事情，增加皮膚的水分，直到一個真正的人臉/次表面散射的照片或電影現場行動的能力，並產生從一個攝像頭完整的三維曲面圖的基礎上的自然光線極化，因為它反映了任何表面，或引進的眉頭上的汗珠通過服務器軟件由Adobe的創新輝煌任何地方 - 遠程編輯以外的所有科恩的品種拍。 僅這三個創新SIGGRAPH或在IBC所有已公佈的最後一個月。 我個人覺得這些每月的進步令人驚嘆的有趣和完全令人興奮的...但也許這只是我。

但是，讓我們限制自己只是主要的故事片。 這是事實，是一個擴展的創新流程和工作流程，而且我很樂意接受的娛樂作家從各種可能無法找到有趣。 我記得的技術奧斯卡獎從2005年，四家同系澳大利亞人科學技術獎的開創性工作，在電影特效。 林賽·阿諾德，蓋伊·格里菲思，大衛曼和大衛·霍德森獎給了他們的工作，創造了世界上第一個電影品質的2D數字合成系統。 但在這一年也有很多的改進起重機的技術奧斯卡獎。 現在，你可能會發現，在起重機的創新。 我愛Technocranes和Louma起重機，但我就不會寫枯燥的技術方面的行業是在2005年，因為有這麼多的起重機 - 這是代碼的提升相機。

我的觀點是這樣的：如果你覺得沉悶複雜的過程，管理創新，並不代表整個行業。 關於其他的東西，超越新聞稿 - 你是個好記者，你可以做到這一點。 為什麼有很多關於工作流程嗎？ 這是因為它是一個真正的問題，它是工作流的。 作為一個行業，我們去解決問題的週期。 例如，數碼相機的一大創新，在2005年和2012年之間的差距。 一旦大多數行業已經歷過的問題，改變方法，初步解決了問題，那麼接下來的事情出現。

成本控制工作流的代碼“？ 一個主要的電影生產的複雜性是艱鉅的。 你需要把一個團隊，他們的工作在大量的數據，解決往往很複雜，如果沒有以前未解決的問題，按時完成任務，創造性地做到這一點。 這個過程是許多公司的IP地址。 這是天才的，能夠分解出來的水和看起來像太空飛船是巨大的，滴下來的水，在公海，與演員互動的夏威夷外海，在今年夏天發布，並提供1200張微薄的利潤與高度的技術和創意的人（臨時工作人員 - 常常在世界各地的位置）的最後期限。
公眾對視覺效果的電影

下一個問題是影迷“感到厭煩”的問題？

科恩說：“但是，創新已經從屏幕上的管線，視覺特效已經變得不那麼令人吃驚的...難怪電影觀眾是持平或下降。 沒有足夠的電影正在失去他們的新奇性價值AUD中的建立和維持關係的明星，視覺特效。“

首先，顯然是有一定的道理在這裡。 關於星星和VFX電影感動的想法，開始發揮更大的作用已經發生。 為了把這個角度來看，我不認為科恩指責參與的藝術家是如此成功，在過去，越來越多的電影的視覺效果。 我會說他避免了回顧，早在2005年這些輝煌燦爛的，最賺錢的電影是星球大戰，哈利波特，納尼亞EP III（“火焰杯”），戰爭的世界和金剛 -所有VFX電影。 但也有大明星薪酬的反應。 好萊塢的A-list明星們指揮龐大的薪金，但電影如迷惑，鐵拳男人和選美小姐2，沒有提供明星電力票房的結果上那些明星電力的名稱。

2012年最賣座的電影，根據Box Office Mojo網站的復仇者，黑暗騎士崛起，“飢餓遊戲，驚人的蜘蛛俠和勇敢 。 所有包含VFX如果不是100％的計算機圖形。 一切也都發現了一個觀眾，明確的好電影。 所以問題來了做觀眾去看看“戰艦......你知道，那臃腫的事情，它的名字是什麼？”（科恩先生的話），因為這些電影由於VFX 或嚴重營銷或寫得不好。

我要說的是戰艦 ，同時具有良好的視覺特效，問題是，當電影第一次討論-當它是綠色點亮-人們已經笑的故事片，從一個簡單的棋盤遊戲的想法。 我不認為戰艦的勢頭在市場上有很多在開始時，忘記了良好的VFX或壞。 現在我授予你加勒比海盜是巨大的，這是基於一個古老的迪斯尼主題公園乘坐-我是誰點，但約翰尼·德普，奧蘭多·布魯姆（Orlando Bloom）和凱拉·奈特利也是如此，所有的星星進入海盜和成功的電影是由於他們的才華，更直接。

但我也說，這整個論點是有漏洞的。

視覺效果是不是意味著，你看電影的原因。 的視覺效果，並不是要取代明星。 是為了幫助講故事的視覺效果。 這是愛古裝電視劇，但紡織產業向中國轉移是不是故障的商人象牙片不能正常工作，這些天！ 這是不夠的，有很大的服裝，在電影中，你需要一個動人的故事- 瑪麗·安托瓦內特 （2006年）。

最後，我想解決的問題，科恩的進一步評論說：“他們並沒有讓我覺得'哇，我從來沒有見過，以前，即使我沒有。”儘管我最後的評論方面的作用VFX服務的故事，而不是讓你想知道的電影製作過程中，我離開你的好奇心與這些最近的例子，沒有，其實我不會科恩先生，你說什麼讓你走哇...​​...這裡是一個例子，從2005年以來，每年，我親身感受到了謙虛參與任何形式的視覺效果，時間，當我說了一句大聲像“哇，到底如何做，他們自己的目標嗎？”

2006年 ：在X-戰警：背水一戰 ，相機時，拉回來，我們看到磁和查爾斯澤維爾坐-但它是不是他們，這是年輕的，但它的演員。

2007：你第一次看到一個變壓器的齒輪和純粹的複雜性-轉化，你不看在龐大複 ​​雜的模型，並說，“到底如何，他們甚至打算？”

2008年 ：本傑明·巴頓坐在桌子下，在夜深人靜的一個年輕的菊花，深度的表現，甚至以為你是一個“專家”，被驚呆了學習說話，第52分鐘，這部史詩電影- 本傑明·巴頓奇事 -頭布拉德·皮特的性格是一個CGI的創造。

2009年 ：吉姆·卡梅隆的特效團隊做我關心的“ 阿凡達”中的樹被摧毀。

2010年 ：看巴黎倍本身成立以來 ，或看失重的逃生-具有驚人的，但死亡的一間小房子小精靈在海灘上不能如無特殊說明不通過。

2011年 ：凝望-我的意思是盯著-在屏幕上的字符史蒂夫·羅傑斯分鐘不相信在一個懦夫在美國上尉 ，試圖找出如果它實際上是克里斯·埃文斯還是一個未知數懦弱的弟弟，無法相信一幕又一幕互動，對話和絢麗的視覺效果（雖然我會說雨果的大型斯坦尼康拍攝差點匹配）。

2012年 ：僅今年一年，愣在現實主義的普羅米修斯一個陌生的地圖室，一個驚人的蜘蛛俠在學校大廳裡的鬥爭，不僅數字字符，但整個數字生活的行動世界“（終於）可信的，成功的綠巨人“弱小的神”攻擊洛基在中間的宇宙驚人的戰鬥和人物的復仇者 。 說真的，你沒有曾經認為他們是怎麼做到的呢？ 真的嗎？

僅在今年已經看到宏偉的進步，次表面散射，跳躍兩代技術的維塔和索尼。 當然，它不能作為一個單一的圖片Cinefex，但得到這個權利的天才，創造性和純粹的複雜性。 當然，它是在計算機上，這些天 - 我們不使用旋轉撥號電話，我們不使用打字機，我們的生活是電腦，但我可以選擇一個微型子水“，早在一天”幾乎每時間與水寫實主義復仇者直升機載體是完美的 - 只是美麗的。

請原諒我-我買了一些網上訂票的霍比特人，雲圖，活套 -是不是太早買票太平洋沿岸地區或重力 ？ 哦，等一下，明年不能再等了。

邁克 - 西摩

共同創始人fxguide的