Keep Your Clients For­ever

Animation Magazine - - Opportunities - By Martin Gre­bing

The most ex­pen­sive part of just about any busi­ness is get­ting a client in the door. Count­less ad­ver­tis­ing dol­lars, mar­ket­ing plans and mas­sive amounts of time and ef­fort are of­ten re­quired to land a sin­gle client. So, once ac­quired, it is of paramount im­por­tance to keep them for­ever.

Keep Do­ing What You’re Do­ing Your client ini­tially chose to work with you for two rea­sons and two rea­sons only: One, you have some­thing they want or need, and, two, they trusted you enough to give you their busi­ness. If ei­ther of these things were not present, they would never have en­tered a trans­ac­tion with you. Ad­di­tion­ally, if ei­ther of these things get dinged in the fu­ture, you will more than likely lose the client. To keep your clients, you must al­ways de­liver, and al­ways de­liver the qual­ity they are ex­pect­ing (and, for your peace of mind, not much more). Con­trary to the con­cept of un­der­promis­ing and overde­liv­er­ing that so many peo­ple claim to em­brace, this can be a very dan­ger­ous, slip­pery slope. If you con­tin­u­ously overde­liver, your clients will grow to ex­pect this from you gratis, or with­out be­ing grate­ful for your over achieve­ments on their be­half. The lus­ter of go­ing above and be­yond with­out them ask­ing can wear off quickly and turn into base ex­pec­ta­tions. Foot, meet gun.

Show Ap­pre­ci­a­tion and Re­ward for Continued

Busi­ness Re­cur­rent busi­ness from ex­ist­ing clients is of­ten the most prof­itable thing a busi­ness can achieve. There­fore, when they come back, make sure you show ap­pre­ci­a­tion. Send a hand-writ­ten card, write a short but sin­cere email, send hol­i­day gifts, make a quick phone call, do any of a num­ber of small ges­tures to let the client know you are think­ing of them and are grate­ful for your re­la­tion­ship.

In a Pavlo­vian sense, you can get a lot of mileage out of al­ways re­spond­ing with some­thing pos­i­tive, kind and grate­ful when­ever your client re­quests more work from you, and, more­over, when pay­ment ar­rives.

Ad­di­tion­ally, re­ward your clients for continued busi­ness in ser­vice and value. Give them a mod­est dis­count on cer­tain ser­vices. Of­fer them ex­clu­sive ben­e­fits that only they are qual­i­fied to re­ceive. Make a to­tal of all the spe­cial ben­e­fits, dis­counts and perks they re­ceive and send a for­mal re­port at the end of the year with these to­tals. You must com­mu­ni­cate and quan­tify these ben­e­fits to the client, oth­er­wise they will go un­no­ticed and un­ap­pre­ci­ated. De­velop Re­la­tion­ships,

Not Projects The key to client longevity and loy­alty is build­ing re­la­tion­ships, not projects. Some of the big­gest busi­ness deals have been made on hand­shakes, not busi­ness plans or sales ma­te­rial. Fo­cus on con­tin­u­ing to de­liver value to your clients, not the me­chan­ics of what you do, but how it will ben­e­fit them. Al­ways of­fer to help, never sell. Sales is for strangers, help­ing is for peo­ple with whom you have a re­la­tion­ship. For ex­am­ple, pic­ture your best friend. Now, pic­ture your best friend read­ing from a fo­cus group-tested script, giv­ing you a for­mal sales pitch on which movie to see. Doesn’t feel right, does it? It makes much more sense for your best friend to say, “Hey, I saw this last week — it’s awe­some! I’m dy­ing to see it again, I think you’ll love it, let’s check it out.” If you hope to build pos­i­tive busi­ness re­la­tion­ships, you must take this same approach with your clients.

An­other key to build­ing a busi­ness re­la­tion­ship is to al­ways make your clients feel con­fi­dent and spe­cial when you are work­ing to­gether, as if they are the only client you have. If you hap­pen to run late with a project, never say it’s due to be­ing busy with other projects. Af­ter all, it’s your duty to only ac­cept projects that you can com­mit to fin­ish­ing on time and on bud­get in the first place. Fail­ing to do this be­cause you are work­ing on some­thing else is un­ac­cept­able and will of­ten re­sult in los­ing client trust and more than likely the client, as well.

Think of a client as a tree. In the in­fancy stage, it is frag­ile and re­quires a lot of nur­tur­ing. Over time, with continued care, each one will grow tall and strong, pro­vide shade for you and even weather mas­sive storms. Treat each one as if it is unique and spe­cial, spend time build­ing re­la­tion­ships, con­sis­tently and per­sis­tently add value and pro­vide ben­e­fits, and your clients will re­main by your side for­ever. [ Martin Gre­bing is pres­i­dent of Fun­ny­bone An­i­ma­tion and can be reached via www.fun­ny­bonean­i­ma­tion.com.

These guys at Chaos Group. They just seem to never rest. And all of this lack of sleep has re­ally come to fruition. I mean, not only is V-Ray well loved around the world, but cre­ator Vlado Koy­la­zov re­ceived a Sci-Tech plaque from the Academy of Mo­tion Pic­ture Arts and Sciences, mean­ing Os­cars folks loved it, too.

But not to rest on the golden lau­rels of awards, yet an­other ver­sion of V-Ray 3.5 has been pushed out for Max, with a Maya ver­sion hot on its tail.

The prin­ci­pal ad­di­tion to 3.5 and a huge ren­der-time saver is adap­tive lights, which feels like the evo­lu­tion­ary next step from prob­a­bilis­tic lights, which was in the last re­lease. In­stead of choos­ing a spe­cific num­ber of lights that will “prob­a­bly” affect the so­lu­tion, V-Ray uses the light cache (known from the global il­lu­mi­na­tion al­go­rithms) to in­form which lights to elim­i­nate from the cal­cu­la­tion with­out af­fect­ing the end re­sult. This may not help as much if you have, say, eight lights, but when you are get­ting into the hun­dreds of lights, the time sav­ings are dra­matic.

You now have in­ter­ac­tive pro­duc­tion ren­der­ing. “But isn’t that what V-Ray RT is for?” you may ask. Sort of. IPR ac­tu­ally works in con­junc­tion with the the ad­vanced ren­derer, while RT is a sep­a­rate ren­derer al­to­gether. RT must ex­port the scene be­fore it can start ren­der­ing while IPR ac­cesses the scene di­rectly, which means it can start ren­der­ing al­most im­me­di­ately.

Also, V-Ray 3.5 has es­tab­lished “re­sum­able ren­der­ing,” which, like it sounds, al­lows you to pickup a ren­der where it left off. Maybe your fer­ret chewed through your power ca­ble while you were ren­der­ing. Once you’ve bought a new ca­ble, you would be able to restart the ren­der from the point when Minky bit through. And it works in both bucket and pro­gres­sive ren­der modes.

Some third-party shaders have re­ceived a

And while we are on the topic of Chaos Group — you know, and that tech­ni­cal Os­car — they also have a fluid-solver called Phoenix FD, and ver­sion 3.0 was re­cently re­leased for Maya.

Originally some­thing one would turn to for smoke and fire, 3.0 now has an ac­tual fluid — as in wa­ter — flip solver, which is all the rage in Hou­dini and RealFlow. Phoenix has all that, in­clud­ing the ex­tra gen­er­ated maps for cre­at­ing foam on the sur­face of the wa­ter and wet maps for the ge­og­ra­phy it’s in­ter­act­ing with.

But don’t for­get about the orig­i­nal tried and true fire and smoke. The solver has been up­dated to han­dle finer de­tail res­o­lu­tions. But even if you have all that, you still have to ren­der those vol­umes — and so the vol­ume ren­der­ing has got­ten a speed boost.

“Set­ups for all that smoke and such can be time con­sum­ing,” you may say. And for the most part you are right. But quick pre­set but­tons have made it so you can get all that foun­da­tion work out of the way, and you can get to tweak­ing and mak­ing it su­per cool.

Ad­di­tion­ally, the team at Chaos Group has added some fancy forces to in­ter­act with both the fluid flu­ids, and the wa­ter flu­ids. Path fol­low does what it says it does. The flu­ids will fol­low a cho­sen spline or splines. Then there is body force, which al­lows you to use a mesh to de­ter­mine the shape of the force.

Ba­si­cally, Phoenix is a light form of RealFlow or Hou­dini with­out the over­head — but also with­out many of the bells and whis­tles. Chaos Group is firmly hit­ting the soft belly of the same mar­ket as FumeFX.

So, I’m just gonna say it. Roto blows. Hon­estly. I’m just not a fan.

But then there are those times where a tool comes along that makes you just a bit giddy be­cause, like Tom Sawyer con­vinc­ing his friends that paint­ing the fence is fun, some­thing draws you closer to be­liev­ing ro­to­scop­ing is some­thing that you don’t need to do as pun­ish­ment.

I listed Flow­box as a top tech to check out for last year, but I’m only just get­ting to it now, mainly be­cause this crack­ing group of up­starts had some fea­tures that they re­ally wanted to get down be­fore peo­ple started clam­or­ing about it from the moun­tain tops.

Flow­box looks and feels like Nuke, but us­ing pen strokes, rather than click-drag­ging, you get a freeform style of con­nect­ing and dis­con­nect­ing nodes. But, the work­flow feels com­fort­able, like your slip­pers. Among the fa­mil­iar roto tools, though, are some pow­er­ful ones that could be po­ten­tial game chang­ers.

The first is the stroke mode, which es­sen­tially puts you into a free­hand mode to trace an out­line us­ing your Wa­com or what­not. Or you can be lay­ing points the old fash­ion way and switch over to stroke mode, and then back again. The com­pleted stroke be­comes a point­based, con­trol­lable curve, whose den­sity can be ad­justed. So now what do you do, you can’t just go freestylin’ and draw curves all over the place and ex­pect clean, non-flut­tery ro­to­shapes. Or can you?

The snap line fea­ture un­der­stands the struc­ture of the pre­vi­ously drawn stroke and kind of projects onto the new stroke you’ve drawn on the new frame. The points move with an intelligence to try and en­sure the fidelity of the sil­hou­ette.

Now if that isn’t enough to draw you back into be­ing a lover of ro­to­scop­ing, Flow­box has an in­tel­li­gent rip­ple edit, which means that changes made to a point on a curve will prop­a­gate over all the key frames on that shape in the se­quence. But what other fla­vors of this tool don’t have is an un­der­stand­ing of where those shapes go when the over­all ro­to­shape ro­tates. Not so for this tool — the ad­just points fol­low the rip­ple in a more use­ful way.

But the Flow­box guys aren’t stop­ping there. As more tools be­come avail­able, it won’t be sur­pris­ing to see this evolve into a com­posit­ing tool. In fact, Flow­box FX is al­ready get­ting some buzz.

But back in the ro­to­scop­ing world, one of the forth­com­ing fea­tures is a work­flow for re­al­time col­lab­o­ra­tion in the same file, with mul­ti­ple artists work­ing on dif­fer­ent shapes for the same roto. I have a few shots head­ing my way right now that could use that kind of col­lab­o­ra­tion.

While ro­to­scop­ing is just kind of te­dious, rig­ging on the other hand is hard. Which is why I usu­ally leave the rig­ging to the rig­gers — those spe­cial guys and gals who sim­ple need to solve in­cred­i­bly com­plex prob­lems with a com­bi­na­tion of guts, code and cof­fee.

But how can we all ben­e­fit and ride on the shoul­ders of these giants of rig­ging? Well, some peo­ple from Weta who helped with the de­vel­op­ment of the char­ac­ter rigs in Avatar and the new Planet of the Apes movies think they have some­thing. You know, those smart guys!

Es­sen­tially, the team at Ziva Dy­nam­ics has taken its ex­pe­ri­ence and high-end de­grees, and niched down to pro­vide a prod­uct for re­cre­at­ing mus­cle, fas­cia, fat and skin sim­u­la­tions on char­ac­ters. It’s the com­bi­na­tion of all of these that give re­cent CG char­ac­ters their life­like re­al­ism; the com­plex­ity of the en­tire anatom­i­cal sys­tem work­ing to­gether.

Ziva used the con­cept of the fi­nite el­e­ment method used in many if not most engi­neer­ing prac­tices to an­a­lyze forces, fluid flows, etc. Dis­cretiza­tion takes the form of a shape sim­i­lar to the shape of a mus­cle. The shape is made of tets, which kind of act like a cage around the ge­og­ra­phy of the mus­cle. Forces ap­plied to the tets are trans­ferred to the model.

Mind you, the above para­graph hardly taps into the real math that goes into this stuff.

You set up your char­ac­ter in Maya — yes, this is a Maya plugin — from the in­side out. The skele­ton is a con­trolled hi­er­ar­chy with tra­di­tional Maya con­trols. The mus­cles and ten­dons are at­tached to the bones, the fas­cia and fat wrap around those, the skin wraps around the fas­cia, and the cloth wraps around the skin.

Any­way, it’s this col­lec­tion of sim­u­la­tions, re­spond­ing not only to the move­ment of the skele­ton, but grav­ity and their own weight and mo­men­tum, that pro­vides the re­al­ism that ev­ery­one it look­ing for.

This tech­nol­ogy used to be de­vel­oped in­ter­nally at large vis­ual-ef­fects fa­cil­i­ties with R&D money or hacked to­gether in a pseudo-func­tional way that got us be­liev­ing that the char- ac­ters are sort of liv­ing. But it’s the sub­tlety in the sim­u­la­tion that bring out the re­al­ity.

For those peo­ple in­ter­ested in 3D char­ac­ter an­i­ma­tion, they should re­ally be check­ing this out to bring their char­ac­ters up to the next level.

Look for an up­date pretty soon, as they were kinda ex­cited for me to see some new stuff.

But, the re­view was slated for now, so guess you all will just have to wait.

The live-ac­tion up­grade of Ghost in the Shell by film­maker Ru­pert San­ders ( Snow White and the Hunts­man) stars Scar­lett Jo­hans­son ( Un­der the Skin) as a gov­ern­ment-sanc­tioned cy­borg hunt­ing an In­ter­net ter­ror­ist who is hack­ing into the minds of the cy­ber-en­hanced cit­i­zens of New Port City.

Real­iz­ing that not ev­ery­thing could be cap­tured prac­ti­cally, San­ders sought the Os­car-win­ning ex­per­tise of Guil­laume Rocheron ( Life of Pi) and John Dyk­stra ( Star Wars) to su­per­vise 1,200 vis­ual-ef­fects shots, of which 996 were done by MPC.

“We had to build a city with all of these ‘solo­grams’ (solid holo­graphic ad­ver­tise­ments),” says MPC Vis­ual-Ef­fects Su­per­vi­sor Axel Bon­ami. “Other fa­cil­i­ties worked on the graphic de­sign as we were con­struct­ing the city at the same time.”

Sixty ads were cre­ated with some of them the size of a sky­scraper.

“We had a rig with 80 video cam­eras synced to­gether shoot­ing clips that were around 400 frames long,” says Bon­ami. “Then we had to solve each image in pho­togram­me­try to gen­er­ate a three-di­men­sional model, which had the tex­ture baked in. A pix­elized-look was ap­plied to every frame of the model that var­ied de­pend­ing on the qual­ity of the ad­ver­tise­ments. Once we knew where the solo­grams were go­ing to be put into the city, we did a sec­ondary light­ing pass to in­cor­po­rate the ac­tual shot light­ing.”

Es­tab­lish­ing shots that float above and

some­thing quite gra­cious sell­ing the idea that it’s a mov­ing in­vis­i­ble shape.”

Weta Work­shop prac­ti­cally made a ther­mop­tic suit out of silicone, which was re­placed with a CG ver­sion. “There were too many un­wanted folds or seg­ments of suit were bulging and cre­at­ing some un­flat­ter­ing shapes,” says Bon­ami. “Also, we had to add some iri­des­cence. Then Ru­pert asked us to make the suit even thin­ner so to have it as a sec­ond skin.”

In­vis­i­ble Fight­ing Cap­tur­ing Ma­jor in ac­tion was of­ten tricky, as in a court­yard fight that takes place in front of a CG cityscape and an­other in a shal­low pool of wa­ter.

“We knew that the Ma­jor was go­ing to be mostly in­vis­i­ble,” says Bon­ami. “We did have shots of a stunt per­son do­ing kicks and punches, which we used as our ba­sis for the an­i­ma­tion. We used some of the wa­ter in­ter­ac­tion com­ing from the fight and, on top of that, there were ad­di­tional sim­u­la­tions for the limbs to cre­ate those wa­ter arcs. We had an an­i­ma­tion block­ing stage that uti­lized a rig of tubes to pro­duce the po­si­tion­ing and physics of what we wanted the arc to do, which were passed on to the ef­fects team to sim­u­late.”

A small gim­bal sec­tion was made for the top of the spi­der tank to serve as an in­ter­ac­tive el­e­ment with Jo­hans­son.

“The tank is re­motely driven by Cut­ter (Peter Fer­di­nando), who is sit­u­ated in a holo­graphic con­trol room,” says Bon­ami. “We wanted to in- tro­duce the fact that the Ma­jor is go­ing to win be­cause she’s smarter. Even though we wanted to have all of this mo­tion it was im­por­tant that the tank still feel con­strained.”

The Ma­jor hacks into the mem­ory of ro­bot geisha, re­sult­ing in an ab­stract scene where peo­ple are not re­called in their en­tirety and de­te­ri­o­rate over time.

“Guil­laume knew where all of these char­ac­ters would be sit­ting so they were specif­i­cally lit for the en­vi­ron­ment.” Bon­ami says. “Ghost in the Shell was quite a chal­lenge, as we wanted to make sure that ev­ery­thing was go­ing to work, look beau­ti­ful and please ev­ery­one. I am per­son­ally look­ing for­ward to the shelling se­quence be­cause I like the beauty of it.” [

Amaz­ing cars, ex­otic lo­cales and re­fined VFX work on a su­per tight sched­ule help the bar for the long-lived franchise. By Karen Idel­son.

Known for its dis­til­la­tion of stunts, car crashes, vis­ual ef­fects and CG work, the Fast & Fu­ri­ous franchise stands apart in its com­mit­ment to giv­ing the au­di­ence ex­actly what it wants in two-year in­ter­vals. With a steady stream of ex­otic lo­ca­tions and A-list ap­pear­ances, The Fate of the Fu­ri­ous marks the eighth in­stall­ment in a se­ries in­clined to at­tract and main­tain the sort of cult fol­low­ing that makes just about each one of these films a guar­an­teed money maker. And the vis­ual ef­fects in F8 don’t dis­ap­point, thanks to vis­ual ef­fects su­per­vi­sors Kelvin McIl­wain and Michael J. Was­sel.

Be­cause of the tight pro­duc­tion sched­ule, var­ied and far-flung lo­ca­tion shoots and high vol­ume of vis­ual ef­fects shots, The Fate of the Fu­ri­ous had two VFX su­pes over­see­ing all the as­pects of pre­pro­duc­tion, pro­duc­tion and post. The film faced sig­nif­i­cant pro­duc­tion challenges when it went to Cuba for the open­ing se­quence, since it was one of the first films to come into the na­tion once Pres­i­dent Barack Obama re-es­tab­lished diplo­matic re­la­tions with the coun­try. In Ice­land — where a large quan­tity of costly cars had to be shipped for a big se­quence — the pro­duc­tion was some­times shut down be­cause of winds so strong they lit­er­ally lift the paving off of the coun­try’s roads.

Both McIl­wain and Was­sel know their way around the set on these fran­chises. They’ve been there for sev­eral films in the se­ries and they get that au­di­ences will ar­rive hun­gry for some­thing they haven’t seen be­fore.

Both su­pes aim to cre­ate vis­ual ef­fects that read as re­al­is­tic as they can by shoot­ing and chore­ograph­ing as much of the ac­tion in cam­era as pos­si­ble be­fore adding or fix­ing things in post.

“With every one of these films, we wreck all kinds of cars be­cause re­cre­at­ing the physics of a car crash is in­cred­i­bly dif­fi­cult,” says Was­sel. “You’re talk­ing about ev­ery­thing from the an­gle at which the cars crash, to the speed and the light­ing, and the eye knows when some­thing doesn’t feel right, so even if we in­tend to do it all dig­i­tally later, we want the in­for­ma­tion we get by cap­tur­ing it all on set be­cause you need the light­ing, the way the pieces of the cars fall apart, ev­ery­thing.”

The su­pes both laud Spiro Razatos, sec­ond-unit di­rec­tor, for get­ting the kind of car footage that earned these films a rep­u­ta­tion for great chase se­quences. Razatos is known as a mas­ter of film­ing high-speed chases that show off the cars in all their glory.

Driv­ing on Ice While the film is pop­u­lated with com­plex VFX shots, one of the more dif­fi­cult se­quences took place in Ice­land, where much of the third act of the movie is staged. There, high-end cars had to be driven on ice as part of a se­ries of chases that take Vin Diesel’s team to the ends of the Earth. And on top of those shots, there were also in­volved pro­gres­sions with ice, snow and wa­ter, as the cars and a sub­ma­rine played a game of cat and mouse.

“All the dif­fer­ent types of ice and snow made it es­pe­cially dif­fi­cult,” says McIl­wain. “Get­ting the look of them cor­rect when there are dif­fer­ent types of light on them and as a sub­ma­rine is crash­ing through them or cars are driv­ing across the snow and ice was in­cred­i­bly hard. We’ve all seen snow and ice, so you’re deal­ing with those ex­pec­ta­tions, too.”

While Was­sel was on set in Ice­land, he needed to cre­ate roads on the ice so the hero cars could be driven for their beauty shots. The win­dow of time when the ice was hard enough and thick enough to hold the cars was al­ready nar­row. The shoot also had to con­tend with the kind of weather that could easily turn lethal for a crew mov­ing large ve­hi­cles around on the ice.

We’ve all gone to a su­per­hero film look­ing for the kind of vis­ual ef­fects that leave an au­di­ence wide-eyed and open-mouthed, com­pletely stunned out of the abil­ity to crunch down on the pop­corn float­ing around be­tween your teeth and tongue. But not every su­per­hero takes this kind of glossy jour­ney, and many mod­ern war­riors ap­pear on screen more of­ten with a dirty face than a bright cape flap­ping in the wind. En­ter Lo­gan and the kinds of vis­ual ef­fects that make us be­lieve in his gritty, tor­tured jour­ney.

In Hugh Jack­man’s fi­nal take on Wolver­ine, the char­ac­ter that launched him to star­dom, we see more of the kinds of char­ac­ters who lived in clas­sic Westerns and Sa­mu­rai films. De­spite his pow­ers, Lo­gan has turned in on him­self and is un­able to es­cape his fate.

With that in mind, vis­ual-ef­fects su­per­vi­sor Chas Jar­rett set about cre­at­ing be­liev­able, earthy-look­ing im­ages that fit in with the vi­sion of di­rec­tor James Man­gold, who also helmed The Wolver­ine in 2013.

Though there were mostly more sub­tle vis­ual ef­fects in the film, along with the more stand-out big ef­fects shots, there was no short­age of work for the ef­fects teams. Jar­rett over­saw about 1,100 vis­ual-ef­fects shots done by houses such as Image En­gine, Lola, Ris­ing Sun, Soho VFX and an in-house team. The story, cre­ated by Man­gold and writ­ten by the di­rec­tor along with Scott Frank ( The Wolver­ine) and Michael Green ( Green Lan­tern), leaned into the mythol­ogy of Jack­man’s char­ac­ter while still tak­ing it to a new place. That meant spe­cific things to Jar­rett.

Lo­gan is full of com­plex stunts done by a host of tal­ented dou­bles, so Jar­rett, who won a VES Award for his work on Sher­lock Holmes, knew re­plac­ing the heads of the stunt­men with the head of Jack­man was go­ing to take care­ful plan­ning and great tech­nique. Two pri­mary stunt­men — Ed­die Daven­port and Daniel Stevens — played Jack­man’s char­ac­ters. As­sem­bling ‘Lo­gan’s Run’ Near the end of the film, there are a se­ries of shots where Lo­gan is run­ning through the for­est to kill some at­tack­ing vil­lains. Nick­named “Lo­gan’s run” dur­ing the pro­duc­tion, the se­quence is a kind of mas­ter­class on the use of stunts, dig­i­tal claws, back­ground re­place­ment and fixes, all of which are also pep­pered with CG blood and guts.

“It was a big deal for us from the be­gin­ning,” says Jar­rett, who ex­plains that the head of Jack­man had to be al­tered to fit each stunt­man. “We had to match the di­men­sions of each stunt dou­ble with the di­men­sions of Hugh’s head, which is tricky be­cause the small­est thing can make it look wrong to the au­di­ence when they’re watch­ing it, and then they’re sud­denly not be­liev­ing what’s hap­pen­ing.”

Vis­ual-ef­fects artists be­gan com­posit­ing the se­quence on set to make sure all the el­e­ments — both prac­ti­cal in-cam­era work and dig­i­tal items — were com­ing to­gether in the way they had en­vi­sioned. That process went on for nearly 9 months, un­til the film was com­pleted. Through the course of the se­quence, Jack­man tran­si­tions from be­ing mostly him­self to stunt dou­bles to a fully dig­i­tal ver­sion of him­self through the com­bined work of the stunt ac­tors, vis­ual-ef­fects artists and dozens of other ar­ti­sans.

The work was com­pli­cated since it was shot on lo­ca­tion with­out mo­tion con­trol and with vari­able light­ing and other un­con­trol­lable el­e­ments in play for the cast and crew to han­dle. On screen, the en­tire se­quence seems to flash by for Jar­rett.

“I re­mem­ber see­ing it all put to­gether and how fast it passed by and I just thought, ‘Oh,

Axel Bon­ami

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.