The other week, I decided to take advantage of the fact that I'm within reasonable driving distances to some of the most prestigious catalysts of learning and inspiration that a person in the industry person could desire. Then again, it's Hollywood, I figure. I'd be crazy not to tap into the meccas of leading worldwide mastery of the arts.
So outside of the floweriness that began this blog this small solo adventure of mine, the "Making of Malificient" truly capped my top five list of 'things I've done since being out in the Los Angeles area' and, as usual, Gnomon, The School of Visual Effects, matched the high caliber levels of hosting venues with amazing line ups of film professionals, mentors, and respectable artists.
While my anxiety of meeting such high profile people was slightly higher than usual due to my admiration of their brilliant successes of unique 'art direction' that has been executed consistently through out their careers, I failed to take pictures and couldn't sum up the courage to shout out a question to the company of director Robert Stromberg and Production Designer Dylan Cole.
Despite my oddity, the panel was quite incredible-- both humbling and sustenance for starved creativity. I had the chance to discover yet another handful of flawless artists that had somehow piledriven through their creation of expansive portfolios with a stack of powerhouse credentials.
Outside of the two artists up on the panel, Stromberg and Cole, who were not shy on debuting their own impressive centerfolds in respect to their work on Maleficent, my favorite new discovery shouted out and regularly appearing in the slideshow was the artwork of a man named Howard Swindell. He's credited as a character designer for Malificent, and rightly so. There were onslaughts of masterful renderings of creatures. With a notable prepreproduction and concepting time allotted, a span of roughly three months, I was shocked at the number of beautifully constructed pieces.
The pitches it took to sell the concept to Disney? I believe they had said about fifteen pieces. They boiled their concepts down to a series of what I speculate as their best "Mood Frames", a self-proclaimed term that states images that had the highest emotional pitches in the visual storytelling. How many artists in their art department for preproduction? I believe they said about twenty-five, a relatively large number but still a small pool of talent considering how much talent is trying stay afloat out there. Malificent, as a whole, gives me overwhelming aspirations, as it seems that there's still potential on planet earth for CG driven sets that stay attached to great storyelling, whether it be a twist on traditional fables and plots -- contemporary themes or not. It passed my bar for a movie that is both beautiful to look at, and gentle, as well as gripping enough to keep the attention of audiences of various ages. That's a complete package for a hard earned dollar and an hour an half of capturing graphics, and believable performances.
On the acting? I feel the characters-- even in the over the top giddiness of the fairies-- were lovable. It is said this type of clownish humor, is crucial is keeping our younger audiences giggling, and reminded me other trios in CG history, my first thought compares to the minions in "Despicable Me", love them or leave them!
Also, the coined termed 'slapstick' (accordingly, I'd considered it more of a slapstick effect-- since majority of the jokes were within mishaps preceding their careless actions and behaviors between one another versus their interchange of dialogue) to further effect the delivery of the straight man or a break away from the seriousness of the drama residing within the plot. Same for the wrath that ensued before our anti-hero, Maleficent, had touchingly reformed to a respected heroine. Not so much slapstick, but elements of slapstick humor fed into her not-so-subtle transformation.
They were all loving characters, in controversy to the king, who fell very sharply into a great villian-- remaining disenchanted with repercussions of his daughter, but, ceased to accept the fate of her shortened life and out of fear for the continuance of own selfish legacy, who unknowingly banned her from her bloodline as a princess. All characters remained peculiar in their exaggerated depiction as characters heavily contrasted the deterioration of what becomes the true "Malifiecent" villain-- The King-- a consistent theme through all Disney tales and many, most all fables. The bad guy's really that bad compared to all the fluff around them...
What I loved? The true twist? Maleficent wasn't actually the bad one in the end...
But, enough about my interpretation of character development and plot, although I love the analysis of both..
During the presentation, I should've taken better notes, but I was submersed in the beautiful artwork filtering out onto the wall. Also, I had no help with pictures this time sans my friend Joel Meyerowitz, and I do regret not taking on the task myself. Also, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post pictures of artists work on here without direct permission. So this will probably be a boring link-only blog.
But a blog called: "Gnomon's: 'Making of Malificient': Under the Hood In the Hangar."
The names of artists just kept no flying and I could only guess the spellings if the names were not evident on their artwork being displayed and through my research.
So, leading the team was senior visual effects supervisor, Carey Villegas, with a handful of twenty art department team members, some of which were or were not rolling credits in the past. Stromberg gives a nodding lead as he climbed confidently into his role from Production Designer in "Oz The Great and Powerful" to director of "Maleficent"! I remember first seeing his name in 3D World magazine as the Production Designer on Oz and when I had first seen his name during the screening, I imagined a similar beauty of a fantastical and colorful world that he would lead in creating...
The art department, in order to keep this post short and sweet, I chose a small handful out of all those mentioned. Here's all I could sift through out of my notes and the most summarize in my research, and all definitely deserving of an honorable mention!
Was a name the kept coming up repeatedly. In tracking down his site, there's an obvious reason why. Not only are all his commissioned and personal works exceptionally flattering-- he is no stranger to Stromberg, or working with some of the core of the Malificent team, as he was part of both "Oz, the Great and Powerful" and "Alice in Wonderland", in which Stromberg was a production designer.
It's also interesting, how when I first saw Michael's artwork it was reminiscent of another one of my ever-favorite artists, Bobby Chui! And it just so happens they are friends, both having worked on Alice in Wonderland together as character designers! I thought the link below would be a great reference to learning more about both Bobby and Michael (also keep my blog a little less wordy and more dynamic!)
"CHUISTREAM INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL KUTSCHE"
And now I find myself wondering if they had ever collaborated or learned any techniques from one another. They must have. The creature blending is very fluidly Bobbish ;-) This is why it's so crucial to gain inspiration and knowledge in order to grow, instead of contempt and jealously. It is a cruel, cruel world in a world of talent, and in this world all around, where everyone struggles to be someone or at very least to survive. As artists, we need to absorb each other's talents to fuel each other and hopefully get good enough to survive off of our own skillsets or in a moonlit only world-- get credited for them.
Also, when I was looking through Michael Kutsche's personal work I suddenly recollected where I had first seen his work-- because I clearly remember laying eyes upon it, way back when I first starting subscribing to ImagineFX. His 2009 collection, has got a very crisp and concise style and an exaggerated caricature-like approach... I see the launching pad within it. His work has loosened up in line and palette over the years, but still firmly grasps the same cartoonish exaggerations in alignment with his more serious anatomical and fantastical masteries in more recent years. I would imagine he keeps his deigns loose because he's so busy, that he has too keep it quick! But for being quick, they are polished and clean as if they took weeks! I am now open-eyed for more of his work. He was credited in "Maleficent" as a character designer and concept artist.
Another powerhouse artist whose name kept surfacing?
Now his work seemed to be a nice opposition with MK's concept, because Swindell's seems to border more on anatomical realness in the realms of dark horror of futurism and fantasy. And, dually, he has been commissioned for a ton of work in that type of genre-- with credits for 'Silent Hill' and its sequel, as well as 'Priest', and slough of others. My favorite pieces among his work, strangely, I have never seen or heard of before, called "Red Light". Also, environment work has always been something I wanted to dabble in.. I guess when one merges from character work to environment work or vice versa suddenly one transforms into a concept artist!
I couldn't find any videos at all on him, unfortunately, and kick myself for not taking pictures of the work I had seen, but I admire that he also was a sculptor early in his career, as well! He's got quite the resume! To comment further, except it looks like he will be credited as an concept artist on "Pan", which is currently in filming.
Hopefully I'm allowed to do this (for I also believe he is responsible for the beautiful renderings on the three fairy god mothers, as well), and it's beautiful enough to make the attempt. I credit the artist 100% -- although now I wish we could see the other fairies. All of the works I've seen by Howard in Maleficent were crisp, hyper detailed and equal delicacy, with earthy palettes and daring accents. I find his work on this film, very different and much, much lighter than his usual delegated genre--- and I applaud his beautiful effort in the collaboration!
The first thing I noticed when entering Alex's site was his environment work, clearly the stronger element in his gallery. With popular concepting credits, such as "Game Of Thrones" and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", he is no stranger in the industry. I really admire his rough ambiguousness of details (as its difficult technique for some) and the smartness of using of saturation and situational climate to convey distance and depth. In respect to the detail? I could envision the slashing, swiping, and dabbling in the medium versus a set pressure and squeezing of strokes. As far as his palette? It's minimal, but he seems to take risks in the center of his canvas, either with stronger color use or negative space. I noticed it most in his traditional paintings and it seemed to carry throughout his portfolio! Intentional or not, it kept me very focused, despite its carefree looseness.
Again, I'm not sure about whether or not it is okay to post the work of the artist-- but I am giving full credit to him, Alex Fort. So, an external link, my favorite gallery of examples of this is here in his concept work for the ever popular "Game Of Thrones"!
Alex Fort is an artist for any budding concept artist to take note of, as it is clear that his style includes the fundamentals elements of art and his workflow is gestural but accurate.
Here's a mention I thought was interesting. Doing the research is sometimes the craziest part. His IMDB is exploding with exposure in the industry, mostly in the area of storyboarding. Even his website shows the quantity of work he's done. So, why go uncredited? I wouldn't have known him or his artwork existed, if I didn't hear his name surface in the presentation...
There's always been this uneasiness in the industry with artists and their work that ceases to get its deserved acknowledgment. Even if it is just a film credit, for its feels crummy enough when we hardly get compensated. It's odd too consider, things may be the other way around. Perhaps to some artists, it doesn't matter, though-- because it has an under the radar attachment to the film but internally all one needs to know is that they 'did' it deep down inside. I know I wouldn't mind a non-mention even if I put in the workload, because it's almost like you a part of a secret society and there's great pleasure in that.... Call me mysterious.
This part of his portfolio was my favorite. And it's a great reference for any artists out there that are looking to put together a breakdown sheet for storyboarding jobs. It reminds me heavily of some of the compositions and techniques I saw in "Shot by Shot" by Steven D. Katz. He's got a good eye, and directors he's worked with see it-- as his boards are very close to the angel and layout of the final composition. I like the variety, too. Some that seem to be minutes worth of simplicity. The simpler the easier to see issues. And some more refined, allowing a more constructive analysis of color, focal points, etc. All in all, his variance of style surely markets him!
As far as going uncredited, I've heard multiple reasons for why this happens. In history, it was because the length of the film reel cost additional money to reproduce. But in the present time? The length of the film itself costs money. The time costs money (Always, always, always, folks). Those extra few minutes could trim time out of another movie. The longer the credits are in today's time, means the less turn around.
Additionally, I have heard that freelancers do not get first priority and certain companies over others get precedence on the hierarchy of the credit list. So, in actuality, entire companies can be left out. I equate it to the casting of the non-speaking extras in a way. I wonder how other's feel about it though, including the actors. Sometimes full time artists will be gracious and step aside for a freelancer to get a credit spot, as they know they would be listed in the next feature. It's a nice thought or an urban legend.
Mark Bristol, although he was not credited by the book for "Malificent", has a mighty list of filmography and I can see why his name was dropped at the presentation!
During the presentation Robert Stromberg mentioned some small but notable afterthoughts worth mentoring. In an overwhelming amount of trimming out that fat in areas of time management, in that 'chair' in which the director rarely gets to actually sit in, he said to pick categories and refine them, according to priority, placement, or workability within the film. I may have read that in a book somewhere myself-- but either way-- it makes sense-- anything with too extensive of a time frame will become cost effective which will deplete the budget faster than potentially desired. Easier said than done, but reordering or shortening the checklist should be tackled in preproduction, and hopefully before the project hits its core production time. A good book, possibly the same book he may have mentioned but I can't recall for sure, worth a read over that he may have mentioned, "The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People".
In a presskit that I read over, but cannot seem to access now, there was a quote: "The process begins with deliberating over sketches to decide on the style or design of the character and what the filmmakers want that character to convey. The next step is to see the character in motion and fully realized and dimensional by putting the artistic rendering into a computer program especially designed to turn it into a 3D model." Deciding which characters stay, need to be modified, or which should be cut from the project all together can be a process that will save a lot of time in the end depending on how central the characters may be or the acting they have to preform. Always ask-- does it pull the story forward. If not, it should go.
The one noticeable cut I noticed seemed to be between Aurora leaving the throws of thorns barricading her in the forest and her sudden appearance before the court inside the castle. The jump seemed a bit steep, and was an edit that altered the consistency for me; As I wondered the world on the outside, once the thorns gave way and how she got into the castle unnoticed.... But as far as how essential that may have been to catalyst the storyline? Not much significance at all. Just a gapping moment that detached me from what may have been happening on the journey in mind of one of the leads-- but then again-- it was not Aurora's story. Other than that? I thought it was cleverly edited in suspenseful sequence, as the journey through the iron maze for Maleficent, the true lead, was ever present.
Robert also mentioned his influences growing up were Don Juan and Seahawk, both centered on a specific anti-hero or hero-- subjective to how the reader or viewer perceives the story. One of which has numerous adaptions or spinoffs throughout history, and the other which has great potential for adaption. Fully translatable inspirations to Stromberg's first directorial piece in the making of "Maleficent".
So far, I must say, that the events and panels that I have gotten the pleasure to experience at Gnomon are top notch. Each time I leave feeling more inspired to dig deeper into my career as an artist that I already am.
A couple of weeks ago in August was another great venue hosted by Pixologic, called the "Zbrush Summit", which was a weekend chockfull of demos and exhibitions by leading Zbrushers and their accompanying studios from around the world, as well as a dose of what the next upgrade of Zbrush will have bundled in its offer.. I could write a whole other article on that, as well!
I won't, though, because I'm exhausted from putting together this blog. But I will quote my reaction via Facebook-- "Amen! Release the beta! Such a great presentation package all around by Pixologic today over at Gnomon. From the panelists to the icing on the cake of the perks in next software release-- Zbrush is still at it yet again with another great update on the way! Can't wait to test out some native modeling procedures in the interface."
With absolution, the features will be entirely more native to veteran 3Ders that had never experienced sculpting sans modeling before Zbrush came to fruition. Also, they are pumping a GoZ-like portal into Luxion's Keyshot to rocketlaunch the rendering and realtime options for users.
I'm not quite sure if there is an ETA of the beta release yet, but Pixologic always seems to keep the anticipation up on us eager, technology-hungry artists with continuing speculation of full details and features. Very exciting, though! ;-)
Gnomon always has one thing or another going on under the hood in that Hangar, and in particular, the presentation of "Making of Maleficent" was a great frontrunner for the Zbrush Summit. Not only with the company of Stromberg or Cole up there and their ease with speaking and keeping the fun and interesting, but also from the line-up of incredible artwork, the bouts of preproduction work that needed to be involved, and the inside knowledge of exactly what it took from that team to make such a flawlessly crafted film!
So outside of the floweriness that began this blog this small solo adventure of mine, the "Making of Malificient" truly capped my top five list of 'things I've done since being out in the Los Angeles area' and, as usual, Gnomon, The School of Visual Effects, matched the high caliber levels of hosting venues with amazing line ups of film professionals, mentors, and respectable artists.
While my anxiety of meeting such high profile people was slightly higher than usual due to my admiration of their brilliant successes of unique 'art direction' that has been executed consistently through out their careers, I failed to take pictures and couldn't sum up the courage to shout out a question to the company of director Robert Stromberg and Production Designer Dylan Cole.
Despite my oddity, the panel was quite incredible-- both humbling and sustenance for starved creativity. I had the chance to discover yet another handful of flawless artists that had somehow piledriven through their creation of expansive portfolios with a stack of powerhouse credentials.
Outside of the two artists up on the panel, Stromberg and Cole, who were not shy on debuting their own impressive centerfolds in respect to their work on Maleficent, my favorite new discovery shouted out and regularly appearing in the slideshow was the artwork of a man named Howard Swindell. He's credited as a character designer for Malificent, and rightly so. There were onslaughts of masterful renderings of creatures. With a notable prepreproduction and concepting time allotted, a span of roughly three months, I was shocked at the number of beautifully constructed pieces.
The pitches it took to sell the concept to Disney? I believe they had said about fifteen pieces. They boiled their concepts down to a series of what I speculate as their best "Mood Frames", a self-proclaimed term that states images that had the highest emotional pitches in the visual storytelling. How many artists in their art department for preproduction? I believe they said about twenty-five, a relatively large number but still a small pool of talent considering how much talent is trying stay afloat out there. Malificent, as a whole, gives me overwhelming aspirations, as it seems that there's still potential on planet earth for CG driven sets that stay attached to great storyelling, whether it be a twist on traditional fables and plots -- contemporary themes or not. It passed my bar for a movie that is both beautiful to look at, and gentle, as well as gripping enough to keep the attention of audiences of various ages. That's a complete package for a hard earned dollar and an hour an half of capturing graphics, and believable performances.
On the acting? I feel the characters-- even in the over the top giddiness of the fairies-- were lovable. It is said this type of clownish humor, is crucial is keeping our younger audiences giggling, and reminded me other trios in CG history, my first thought compares to the minions in "Despicable Me", love them or leave them!
Also, the coined termed 'slapstick' (accordingly, I'd considered it more of a slapstick effect-- since majority of the jokes were within mishaps preceding their careless actions and behaviors between one another versus their interchange of dialogue) to further effect the delivery of the straight man or a break away from the seriousness of the drama residing within the plot. Same for the wrath that ensued before our anti-hero, Maleficent, had touchingly reformed to a respected heroine. Not so much slapstick, but elements of slapstick humor fed into her not-so-subtle transformation.
They were all loving characters, in controversy to the king, who fell very sharply into a great villian-- remaining disenchanted with repercussions of his daughter, but, ceased to accept the fate of her shortened life and out of fear for the continuance of own selfish legacy, who unknowingly banned her from her bloodline as a princess. All characters remained peculiar in their exaggerated depiction as characters heavily contrasted the deterioration of what becomes the true "Malifiecent" villain-- The King-- a consistent theme through all Disney tales and many, most all fables. The bad guy's really that bad compared to all the fluff around them...
What I loved? The true twist? Maleficent wasn't actually the bad one in the end...
But, enough about my interpretation of character development and plot, although I love the analysis of both..
During the presentation, I should've taken better notes, but I was submersed in the beautiful artwork filtering out onto the wall. Also, I had no help with pictures this time sans my friend Joel Meyerowitz, and I do regret not taking on the task myself. Also, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post pictures of artists work on here without direct permission. So this will probably be a boring link-only blog.
But a blog called: "Gnomon's: 'Making of Malificient': Under the Hood In the Hangar."
The names of artists just kept no flying and I could only guess the spellings if the names were not evident on their artwork being displayed and through my research.
So, leading the team was senior visual effects supervisor, Carey Villegas, with a handful of twenty art department team members, some of which were or were not rolling credits in the past. Stromberg gives a nodding lead as he climbed confidently into his role from Production Designer in "Oz The Great and Powerful" to director of "Maleficent"! I remember first seeing his name in 3D World magazine as the Production Designer on Oz and when I had first seen his name during the screening, I imagined a similar beauty of a fantastical and colorful world that he would lead in creating...
The art department, in order to keep this post short and sweet, I chose a small handful out of all those mentioned. Here's all I could sift through out of my notes and the most summarize in my research, and all definitely deserving of an honorable mention!
Was a name the kept coming up repeatedly. In tracking down his site, there's an obvious reason why. Not only are all his commissioned and personal works exceptionally flattering-- he is no stranger to Stromberg, or working with some of the core of the Malificent team, as he was part of both "Oz, the Great and Powerful" and "Alice in Wonderland", in which Stromberg was a production designer.
It's also interesting, how when I first saw Michael's artwork it was reminiscent of another one of my ever-favorite artists, Bobby Chui! And it just so happens they are friends, both having worked on Alice in Wonderland together as character designers! I thought the link below would be a great reference to learning more about both Bobby and Michael (also keep my blog a little less wordy and more dynamic!)
And now I find myself wondering if they had ever collaborated or learned any techniques from one another. They must have. The creature blending is very fluidly Bobbish ;-) This is why it's so crucial to gain inspiration and knowledge in order to grow, instead of contempt and jealously. It is a cruel, cruel world in a world of talent, and in this world all around, where everyone struggles to be someone or at very least to survive. As artists, we need to absorb each other's talents to fuel each other and hopefully get good enough to survive off of our own skillsets or in a moonlit only world-- get credited for them.
Also, when I was looking through Michael Kutsche's personal work I suddenly recollected where I had first seen his work-- because I clearly remember laying eyes upon it, way back when I first starting subscribing to ImagineFX. His 2009 collection, has got a very crisp and concise style and an exaggerated caricature-like approach... I see the launching pad within it. His work has loosened up in line and palette over the years, but still firmly grasps the same cartoonish exaggerations in alignment with his more serious anatomical and fantastical masteries in more recent years. I would imagine he keeps his deigns loose because he's so busy, that he has too keep it quick! But for being quick, they are polished and clean as if they took weeks! I am now open-eyed for more of his work. He was credited in "Maleficent" as a character designer and concept artist.
Another powerhouse artist whose name kept surfacing?
Now his work seemed to be a nice opposition with MK's concept, because Swindell's seems to border more on anatomical realness in the realms of dark horror of futurism and fantasy. And, dually, he has been commissioned for a ton of work in that type of genre-- with credits for 'Silent Hill' and its sequel, as well as 'Priest', and slough of others. My favorite pieces among his work, strangely, I have never seen or heard of before, called "Red Light". Also, environment work has always been something I wanted to dabble in.. I guess when one merges from character work to environment work or vice versa suddenly one transforms into a concept artist!
I couldn't find any videos at all on him, unfortunately, and kick myself for not taking pictures of the work I had seen, but I admire that he also was a sculptor early in his career, as well! He's got quite the resume! To comment further, except it looks like he will be credited as an concept artist on "Pan", which is currently in filming.
Hopefully I'm allowed to do this (for I also believe he is responsible for the beautiful renderings on the three fairy god mothers, as well), and it's beautiful enough to make the attempt. I credit the artist 100% -- although now I wish we could see the other fairies. All of the works I've seen by Howard in Maleficent were crisp, hyper detailed and equal delicacy, with earthy palettes and daring accents. I find his work on this film, very different and much, much lighter than his usual delegated genre--- and I applaud his beautiful effort in the collaboration!
Shared from HERE.
with full copyright of Howard Swindell and Disney!
Next up on the list on honorable mentioning with Gnomon's "Making of Malificent" event:The first thing I noticed when entering Alex's site was his environment work, clearly the stronger element in his gallery. With popular concepting credits, such as "Game Of Thrones" and "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", he is no stranger in the industry. I really admire his rough ambiguousness of details (as its difficult technique for some) and the smartness of using of saturation and situational climate to convey distance and depth. In respect to the detail? I could envision the slashing, swiping, and dabbling in the medium versus a set pressure and squeezing of strokes. As far as his palette? It's minimal, but he seems to take risks in the center of his canvas, either with stronger color use or negative space. I noticed it most in his traditional paintings and it seemed to carry throughout his portfolio! Intentional or not, it kept me very focused, despite its carefree looseness.
Again, I'm not sure about whether or not it is okay to post the work of the artist-- but I am giving full credit to him, Alex Fort. So, an external link, my favorite gallery of examples of this is here in his concept work for the ever popular "Game Of Thrones"!
Alex Fort is an artist for any budding concept artist to take note of, as it is clear that his style includes the fundamentals elements of art and his workflow is gestural but accurate.
Here's a mention I thought was interesting. Doing the research is sometimes the craziest part. His IMDB is exploding with exposure in the industry, mostly in the area of storyboarding. Even his website shows the quantity of work he's done. So, why go uncredited? I wouldn't have known him or his artwork existed, if I didn't hear his name surface in the presentation...
There's always been this uneasiness in the industry with artists and their work that ceases to get its deserved acknowledgment. Even if it is just a film credit, for its feels crummy enough when we hardly get compensated. It's odd too consider, things may be the other way around. Perhaps to some artists, it doesn't matter, though-- because it has an under the radar attachment to the film but internally all one needs to know is that they 'did' it deep down inside. I know I wouldn't mind a non-mention even if I put in the workload, because it's almost like you a part of a secret society and there's great pleasure in that.... Call me mysterious.
This part of his portfolio was my favorite. And it's a great reference for any artists out there that are looking to put together a breakdown sheet for storyboarding jobs. It reminds me heavily of some of the compositions and techniques I saw in "Shot by Shot" by Steven D. Katz. He's got a good eye, and directors he's worked with see it-- as his boards are very close to the angel and layout of the final composition. I like the variety, too. Some that seem to be minutes worth of simplicity. The simpler the easier to see issues. And some more refined, allowing a more constructive analysis of color, focal points, etc. All in all, his variance of style surely markets him!
As far as going uncredited, I've heard multiple reasons for why this happens. In history, it was because the length of the film reel cost additional money to reproduce. But in the present time? The length of the film itself costs money. The time costs money (Always, always, always, folks). Those extra few minutes could trim time out of another movie. The longer the credits are in today's time, means the less turn around.
Additionally, I have heard that freelancers do not get first priority and certain companies over others get precedence on the hierarchy of the credit list. So, in actuality, entire companies can be left out. I equate it to the casting of the non-speaking extras in a way. I wonder how other's feel about it though, including the actors. Sometimes full time artists will be gracious and step aside for a freelancer to get a credit spot, as they know they would be listed in the next feature. It's a nice thought or an urban legend.
Mark Bristol, although he was not credited by the book for "Malificent", has a mighty list of filmography and I can see why his name was dropped at the presentation!
During the presentation Robert Stromberg mentioned some small but notable afterthoughts worth mentoring. In an overwhelming amount of trimming out that fat in areas of time management, in that 'chair' in which the director rarely gets to actually sit in, he said to pick categories and refine them, according to priority, placement, or workability within the film. I may have read that in a book somewhere myself-- but either way-- it makes sense-- anything with too extensive of a time frame will become cost effective which will deplete the budget faster than potentially desired. Easier said than done, but reordering or shortening the checklist should be tackled in preproduction, and hopefully before the project hits its core production time. A good book, possibly the same book he may have mentioned but I can't recall for sure, worth a read over that he may have mentioned, "The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People".
In a presskit that I read over, but cannot seem to access now, there was a quote: "The process begins with deliberating over sketches to decide on the style or design of the character and what the filmmakers want that character to convey. The next step is to see the character in motion and fully realized and dimensional by putting the artistic rendering into a computer program especially designed to turn it into a 3D model." Deciding which characters stay, need to be modified, or which should be cut from the project all together can be a process that will save a lot of time in the end depending on how central the characters may be or the acting they have to preform. Always ask-- does it pull the story forward. If not, it should go.
The one noticeable cut I noticed seemed to be between Aurora leaving the throws of thorns barricading her in the forest and her sudden appearance before the court inside the castle. The jump seemed a bit steep, and was an edit that altered the consistency for me; As I wondered the world on the outside, once the thorns gave way and how she got into the castle unnoticed.... But as far as how essential that may have been to catalyst the storyline? Not much significance at all. Just a gapping moment that detached me from what may have been happening on the journey in mind of one of the leads-- but then again-- it was not Aurora's story. Other than that? I thought it was cleverly edited in suspenseful sequence, as the journey through the iron maze for Maleficent, the true lead, was ever present.
Robert also mentioned his influences growing up were Don Juan and Seahawk, both centered on a specific anti-hero or hero-- subjective to how the reader or viewer perceives the story. One of which has numerous adaptions or spinoffs throughout history, and the other which has great potential for adaption. Fully translatable inspirations to Stromberg's first directorial piece in the making of "Maleficent".
Dylan Cole, of course, had a number of pieces up, all of which were amazing and I am excited to see where he takes off with his career from comic book art to matte painting and concepting. I was just reading that he had his first exhibition at Gnomon, as well...
So far, I must say, that the events and panels that I have gotten the pleasure to experience at Gnomon are top notch. Each time I leave feeling more inspired to dig deeper into my career as an artist that I already am.
A couple of weeks ago in August was another great venue hosted by Pixologic, called the "Zbrush Summit", which was a weekend chockfull of demos and exhibitions by leading Zbrushers and their accompanying studios from around the world, as well as a dose of what the next upgrade of Zbrush will have bundled in its offer.. I could write a whole other article on that, as well!
I won't, though, because I'm exhausted from putting together this blog. But I will quote my reaction via Facebook-- "Amen! Release the beta! Such a great presentation package all around by Pixologic today over at Gnomon. From the panelists to the icing on the cake of the perks in next software release-- Zbrush is still at it yet again with another great update on the way! Can't wait to test out some native modeling procedures in the interface."
With absolution, the features will be entirely more native to veteran 3Ders that had never experienced sculpting sans modeling before Zbrush came to fruition. Also, they are pumping a GoZ-like portal into Luxion's Keyshot to rocketlaunch the rendering and realtime options for users.
I'm not quite sure if there is an ETA of the beta release yet, but Pixologic always seems to keep the anticipation up on us eager, technology-hungry artists with continuing speculation of full details and features. Very exciting, though! ;-)
Gnomon always has one thing or another going on under the hood in that Hangar, and in particular, the presentation of "Making of Maleficent" was a great frontrunner for the Zbrush Summit. Not only with the company of Stromberg or Cole up there and their ease with speaking and keeping the fun and interesting, but also from the line-up of incredible artwork, the bouts of preproduction work that needed to be involved, and the inside knowledge of exactly what it took from that team to make such a flawlessly crafted film!
