Connect with us

Business

Why Hollywood movie-making may become more virtual in a post-coronavirus world

Published

on

Why Hollywood movie-making may become more virtual in a post-coronavirus world

 

Sir Ian McKellen has said he was “miserable” while filming “The Hobbit,” compared to playing Gandalf in “Lord of the Rings,” because of too much virtual production, but the technology could become more common in filmmaking in a post-Covid-19 world.

New Line | WireImage | Getty Images

Advertisement

With marquee blockbusters like Warner Bros.’ “The Batman” and Paramount Pictures’ “Mission Impossible 7” on hiatus from shooting because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the film industry is among those contemplating how the way its work is done will change in the future. Virtual production may aid in getting the cameras up and rolling again, allowing production teams to work simultaneously from across the globe.

For Hollywood, virtual production can evolve, as it is across all industries, as a form of vital communication, and be as simple as a budget meeting between producers over Zoom or having an actor re-read their lines via FaceTime. But it can also be much complex and at the core of movie production, with the matching of computer images and live action images — a concept that is not necessarily new — emerging as a long-term solution to creating content after the coronavirus.

“With Covid-19, we are finding that a lot of the tools that we offer are much more applicable with the challenges of creating a film in a post Covid world,” said Guy Williams, an Academy Award-nominated visual effects supervisor for Weta Digital, a digital visual effects company founded by “Lord of the Rings” director Peter Jackson back in 1993.

Advertisement

“[Long-term], the idea is that virtual production and physical production will merge in a way that you cannot tell them apart,” Williams said.

While it can still be an expensive way to film, virtual production reduces air travel for shoots and enables directors to make subtle changes late into a film’s production, like the color of a character’s hair in an animated feature, according to Williams and VFX producer David Conley, who also works for Weta Digital. More importantly though, virtual production is an indirect proponent of social distancing, allowing filmmakers to create full scopes of movies without ever having to cram people onto a production set.

For instance, VFX artists can create digital landscapes of New Zealand, enabling a director in Spain to plan their film with a hololens, which is basically a mixed reality helmet. That director can then work with a production designer in London to figure out where they should position their characters, meaning no matter how far apart a production team may be from each other, the creative process doesn’t skip a single beat.

Advertisement

“In a post-Covid world, we have to get movies up and running while abiding by the recommended guidelines for safety,” Conley said. “Now this does not mean we can replace actors or remove the entire live action process, but virtual production allows us to plan to make movies, requiring fewer live action elements.”

Video games move in on movies

The technology is becoming more innovative and cutting across related industries.

Rebellion Studios, the film division of UK-based multimedia company Rebellion — which produces comic books, video games, film, and visual effects services — is currently in the process of producing film content with the help of its video game engine. It can create virtual environments that require minimal on-set demand from production teams. Camera work and lighting are performed remotely, actors are motion-captured in and out of scenes, and there’s significant reduction in the amount of work needed in the post-production process, because computer-generated images are being created along with the live-action performances.

Advertisement

“Instead of expensive post-production processes, virtual production brings a huge amount of the visual work forward, allowing the filmmakers to plan their shoot in a different way.” said Ben Smith, Rebellion’s head of film, TV and publishing.

As an example, Smith said to imagine filming a hypothetical sunset fight sequence at the Parthenon in Greece. Traditionally, it would be difficult to shoot due to its production costs and because the director would be pressed for time every night to capture their footage. But creating the Parthenon through a gaming engine could optimize the process, as the director could then shoot the scene using an LED (3-D) wall environment, which then frees them up to focus purely on the story and characters, rather than the burdens of technical logistics.

“With virtual production, new skills are creating new opportunities,” Smith said. “When crews are already having to think about completely new workflows [because of Covid], this is the perfect time to re-imagine this wholesale.”

Advertisement

Virtual not without challenges, or costs

While virtual production can make producing a film easier in a post-Covid world, it also comes with a slew of challenges, like lack of training and experience among industry professionals because the technology is constantly evolving. The virtual production experts said that training needed is mostly a matter of exposure, hands-on experience that lays out what the creative possibilities and boundaries are, so existing crafts can combine with these new technologies.

It can be an expensive, and therefore risky, way to budget a film.

James Cameron’s 2009 virtual fantasy “Avatar” had a reported budget of $237 million — the project required real-time performance capturing, facial rigging, 3-D animation and compositing. Its budget paid off, as the film raked in $2.74 billion worldwide, becoming the highest-grossing picture of all time, only losing its crown to 2019’s “Avengers: Endgame,” which had a climactic ending battle that needed a virtual touch.

Advertisement

Avatar

Source: Walt Disney Studios

Yet there have been notable flops, just within the last year at the box office, that utilized all the perks of virtual production.

Advertisement

Consider 2019’s “Terminator: Dark Fate,” which needed to augment its actors with the franchise’s trademark robotics. Despite its $185 million budget, the film only grossed  $261 million worldwide. And 2019’s “Gemini Man,” a film that squared actor Will Smith against a digitally created younger version of his character. But the movie only earned $173 million worldwide, despite its budget of $138 million.

“The best special effect is a great script,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior analyst and host of the “Many Screens, Big Pictures” podcast for Comscore.

Big studios need to realize that “audiences deserve and expect more than just the superficial trappings of what a big-budget film can deliver,” he said, adding, “Technology should serve the story, not the other way around.”

Advertisement

Weta Digital has worked on some big wins at the box office, like the Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” films and “Avatar,” but also recent disappointments including “Gemini Man.”

If the pipeline creates an environment that actors do not like working in, then it [virtual production] is not doing its job.

“Even the social distancing that virtual production provides can be a challenge, as there are A-List actors who prefer live action sets rather than green screens and working in isolation. Sir Ian McKellen, claimed to be “miserable” on the set of  “The Hobbit” franchise, where he returned as his “Lord of the Rings” character Gandalf, but on which production techniques changed to more virtual shooting.

Advertisement

“I was miserable,” Mckellen said in a 2018 interview. “I don’t remember a green screen on The Lord of the Rings. If Gandalf was on top of a mountain, I’d be there on the mountain.”

Virtual production is meant to aid in the creative process, not replace it, Weta Digital’s Williams said.  And part of the challenge is finding that healthy balance.

“If the pipeline creates an environment that actors do not like working in, then it [virtual production] is not doing its job,” he said. “If any part of the virtual process is limiting, then we try to fix it. It is a supporting tool, not a restricting tool.”

Advertisement

The film industry is in limbo and the coronavirus is costing the box office billions of dollars — leading to its worst year since 1998.

Content distribution has found answers in streaming and video on demand services, though the future of movie theater chains remain uncertain. Some film and TV production is starting up again. With more financial and real-world limitations moving forward, virtual production may assist in getting more cameras up and rolling again.

Williams said if a project is fully virtual production today it can be cost-prohibitive, but it is getting more inexpensive each year. He said virtual production is not going to work for every film, but it is a mistake to think that virtual production only belongs in blockbusters, and not art house features or television, too. Smith agreed, saying independent producers should be thinking through the potential for virtual production as costs come down, too.

Advertisement

Conley said one of the biggest next steps is to figure out how to make virtual production more portable and cost-effective for filmmakers.

“The development around virtual production is being accelerated because we are looking at a world that we never could have imagined,” Conley said. “It’s an exciting time for virtual production right now.”

 

Advertisement

(Note: This is a Article Automatically Generated Through Syndication, Here is The Original Source

Passionate news enthusiast with a flair for words. Our Editorial Team author brings you the latest updates, in-depth analysis, and engaging stories. Stay informed with their well-researched articles.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Business

Gerber and Perrigo Face New Lawsuit Over ‘Store-Brand’ Infant Formula Pricing; All Pending Toxic Baby Food Cases Consolidated into New Class Action MDL

Published

on

Infant formula makers Gerber and Perrigo have been hit with a class-action lawsuit, which accuses the companies of artificially creating a shortage and jacking up prices for “store-brand” formula sold at Walmart, Walgreens, and other retailers.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. It accuses Perrigo of violating antitrust laws by collaborating with Gerber to prevent competitors from entering the market for store-brand formula.

Perrigo, one of the nation’s largest suppliers of store-brand formula, sells its products under retail labels at prices lower than similar branded products. However, the lawsuit alleges that Gerber, by granting Perrigo the first right of refusal to Gerber’s excess formula supply, which could have been sold to other competitors, is engaging in practices that stifle competition.

Advertisement

The lawsuit claims that through this arrangement, Gerber agreed to keep its excess formula out of the store-brand market, thereby gaining a share of Perrigo’s profits. The lawsuit was filed by four residents of California, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, who will represent millions of customers who have purchased store-brand baby formula. The lawsuit does not name formula retailers as defendants. It asks the court to intervene and end the anticompetitive deals between Perrigo and Gerber and seeks more than $5 million in monetary damages.

This lawsuit is similar to another case filed in Brooklyn federal court by a potential store-brand competitor, P&L Development. Gerber and Perrigo requested the dismissal of that case, which was denied by the judge in February. The companies involved in the lawsuit claimed they compete fairly with other infant formula manufacturers, including those of store-brand formulas. The lawsuit also cited the squeezing out of P&L Development from the store-brand market, which has led to higher prices.

Gerber is also facing numerous lawsuits accusing its brands of baby food of containing dangerously high levels of toxic heavy metals, such as lead, arsenic, and mercury. These heavy metals are extremely toxic, even for adults, and can have catastrophic consequences on developing children, leading to health complications and neurological damage. Conditions such as ADHD and autism may be linked to consuming these toxic baby foods.

Advertisement

On April 11, 2024, all the lawsuits pertaining to toxic baby foods, which had been filed at different times in various courts, were consolidated into a new class action MDL in the Northern District of California and assigned to Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley. Besides Gerber, other baby food manufacturers like Beech-Nut and Campbell Soup Co. have also been named as defendants.

Also Read: Leading Ethereum Blockchain Entity Files Lawsuit Against SEC, Requests Court Declaration That Token Is Not a Security

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Leading Ethereum Blockchain Entity Files Lawsuit Against SEC, Requests Court Declaration That Token Is Not a Security

Published

on

Leading Ethereum Blockchain Entity Files Lawsuit Against SEC, Requests Court Declaration That Token Is Not a Security

The legal wrangling between the crypto sector and the SEC, or the Securities and Exchange Commission, is getting uglier, with ConsenSys, a major protagonist of the Ethereum Blockchain, filing a lawsuit against the regulatory body in a Texas federal court. This legal action seeks an intervention to ward off a looming SEC lawsuit against the company regarding features of its popular MetaMask wallet. The lawsuit also seeks the court’s help in deciding once and for all the vexed question of whether Ethereum’s digital token, Ether, is not a security. The legal uncertainty hangs heavily on the crypto sector and puts a question mark on its very existence.

In an exhaustive 34-page legal filing, ConsenSys states that the SEC’s endeavor to exert control over Ethereum is both illegal and a threat to blockchain technology.

The complaint states,

Advertisement

“The SEC’s unlawful seizure of authority over ETH would spell disaster for the Ethereum network, and for ConsenSys. Every holder of ETH, including ConsenSys, would fear violating the securities laws if he or she were to transfer ETH on the network. This would bring the use of the Ethereum blockchain in the United States to a halt, crippling one of the internet’s greatest innovations.”

The lawsuit also alleges that SEC Chairman Gary Gensler has embarked on an aggressive enforcement policy directed at the big players in the crypto sector like Coinbase and Uniswap. The lawsuit particularly points out a campaign that involved a deluge of subpoenas asking firms and developers for documents related to their dealings with the nonprofit Ethereum Foundation, which supports the blockchain’s development.

The crypto sector is up in arms against Gensler’s tactics and has contended that the SEC has never provided clear rules meant for the distinct features of blockchain technology. However, Gensler negates this argument, saying that the existing securities laws are clear and sufficient, and that the crypto industry refuses to comply with them.

Gensler’s actions are full of contradictions since, in the past, the SEC had maintained that blockchain’s tokens, like Bitcoin, are not securities and hence beyond its purview. A senior official in 2018 had stated that Ethereum has reached a state where it is adequately decentralized, and further, the agency also gave the green signal for the launch of Ethereum futures trading—an implicit acknowledgement that Ether is a commodity. However, at present, Gensler is using a recent feature of Ethereum, known as staking, as grounds for the recent legal campaign.

Advertisement

The lawsuit was filed after the SEC issued a Wells Notice, which is akin to a formal letter warning that the agency intends to sue a firm and could lead to a settlement later. The SEC charged ConsenSys that MetaMask was operating as an unlicensed broker-dealer. MetaMask offered users a means to stake Ethereum on their behalf. Staking was a feature introduced in September 2022 on the Blockchain as a replacement for the energy-intensive mining process. The process involves a system of validators who pledge collateral to become trusted validators.

The SEC objects to the process of staking, which has changed Ethereum from a commodity into a security. ConsenSys founder Joe Lubin has called this account of the SEC “preposterous”.

Lubin said,

Advertisement

“The act of staking is really just posting a security bond so you can get paid to contribute labor and resources to help operate the Ethereum protocol. Now they’re trying to turn that into some sort of investment contract.”

Lubin also stated that the SEC’s actions will lead to a halt in the growth of the crypto sector and blockchain technology as a whole. Lubin feels that the SEC seeks to block pending applications by companies to launch spot ETFs for Ethereum, following the huge popularity of Bitcoin ETFs. The SEC is in fact trying to regulate a technology on its merits and it will only stifle innovation.

Also Read: New Class-Action Lawsuit Accuses Rivian of Making Materially False and Misleading Statements

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Net Worth

Caterina Fake Net Worth 2024: How Much is the American entrepreneur and businesswoman Worth?

Published

on

Caterina Fake Net Worth 2024: How Much is the American entrepreneur and businesswoman Worth?

Who is Caterina Fake?

Caterina Fake is a renowned American entrepreneur and co-founder of several groundbreaking ventures, including Flickr and Hunch. Born on June 13, 1969, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Fake has been a driving force in reshaping the digital landscape through her innovative ideas and entrepreneurial acumen.

Caterina Fake Career

From her early days in Pittsburgh to her rise in Silicon Valley, Caterina Fake’s career has been marked by a relentless pursuit of excellence. Co-founding platforms like Flickr and Hunch, she has revolutionized how we connect and share information online. Her visionary leadership and creative brilliance have cemented her status as a trailblazer in the tech industry.

Caterina Fake Net Worth

As of 2024, according to TheRichest, Caterina Fake’s net worth stands at an impressive $25 million. Her entrepreneurial ventures, including Flickr and Hunch, have contributed significantly to her financial success. With a keen eye for emerging trends and a knack for innovation, Fake continues to inspire aspiring entrepreneurs around the world.

Advertisement

Caterina Fake Age

Currently 54 years old, Caterina Fake was born on June 13, 1969. Despite her age, she remains a dynamic force in the business world, constantly pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in technology and entrepreneurship.

Caterina Fake Family: Husband and Children

Caterina Fake was previously married to Stewart Butterfield, with whom she co-founded Flickr. They tied the knot in 2001 but announced their split in 2007. They share one child, Mint Butterfield, who has recently been reported missing. Caterina Fake is currently in a relationship with Jaiku co-founder Jyri Engeström.

Caterina Fake Height and Weight

While specific details about Caterina Fake’s height and weight are not readily available, her stature in the tech industry is undeniable. Standing tall as a visionary leader and innovator, Fake’s impact transcends physical measurements, leaving an enduring legacy in the digital sphere.

Advertisement

Also Read: Ethan Payne Net Worth 2024: How Much is the English YouTuber, Streamer, and Internet Personality Worth?

Continue Reading

Trending

This will close in 5 seconds