WIRED: Harry Potter Producer Cringes at Films’ Early Visual Effects

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  09 September 2012
WIRED: Harry Potter Producer Cringes at Films’ Early Visual Effects - (Video)

British film producer David Heyman says that he cringes when he looks at some of the visual effects in the early Harry Potter films.


Speaking on a panel at the British Embassy’s Creative Content Summit, he said Tuesday: “The visual effects industry developed substantially over the 11 to 12 years of making the films. I look at some of the first film [made in 2001] and want to cringe. Then I look at later films and I’m really proud of them.”


He explained that in the first films, around two-thirds of the effects were done in the United States; however, by the final three films [made between 2009 and 2011], between 90 percent and 95 percent of the visual effects were done in the United Kingdom. This was partly because of the consistency of the 2,500-strong team that worked on Harry Potter. This provided an “apprentice system” for many U.K.-based staff members, giving them an opportunity to “learn from the best” and rise up the ranks to move into post-production or become art directors.


http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012...visual-effects/


You can see the statement here at the 6:00 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcCG...player_embedded
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government


Last edited by RobertoOrtiz : 09 September 2012 at 04:47 PM.
 
  09 September 2012
It's pretty true, especially the digital doubles. I think once they got to #3 the quality increased dramatically.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
  09 September 2012
Just finished watching the last two harry potter movies, took me a while to get to them. Overall I was extremely disappointed. Was expecting a big magic fight at the end, but i guess not. My favorite cg moments and effects were the fight between the old guy and the one which you speak not of. Dragons were also splendidly done.
 
  09 September 2012
I could never really figure out what target audience the HP films were really for. I was about 6 when the first one came out, and I didn't like it much because it was too dark and dull. Seeing the rest of the films as I grew up, I always felt Harry Potter films were really aimed at adults and they just brought the kids along as an excuse to see it themselves.
__________________
I like to learn.
 
  09 September 2012
The core audience was people who were between seven and thirteen or so when the first book came out. The series matured along with that generation; the final book was far more appropriate for high school students than seven-year-olds.
__________________
kevinbakercg.com
 
  09 September 2012
Yeah the effects kept getting better and better but sadly the acting and the directing never caught up. From the three that played the lead roles I always got the impression that they were bored and wanted to be somewhere else, which in turn made me bored and wanting to be somewhere else. Every line was just delivered in a detached monotonousness drone. Yates and his police line ups also ticked me off large chunks of his movies you have a bunch of actors, and legendary ones at that, standing there in a line doing nothing. But I could never fault the effects especially in the latter movies
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by tyrantmonkey: Yeah the effects kept getting better and better but sadly the acting and the directing never caught up. From the three that played the lead roles I always got the impression that they were bored and wanted to be somewhere else, which in turn made me bored and wanting to be somewhere else. Every line was just delivered in a detached monotonousness drone. Yates and his police line ups also ticked me off large chunks of his movies you have a bunch of actors, and legendary ones at that, standing there in a line doing nothing. But I could never fault the effects especially in the latter movies


Obviously you have every right to your opinion, but I didn't get this impression at all. In the early films, the actors certainly show their age (great performances from eleven year olds are nearly unheard of) but I thought they all matured nicely, and the quality of the direction generally improved over the course of the series.
__________________
kevinbakercg.com
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by Meloncov: Obviously you have every right to your opinion, but I didn't get this impression at all. In the early films, the actors certainly show their age (great performances from eleven year olds are nearly unheard of) but I thought they all matured nicely, and the quality of the direction generally improved over the course of the series.


I have to agree here. I always found the HP series to be amongst some of the best fantasy movies in recent times. At least, I've enjoyed them a lot. That's also only my personal opinion.

Last edited by Toonman2 : 09 September 2012 at 04:32 PM.
 
  09 September 2012
The effects were cringe worthy on the first two I'd say. It seemed by the time they got to the third one they finally started getting a decent budget for wardrobe and VFX.

It seems silly to blame it on any of the studios involved... ILM worked on some of the shots and in 2001 they also worked on Pearl Harbor, Mummy Returns, Jurassic Park 3 and A.I. All of which have great VFX that still hold up.
 
  09 September 2012
Strange but for me the HP movies now have a christmas feeling to them...
__________________
So long and thanks for all the fish
 
  09 September 2012
They failed to mention that later Harry Potters were such horrible films. No where near as fun as the first few.
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by TheWraith: The effects were cringe worthy on the first two I'd say. It seemed by the time they got to the third one they finally started getting a decent budget for wardrobe and VFX.

It seems silly to blame it on any of the studios involved... ILM worked on some of the shots and in 2001 they also worked on Pearl Harbor, Mummy Returns, Jurassic Park 3 and A.I. All of which have great VFX that still hold up.



But you cannot deny the first two films specifically had some terrible effects that were done by SPI and ILM. Go back and watch the first quidditch shots or the trol in film one. Just compare the LOTR trol and that of Harry Potter both done at the same time.

As for budget those early films did not lack good budgets as an excuse. If anything the early films had a better vfx budget for the time.
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by taffy77: But you cannot deny the first two films specifically had some terrible effects that were done by SPI and ILM. Go back and watch the first quidditch shots or the trol in film one. Just compare the LOTR trol and that of Harry Potter both done at the same time.

As for budget those early films did not lack good budgets as an excuse. If anything the early films had a better vfx budget for the time.


I haven't seen it for a while, but I remember the baby dragon in the first movie looked pretty bad, even at the time.

Things improved a lot for Harry Potter 3 though. The Hippogriff sequence is still one of the stand out vfx sequences of all the movies...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpsHtzZid6k
__________________
www.pilotlightvfx.com
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by JoeBananas: I haven't seen it for a while, but I remember the baby dragon in the first movie looked pretty bad, even at the time.

Things improved a lot for Harry Potter 3 though. The Hippogriff sequence is still one of the stand out vfx sequences of all the movies...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpsHtzZid6k


Yeah the Hippogriff was pretty amazing at the time and still a standout. I think that was created by Framestore if memory serves correctly
 
  09 September 2012
Originally Posted by Panupat: They failed to mention that later Harry Potters were such horrible films. No where near as fun as the first few.


I find the first 2,the Columbus films, to be boring-ass disasters, like somebody filming a phone book, but with crappy vfx on top. Starting with Cuaron on the third one, the films have magic, visual flair, and are MOVIES, not a semi-visual synopsis.

The films improved so much that I stopped reading the books (which I did really like) after the fifth one, preferring to see how the story played out on film instead.

I'm not one for 'fixing' finished films with marginal work in them, but the flying stuff early on was so bad I was closing my eyes in the theater, it was like STAR TREK 5 times about a million in awfulness. And POTTER didn't have any of the decent production excuses for failure that the Trek film did.
__________________
"achievement is its own reward -- pride obscures it."

- Major Garland Briggs
TWIN PEAKS
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.