Is Disney's magic spell wearing off?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1676585351354.png


Accountant Kit Parfitt has no illusions about the variable quality of some of Disney's recent Marvel Studios' releases.

The She-Hulk and Moon Knight mini-series were weak, he says. The Thor: Love and Thunder film even worse. "Not re-watchable."

But the 27-year-old, a self-described "massive" Disney fan who lives near Brighton, says those disappointments won't keep him from cinemas this month, when the franchise's latest - Ant-Man and the Wasp - debuts.

"When it comes to Marvel, Star Wars, I'll watch anything," he says.

That's the kind of commitment that Disney is banking on as it tries to forge a profitable path in a world of falling cinema sales, pay TV cancellations and money-losing online streaming.

Boss Bob Iger, who was reinstalled in November after the abrupt ousting of chief executive Bob Chapek, told investors this month that the company would be doubling down on its big brands like Marvel and Frozen, time-tested profit-makers, while slashing spending on more risky "general entertainment" fare.

There's a new Little Mermaid, another Indiana Jones and a third Guardians of the Galaxy on deck this year.

Toy Story 5, Frozen III and a second Zootopia, known as Zootropolis in the UK, will come after that.

The moves are a gamble that the strategy that Mr Iger oversaw during his first run as chief executive from 2005 through 2020, when he acquired Marvel, Pixar and Lucasfilm and the firm's share price increased more than sixfold, will continue to work its magic.

He even said the company would step back from its streaming push a bit, looking more to cinemas and traditional television to distribute material than it has in recent years, when it sent content to its Disney+ streaming service in a push to win subscribers.

Will the traditional playbook be enough?

Jessica Reif Ehrlich, an analyst at Bank of America, says the resonance of Disney's brands give it a leg up on its competitors, but investors have yet to be convinced.

Disney's share price has nearly halved since March 2021, and did not move much after Mr Iger outlined his plans.

"Everyone knows there are a tonne of challenges," she says. "There's a lot of heavy lifting ahead."

Fan fatigue?

Cinema ticket sales remain roughly a third lower than they were in 2019, before the pandemic closed theatres around the world.

And the rise of streaming has fractured audiences, making it difficult to generate the kind of buzz that propels people to pay for entertainment.

Oxfordshire mum-of-two Jackie Allen says she opted against a Disney+ subscription for her two children, unconvinced the offering justified adding another expense. The company's upcoming slate does not excite her much either.

"It looks like they're rehashing something just to make money rather than whether it should be made," she says.

Even committed fans like Kit will confess to some fatigue.

Speaking to me among the mix of tourists and locals browsing Disney's cavernous store in Manhattan's Times Square, he says Disney's recent action films such as Avatar can reliably lure him to the cinema.

But wife Andrea, who walked down the aisle to a song from Disney/Pixar 2009 film Up, worries the lengthy backstories that come from developing a franchise like Marvel can be off-putting to new audiences.

And both say they feel little urgency to see something like a Toy Story 5.

Not only are the couple more inclined to stay at home with the cost-of-living rising, but they are generally growing tired of the tale after four films and a spin-off.

"Milking something to number five is a bit much," Kit says.

The charge that Disney relies too heavily on recycling and reworking classics is nothing new.

After all, the firm is gearing up for the ninth version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs since the first one debuted in 1937.

But in recent years the strategy, which has fuelled decades of success, has become entangled in America's increasingly bitter culture wars, with some updates driving accusations from conservatives that the firm is becoming too "woke".

Last year's release of Lightyear, a spin-off of Toy Story, for example, was clouded by controversy over a same-sex kiss, which the company restored after employees accused the firm of censoring gay affection.

Banned completely in some markets, the film's same-sex plotline also drew criticism from right-wing politicians such as US Senator Ted Cruz.

Despite the risks of alienating some fans, the profit-making potential of a franchise strategy has been proven, says Janet Wasko, professor of media studies at University of Oregon and the author of Disney Inc.

"It is in some ways risky, but building on already existing fans and consumers and expanding what possibilities they have to consume - if it's successful, it really can be incredibly profitable," she says. "I can't imagine they will stop."

Disney fan Amanda Welch, 29, a subscriber to the firm's streaming platform who has been to Disney World more than 10 times, says the company's strategy of going back to its big-hitting brands has done little to dim her love of Disney.

She and fiance Brandon Dumont, 31, have cancelled the service a few times to help manage their expenses. But they keep coming back. Sometimes they turn on Disney+ simply to soothe them to sleep.

"There's not really any Disney movie I'm sick of," Brandon says. "I could watch them over and over."

BBC News
 
what a massive nigger cuck. this guy is the poster child for soyboy faggots. every single disney star wars movie has been terrible, and yet you still have brand loyalty? what a faggot.

These types of people are the most hated in fandoms and one of the most destructive to series. It's shitheads like that which allow big players like disney to get away with running things into the ground or forcing in political/ideological bullshit and other trend of the day crap.
 
It didn’t get a season 2 renewal. How these shows work now is they have an initial order of episodes. They air half of these once production has finished on enough episodes where teams are on their next episode. (Team A has 1 episode in front and one in the back half of the order). The press is merely PR so they planned to announce a “renewal” for their “hit series” before it even aired. It’s part of the reason people don’t even trust box office receipts as an indicator of success anymore. Nearly everything you read about tv and film was planted by the studios or other parties.
It's the same trick truck companies do when they say "most towing in it's class!" - they never tell you the class they're referring to was all the OTHER vehicles that company makes, and, since none of them are trucks, theirs is the defacto winner. It was literally a class of one.
 
lots of fluff - red shirt fan would say "wasn't your purpose to entertain the public not enlighten them?


1677047955916.png




The thing we’ve been really trying to do, and this has been the case for a while, is we’ve been looking at them a little bit like, okay, we’re not planning for the future. When we made the first ‘Toy Story,’ we had no idea there would be a ‘Toy Story 2.’ We’re just trying to make this movie. But that in making the movie, it takes you places, unexpected places, which is what I love about the creative process. If I knew exactly what I was doing when I started making a movie, there’d kind of be no point in making it. I discover so much along the way.” Docter equates the creative process to going on a trip where you have a specific destination in mind but along the way you get sidetracked and “come home wiser and more worldly.”

All of this is well and good but what about “Toy Story 5?” “I think it’ll be surprising,” Docter teased. “It’s got some really cool stuff that you haven’t seen before.”

Of the original projects in the hopper, one is “Elio,” slated for release next year and previewed at last year’s D23 Expo. It’s about a young boy (the title character) who gets mistaken by aliens as an ambassador from earth. It’s being directed by Adrian Molina, a low-key Pixar powerhouse who co-directed “Coco” and who, Docter was quick to point out, storyboarded the scene where Mr. Potato Head uses a tortilla as a body in “Toy Story 4.” “It’s a really special film,” Docter said. “We just watched it two days ago, version… let’s see, what was that … Screening eight. They’re getting towards the end. They’re got to finish it up. Comes out next year. But it’s really brilliant. I think people are really going to love it.”


Article
1677048191876.png
Pete Docter Opens Up About the Past, Present and Future of Pixar
The Annies honoree and Pixar’s Chief Creative Officer tells TheWrap about bringing more diverse voices to the studio, ”Toy Story 5“ and where ”Lightyear“ went wrong
Pete Docter is no stranger to awards ceremonies.

He’s the only filmmaker to have won the Best Animated Feature Oscar three times (most recently for the 2020 film “Soul”) and Docter’s “Up” was only the second animated movie to be nominated for the Best Picture Oscar. Add to that a half-dozen Annie Awards and a BAFTA trophy.

This year, Docter will be honored with the Winsor McKay Award at this year’s Annies, presented by the Los Angeles branch of the International Animated Film Association, ASIFA-Hollywood. Previous Winsor McKay honorees, named for the legendary animator behind Gertie the Dinosaur, include Eyvind Earle, Hayao Miyazaki, Ray Harryahusen, Tim Burton and Don Bluth. Docter will be honored alongside Canadian animator Evelyn Lambart (posthumously) and Craig McCracken, creator (most recently) of Netflix’s “Kid Cosmic.”

“That’s totally exciting. I had no idea. And then you look at the list of past award winners and it’s amazing,” Docter said about the award. “It’s all the who’s who of animation. Crazy.”

Docter started at Pixar when he was 21, referred to the company by the late, great Joe Ranft. He started the day after he graduated from CalArts, a college co-founded by Walt Disney, and was the company’s third animator. When the company shifted from selling software and working on commercials to making movies, Docter was right there. He worked on the story for “Toy Story” and “Toy Story 2” and co-wrote and directed “Monsters, Inc.” (one of the inaugural nominees for the Best Animated Feature Oscar; it lost to “Shrek”). He later directed “Up,” “Inside Out” and “Soul.”

‘Luca’ Director Enrico Casarosa on the Film’s Underlying LGBTQ+ Themes
‘Luca’ Director Enrico Casarosa on the Film’s Underlying LGBTQ+ Themes
“In about 100 jaunty, poignant minutes, ‘Soul,’ the new Pixar Animation feature, tackles some of the questions that many of us have been losing sleep over since childhood. Why do I exist? What’s the point of being alive? What comes after?” A.O. Scott wrote in the New York Times. “’Soul’ tries, within the imperatives of branded commercial entertainment, to carve out an identity for itself as something other than a blockbuster or a technologically revolutionary masterpiece. It’s a small, delicate movie that doesn’t hit every note perfectly, but its combination of skill, feeling and inspiration is summed up in the title.”

Docter loves animation – all kinds. He worked on localized versions of Miyazaki’s masterpieces (“John Lasseter was a big champion of those films, and even though they were not doing great economically for the studio, artistically, he felt like it was important to get them out there”) and has written extensively about the classic films of Walt’s heyday. There were rumors that Docter’s wife used to drive him to work at Pixar and pick him up when his day was over. Otherwise he’d be there all night.

These days Docter serves a different function. He still loves animation and his Annie seems overdue. But he’s got more on his plate. He is now the chief creative officer of Pixar. And while the idea of him shepherding the next generation of storytellers is exciting, there’s also a very real possibility that Docter might not direct another film, something that he fully acknowledges.

“I think the jury’s still out a little bit. I think what I’ve learned so far is that I need to make something because I start to go crazy otherwise. Whether it’s another movie or a comic book or whatever, I need to have something,” Docter said. “Because really, the job that I’m doing, this CCO job, is helping to bring other people’s visions into clarity and focus, which is not the same thing. And I don’t want to step on their toes. I want them to have a chance to say what they’re going to say. We shall see.”

Not that the next few years will be completely Docter-free. A few years ago Docter co-authored an indispensable, two-volume book on Disney animator and Imagineer Marc Davis. He also worked on a book about Miyazaki. And his next project, with Don Peri, centers on the directors who worked under Walt Disney. “If I ask you, who directed ‘Snow White’? Who directed ‘Cinderella’? All the movies that we all grew up on. No one’s heard of these directors,” Docter said. “Everybody knows the Nine Old Men, everybody knows Walt. But these people, like the directors here today at Pixar and at Disney, were responsible for what was showing up on screen. It’s the whole story of how Walt used them like extensions of his arms.” Docter thinks the book will be coming out in 2024.

And Docter’s tenure as CCO has already been successful, with the studio launching well-received films like “Luca,” “Onward” and this year’s Oscar-nominated “Turning Red.” The Docter administration, which began after former Pixar bigwig John Lasseter was removed after several allegations of inappropriate behavior surfaced, has been a noticeably calmer regime. Directors have not been replaced; there’s been a real investment in new ideas and filmmakers. Docter blushed when the serenity of his tenure was brought up.

Why ‘Turning Red’ Looks – And Feels – Unlike Any Other Pixar Movie
Why ‘Turning Red’ Looks – And Feels – Unlike Any Other Pixar Movie
“Obviously animation moves in slow motion, so it’s taken a long time to turn trajectory, but to bring more diverse voices to director positions, to leadership, creative leadership. And yet, hold on to the wide audience appeal,” Docter explained. “We do feel like there is a real universality in specificity. By that I mean, the more specific you are about a person, their origin, where they came from, what their story is, somehow the more universally it applies to everybody. The fact that ‘Coco,’ which was so well researched, was a huge hit in China, is just kind of like, Wait, what? But because they’re talking about things like family, honoring your ancestors, all these things that really resonated with people there, we would love to continue doing that, find ways to surprise audiences by seeing the world from a different viewpoint that they’ve never seen before.”

One of those differing viewpoints came from Domee Shi, who had already won an Oscar for her short film “Bao” before embarking on her acclaimed debut feature “Turning Red.” Almost as soon as the movie was released, Docter appointed Shi to a creative executive position, as she continued to develop her sophomore feature. “She elevated herself. She’s a really smart person and creatively adventurous and brave, and yet also really cognizant of how the audience will take something,” Docter said of Shi.

Not that Docter’s time as COO has been without its speedbumps, the biggest being the release last summer of “Lightyear,” a bold science fiction adventure that just so happened to be tangentially connected to the “Toy Story” universe. When asked what happened with the film, which boasted an all-star cast including Chris Evans and Keke Palmer, plus whip-smart direction from Pixar mainstay Angus MacLane, Docter was open and honest.

“We’ve done a lot of soul-searching about that because we all love the movie. We love the characters and the premise. I think probably what we’ve ended on in terms of what went wrong is that we asked too much of the audience. When they hear Buzz, they’re like, great, where’s Mr. Potato Head and Woody and Rex? And then we drop them into this science fiction film that they’re like, What?” Docter said. “Even if they’ve read the material in press, it was just a little too distant, both in concept, and I think in the way that characters were drawn, that they were portrayed. It was much more of a science fiction. And Angus, to his credit, took it very seriously and genuinely and wanted to represent those characters as real characters. But the characters in ‘Toy Story’ are much broader, and so I think there was a disconnect between what people wanted/expected and what we were giving to them.”

As for the future of Pixar, it looks like Docter will continue to push through new ideas while also returning to the well of library titles. “Look, it’s great to go back and explore these worlds and these characters, but you want to have a reason, some kind of compelling reason, that you’re making the movie,” Docter said.

When it comes to “Inside Out 2,” the follow-up to Docter’s own “Inside Out” (this time directed by “Onward” head of story Kelsey Mann), the reason that they wanted to do it was to explore new emotions. When researching the first film, Docter said, they were told that there were between “five to 27 emotions” and that with the sequel they’re trying to “be a little bit more truthful and broadening [the scope].” Mann brought Docter the idea for a follow-up, which Docter didn’t reveal.

“It was really poignant and very heartfelt, very personal to him, but also universal in that same way we were talking about before, having to do with… well, again, I don’t want to pitch his movie, but it’s got a real great heart to it, a really great core that is central to some of these new emotions showing up. It’s all connected,” Docter said.

‘Lightyear': Everything You Wanted to Know About Sox (But Were Too Afraid to Ask)
‘Lightyear': Everything You Wanted to Know About Sox (But Were Too Afraid to Ask)
Another project that was just announced on a recent Disney investors call is a fifth “Toy Story” film.

“The thing we’ve been really trying to do, and this has been the case for a while, is we’ve been looking at them a little bit like, okay, we’re not planning for the future. When we made the first ‘Toy Story,’ we had no idea there would be a ‘Toy Story 2.’ We’re just trying to make this movie. But that in making the movie, it takes you places, unexpected places, which is what I love about the creative process. If I knew exactly what I was doing when I started making a movie, there’d kind of be no point in making it. I discover so much along the way.” Docter equates the creative process to going on a trip where you have a specific destination in mind but along the way you get sidetracked and “come home wiser and more worldly.”

All of this is well and good but what about “Toy Story 5?” “I think it’ll be surprising,” Docter teased. “It’s got some really cool stuff that you haven’t seen before.”

Of the original projects in the hopper, one is “Elio,” slated for release next year and previewed at last year’s D23 Expo. It’s about a young boy (the title character) who gets mistaken by aliens as an ambassador from earth. It’s being directed by Adrian Molina, a low-key Pixar powerhouse who co-directed “Coco” and who, Docter was quick to point out, storyboarded the scene where Mr. Potato Head uses a tortilla as a body in “Toy Story 4.” “It’s a really special film,” Docter said. “We just watched it two days ago, version… let’s see, what was that … Screening eight. They’re getting towards the end. They’re got to finish it up. Comes out next year. But it’s really brilliant. I think people are really going to love it.”

When asked if Aphton Corbin, one of Docter’s key collaborators on “Soul,” and the director of the super charming short film “Twenty Something” (now on Disney+), was working on anything he gave a sly “Maybe.” “She’s playing around and we’ll see,” Docter said. “Once we have news that’s fit to print, you’ll be the first to hear it.”

One thing Docter is keenly aware of is how leaving the old guard in place can curdle creativity. By the 1980s, those animators who had worked with Walt were complaining about the new crop of animators in print to the New York Times (seriously). And their work was suffering too. “We’ve been helped in a way by a number of people deciding that they had other ambitions, between Brad Bird and Andrew [Stanton] has been directing a lot of live-action stuff, so he’s kind of in and out. Lee Unkrich, same thing,” Docter said. “It’s torture in a way because they’re these brilliant, experienced people, and then they’re like, ‘Well, I’m going to go look over here.’ And you’re like, ‘No, stay here. Stay here because we need your wisdom.’ But it also does open up opportunities for new people.”

How Pixar Revived the ‘Cars’ Franchise on a Streaming Budget for ‘Cars on the Road’
Also Read:
How Pixar Revived the ‘Cars’ Franchise on a Streaming Budget for ‘Cars on the Road’
When asked if there was anything he regretted, like, say, handing “WALL•E” (a concept Docter initially conceived) over to Andrew Stanton, Docter said no.

“You know what’s funny is, especially looking at an award like this, it’s like, Wow, I didn’t really ever have a concrete plan for my life. I’m not one of those people who said, ‘I dream someday of being a director’. I was kind of like, ‘I’m happy doing in betweening, this is great, I’m having a good time making commercials, and then, oh, let me try this weird computer company that nobody’s ever heard of.’ And every step of the way I’ve been trying to enjoy as much as I can and find joy in what it is I’m doing,” Docter said. “I mean, other than maybe a few things that I’ve said to people that came off the wrong way, which I think everybody has, I don’t really have any regrets of any big, major kind.”

It brings to mind a moment towards the end of Docter’s “Soul.” Jazz musician and band teacher Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx) has just played the gig that he has always wanted to play. He looks to his idol, a musician named Dorothea (Angela Bassett) for … validation? Understanding? It’s unclear to him (and to us). But not to her. “I heard this story about a fish. He swims up to this older fish and says, ‘I’m trying to find this thing they call the ocean.’ ‘The ocean?’ says the older fish, ‘that’s what you’re in right now.’ ‘This?’ says the younger fish, ‘This is water. What I want is the ocean.’” And then she steps into her cab.

Docter might still be searching and swimming. And cinema is all the better for it.
 
No, you didn't "expect too much" of your audience, if anything, you insulted them by not respecting their pretty minimal expectations.

You set a deliberately low bar, and then failed to clear it by injecting your film with woke nonsense and delusions of being Citizen Kane when all people wanted was a few funny gags and 90 minutes minimum of no progressive preachiness.

And you couldn't do it.

I'll tell you where Lightyear went wrong.

Step 1 - Purposely did not cast Tim Allen as the VA.
Steps 4 -n - See step 1
Step n + 1 - Tried to "fix" all the above by inserting a blink-and-miss-it lesbian kiss, acting like that was reason enough to stop any and all complaining by threat of cancelation.


And that was all on top of the one major issue bedeviling all of modern "movies" that runs deep through the very concept of a movie about another movie, essentially- Endless sequels, reboots, reimaginings and cross-film tie-ins that have reduced movies to the equivalent of the equally-hated "games as service" model, where franchises no longer have definitive starts, or ends, just endless "seasons" that introduce new gimmicks, new add-ons and add nothing but flashy explosions and new cosmetic skins on the same old stuff we've seen before.

Bereft of story or plot, they are loud, pushy, obnoxious commercials. And are slowly mutating away from "commercial" and into "political ad" , nothing more.
 
Last edited:
VFX is now a balancing act at Disney because their abuse,

1677089333982.png

Over Presidents’ Day weekend, Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania stung with unexpected venom at the box office, surpassing financial expectations to arrive as 2023’s first blockbuster movie. The superhero threequel pulled in $120 million in North America — a franchise high and 37 percent improvement on the opening tally for 2018’s Ant-Man and the Wasp — grossing $241.3 million worldwide to become the third most lucrative title (behind Black Panther and 2016’s Deadpool) to drop during the three-day, late-February release frame.

Arguably more shocking, though, the $200 million Paul Rudd–Evangeline Lilly two-hander (which also stars Jonathan Majors as subatomic megalomaniac Kang the Conqueror) managed to put all of those butts in seats despite emerging from a hive of some of the most negative buzz ever generated by a Marvel Studios property. Quantumania now stands as one of just two titles in the 31-movie MCU canon to rank “rotten” on the Tomatometer (the other is 2021’s Eternals). The film also earned a rare “B” CinemaScore from audiences (“B’s generally are shaky,” CinemaScore’s founder has explained).

Although many reviews fault Quantumania for omitting the low-key breeziness that distinguished the first two Ant-Man installments, critics hauled out their heaviest brickbats to lay into the movie’s CGI and visual effects. The U.K.’s Observer derided Quantumania as an “incoherent effects-dump of a movie.” In a Los Angeles Times review, Justin Chang took issue with the Quantum realm’s “surreally designed yet gloppy-looking orange landscape.” “This isn’t world building,” he wrote, “it’s more like world barfing.” And on Vulture, Bilge Ebiri pondered whether director Peyton Reed and his creative cohort had grown bored whamming together Quantumania’s elaborate but listless, psychedelic yet unoriginal visuals: “Nothing seems to match. If you told me that the actors had been shot before the filmmakers decided what they would be looking at or interacting with, I’d believe you.”

It turns out critics aren’t the only ones who feel that the computer-generated imagery on Quantumania could have used a bit more fine-tuning. Some of the very VFX technicians and artists who created those sequences — who spoke with Vulture on condition of anonymity for fear of professional retaliation — agree that the film’s CGI-quality-control measures were subpar. Two of the three people we interviewed admitted that “shortcuts” were taken and said critical resources were diverted away to Black Panther: Wakanda Forever — the follow-up to 2018’s $1.34 billion–grossing Black Panther — which was in postproduction around the same time as Quantumania. Several of the same effects houses worked on both films, creating competition for the most highly skilled VFX workers.

Like previous criticism leveled at Marvel by effects techs tired of being “pixel-fucked” and pursuing unionization, these workers say the project was severely understaffed while facing an unrealistically short deadline to hit Ant-Man’s long-established Presidents’ Day bow. The upshot: a grueling slog during which filmmakers and studio executives “nitpicked” and revised vast swaths of Quantumania without budgeting enough time to implement the changes, forcing VFX workers to toil as many as 80 hours per week for months. “This was like a second wave of what happened with James Cameron on Titanic, where the compositors were basically taking naps under their desks, because there wasn’t enough time between shifts to go back home, then come back,” one of the techs said. “Now, the entirety of the industry that has been touched by Marvel is permanently seared, and that’s what’s causing the most burnout.”

Jim* is a visual-effects technician who has worked on more than half a dozen Marvel movies and series and says many of his experiences working for Hollywood’s most reliable blockbuster factory have been positive. The effects house that employed him worked on postproduction for Quantumania and Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, the latter of which he says Marvel prioritized over the former.

In terms of priority, Wakanda Forever was definitely at the top of the list. All the money went to that. All the best resources went to that. It’s understandable given the context — with Chadwick and everything and how well the first film did. But it did diminish the ability to carry Ant-Man all the way through.

For Ant-Man, there were a lot of editorial changes happening toward the latter third and fourth of the project that were just too late. There’s a point of no return. Why certain things were changed, why certain notes were nitpicked longer than they should have been — that’s on Marvel. But it definitely did cause a lot of tension, turmoil, and weight on everybody at [company name redacted].

Unfortunately, it is noticeable that there were shortcuts. Certain things were used to cover up incomplete work. Certain editorial cuts were made to not show as much action or effects as there could have been — likely because there just wasn’t enough time to render everything. There was a lot of shortening and rolling of shots (rolling is when you don’t shorten or lengthen a shot — you just move it a few frames in the cut). It really did feel like certain scenes were trimmed or otherwise altered to either save money, save time, or cover up the inability to get it done.


Jonathan Majors as Kang in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania. Photo: Marvel Studios
Why didn’t we push back? You don’t want to do anything that’s going to jeopardize your livelihood in the slightest. Part of that means when an executive decision comes down the line that says, “This is what we’re going to do,” you just assume you don’t have the power to say anything against it. You can’t be like, “Well, that’s kind of shitty. Shouldn’t we do something better?” Because that will never happen.

A lot of us are sitting here thinking, The money is there. Why is it not coming down? Marvel spending a bit more money to pay more VFX people wouldn’t make that much of a difference for the executives all the way at the top. But if it comes down to them not being comfortable with their bank numbers and us working until burnout, we lose out every time. Honestly, I equate it to human greed.

Overall, I think what they came up with is satisfactory. It’s a good placeholder for the beginning of Phase Five. But I think there was so much potential for this story, for the visual effects in general — I think the movie is getting the reviews it’s been getting because Marvel is doubling down as much as possible on constricting quality. They’re squeezing blood out of stones. And we’re out of blood.

Ted* is a veteran photogrammetry tech who has worked on several megabudget superhero movies and streaming series. He decries overall working conditions in the VFX industry, which involve “a lot of unpaid overtime, unrealistic deadlines.” But he has no major qualms with the Quantumania production.

My experience on Quantumania was comparable to the majority of productions we [VFX specialists] work on and, therefore, not especially bad or difficult. I wouldn’t say other projects necessarily took priority or that morale was particularly bad (although one of my co-workers actually became unhappy because of the lack of work he was given on that movie — he spent days on standby only to end up doing nothing, and this went on for months). Our working conditions are often less than ideal, and Quantumania was just another in a long line.

Conor* has worked as a VFX artist on several of the biggest superhero-movie franchises of the last decade — including a number of Marvel’s biggest blockbusters. During postproduction on Quantumania, the effects house employing him was concurrently working on Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.

Wakanda Forever took precedence. It felt like the higher-up and supervisor roles were shifted around to put that on their plates and there was a smaller team working on Ant-Man. It was on the back burner — less of a pressing thing.

Maybe the director had an idea of what he wanted, but he wasn’t 100 percent clear. We had a rough environment that we were sticking a few main characters in. At that time, we weren’t told where the characters should be in that environment. We were just going with what felt right.

Then there were times when we were creating an actor’s entire action: Ant-Man moving across something. And you just think, Why didn’t they film it the right way or how they wanted in the first place? Why are we having to redo and re-create? Why do we have to Frankenstein together an actor’s performance? A quick shot that maybe takes two seconds would have to be redone 20 times to get the look that they want. There was a lot of reworking, a lot of inefficiency. I ended up taking over and reworking a large portion of other artists’ work — which is not how things usually go when you are working for other studios.

I haven’t seen the finished movie yet. There were some cool sequences we were putting together that seemed promising. But there could have been more people involved on the project. Maybe more money spent. With a lot of these projects being worked on simultaneously, resources become thinner. The quality starts lacking. You can’t expect all of the VFX companies to give the highest-quality work, especially if you’re going to do it on a lower budget.
 
Back
Top Bottom