In
an interview with collider, the producer of Monsters University, Kori Rae spoke
about why making a prequel and technic Vs. Creativity.
“…
Question:
So why not do a sequel and tell Boo’s story? Why go with a prequel?
KORI RAE: Well, I think
we actually tried to think about what would be the most interesting, if we were
gonna go back and revisit these characters. And what we decided on is
that it would be really great to find out who Mike and Sulley were, before we
knew them. Because when we meet them at MI, they’re best friends and
co-workers. They have this life set up. And so, we thought that it
would be really fun to just go in and figure out, “Who were they before that,
and how did they become the friends that we knew them to be in MI?” And
what better way to do that than when they met each other. It just seemed
like more opportunity, to be honest. So, we went backwards.
…
There
are tremendous technological advances in lighting on this film. Were
those advances initiated on this production? And as a producer, how do
you know if those things are actually going to pan out, in an appropriate
timeframe?
RAE: Great
question. We did develop a new lighting tool on this film, called global
illumination. It’s not new to the world of computer animation, but it’s
new to us, as a studio. It was started by a small group of people who, at
the very beginning of this, came to me and said, “Hey we have an idea.”
Our lighting DP came and talked to me about it, and he’d been thinking about it
for a while. There were things in lighting that he had wanted to do that
mimic real lighting, in terms of set-ups. He came and he said he really
wanted to try this. He wasn’t sure if it was gonna work. He knew
that it would require more rendering power. He knew there would be some
cost attached to it. But, the upside is that it would be easier and
better to use, by the technical directors, and that we might be able to get a
slightly different, richer look.
Sometimes our tools can be cumbersome.
It’s just the nature of it, because we want such utter control, to make every
single shot look exactly how we want. And so, lighting, in particular,
hadn’t had a new set of tools in a while. He just wanted to simplify it,
so that anybody could go in and light a shot with a little more ease and, out
of the gate, get something that was really close to real lighting. So, he
came and talked to me about that and I said, “What do you need to give that a
try?” They spent four to six months developing it, and then they had to
pitch it to the studio. It’s never just about one film. It needs to
be something that can be used by other films. And it looked like it had
real possibility. The look was beautiful and had the potential to allow
the lighting team to work more efficiently, so we took the risk and went for
it. We think it really paid off.
Do
you find that there are times when the technology hinders the artists, as
opposed to empowering the creative process?
RAE: Yes.
Limitations often spur creativity. Artists will say, “Oh, if I had all
the time in the world, I could make this really great,” but the truth is, not
necessarily. Sometimes a tool’s limitation causes creativity to come out,
in a different and unexpected way. In terms of the schedule and time, we
need that kind of restriction sometimes. I’m not saying that we want to
hinder ourselves, but sometimes it can get in the way and the turnaround is a
little bit longer, which is frustrating. If someone could instantaneously
work on a shot and press a button and have it there immediately, that would be
great, but it has to render. It has to do its thing, and then come back,
so you can take a look at it. All of those things are part of the
process. But, we try to not let the tools impede, in any real way. That’s
what we try to stay ahead of. When it does happen, that’s what we try to
address. I think the global illumination is a testament to that.
One of the things that we were trying to accomplish was to make it less
laborious to do the job.
…”
0 Comments:
Post a Comment