Click Here to return to articles menu
....................................................................................................................................

Sky Captain and the (Virtual) Filmmaking of Tomorrow

A dud at the box office, the fall film is nevertheless one of the most important films of 2004. It heralds a new generation of young filmmakers armed with DV cameras, Macs, and blue screens.

Michael Stroud
12.09.04

When critics write up this year's most important films, most won't mention "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow."

Nearly three months after its release, Paramount's science fiction adventure about a flying ace, a pretty reporter, and a mad scientist who wants to blow up the world has earned just $41 million at the worldwide box office. Box Office Mojo estimates the film cost more than $100 million to make and market.

But "Sky Captain" ranks high on my list of the year's most important films. Because this film accomplished what I've predicted for years: that a college-age kid with a digital camera and a Mac would create a mass-market movie—turning Hollywood's talent recruitment and film budget system upside down.

"Anyone with the creative wherewithal and a computer in front of them—even a high school student—could create a piece that could catch the eye of a studio executive," said Darin Hollings, visual effects supervisor for "Sky Captain."

The "anyone" here was Kerry Conran, the Cal Arts student who dreamed up "Sky Captain" and was prepared to make it himself with his brother, a tiny budget, and no name actors. Conran planned to do something Hollywood had never done before: shoot the film entirely in "blue screen," the blank backdrops that directors use to capture actors' bare actions and then dub in visual effects later. Translation: no expensive set pieces, location shots, or stunts.

Turns out Conran didn't have to make it on the cheap. Producer Jon Avnet became intrigued by Conran's initial short and optioned it. Actors Jude Law, Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie agreed to star in it. And Paramount ultimately agreed to pick it up, sinking an estimated $60 million into production. That paid for 14 visual effects companies from around the world to join the team, including Industrial Light and Magic, Stan Winston Studios, Pixel Liberation Front, Hybride, and R!ot.

None of this detracts from Conran's accomplishment. He could have made the film on his own dime and marketed it to small art theaters, gone straight to DVD, or streamed it over the Internet. Or he could have sold it to Paramount after he made it. (Considering its losses, Paramount may now wish he had). Any of these options would have probably lowered the film's profit potential. But its break-even would have been much lower, too.

When you're an industry that's produces "Polar Express" ($165 million to make and $106 million worldwide box office to date, according to Box Office Mojo) or Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" ($160 million-plus and climbing), you're likely to take notice of a model that creates whiz-bang action films at a fraction the cost.

Even at $60 million, "Sky Captain" was a bargain for a visual effects film with three top stars. Conran, Hollings, and their team kept costs down by shooting more than 90 percent of the scenes on blue screen. The actors—using props as simple as steps or a bed—used their imaginations to create scenes like stepping out of airplanes or waking up in Shangri-La.

Because they shot digitally , Conran's team saved money on the expensive process of shooting in film, converting images to digital for editing, and then converting back to film again. They even used digital techniques to manage their expensive stars, who only had a few days for shooting. The team created digital "storyboards" for every step of the action so that Law, Paltrow and Jolie knew exactly what to do in every scene.

I'm not one of those who believe Hollywood is threatened by the Kerry Conrans of the world. The studios have unparalleled marketing and distribution, as well as the world's most bankable stars. Films like "The Lord of the Rings" or "Spider-Man" require visual effects teams with centuries of experience. The really big movies, for now, are Hollywood's domain.

But I expect a growing number of studios to follow Paramount's example and co-opt the next Kerry Conran. (Conran, himself, is already hard at work on "John Carter of Mars," due for Paramount release in 2006). Look for studios to troll college campuses and short films for more young talent—much as record labels have traditionally canvassed smoky bars for new acts.

Traditionally, catching a film executive's eye has been much more tricky. The route to stardom for even the most talented film students required them to shoot and edit in film (a long and expensive process) and then vet their projects at festivals.

"Shooting with film is hard," says Rob Legato, an Oscar winner for his visual effects work on "Titanic" and the visual effects director of Martin Scorsese's upcoming "The Aviator." But things have changed, he contends: "Now, with DV and computers, you can gain experience so quickly. You can evaporate 10 years of experience."

"Sky Captain's" Hollings talks about how he helped his teenage niece and nephew put together an entire film in less than a day, including shooting, editing, and even blue screen work. Now they make their films for school projects.

Look for some young talent, overlooked by the studios, to strike out on their own and create bankable hits using DV cameras , Macs, and blue screens. Consider it a 21st century tilt on 1999's "The Blair Witch Project," made by a group of unknown filmmakers with shaky handheld cameras and a $22,000 budget. That film went on to gross $240 million, or $10,931 for every $1 spent on production.

Now there's a model Hollywood could live with.

return to top