The Academy Awards always provide a lot of surprises in the list of Oscar nominees and eventual winners. This year’s list of nominees is a pleasant surprise. Love and monsters, Charming romantic adventure in the post-apocalyptic world of director Michael Matthews, filled with giant, man-eating creatures.
Nominated for an Oscar in the Best Visual Effects category, Love and monsters A young man (played by) the maze Runner Star Dylan O’Brien) who decides to leave his underground bunker and sets off on a dangerous journey away from another bunker with his girlfriend. To do this, he must traverse a landscape filled with mutated bullfowers, centipedes, snails, and other now-deadly creatures that made humanity underground.
Matt Sloan, Visual Effects Supervisor On Love and monsters, Worked with Matthews and a talented team of artists of practical and zoological influences to realize this familiar-yet-fatal scene of a California landscape filled with carnivorous threats around every turn. Digital Trends spoke to Sloan about his work Love and monsters And the film’s Oscar nomination.
Digital Trends: Love and Monsters greatly surprised Oscar pundits with their nominations. What was your reaction when you came to know that it was an Academy Award nominee?
Matt Sloan: When this announcement was made, it was ridiculous, because I was in quarantine at the time due to start work on another film, and I was sitting in a hotel room in New York. I was like, “Hooray!” But there were no high-fives or anything around me. It was like, “I could call the room service and tell them, I guess.”
It is definitely a bit anticylactic, but do you have any nomenclature for it?
Well, when we first got the announcement that it is in the top 20 [films being considered for a nomination], We were told that we needed to put together a document for this and a short presentation, which, well … we didn’t. Then being on the shortlist [of 10 films under consideration] There was another setback.
Love and monsters Not really a big film, but it was a film of a lot of work. There was nothing that would make it particularly difficult, but it was a part of the correct slogan until the end. And then at one point, the epidemic hits, so … it’s been a very strange 12 months.
With films like this, looks like a visual effect, but can actually be practical, given how far we have come from animatronics and such. What was the balance between practical effects and visual effects in the film?
Great thing, I think what made it so successful was the planned volume between the art department, practical creatures, special effects and visual effects. We would try to push practical creatures as far as we could before taking on the visual effects, and they did an amazing job with them. Steve Boyle was the practical zoological supervisor, and should have been on the nomination ticket as well, as far as I’m concerned.
When you were making it, was it the kind of film that would be in the visual effects award talks? This is not the big-budget, blockbuster-type film usually nominated for creature effects, after all.
No, although it was not a super low budget film. It was a $ 30 million film, but it was not theory anyhow.
And it wasn’t even an indie film …
Absolutely right. It was a good type of middle-class film. Everyone goes, “Oh, it was a low budget,” but no, it’s not quite a low budget. We had a very short shooting schedule, which helps keep the budget down, and the director was very clear about what he wanted to shoot. It was about planning for each shot. It was as usual, “It will be a practical creature until it rests its head here, and then as it arises, it will be a visual effect.”
Coordinating all of that with the Department of Fauna and Art was one of the big keys to success. Dan Henna (production designer) had created some amazing designs, so we always knew what we were going to see on the set. Not every film of yours has that luxury. Sometimes you only know that something big and scary is going to happen at this location in the shot, but on this one, it was very clear, and the shot was carefully designed by the director.
It seems that a film can give you a lot of fun with visual effects. Was this the case?
It was fun, but you knew what you were doing with it. There were 13 unique creatures, and most of them would appear in broad daylight, some hiding nowhere in direct light. So it was all about the details. I like to call that thing “beautiful, expensive noise”. You simply add texture after texture to each creature and create a lot of hidden details on each of them.
The big frog had these huge, bulbous sacks, tadpoles of which were floating around them, for example, and in the end the six-pack rings in the Hellcrab were stuck around him, along with the crab trap he had Came out crawling on his feet. Leg.
It is layering in just as much as you can. Even if people don’t see every bit of it, they still feel that detail. By putting as much detail into these creatures as possible, you are putting more and more as a back story, which you are essentially precious creatures you can only see for a few minutes. But it is still important.
Was there a creature that was particularly challenging to work with?
Yes, siren creature. And yes, we have names of these things which are never mentioned in the film. We had to name them, and the siren was a large, medium-sized creature that jumped out of the ground. [midway through the film]. It was a hard-edged, multi-fragmented creature, so modeling and rigging for that creature as it moved and flexed in multiple directions with hundreds of legs was, in a way, naturally hard to animate. . And then in post-production, we decided that the creature needed to be a little bigger than we had originally planned.
Most of what was shot was drawn to the original size of the creature, so we cheated a bit and found that there are natural poses that still sit in the shots we have, even as we hiked it. If we had used the original animation with a larger model, it would have been above or outside the frame, so we had to do some work to make it fit.
And above all, you had to work with an animal actor in that scene …
That dog was amazing. And when I say that the dog, there were two of them, the names of the two dogs were Hero and Dodge. Training on those dogs was incredible. In one or two they usually had it, whatever they had to do – scratches on their ears, under their claws, hiding everything. In this film he was two real hero creatures.
When Halcreb comes over the cliff at the end of the film and you see for the first time, there was a very Ray Harrison vibe at that moment, reminiscent of early stop-motion, giant monster features. Was that intentional?
The crab on the reef was a definite tribute to the characteristics of the creature before the ’50s and’ 60s. You always try to think of the best example of what you are doing and then try to think of a way to improve it.
What is the effect in the film that no one will realize that it is a visual effect?
I would really give you the opposite. The robot Mav1s was almost entirely practical. He stood behind her in a gray suit with a brilliantly constructed puppet. Visual effects replaced Puppet, portraying him, but he controlled Mav1s major movements and his left arm. Apart from removing the puppet, all we did for him was to use a computerized faceplate and a couple of shots, where we animated his left hand better than what was in the shot.
What do you think the Oscar nomination says about such a film?
This is really cool, because it is a lovely film. I am as surprised as anyone, but it is a beautiful surprise and I will take it. Many people poured out their heart and soul in this short film. We all know that films of such scope or genre are not really recognized very often. It was not a large-scale tent facility. You will occasionally have films that are like “stealth” – X machina, For example, which is a beautiful film with surprising effects – so it happens. But when it does, it is still quite rare.
Directed by Michael Matthews, Love and monsters Currently available via on-demand streaming.