can you be a director and a vfx supervisor?
- Thread starter iFilm7
- Start date
Sniper1154
Well-known member
If you're the most qualified I don't see why not. My only advice would be not to stretch yourself too thin. I haven't had the luxury of working with a large crew yet, but having JUST found someone comfortable with working with the camera it is infinitely easier to effectively direct when you can focus all your efforts into that one area.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Stanley Kubrick is listed as a Special Effects Designer on "2001: A Space Odyssey". The only Oscar he got was for the effects on "2001: A Space Odyssey". Of course he was Stanley Kubrick.
i also feel like directors have strong leadership and that i have yet to be comfotable leading... i am really shy when it comes to meeting new people, and i cant really tell people what to do or else i start thinking thoughts like "oh man they wont like me" and blah.... ): help me? i assume you have directed a lot?
El Director
Veteran
You can do whatever you want. I personally will always direct, operate camera, and edit. I enjoy those things, and I've gotten very good at them over the years. Sometimes I also write, supervise stunts, vfx, and score.
So yes, if you enjoy it, and you can do a good job, why not?
So yes, if you enjoy it, and you can do a good job, why not?
Gohanto
Veteran
For a small feature with only a couple FX shots that aren't too challenging, and you don't have tight deadlines it would be fine.
If I was doing a larger feature or had a lot of visual effects, I would definitely want someone dedicated to that task.
And remember, even if you're not the "visual effects supervisor", that person still reports to the director and so you still would have the final say.
If I was doing a larger feature or had a lot of visual effects, I would definitely want someone dedicated to that task.
And remember, even if you're not the "visual effects supervisor", that person still reports to the director and so you still would have the final say.
mmm true okay, yeah i am for sure goign to become the director, cinematographer and the editor haha 
i also feel like directors have strong leadership and that i have yet to be comfotable leading... i am really shy when it comes to meeting new people, and i cant really tell people what to do or else i start thinking thoughts like "oh man they wont like me" and blah.... ): help me? i assume you have directed a lot?
i also feel like directors have strong leadership and that i have yet to be comfotable leading... i am really shy when it comes to meeting new people, and i cant really tell people what to do or else i start thinking thoughts like "oh man they wont like me" and blah.... ): help me? i assume you have directed a lot?
ChrisHurn
Well-known member
Just ask yourself - do you want to be the VFX supervisor because you actually know what you're doing already and don't need one for your type of shoot -- or do you just want the control?
On really big blockbusters, it's just too expensive to risk. I would say that if the director just happened to be an amazing VFX supervisor, he might do it himself, but more than likely on a really big Hollywood production I'd say no -- because on these movies with so many effects there are simply too many things for the director to be worrying about on set. One tiny mistake can mean reshoots, which is expensive, especially if you're working with huge crews and A listers. You'll find even directors with pretty intensive knowledge of VFX are still using the help. You need it!
It sounds like you want full control of your film -- and it is your vision. Just keep in mind that people can help without stepping over your vision. The VFX supervisor is there to help you get the shots you want, not tell you what shots there should be. Of course they can give ideas, and it can be collaborative - depending on what you want and how much time you have, whatever else. It's really handy to have someone standing by that you can just ask - hey - can I put the camera here, what do I need for this shot to work, etc. etc.
I see directing as much more than "telling people what to do". In fact, it's far more collaborative than that. You can ask questions, you don't have to have the keys to everything. Have conversations with the cast and crew and see what you can come up with, too. Sometimes you do need things done in a specific way - don't be afraid to ask for it. You have a vision.
If you know what you want - and know a thing or two about what it is you're asking for, you'll gain respect of the cast and crew. The sooner you do that, the more open they'll be with you. If you walk around and shout out directions without really knowing why, or what you're asking for, then yes - people might not like you. But if you have a strong vision -- a clear idea of where you need to be, an open mind, some knowledge in areas that you're getting help in, you'll be respected - you'll be fine. Collaborate.
On really big blockbusters, it's just too expensive to risk. I would say that if the director just happened to be an amazing VFX supervisor, he might do it himself, but more than likely on a really big Hollywood production I'd say no -- because on these movies with so many effects there are simply too many things for the director to be worrying about on set. One tiny mistake can mean reshoots, which is expensive, especially if you're working with huge crews and A listers. You'll find even directors with pretty intensive knowledge of VFX are still using the help. You need it!
It sounds like you want full control of your film -- and it is your vision. Just keep in mind that people can help without stepping over your vision. The VFX supervisor is there to help you get the shots you want, not tell you what shots there should be. Of course they can give ideas, and it can be collaborative - depending on what you want and how much time you have, whatever else. It's really handy to have someone standing by that you can just ask - hey - can I put the camera here, what do I need for this shot to work, etc. etc.
I see directing as much more than "telling people what to do". In fact, it's far more collaborative than that. You can ask questions, you don't have to have the keys to everything. Have conversations with the cast and crew and see what you can come up with, too. Sometimes you do need things done in a specific way - don't be afraid to ask for it. You have a vision.
If you know what you want - and know a thing or two about what it is you're asking for, you'll gain respect of the cast and crew. The sooner you do that, the more open they'll be with you. If you walk around and shout out directions without really knowing why, or what you're asking for, then yes - people might not like you. But if you have a strong vision -- a clear idea of where you need to be, an open mind, some knowledge in areas that you're getting help in, you'll be respected - you'll be fine. Collaborate.
Last edited:
Gohanto
Veteran
Films aren't about getting the film done YOUR way at all. You need a vision for what the film is (based on the story) and then you bring on collaborators who (hopefully) understand that vision and offer suggestions.
The best directors, imho, are 95% filters of other peoples ideas into what should, or shouldn't be in the film, and 5% their own ideas. Why? Because when you hire the right people that are both talented and interested in your vision, they'll very often have ideas that are better than your original plan.
Ask any professional director, and most of the day is simply answering questions. What shoes? What color walls? How fast should the dolly move? And so on...
The only person that really yells orders on a set is the AD, a job far more complicated than I could ever handle.
The best directors, imho, are 95% filters of other peoples ideas into what should, or shouldn't be in the film, and 5% their own ideas. Why? Because when you hire the right people that are both talented and interested in your vision, they'll very often have ideas that are better than your original plan.
Ask any professional director, and most of the day is simply answering questions. What shoes? What color walls? How fast should the dolly move? And so on...
The only person that really yells orders on a set is the AD, a job far more complicated than I could ever handle.
RyanT
Veteran
I do know a director who does a lot of his own VFX and since his projects are pretty simple in that regard, it's not too hard for him to handle it. I'm sure if he was on a tighter schedule and had more to worry about, he wouldn't think twice about handing the job off. So..it's not too crazy to think of.
Yeah, being a director is just saying yes, no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, no. definitely not, yes, of course.
So on and so forth.
Get more comfortable with collaboration. You'll find it often leads to a better product. Even as a cinematographer, I always want to hear what my camera assistants and gaffers have to say. Often they have a much simpler much easier approach to something I've made too complicated...Sometimes I do know that what I'm thinking is best though, and you just have to know when to say when.
Yeah, being a director is just saying yes, no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, no. definitely not, yes, of course.
So on and so forth.
Get more comfortable with collaboration. You'll find it often leads to a better product. Even as a cinematographer, I always want to hear what my camera assistants and gaffers have to say. Often they have a much simpler much easier approach to something I've made too complicated...Sometimes I do know that what I'm thinking is best though, and you just have to know when to say when.
JonathanLB
Carbonite Member
Bingo, bingo, bingo! I love this post. That's exactly what I was going to say.
I feel that the biggest problem with most indie directors, and why their films or projects turn out so bad most of the time, is because they absolutely refuse to surrender control. They want to direct, they want to edit, they want to shoot, they want to write, they want to do the music, they want to do the production design, etc. They don't understand that even if you are an incredible talent, and I'm sure many of them have a lot of artistic ability / talent, it's very, very tough to focus on all of the aspects of filmmaking at the same time, even if you were good enough at any one of them to do the job. You have to have a vision for the whole project, and bring aboard people who can understand and buy into your vision. That's the key, people who will bring their own creativity to the project, but in service of your general vision, your guiding principles and themes for the project as a whole.
Sometimes, leaving your stamp on something is just the ability to give certain creative choices over to someone else, like you may say you want the room to appear cluttered to reflect the character's personality, but you don't care with what. Leave that to the production designer. Even though they did 100% of the placement of the clutter, it was still your right / ability to delegate that task and that puts your stamp on it even if you may not think so at first. You could have been more involved in that, but you choose to focus more on another aspect instead, let's say. You still had the final say. That's still part of your vision.
When I first started as a director, and this was just doing small projects like music videos and corporate videos in the 3 minute range roughly, I struggled thinking what did I actually do on this project? I would think, "Well, I didn't shoot it, I mean, I didn't light the thing, I didn't edit it," and then you realize there's not one thing you can really point to and say "I did THAT," but yet you had a hand in everything, because ultimately I was the one deciding whether I liked this shot or that shot in editing, or speaking with the DP about what I liked visually, even if it was general direction and not highly specific, I was still the one who came up with the overall concept, I attached the talent to the project, and although there wasn't any one particular thing I "did," per se, the project was a reflection of my overall vision.
The degree to which your stamp is on something of course varies a lot. A community tour I do for a corporate client bears my quality control, of course, and I've done this enough times that I know what types of shots I like and how they cut together, and basically the general order or way the shots are assembled. But it's certainly not overly unique, just high quality. Whereas my short film that I wrote and directed is really obviously "me," from the characters and dialogue to the choices I made in editing or shot selection, etc. That's the nature of doing corporate work versus more personal work, but the point is to be a good director I don't think you have to try do everything yourself. I think you have to have a clear vision, know what you want, and not be afraid EITHER of giving no direction whatsoever or a ton of direction.
In other words, if I see the performance I like out of my actor on the first take, I don't NEED to go up and "direct" the actor just to show the crew that I'm the director or pretend that I did something. Forget that. I got what I wanted, I like what I got, and now I can do it again for safety or review the footage to make sure the camera op or DP nailed the shot. I don't need to do 14 takes of a scene "searching" for what I want, because I know what I want and I know how to get it. If the situation demands, sure, I am not afraid to take control and tell people what to do so that my vision comes to life, but I'm not going to feel bad if an hour goes by and everyone nails what we talked about prior to the shoot or the shots and I don't have to give any additional direction. That's great, if you ask me, it's still my shoot, I'm still the director, and I still *could have done otherwise*, which is where the power of the director rests. Whether I choose to change something or not, I'm still exerting the same power.
+1 to that.
There's posts here that push collaboration as the only way to get a film done. One can go this route, I think I have to face the music soon and do the same.
I'm completely new at filmmaking. It's been a thing for almost 3 years now.
I've been told constantly that I can't do this alone, but for some reason, mostly personal I'm bent on it, and it makes me ask the same question you do.
Can I direct, and do something at the same time?
If I answer no, then I have to deal with people and be the 'filter' with the vision. The amount of trust you need to have in your crew/cast is whopping in order to be ok with this. If you can, then you've solved it.
If you can't, (I have a ton of trouble working with people and its my biggest flaw) then you have a mess on your hands.
The poster I replied to answered the question or rather came up with a solution quite formidably. He said 'he got very good at them over the years'.
Short of a cast, the surest way to doing all those things and doing them kung fu is to practice. Over the years. As of yet I still can't get 100% into my scene and not miss one thing on the camera/shot checklist if you will. But if I'm not playing guitar I'm holding a manual focus lens wide open and practicing focusing. I'm working on my steadiness. I'm learning how to look at the entire situation and assess it on the fly keeping my big picture on mind (breathing is mad helpful).
Then I look around. All of us have our idols, or better, people to look up to and learn from very simply, one of mine is Stu Maschwitz, for example.
Stu is up to direct Psyops, and has worked side by side with directors on movies such as say the spirit.
Whereas Stu's words and methods I find awesome, I didn't like the spirit, for the reason I felt it was all about the picture.
This is fine for most, I have strange taste, to the film buffs I know, The spirit was a damn good movie all round. I personally didn't buy it when I saw it, but it looked great. This is my taste, and everyone can exercise it without having to justify it, I mean people will not like things just cause they don't want to.
My point isn't a critique of the spirit, again its my taste, but all these things arise from the nature of the trade we practice.
It's huge, and traditions have been formed from technical limitations. You had to be shaolin I think to have pulled off a one-man feature in the 60's. I'm sure back then they said that about the 30's, and our kids will say the same about our then to be grueling circumstances.
Your questions carries huge weight these days, if this change in technology is truly a tipping point.
DSLR's are only an example, a laptop is equally an example primarily because of their size. They're so much bloody smaller, and where size ain't everything, it's still a lot.
I think these days it's possible not only to be a director and supervisorvfx, but short of a cast, I think one to three people can figure out some methodology to pull of an hour-two hours of nitro with very, very little.
Whether or not I chalk it up to a nano age, or to discipline and practice I think will make the difference.
So yeah, I think you can. Like I quoted from poster above 'you can do whatever you want', I think more so than before.
And practice really is everything. I will make better shots next year. Heck when I see a shot I like that I made I immediately wonder how long before it's rendered crap. Patience is a lot too.
This is a post without a point, but I've been thinking about the original question for months now. And the criticism I get around me is so bloody interesting and relevant I really am just thinking out loud.
Guys if I say seemingly outrageous things please know I pour out all my naivete as the answers I get here really do open my eyes up, so please excuse any statements that may be bold/groupie-like/overly ambitious etc. It's how I learn, find my own holes.
What better bunch of people than here do I have to expose them.
t
On the other note, as in the beginning of my note, the given part, this is so absolutely true. It's painful. The pain. To really keep track of bloody everything. It is hell. It just needs mad mad mad mad trust and confidence on your part as a director I guess, can't find any other way to handle all that now. But its so true. I just don't want my last post to be misunderstood.