#Gavin Terry | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fuckyeahgoodomens · 6 months

Text

Oooh! A great Gavin Finney (Good Omens Director of Photography) interview with Helen Parkinson for the British Cinematographer! :)

HEAVEN SENT

Gifted a vast creative landscape from two of fantasy’s foremost authors to play with, Gavin Finney BSC reveals how he crafted the otherworldly visuals for Good Omens 2.

It started with a letter from beyond the grave. Following fantasy maestro Sir Terry Pratchett’s untimely death in 2015, Neil Gaiman decided he wouldn’t adapt their co-authored 1990 novel, Good Omens, without his collaborator. That was, until he was presented with a posthumous missive from Pratchett asking him to do just that.

For Gaiman, it was a request that proved impossible to decline: he brought Good Omens season one to the screen in 2019, a careful homage to its source material. His writing, complemented by some inspired casting – David Tennant plays the irrepressible demon Crowley, alongside Michael Sheen as angel-slash-bookseller Aziraphale – and award-nominated visuals from Gavin Finney BSC, proved a potent combination for Prime Video viewers.

Aziraphale’s bookshop was a set design triumph.

Season two departs from the faithful literary adaptation of its predecessor, instead imagining what comes next for Crowley and Aziraphale. Its storyline is built off a conversation that Pratchett and Gaiman shared during a jetlagged stay in Seattle for the 1989 World Fantasy Convention. Gaiman remembers: “The idea was always that we would tell the story that Terry and I came up with in 1989 in Seattle, but that we would do that in our own time and in our own way. So, once Good Omens (S1) was done, all I knew was that I really, really wanted to tell the rest of the story.”

Telling that story visually may sound daunting, but cinematographer Finney is no stranger to the wonderfully idiosyncratic world of Pratchett and co. As well as lensing Good Omens’ first outing, he’s also shot three other Pratchett stories – TV mini series Hogfather (2006), and TV mini-series The Colour of Magic (2008) and Going Postal (2010).

He relishes how the authors provide a vast creative landscape for him to riff off. “The great thing about Pratchett and Gaiman is that there’s no limit to what you can do creatively – everything is up for grabs,” he muses. “When we did the first Pratchett films and the first Good Omens, you couldn’t start by saying, ‘Okay, what should this look like?’, because nothing looks like Pratchett’s world. So, you’re starting from scratch, with no references, and that starting point can be anything you want it to be.”

Season two saw the introduction of inside-outside sets for key locations including Aziraphale’s bookshop.

From start to finish

The sole DP on the six-episode season, Finney was pleased to team up again with returning director Douglas Mackinnon for the “immensely complicated” shoot, and the pair began eight weeks of prep in summer 2021. A big change was the production shifting the main soho set from Bovington airfield, near London, up to Edinburgh’s Pyramids Studio. Much of the action in Good Omens takes place on the Soho street that’s home to Aziraphale’s bookshop, which was built as an exterior set on the former airfield for season one. Season two, however, saw the introduction of inside-outside sets for key locations including the bookshop, record store and pub, to minimise reliance on green screen.

Finney brought over many elements of his season one lensing, especially Mackinnon’s emphasis on keeping the camera moving, which involved lots of prep and testing. “We had a full-time Scorpio 45’ for the whole shoot (run by key grip Tim Critchell and his team), two Steadicam operators (A camera – Ed Clark and B camera Martin Newstead) all the way through, and in any one day we’d often go from Steadicam, to crane, to dolly and back again,” he says. “The camera is moving all the time, but it’s always driven by the story.”

One key difference for season two, however, was the move to large-format visuals. Finney tested three large-format cameras and the winner was the Alexa LF (assisted by the Mini LF where conditions required), thanks to its look and flexibility.

The minisodes were shot on Cooke anamorphics, giving Finney the ideal balance of anamorphic-style glares and characteristics without too much veiling flare.

A more complex decision was finding the right lenses for the job. “You hear about all these whizzy new lenses that are re-barrelled ancient Russian glass, but I needed at least two full sets for the main unit, then another set for the second unit, then maybe another set again for the VFX unit,” Finney explains. “If you only have one set of this exotic glass, it’s no good for the show.”

He tested a vast array of lenses before settling on Zeiss Supremes, supplied by rental house Media Dog. These ticked all the boxes for the project: “They had a really nice look – they’re a modern design but not over sharp, which can look a bit electronic and a bit much, especially with faces. When you’re dealing with a lot of wigs and prosthetics, we didn’t want to go that sharp. The Supremes had a very nice colour palette and nice roll-off. They’re also much smaller than a lot of large-format glass, so that made it easy for Steadicam and remote cranes. They also provided additional metadata, which was very useful for the VFX department (VFX services were provided by Milk VFX).”

The Supremes were paired with a selection of filters to characterise the show’s varied locations and characters. For example, Tiffen Bronze Glimmerglass were paired with bookshop scenes; Black Pro-Mist was used for Hell; and Black Diffusion FX for Crowley’s present-day storyline.

Finney worked closely with the show’s DIT, Donald MacSween, and colourist, Gareth Spensley, to develop the look for the minisode.

Maximising minisodes

Episodes two, three and four of season two each contain a ‘minisode’ – an extended flashback set in Biblical times, 1820s Edinburgh and wartime London respectively. “Douglas wanted the minisodes to have very strong identities and look as different from the present day as possible, so we’d instantly know we were in a minisode and not the present day,” Finney explains.

One way to shape their distinctive look was through using Cooke anamorphic lenses. As Finney notes: “The Cookes had the right balance of controllable, anamorphic-style flares and characteristics without having so much veiling flare that they would be hard to use on green screens. They just struck the right balance of aesthetics, VFX requirements and availability.” The show adopted the anamorphic aspect ratio (2:39.1), an unusual move for a comedy, but one which offered them more interesting framing opportunities.

Good Omens 2 was shot on the Alexa LF, paired with Zeiss Supremes for the present-day scenes.

The minisodes were also given various levels of film grain to set them apart from the present-day scenes. Finney first experimented with this with the show’s DIT Donald MacSween using the DaVinci Resolve plugin FilmConvert. Taking that as a starting point, the show’s colourist, Company 3’s Gareth Spensley, then crafted his own film emulation inspired by two-strip Technicolor. “There was a lot of testing in the grade to find the look for these minisodes, with different amounts of grain and different types of either Technicolor three-strip or two-strip,” Finney recalls. “Then we’d add grain and film weave on that, then on top we added film flares. In the Biblical scenes we added more dust and motes in the air.”

Establishing the show’s lighting was a key part of Finney’s testing process, working closely with gaffer Scott Napier and drawing upon PKE Lighting’s inventory. Good Omens’ new Scottish location posed an initial challenge: as the studio was in an old warehouse rather than being purpose-built for filming, its ceilings weren’t as high as one would normally expect. This meant Finney and Napier had to work out a low-profile way of putting in a lot of fixtures.

Inside Crowley’s treasured Bentley.

Their first task was to test various textiles, LED wash lights and different weight loadings, to establish what they were working with for the street exteriors. “We worked out that what was needed were 12 SkyPanels per 20’x20’ silk, so each one was a block of 20’x20’, then we scaled that up,” Finney recalls. “I wanted a very seamless sky, so I used full grid cloth which made it very, very smooth. That was important because we’ve got lots of cars constantly driving around the set and the sloped windscreens reflect the ceiling. So we had to have seamless textiles – PKE had to source around 12,000 feet of textiles so that we could put them together, so the reflections in the windscreens of the cars just showed white gridcloth rather than lots of stage lights. We then drove the car around the set to test it from different angles.”

On the floor, they mostly worked with LEDs, providing huge energy and cost savings for the production. Astera’s Titan Tubes came in handy for a fun flashback scene with John Hamm’s character Gabriel. The DP remembers: “[Gabriel] was travelling down a 30-foot feather tunnel. We built a feather tunnel on the stage and wrapped it in a ring of Astera tubes, which were then programmed by dimmer op Jon Towler to animate, pulse and change different colours. Each part of Gabriel’s journey through his consciousness has a different colour to it.”

Among the rigs built was a 20-strong Creamsource Vortex setup for the graveyard scene in the “Body Snatchers” minisode, shot in Stirling. “We took all the yokes off each light then put them on a custom-made aluminium rig so we could have them very close. We put them up on a big telehandler on a hill that gave me a soft mood light, which was very adjustable, windproof and rainproof.”

Shooting on the VP stage for the birth of the universe scenes in episode one.

Sky’s the limit

A lot of weather effects were done in camera – including lightning effects pulsed in that allowed both direct fork lightning and sheet lightning to spread down the streets. In the grade, colourist Spensley was also able to work his creative magic on the show’s skies. “Gareth is a very artistic colourist – he’s a genius at changing skies,” Finney says. “Often in the UK you get these very boring, flat skies, but he’s got a library of dramatic skies that you can drop in. That would usually be done by VFX, but he’s got the ability to do it in Baselight, so a flat sky suddenly becomes a glorious sunset.”

Finney emphasises that the grade is a very involved process for a series like Good Omens, especially with its VFX-heavy nature. “This means VFX sequences often need extra work when it comes back into the timeline,” says the DP. “So, we often add camera movement or camera shake to crank the image up a bit. Having a colourist like Gareth is central to a big show like Good Omens, to bring all the different visual elements together and to make it seamless. It’s quite a long grade process but it’s worth its weight in gold.”

Shooting in the VR cube for the blitz scenes .

Finney took advantage of virtual production (VP) technology for the driving scenes in Crowley’s classic Bentley. The volume was built on their Scottish set: a 4x7m cube with a roof that could go up and down on motorised winches as needed. “We pulled the cars in and out on skates – they went up on little jacks, which you could then rotate and move the car around within the volume,” he explains. “We had two floating screens that we could move around to fill in and use as additional source lighting. Then we had generated plates – either CGI or real location plates –projected 360º around the car. Sometimes we used the volume in-camera but if we needed to do more work downstream; we’d use a green screen frustum.” Universal Pixels collaborated with Finney to supply in-camera VFX expertise, crew and technical equipment for the in-vehicle driving sequences and rear projection for the crucial car shots.

John Hamm was suspended in the middle of this lighting rig and superimposed into the feather tunnel.

Interestingly, while shooting at a VP stage in Leith, the team also used the volume as a huge, animated light source in its own right – a new technique for Finney. “We had the camera pointing away from [the volume] so the screen provided this massive, IMAX-sized light effect for the actors. We had a simple animation of the expanding universe projected onto the screen so the actors could actually see it, and it gave me the animated light back on the actors.”

Bringing such esteemed authors’ imaginations to the screen is no small task, but Finney was proud to helped bring Crowley and Aziraphale’s adventures to life once again. He adds: “What’s nice about Good Omens, especially when there’s so much bad news in the world, is that it’s a good news show. It’s a very funny show. It’s also about good and evil, love and doing the right thing, people getting together irrespective of backgrounds. It’s a hopeful message, and I think that that’s what we all need.”

Finney is no stranger to the idiosyncratic world of Sir Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman.

2K notes · View notes

boricuacherry-blog · 2 years

Text

This sums up a lot of my feelings on MJ (with the allegations), it's from someone who used to be a fan. Many say there is no smoking gun in regards to the allegations, but for me the smoking gun was his own statements, along with reading about pedophiles from a csa expert that match all of his exact behaviors, as well as the exact process his victims all describe (And the disturbing photos of little boys) But here is one fan's thoughts:

As a victim of abuse, and as an adult, ironically, I worked with a pedophile for years without knowing....And I knew what to look for! Think about the ramifications of that.

I'm a huge fan of MJ...or was. You never truly stop. And I grew up loving the man and his music. I was definitely groomed...as we all were, if only to love him. And his 'people' were very careful to ensure we loved MJ the man (god?), as well as (if not more so) than his music.

But after reading the numerous court case transcripts and watching the documentaries...the ones which allow MJ to speak and his victims to be heard...it isn't the victims of MJ but his own words and actions (that I've seen/heard first hand) which concern me the most.

To explain both sides, we actually only need MJ's words and his documented actions.

I try not to be biased, despite being a victim of abuse...because I've also been accused of abuse (and exonerated)... by a former colleague so I know how it feels to be innocent but under suspicion.

The sex offender I knew is now in prison but everyone around him had to be investigated so they could be cleared. But I know firsthand how awful that process was as an innocent. So I'm careful to see both sides.

If MJ was accused once by a stranger, I would have had my doubts, but likely sided with MJ if sufficient evidence wasn't produced.

But MJ was accused again and again...and again (and again) by the closest people to him. Children and adults alike. His own staff. Families he helped. Friends. Colleagues, acquaintances and more.

This is all deeply problematic...and despite paying tens of millions in settlements again and again (which alone is worrisome), MJ consciously kept on sleeping with other people's children.

And when he had his own kids...he went to extraordinary lengths to make sure the mother wasn't part of his life with those kids. Kids who went on to have very troubled lives.

Although I don't believe MJ ever directly physically abused his own family (though he did hang baby Blanket out of a 5th floor window for a photo op).

It's relevant to say that the pedophile I worked with never abused me or anyone in front of me or close to him...so I'm never surprised when MJ's family or Macaulay says, "we never saw it." But that's the point of abuse. It doesn't happen in public or it's not meant to. Though with MJ, I believe at least a form of abuse did occur in plain sight after he spent years systematically normalizing odd behavior.

It's a fact that MJ had a giant bed in a separate wing of his child-themed Neverland Ranch, connected by one long corridor with a security system he personally installed. Which he claimed was designed to warn him if anyone was coming towards the bedroom...where he slept with other peoples' kids.

I've watched him say the latter on video. And even if he was tricked into miscommunication (it happens)...that is yet more evidence of a man unsuited to child care.

To reasonable people who ask, "did he abuse kids sexually?" I say there are many forms of abuse which can ruin lives. But 'that's not the only point.'

As a trusted adult with influence, money and power, MJ undeniably grossly abused his position of trust time and time again.

When it comes to childcare, the latter is enough to be a huge problem for 99% of average people. And if you abuse your own kids... in any way...it's somehow even worse.

We know without a shadow of a doubt that MJ repeatedly demonstrated a total lack of good decision making. Simply being involved with all these kids (often poor, vulnerable and even sick) in a way which could lead to the children feeling wronged, betrayed...abused even.

The latter is based on an endless parade of self-produced (by MJ) evidence from sanctioned interviews and court documents. I repeat....MJ's own words and actions continue to give me the most concern, as they should any reasonable person and especially parents.

Even if MJ was 100% innocent of every claim (statistically unlikely), by acting as he did...he let the possibility of abuse arise in the media and in peoples' minds.

Which unsurprisingly resulted in long painful court cases, for not just MJ, but also the kids torn between the lawyers and the parents and the media. Again, that is indisputable. And at the very least...MJ's lack of good judgment...as the most powerful adult involved...makes him responsible for that suffering. 👏

Simply by sleeping with a stranger's child or trying to be their "best friend" and ignoring the age and power dynamic...MJ and his enablers were all putting these kids' wellbeing and emotional health at risk (again and again). He without a doubt put his own needs (legal or otherwise) before these innocent kids. Again, this is indisputable based on documentary evidence.

I don't know about anyone else but I've never slept with strangers' kids, or promoted that idea as "acceptable" as MJ did in interviews. I have enough common sense and know what adults are capable of. And what I could be accused of. You just don't do it under any circumstances. Unless you believe rules/laws/morality...don't apply to you. 👈

And if you wonder why people push back so hard on the facts of this sad case...even after his death...then you need to understand that the MJ estate generates $400-800 million a year for his family and lawyers, who are the people that push back the hardest.

And fans push back...because MJ spent decades brain washing us all that he was a protector of children around the world...as his own HIStory tour claimed. And he was a good entertainer who we wanted to love.

I watched MJ's 1996 deposition video recently and was stunned at how careless/callous he was. He laughed and joked and yawned and messed about while lawyers and the authorities literally pulled his carefully built reputation through the mud.

This was a man who had the most expensive legal team in the entire world. He had months to prepare. But this was his plan. To behave like the claims, so serious they could put him away for life, were a joke.

And if that was a legal strategy, it makes him the best actor and liar on earth. And if that's true...then how could we trust anything he said.

A man child who lived in a literal make believe land based around the dream of never growing up...or more accurately never taking responsibility for his actions...Never never...land.

In many ways MJ was all the wonderful things he claimed he was...but he was also someone who was 100% guilty of gross misconduct with other peoples' children and allegedly guilty of countless cases of sexual abuse.

Even if MJ's crime was only consistently terrible judgment...it still lead to the widely proven emotional abuse of multiple children. That is enough for me as a fan...to walk away. And those who covered for him were/are equally guilty of a form of abuse against vulnerable children.

All except the victims who lied out of fear (and love). Children will defend their friends...their idol...their abusers...but as adults, and in his death, some were able to break free of their emotional dependency or fear of repercussion.

Arguably the alleged victims have had their lives destroyed twice. Once by MJ and then again by his estate, his fans, and the media.

Summary:

There are always two sides. I base my opinion on MJ's own documented words and actions. Alongside my wish for him to be innocent, but knowing my own experience with sexual predators.

It is MJ who convicted himself as guilty of child abuse. I don't know exactly what type of abuse, but any abuse (and repeated abuse) is unacceptable. And without a doubt, a number of the children he chose to be involved with were damaged through their interaction with him. The latter cannot be overstated. People focus so much on victim testimony and material evidence (which are important too, and were present at Neverland) but MJ's own response to the accusation makes it clear as day.

There are enough victims of undeniable abuse at his hands who also claim there was a sexual element to it...that I feel it is fair to say he was most likely a pedophile. More than enough kids have stated he showed them porn and gave them liquor, on top of abuse. At the end of the day, he cannot do any more harm, though his family and estate still hurt his alleged victims.

I have never bought the skin disease theory. At best, Jermaine tiptoed around it and said they were using bleaching creams in the 70s for blemishes....the fact is, you can trigger it all over your body by using those chemicals. Plus MJ went full body dark like mocha, then latte, then casper all at once...that doesn't happen. No makeup in the 70s to 80s could cover him from head to toe as he was pouring sweat.

So stop re-victimizing the victims! If you want to continue believing he's innocent, that doesn't mean it's ok to bash the accusers.

Being found not guilty in one trial against one accuser does not automatically equate to innocence. Especially with all the other allegations.

10 notes · View notes