Love and Monsters is now available on 4K Ultra HD, Blu-ray & DVD from Paramount Home Entertainment, and takes place seven years after the "Monsterpocalypse." Humanity has been forced to hide underground, but Joel (Dylan O'Brien, The Maze Runner) decides to embark on a mission to reunite with his high school girlfriend Aimee (Jessica Henwick, Iron Fist) after reconnecting with her over the radio. However, with dangerous monsters standing in his way, their reunion isn't going to be easy.
Michael Rooker (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2) and Ariana Greenblatt (Avengers: Infinity War) are also part of the cast, and as we said in our review, this monster movie is an absolute blast!
Talking of the giant insectoid and reptilian beasts, we recently had chance to talk to head of creature effects, Steven Boyle, over email to learn more about bringing the world of Love and Monsters to life. His past credits include blockbusters like Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones, The Matrix Revolutions, and The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and his expertise was crucial in creating this movie's monsters.
Needless to say, we want to extend a huge thank you to Steven for taking the time to talk to us!
What size team did you have working on Love and Monsters, and how long were you working on the movie all in all?
For Love and Monsters we actually had a small team. Initially it started with only four of us, then as filming started and the work load got bigger we grew to about 12 people. For a film of that size and that workload, that was quite tiny. When you have a crew that size you can’t rely on specialists that only do one thing, you need really talented people to be able to take on multiple positions with multiple disciplines. Thankfully I was in the presence of great talent everyday which is what made it so much fun. We were working on it for about 3 months in total which isn’t very long really.
With this being Michael Matthews' first VFX heavy project, what was your collaboration with him like?
By the time we were hired, most of the creatures had already been beautifully designed. We were just waiting for them to be approved by Paramount. Michael was great through this process, he always focused on the emotional leverage these creatures would ultimately have and didn’t let them dominate a scene for the heck of it. They all had to have a purpose and from a design perspective, an element of reality and familiarity so that we could relate to them.
The cast have said that they have mood boards on set to get an idea what the creatures would look like; how much do their reactions on camera influence your work?
I think this question is more in relation to the digital creatures, whereas I was heading up the practical builds of the physical creatures that are present on set. But from the beginning, the attitude from everybody was lets always go practical where we can. I’m a fan of both practical and digital, and I’m happy to follow the best approach. Everyone agrees however, that you can’t beat the interaction between the actors and the creatures that are present on set.
So much of the movie was shot on location, but does that make it easier or harder to incorporate those VFX elements?
For us, it doesn’t really make too much difference. When puppets are required, I always prefer to be based in the studio but that’s just my preference. I think it’s always easier to be in a set or construction that was built to allow what the creature needs to do and helps hide and support the puppeteers that bring these creatures to life. Out in the elements you don’t really have that.
Which of the movie's creatures ended up being most difficult to bring to life from a technical standpoint?
Generally speaking, the creatures were quite traditional in terms of how they were constructed: sculpting them in clay, then fibreglass molds, reproduced in foam latex and or silicone with fibreglass armatures underneath to allow for any mechanics. But the most challenging build by far was the Mav1s robot character. Mainly because she had so many pieces required to put together! Hundreds! Her digital design was broken down into sections and then each section was 3D printed. Once we had those sections, every part was then cleaned up, sanded and then remolded. From those molds we manufactured multiple fibreglass and urethane sections. While this was going on the internals were being made so she could be puppeteered. The final touch was for the different lighting controls to be inserted. I remember about 3 hours before she was required onset, she was in pieces with wires everywhere, spread all over the table while we frantically assembled her. It was worth it in the end. Her scene was beautiful and one of the most memorable.
What were the biggest challenges that came with creating monsters that didn't feel like those we've seen in other movies?
Sometimes when we see creatures in movies, they can be over designed and are so far removed from anything we know of in nature that I think it creates a separation. Not always a bad thing (Look at Giger's Alien). But for Love and Monsters, I think it was always about keeping things grounded in earth creatures, i.e.: Spiders, Grubs, Snails and Frogs. They didn’t look like aliens that had to terraform our planet. They could just live here. And I think that's why audiences have responded to them as well as they have.
Were there any scenes with creatures you worked on that didn't make it into the final cut?
Everything was so carefully storyboarded that we pretty much only built what we knew was going to be required. Nothing was really wasted. To be honest I was expecting a lot of our work to be replaced by CGI however that didn’t happen. We did make some of the baby grabbers that were essentially hand puppets, that we were only going to see for quick 1 second shots. They were ultimately used as lighting reference for the CG replacements but that was always the plan.
You've worked on huge franchises like Star Wars, The Hobbit, and The Matrix - how did your experiences on those projects prepare you to take the lead on a project like Love and Monsters?
Whether it’s a bigger studio film or a low budget independent film, my approach doesn’t really change at all. The bigger projects have more money, but you also have to do a lot more for the money. But I always try and go beyond with every film I do. With bigger films they might have their own in house creature designer as is with the case in Love and Monsters, so I don’t have to design the creatures as well, only build them. Each project is unique in its own way.
Now you've worked on a monster heavy project like this, would you like to stay in that creature realm or are there other genres you're keen to tackle?
I’ve been fortunate enough to work on many creature films over the years, but we also do more subtle FX as well. It’s what I love about my work, there is always diversity in what we get to make. Each director has a different vision, which means we can always be fresh. And even if we are asked to build the same thing for another project, we look for ways we can do it better, look more real, move better or just better made. I think that’s what’s important. Whether it’s a creature film or something more reality based, keep moving, keep improving.