Apple spotlights 'Focus' starring Will Smith, edited entirely in Final Cut Pro X

Posted:
in Mac Software edited February 2015
Opening in theaters this Friday, "Focus" starring Will Smith and Margot Robbie was edited entirely using Final Cut Pro X?--?a fact that Apple has highlighted on the software's official website.




In an interview with directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, Apple offers an inside look at the integral role its Final Cut Pro X software played in the making of the new Warner Bros. film. in the movie, Smith plays con-man Nicky Spurgeon, who trains, falls in love with, and eventually finds himself in opposition to a young woman played by Robbie.

Ficarra and Requa, who also directed the films "Crazy, Stupid Love" and "I Love You Phillip Morris," said they ultimately decided upon Final Cut Pro X for "Focus" after researching several options. They said the decision to use Apple's software worked out even better than expected.

In particular, Ficarra and Requa said Final Cut Pro X saved them time by automatically organizing their footage. Dailies were generated with an on-set Mac Pro, while edits were done on location with a MacBook Pro.

Over 61 days of shooting in New Orleans, Buenos Aires, and New York City, the directors captured some 145 hours of footage that took 11 months to edit. The primary editing machine was a cylindrical 8-core Mac Pro housed in Los Angeles.




Ficarra and Requa also touted the collaboration offered by Final Cut Pro X, and praised the Magnetic Timeline feature for allowing them to swap parts of the story easily. The directors also utilized Final Cut's built-in titles, real-time keyer tool, and even Motion 5 to arrive at the final product.

Plug-ins and third-party software used to create "Focus" included Light Iron's Live Play, X2Pro Audio Convert, Sync-N-Link X, Change List X, Producer's Best Friend, NUKE from The Foundry, and CoreMelt's SliceX and Lock & Load X.

Focus opens in theaters around the U.S this Friday, with special advanced screenings at select locations Thursday evening.

Final Cut Pro X is available exclusively for OS X, and is available to purchase on the Mac App Store for $299.99.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26

    Wow, that beard.

  • Reply 2 of 26
    1) Will Smith and Margot Robbie were on last week's[I] Top Gear[/I]. I hadn't heard of the movie before then. Margot Robbie is so damn gorgeous; and that voice! Love her voice.

    2) Why didn't AI also post the trailer for the movie so we can see some of this editing in action?


    [VIDEO]

    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 3 of 26
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    Wow, that beard.


    Jada Pinkett-Smith deserves more respect than that.

  • Reply 4 of 26
    dimmokdimmok Posts: 359member

    That movie looks horrible...too bad they wasted Final Cut Pro on this. Margot Robbie is so hot...loved her in Wolf of Wall Street.

  • Reply 5 of 26
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Awesome, was planning to see this one. It looks fun.
  • Reply 6 of 26
    dimmok wrote: »
    That movie looks horrible...too bad they wasted Final Cut Pro on this. Margot Robbie is so hot...loved her in Wolf of Wall Street.

    I agree with [@]Slurpy[/@], it looks like fun ride. (Yes, Margot Robbie also looks like a fun ride. Get your mind out of the gutter, people!)
  • Reply 7 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MacVicta View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    Wow, that beard.


    Jada Pinkett-Smith deserves more respect than that.


     

     

    I’ll be mindful to be less purple-prosed about him in the future.

  • Reply 8 of 26

    I am no editor, but follow this dog fight with a morbid curiosity. So... just spouting based on what I read etc...

     

    The rabid and ferocious comments on a lot of sites, supposedly FCP-7 users, would indicate FCP - X is 'still' crap(Im not so sure they have seen latest update etc). Sooo, I have the pop corn ready to follow the comments that are sure to follow in support or not of FCP - X.

     

    BTW- I watched a video series on FCP-X and IMO (rank amateur that knows nothing about editing), it appears FCP- X for most things is fine except the most advance complex things perhaps needed in theatrical big budget movies (present example excluded). For TV movies,  shows, commercials, pod casts etc, FCP - X seem more than adequate. Isn't that the 'majority' of the 'professional' market?

  • Reply 9 of 26
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    It is crazy how powerful FCProX is these days (especially on a nMP) and what can be done with it. Even more so when you think back only a few years to what was needed and what it cost. Let alone the option now of doing it all in 4K if you want. Just amazing. Shame there is no Apple equivalent app for professional photographers anymore though (Aperture still working fine TG!).
  • Reply 10 of 26
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    boeyc15 wrote: »
    I am no editor, but follow this dog fight with a morbid curiosity. So... just spouting based on what I read etc...

    The rabid and ferocious comments on a lot of sites, supposedly FCP-7 users, would indicate FCP - X is 'still' crap(Im not so sure they have seen latest update etc). Sooo, I have the pop corn ready to follow the comments that are sure to follow in support or not of FCP - X.

    BTW- I watched a video series on FCP-X and IMO (rank amateur that knows nothing about editing), it appears FCP- X for most things is fine except the most advance complex things perhaps needed in theatrical big budget movies (present example excluded). For TV movies,  shows, commercials, pod casts etc, FCP - X seem more than adequate. Isn't that the 'majority' of the 'professional' market?

    Perhaps you are reading old blogs? I think most have now become very happy with FCProX since all of its updates since the original release. FCP-7 has been left in the dust now.
  • Reply 11 of 26
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    slurpy wrote: »
    Awesome, was planning to see this one. It looks fun.

    Me too. Love Will.
  • Reply 12 of 26
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post



    Awesome, was planning to see this one. It looks fun.




    Me too. Love Will.

     

    Love will go on? 

  • Reply 13 of 26
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post

     

    I am no editor, but follow this dog fight with a morbid curiosity. So... just spouting based on what I read etc...

     

    The rabid and ferocious comments on a lot of sites, supposedly FCP-7 users, would indicate FCP - X is 'still' crap(Im not so sure they have seen latest update etc). Sooo, I have the pop corn ready to follow the comments that are sure to follow in support or not of FCP - X.

     

    BTW- I watched a video series on FCP-X and IMO (rank amateur that knows nothing about editing), it appears FCP- X for most things is fine except the most advance complex things perhaps needed in theatrical big budget movies (present example excluded). For TV movies,  shows, commercials, pod casts etc, FCP - X seem more than adequate. Isn't that the 'majority' of the 'professional' market?




    You need to understand that commenters on websites are overwhelmingly just wannabes blathering nonsense. Real, professional film editors don’t have the time or the inclination to comment on nerd blogs. They have production schedules to meet, a film to get out. I wish people could move past the crap that appears on the Internet. Google search “hits” and forum “views” do not constitute reality. Much like the usual suspects that crawl out of the woodwork after an iOS or OS X update to declare that their favorite well known, universal, pandemic, ignored by Apple’s incompetent engineers bug has not been fixed yet, the reality of the situation is quite different. 

  • Reply 14 of 26
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    lkrupp wrote: »

    You need to understand that commenters on websites are overwhelmingly just wannabes blathering nonsense. Real, professional film editors don’t have the time or the inclination to comment on nerd blogs. They have production schedules to meet, a film to get out. I wish people could move past the crap that appears on the Internet. Google search “hits” and forum “views” do not constitute reality. Much like the usual suspects that crawl out of the woodwork after an iOS or OS X update to declare that their favorite well known, universal, pandemic, ignored by Apple’s incompetent engineers bug has not been fixed yet, the reality of the situation is quite different. 

    You nailed it!
  • Reply 15 of 26
    xzuxzu Posts: 139member

    Ficarra and Requa are amazing directors.. I like that Apple profiles industry professionals.

  • Reply 16 of 26
    Wow, that beard.

    You mean the guy whose face is balding equivalently to his head? /s

    I know you meant the one who actually can pull it off.
  • Reply 17 of 26
    lkrupp wrote: »

    You need to understand that commenters on websites are overwhelmingly just wannabes blathering nonsense. Real, professional film editors don’t have the time or the inclination to comment on nerd blogs. They have production schedules to meet, a film to get out. I wish people could move past the crap that appears on the Internet. Google search “hits” and forum “views” do not constitute reality. Much like the usual suspects that crawl out of the woodwork after an iOS or OS X update to declare that their favorite well known, universal, pandemic, ignored by Apple’s incompetent engineers bug has not been fixed yet, the reality of the situation is quite different. 

    Guilty as charged! Go over to macrumours and they are out in force. Even on the FCPX ratings.
    That said, many people are 'me too- ers ' so it's great when Apple shows real world examples from top professionals.
  • Reply 18 of 26
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post





    Guilty as charged! Go over to macrumours and they are out in force. Even on the FCPX ratings.

    That said, many people are 'me too- ers ' so it's great when Apple shows real world examples from top professionals.

     

    90% of those bashing FCPX on message boards are teenage neckbeards living in their mother's basements, regurgitaing what other neckbeard losers are saying online. I see so many on Macrumors mocking and bashing the Mac Pro for "not being powerful enough", as if these idiots do anything that requires more power than watching porn. After seeing a regular troll bash the Mac Pro for the 500th time (while not owning one), I asked him what exactly he think he would need to do that would exceed the abilities of the machine, and I was banned for that.

     

    The fact that Hollywood movies like this are edited entirely on Apple hardware, and almost completely off the shelf Apple software says all that needs to be said. I doubt many even read that page, but I did, and the process is fascinating and impressive. But hey, what do these moron professionals know, right? They don't have the experience of basement dwelling neckbeard trolls. 

     

    Pretty incredible that this was done on a $299 application that be downloaded in 1 click from the Mac Appstore. 

    Quote:

     “I’ve cut on all the other systems, and I can easily say I’m three times faster on Final Cut Pro X.”- Glenn Ficarra


  • Reply 19 of 26
    glnfglnf Posts: 39member
    Professional here. Still working with FCP7 I spent the last couple of weeks doing test projects in FCPX and Premiere.

    FCPX obviously has a great underlining engine but the user interface for me is still awkward and too many basic options are simply missing. Eg. it is very hard to control any form of animation, it is cumbersome to fine tune and edit keyframes and most effects and parameters don't even allow keyframing.

    Of course, I could fire up Motion but that is often an overkill and slows down the workflow. FCPX feels great to work with as long as you follow it's logic and it's suggested visual style. As soon as it is about realizing a specific task it becomes hard to handle and you instantly end up looking for workarounds. It's a shame. Even more so that FCP7 had a fairly sophisticated keyframe editing system and allowed the animation of basically all parameters. You know, just doing a quick mask that changes shape over time...

    Another issue is the strong reliance on third party plugins. It sounds like a great idea but it can lead to a whole bunch of problems. First of all you are forced to keep track of all your plugins and you need to update them on a regular basis. In my work it is absolutely essential that I can open client projects from years ago. With plugins there is always the risk of one missing or not anymore working. Over the years I've decided to only use a handful of really essential plugins. With FCPX I would need to add dozens more. Not good.

    So it is, with a bleeding heart, Premiere. It feels like a step back from FCP7 but Adobe is blatantly adding FCP7 features. One (none)issue for me and probably a lot of editors with Premiere is the fact that it was the first widely available video editing software, so it was the first tool we were toying around before moving on to Avid oder FCP. This makes it feel like a step back.

    By the way, just because it is so often put forward as a key feature of FCPX - FCP7 was and still is perfectly capable of working with 4K and higher res material. Since I often work for large scale video projection I had timelines up to 12K wide in FCP7. Even the rendering speed was better than what you would expect.

    So as much I see a lot of cool aspects in FCPX, including an amazing speed, I will have to start the engine of the old tractor Premiere. Bye bye FCP, I will miss you.
  • Reply 20 of 26
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    glnf wrote: »
    Professional here. Still working with FCP7 I spent the last couple of weeks doing test projects in FCPX and Premiere.

    FCPX obviously has a great underlining engine but the user interface for me is still awkward and too many basic options are simply missing. Eg. it is very hard to control any form of animation, it is cumbersome to fine tune and edit keyframes and most effects and parameters don't even allow keyframing.

    Of course, I could fire up Motion but that is often an overkill and slows down the workflow. FCPX feels great to work with as long as you follow it's logic and it's suggested visual style. As soon as it is about realizing a specific task it becomes hard to handle and you instantly end up looking for workarounds. It's a shame. Even more so that FCP7 had a fairly sophisticated keyframe editing system and allowed the animation of basically all parameters. You know, just doing a quick mask that changes shape over time...

    Another issue is the strong reliance on third party plugins. It sounds like a great idea but it can lead to a whole bunch of problems. First of all you are forced to keep track of all your plugins and you need to update them on a regular basis. In my work it is absolutely essential that I can open client projects from years ago. With plugins there is always the risk of one missing or not anymore working. Over the years I've decided to only use a handful of really essential plugins. With FCPX I would need to add dozens more. Not good.

    So it is, with a bleeding heart, Premiere. It feels like a step back from FCP7 but Adobe is blatantly adding FCP7 features. One (none)issue for me and probably a lot of editors with Premiere is the fact that it was the first widely available video editing software, so it was the first tool we were toying around before moving on to Avid oder FCP. This makes it feel like a step back.

    By the way, just because it is so often put forward as a key feature of FCPX - FCP7 was and still is perfectly capable of working with 4K and higher res material. Since I often work for large scale video projection I had timelines up to 12K wide in FCP7. Even the rendering speed was better than what you would expect.

    So as much I see a lot of cool aspects in FCPX, including an amazing speed, I will have to start the engine of the old tractor Premiere. Bye bye FCP, I will miss you.

    You explained yourself with 'too awkward for me'. That's 90% of the problem, you simply don't yet know how to do many of the things easily you think are lacking or missing most likely. It takes a while to learn and wean yourself off the knowledge you have and feel comfortable with from 7. I am sure if you persevered it would all click into place and in no time at all 7 would seem clunky and limited to you, as it really is.

    BTW Please post the details of hardware (obviously you mean pre nMP), video cards, codecs, output format used and so on used and how you configured 7 to work with 12K in a 7 timeline, I'd find that fascinating. My new Mac Pro can render and work with 4K faster than my previous Mac Pro could work with traditional NTSC so I can't imagine how you tweaked 7 to run with 12K?
Sign In or Register to comment.