#I was determined to make the core four / six actually look like 16 year olds

[drewlyyours]

THE SHATTERED MEDALLION FANCAST

ND #30

Sonny Joon - Justin H. Min

Leena Patel - Rashida Jones

Patrick Dowsett - Tom Hopper

Kiri Nind - Anya Chalotra

AND FINALLY -

George Fayne - Jenny Walser

Bess Marvin - Rhea Norwood

well, i've seen aliens, but believing in aliens seems a little more involved

MHM, TRT, FIN, SSH, DOG, CAR, DDI, SHA, CUR, CLK, TRN, DAN, CRE, ICE, CRY, VEN, HAU, WAC, TOT, SAW, CAP, ASH, TMB, DED, GTH, SPY

[keelywolfe]

FIC: Beneath an Aurora Sky ch. 20

Summary: The South Pole Station is equipped for research and Edge has always made sure things run smoothly for the inhabitants. His charges are meant to follow his rules and regulations, and in turn, he makes sure they survive in the arctic temperatures. It takes plenty of hard work and determination and Edge, along with his crew, can handle both.

He wasn’t counting on one of the newest researchers. He wasn’t expecting Rus.

Tags: Spicyhoney, First Time, Arctic AU, Hurt/Comfort

~~*~~

Chapter One | Chapter Two | Chapter Three | Chapter Four

Chapter Five | Chapter Six | Chapter Seven | Chapter Eight

Chapter Nine | Chapter Ten | Chapter Eleven | Chapter Twelve

Chapter 13 | Chapter 14 | Chapter 15 | Chapter 16 | Chapter 17

Chapter 18 | Chapter 19

~~*~~

Read Chapter 20 on AO3

or

Read it here!

~~*~~

As Edge was walking towards the vehicle shed, he caught an acrid hint of cigarette smoke in the air. He followed it, not inside but around the back and sitting in the shadows of the halogen lights was Rus.

Edge could hardly disguise his approach, the crunch of his boots in the hard-packed snow would have carried in the still icy air long before he came around the corner. But Rus made no attempt to hide. He stayed where he was, a burning cigarette dangling from his gloved fingers as he gazed up at the aurora-filled sky.

He’d already been out here for some time while Edge and the others spoke with Toriel and Gaster. The cold would soon be seeping through his outdoor gear no matter how good it was, sinking its chill into Rus’s bones. Monsters felt the cold less than Humans did but they were by no means immune to it. They could be sickened, frostbitten, and some, like Alphys, tolerated it even less than Humans. As a skeleton, Rus’s endurance should match Edge and Red’s.

Then again, who knew the boundaries of a skeleton from an entirely other universe.

Edge sat down next to Rus, drawing up his knees to rest his arms on them. He looked up at the swirling aurora overhead, the blur of colors rippling together in tangled waves, a sky ocean born of solar particles colliding with the atmosphere.

“it’s so beautiful here.” Rus’s voice was almost too loud in the hush.

“Yes,” Edge agreed in a voice to match.

It was. His intention when they’d first arrived here was only to find a safe place for those in his care, Alphys and Undyne and his still-wounded brother, and later, for Bonnie. Somewhere they could be certain of their meals and shelter. Nothing more than a job to replace the one he lost with the guard and a feeble attempt at that.

He hadn’t expected to find beauty in the glacial whiteness, nor in the endless night sky. He never anticipated the satisfaction that came with seeing another group off, knowing he’d protected them and guided them through this dangerous beauty. He couldn’t have known how Undyne and Alphys would blossom here, both their love for each other and their lives, settling into their place. Or that Red would slowly find his own footing and perhaps he’d never adore the Humans that came here, but he had his own pride in his work, kept all the equipment in top form and helped Alphys in her designs for new additions for the station. And Bonnie, who’d come to them later and never discussed her own inner wounds, yet still seemed to be healing from them. Together they’d created a place of safety for them, a home.

Even after all that, he never could have braced himself for Rus. Who’d settle into their home like he belonged here, their missing puzzle piece. Only it seemed as if he’d come not from their picture, but an entirely different box.

“he told you, didn’t he.” It was impossible to tell if the fog of Rus’s breath was from the cold or the cigarette.

Edge said nothing. His promise to Toriel specified he couldn’t reveal what they’d spoken about. It did not preclude discussing it at all and he only waited as Rus chuckled bitterly, filling in the silence on his own.

“it’s funny,” Rus drawled, flicking ash into the snow, “i came all the way to the end of the world to escape my past and it still came after me.”

Edge thought of Toriel, currently cramped into one of the spare rooms and probably trying not to scrape her horns against the ceiling. “I know the feeling.”

“yeah, i know,” Rus said, grimacing, “i’m sorry. part of the deal of tori sponsoring me was i’d keep mum about back home. i promised.”

“I understand.”

“yeah, well, if i’d known they were gonna pop in unexpectedly, i would’ve warned you about that much, anyway.” Rus’s expression crumpled slightly, going brittle around the edges. “look, i love tori, she’s been nothing but good to me. moms her way into everything. but you guys got your reasons to not want her around, i get that.”

“Rus,” the cloud of his own breath briefly obscured his vision as Edge sighed, “even if they are here because of you, that doesn’t make it your fault.”

“doesn’t it? think what pissed me off most is i know dings is right,” Rus murmured. “he’s can be a little rough saying it, but he means well.”

The resignation in Rus’s voice made Edge bristle, “He accused you of being nothing more than a key made for a particular lock.”

“truth hurts.” It was startling to realize how he’d categorized Rus’s smiles in his own head, the bright, fake one and the softer, shyer truthful one that came with a measure of trust. This one was entirely new, tainted with deep bitterness, “bet big brother didn’t fill in the details, so let me give you the highlights of our family tree.”

“see, our pop was the royal scientist in our world, the real deal. i call him pop, but that’s mostly because it annoyed him. he wasn’t really our father, he was a dna donor. he didn’t even name us, we named ourselves.” Rus was sitting right next to Edge here in the deep cold and still seemed miles away, no, not miles, he was in another world entirely. “dings took his name. not like he really knew there were many options past that or just getting called number one. just as well, i guess, looks more like him than me or blue. dings named blue and they both named me.”

He slanted a glance at Edge, his bright eye lights dimmed behind his goggles. “dings was still really young when blue popped out, what did he know about names? baby bro’s magic was blue, so that’s what he went with. i came a few more years down the line and by then, they’d raided the librarby and found out that papyrus is a traditional skeleton monster name.” He chuckled then, some of the bitterness of his smile invading the sound. “like anything about us was traditional.”

“we were his own personal test tube babies, homegrown like fucking cabbages, and gaster made us to fulfill a specific role. see, the core was important work, sure, but what he was really trying to do was make a machine that could get us past the shield. turns out, third time is the charm for our old man. he made dings and blue first but neither of them could use void magic. i was his hail mary, his last shot, and whaddaya know, it worked.” Rus scowled, tamped out his burning butt into the snow. He dropped it into his little tin and lit another, inhaling deeply and breathing out a cloud of smoke. “he never let me forget what i was for, but dings and blue always tried to be the best brothers they could. after pops kacked, it wasn’t until dings got that machine working that it even came up again.” He shrugged, barely visible through the layers of his heavy coat. “i got to forget for a while, at least.”

Edge said nothing, what could he say? His childhood was hardly one ease and joy; it more resembled the fairy tales that Red sometimes read to him when he still the shorter of the two, listening with wide sockets to gruesome tales that seemed all too possible. It seemed Rus had his own experiences with a sort of wicked stepfather and it was every bit as terrible as those stories. The urge to pull him close, to keep him safe, was itching in Edge and he forcibly held it back, let Rus tell his story.

“i never expected the machine to actually work,” Rus admitted. “dings was messing with it for so long. then we were here. my bro was only supposed to talk to the royal scientist and we were gonna hightail it back. easy peasy lemon squeezy.” Rus chuckled darkly, “turned out the lemonade was too sour after all. dings was pretty upset to find out the guy he was looking for was gone and so was his successor.”

Rus’s smile eased into something warmer, familiar, “it was tori who got me to start studying, you know. my bros always kept me on a tight leash back home, it was dangerous to even go outside, but here? i went out, tried to make some friends, ended up sleeping around some. wasted time,” Rus admitted, “tori suggested i work on my degree. i didn’t see the point at first, our pop always told us our purpose. i was there to power the machine. but, tori has this thing about being everyone’s mom.”

“Indeed, she does,” Edge murmured, recalling his days imprisoned after the coup, with good meals and care instead of execution.

“i think maybe that’s why she’s such a good queen. she told me pops was wrong,” Rus laughed a little in a puff of smokey breath and shook his head. “told me he was an asshole, actually, and that i deserved to have what i wanted out of life.”

“we argued about it, me and dings. drove blue nuts. blue was…he was the failure, pops said. at least dings was a scientist, but blue couldn’t even manage that. dings always told him his purpose was to be our caretaker and he tried damn hard at it.” Rus sighed, dropping his head back against the shed siding with a muffled thunk, “he hates it when we fight.”

“But you did it,” Edge said softly, “you got your degree, you’re working on your PhD and you’re doing a good job of it, at that.” Even through the growing cold he felt an inner warmth at the smile Rus flashed him, the real one.

“i did. i got so close.” Rus’s voice broke slightly, “things were horrible when we left, i can’t even imagine how they are now. and dings, he needs to fix the core. that was the skill that was built into him.” His smile soured back into bitterness, “it’s a compulsion, i don’t think he can help it. he has to be better than our pop. he has to be the one to save us all. blue believes everyone is worth saving, but he’s a protector, and me? i’m just a battery. i was never meant to have any of this.”

A honey-tinted tear slipped out from beneath his goggles and wound its way down, slowly freezing against the chilled bone of Rus’s skull and Edge’s control broke. He crawled across the short distance between them, scuffled through the snow and pulled Rus into his arms. He held on briefly, achingly tight before drawing back far enough to shake him, a little, and Rus looked at him with wide, startled eye lights.

“You are more than simply your father’s intentions,” Edge told him fiercely. “You’re brilliant and kind, and…and funny…wonderful…” He choked, unable to express the wild emotions burning in his soul; if there were words for it, Edge did not know them. Love was too shallow a word, too small, it couldn’t possibly hold everything Edge was feeling, all of it strangled in grief.

Rus reached up and his gloved fingers were gentle against Edge’s cheekbone. “it’s okay,” he said, softly, “i always knew we’d have to go back. i got to see this. i got to be with you. it’s okay,” he said again, crooned it, as if Edge were the one in pain. Perhaps he was, his soul ached as fiercely as if it was threatening to crack. “i saw so much here on the surface. i got to see the stars, i got to come here and see this.” He looked up at the sky, at the brilliant colors still churning within it along with a million twinkling lights looking down on them. “i was never going to get to stay, but i got to see this.”

“It’s not enough,” Edge said hoarsely. Not enough, Rus was supposed to leave here and go back into the sun, and instead, he was going where Edge could never follow, couldn’t protect him, and again, Edge would have given a portion of his own grieving soul not to see that sadness infecting Rus’s smile.

“i love you, you know,” Rus told him, achingly soft. “i know it’s not fair to tell you now, but i can’t keep it to myself. i need you to know it.”

Edge closed his sockets, shutting out Rus’s face and the aurora, saw only blackness and it wasn’t the cold that sent a tremor through him. Then he opened them again, looked into Rus’s face and saw the truth of it, the yearning. And the hopelessness. The need to say it back burned, words already forming on his tongue, but instead Edge blurted, “Stay the two weeks.”

Rus blinked, startled. That was clearly not the reaction he expected to his quiet confession, “but, the people—"

“It’s been two years,” Edge countered, “two weeks means nothing to your world and everything to you. Don’t let your brother’s compulsion drive you. Toriel—"

He almost said she was on his side, couldn’t, his knowledge was gleaned from their talk and words already thickening in his throat, his promise threatening to choke him when Rus kissed him softly, stopping him.

“i can guess about tori,” Rus said quietly, then, softer, “two more weeks.” He looked up again and even behind his goggles, the auroras couldn’t match the soft beauty of his eye lights. “there’s no stars back home. i’m gonna miss them.”

He fell silent, leaning against Edge’s side. Edge wrapped an arm around him and pulled Rus in closer, holding him tightly through the layers of his coat. He was starting to shiver; they were both getting too cold and he was about to suggest they move into the vehicle shed at the very least when Rus spoke again.

“it got so bad towards the end,” Rus whispered, “we stayed holed up in the lab, mostly, but we could see what was happening. monsters were getting more violent, losing control, gaining lv. pops’ diagrams on the core were incomplete. it was dings’s idea to come to another world and check theirs. i had to come, of course and we couldn’t leave Blue alone, so we all came.”

Rus kicked one booted foot idly, scraping up snow with his heel. “s’weird. even the snow is different here. back home it seems…stale somehow. used. maybe it’ll be better when dings gets the core up and running.” Rus sighed. “i never would have come to the station if i’d thought he was close to a breakthrough. it’s weird, i thought i had enough time.” Rus drew back a little, looking at Edge with that soft smile back in place. “but it sure wasn’t a waste.”

Almost, Edge kissed him again, hesitated with their mouths a breath away. Something about what Rus said niggled, something… “Weird.”

“heh,” Rus chuckled, “it’s double weird hearing you say weird. doesn’t seem like your kind of slang, bossman.”

Edge barely heard him. His brother had a breakthrough on the core, Rus said, an unexpected breakthrough. Edge cursed himself, replaying what Rus told him. He'd been foolishly focused on the information about Rus and why they were here, not on what changed to bring them to the station.

"What was your brother studying, exactly?” Edge demanded. He took Rus’s shoulders in both gloved hands, holding him, “You said he was looking for information about the Core."

Rus blinked uncertainly, his browbone furrowing, “um, papers, mostly. tori has lots of stuff from the old royal scientist, dings was wading through tons of it. i didn’t see much, he didn’t want any help. he was afraid we’d miss something. guess he found what he was looking for.”

“Yes, I think he did,” Edge said sourly, “A patsy.” Edge climbed to his feet and held out a hand to help Rus, “I’d like to know what was in those notes your brother found and I think we should ask the former royal scientist.”

“what?” Rus wobbled for a second, catching his balance after sitting for so long, “seriously? you think they’d talk to you? tori said they don’t—

“I should hope so,” Edge said, dryly, “she’s in her lab.” And very likely watching them on her cameras.

Rus went still, croaking out, “alphys??”

“You didn’t know?” Edge slanted Rus a look, but he believed him.

“no!” Rus spluttered, already heading back towards the station, Edge trailing after him. “tori didn’t talk about it, i didn’t even think to ask anyone else, why would i?”

“Maybe your brother isn’t as discriminating,” Edge said, under his breath, letting the wind tear the words away. It was more than a little suspicious that his brother solved the issue of core technology when Rus was in the only place that possessed a replica of the original. Edge didn’t believe in coincidence.

“Rus,” Edge jogged to catch up, taking hold of Rus’s elbow to stop him as he asked, “Do you trust me?”

“yes,” Rus said, unhesitatingly.

“I trust you, too,” Edge said, softly, and leaned in to give him a brief, chilly kiss. “Come on. You’re freezing and I have questions.”

“you’re the boss,” Rus said. It was only a shadow of his normally teasing self, but it was something. He took Rus’s gloved hand in his own and together, they made their way to the main building.

tbc

[marilynngmesalo]

Huawei P30 Pro review: China wins the camera phone war again

Huawei P30 Pro review: China wins the camera phone war again Huawei P30 Pro review: China wins the camera phone war again http://bit.ly/2UMGV97

Over the last couple of years, the development of smartphone technology has been a little stagnant. It’s not that the new phones aren’t good, but they’re often only modest improvements over the previous models.

This will likely change this year as the first foldable phones are due to hit the market. Last year, one of the few companies to release a truly unique was Huawei with its P20 line, which included the first three-lens rear camera. The controversial Chinese company’s P20 Pro has a 20 MP wide-angle lens and 8 MP telephoto (which worked together to create a 5X hybrid zoom) as well as a 20 MP monochrome lens for black and white photography. And then later in the year, the company released its Mate 20 line, which improved on the design by swapping the monochrome lens for an ultra-wide angle one capable of a 0.6X magnification and adding more advanced camera AI software. (The flagship Mate 20 Pro had the best camera system of any phone in 2018 and was my choice for the best Android smartphone of that year.)

But now Huawei ups the ante even further with its P30 line (P30, P30 Pro and P30 Lite).

Like the Mate 20 Pro, the top-end P30 Pro, which I tested, has a 40 MP wide-angle lens (with the focal equivalent to a 27 mm lens on a 50 mm camera) and 20 MP ultra-wide (16 mm) lens. But the P30 Pro’s 8 MP telephoto lens (125 mm) has a 5X magnification as opposed to Mate 20 Pro and P20 Pro’s 3X one. As such, the P30 Pro is able to boast a 10X hybrid zoom. While hybrid zooms are a combination of optical and digital zooms, the enlarged image still looks clear. (The phone can actually do a 50X digital zoom but I wouldn’t recommend it, as, at that magnification, the image is quite pixellated.)

These four photos of flowers are taken at the (clockwise from top left) 0.7X, 1X, 5X and 10X preset magnifications. They have roughly the same framing but I was shooting the pictures handheld.

The P30 Pro has preset magnifications for 0.7X, 1X, 5X and 10X and as you can see in the example below, the pictures look very sharp even as you zoom in for more details. And the built-in AI scene detection usually did a good job of giving a good default white balance. (Of course, you can turn off this AI and there’s a professional mode where you can fiddle around with more settings.

The P30 and P30 Lite both have a similar camera setup — but with lower specs.

Another example of the P30 Pro’s four preset magnifications in these photos of a patch of grass.

Unique to the P30 Pro, however, is a fourth 3D time-of-flight camera. Despite the name, it doesn’t take a three-dimensional image or, well, fly. It’s a range-imaging camera that’s included here specifically for use in portrait mode. Using infrared light, it measures the distance between objects within a scene to better delineate the subject from the background. In terms of portraits, the TOF camera can better determine how far away the subject is from the camera and gives a slight, natural-looking blur to the surroundings to help your model stand out in the frame.

But what really impressed me was the P30 Pro’s photography in low-light. You can manually set the ISO to as high as 409,600 to better capture the surrounding light, which frankly can even make black look overexposed. Even more interesting was the night mode feature which uses a low exposure to capture the shot. Remembering an old photography textbook that said you shouldn’t shoot photos handheld when the exposure is longer than 1/30 of a second, I had assumed whatever I was shooting was would be blurred by camera shake. (The exposure tended to take between six and 10 seconds.) But I was rather surprised by the result. The images were generally quite clear and could handle contrast incredibly well.

An example of a photo taken using the P30 Pro’s night mode feature.

The cameras can also shoot 4K video and you can still take advantage of the 10X hybrid zoom — however, if you are shooting it at that magnification, the frame will likely be a little jumpy, unless you attach it to a tripod. A software update will also come at a later called dual-view video that will let you shoot video from two of the lenses at the same time.

The P30 Pro’s front-facing is also impressive. It has a 32 MP wide-angle lens, which is better than many phones’ rear cameras.

In terms of design, the P30 line looks a lot more like the Mate 20 series than its predecessor. Like both previous lines, the P30 Pro has an aluminum frame covered on both sides by glass. The phone has a 6.47-inch capacitive OLED touchscreen with a resolution of 1,080 x 2,340 pixels. Like the Mate 20 Pro, the phone’s display is a 19.5:9 aspect ratio but not it’s not as high-res as the former flirts with a 4K resolution. But it’s still a beautiful, bright display that offers realistic colours.

As with the Mate 20 series, the P30 phones have dispensed with the physical fingerprint sensor and moved it into the display itself. It’s an interesting way to increase screen real estate but it’s a little more finicky to set up and I’m not sure I’m sold on the solution. I mean, I never really found a fingerprint sensor particularly obtrusive.

The P30 Pro uses the Mate 20 Pro’s faster Huawei Kirin 980 chipset octa-core chipset with a clockspeed of up to 2.26 GHz. It runs on Android 9 (Pie) and is available with either 6 GB of RAM and 128 GB of internal storage or 8 GB of RAM and 256 GB of storage. My test model had the latter and it offered a very smooth experience for videos, games and other memory-intensive apps.

The sound quality is good, though perhaps a little tinny, or at least treble-y at times through the phone’s own speakers. But it’s not distorted. And if you have a decent set of earphones, it’s not an issue.

One “improvement” I personally find a little annoying is that the P30 Pro has removed the P20 Pro’s LED notification light in favour of Huawei’s Always on Display (AOD) feature. It can be configured to show the date, time and alerts. However, it won’t acknowledge notifications from third-party apps, making it kind of useless. And third-party AOD apps can be a bit of a hassle to set up. And sometimes the in-screen fingerprint sensor seemed to interfere with said apps as they fought for dominance over the lock screen. But I guess you could just turn on face recognition to unlock your device instead.

Ultimately, it’s a rather small complaint about a pretty impressive phone. And if you’re worried about that whole thing about how Huawei might spy on you for China through your phone … well at least with that 32 MP selfie camera, you can be assured your hacked nudes will look impeccable!

The P30 Pro is available at most major wireless retailers. Videotron has the best price for the 128 GB model on a two-year contract for no money down on a 16 GB data/month plan. Rogers also offers for no-money down on a two-year plan through its in-store Upfront Edge promotion. Rogers and Fido offer the best price for the phone without a contract for $1,099. Videotron also has the best pricing for the 256 GB model no money down on its two-year 16 GB data plan and $1,199.95 outright.

KEY SPECIFICATIONS

OS Android 9 (Pie) and EMUI 9.1 Dimensions and weight 158 mm x 73.4 mm x 8.41 mm; 192 g

Display 6.47-inch 19.5:9 (2,340×1,080) capacitive OLED touchscreen

Chipset/CPU Huawei Kirin 980 octa-core processor Dual NPUs(Neural-network Processing Unit) 2xCortex-A76 Based 2.6GHz+ 2xCortex-A76 Based 1.92GHz + 4xCortex-A55 1.8GHz

Storage and memory 128 GB ROM/6 GB RAM or 256 GB ROM/8 GB RAM

Cameras

Rear: Leica Quad Camera 40 MP (wide-angle lens, f/1.6 aperture,OIS) + 20 MP (ultra-wide-angle lens, f/2.2 aperture) + 8 MP (telephoto, f/3.4 aperture, OIS) Huawei Time-of-Flight (TOF) Camera supports autofocus (laser focus, phase focus, contrast focus), supports AIS (HUAWEI AI Image Stabilization).

Front: 32 MP, f/2.0 aperture

Audio Dolby Atmos (Dolby Digital, Dolby Digital+, Dolby AC-4) mp3, mp4, 3gp, ogg, amr, aac, flac, wav, midi

Battery/Charging 4,200 mAh Huawei SuperCharge (Max 40W） Supports reverse wireless charging

Sensors Ambient light sensor In-screen fingerprint sensor Gyroscope Compass Proximity sensor Gravity sensor Hall sensor Infrared sensor Colour temperature sensor

Click for update news Bangla news http://bit.ly/2Z5p8sU world news

[burning-up-ao3]

20 Penguins thoughts: Brass thinks Brassard fits. Are they nuts?

December 4, 2018 8:00 AM By Jason Mackey / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

It ranks among the bigger trades Jim Rutherford has made during his two-plus decades as an NHL general manager. It was almost assuredly the most complicated.

Yet here we are, more than nine months after the Penguins general manager acquired Derick Brassard from Ottawa, and the results haven’t been close to what anyone expected.

Brassard has just six goals and 18 points in 42 games (regular season and playoffs), while the Penguins as a team are just 28-23-7 in those games. There’s been multiple lower-body injuries to Brassard, difficulty adjusting to a third-line role and fewer minutes plus a weird illness at the start of training camp.

Coach Mike Sullivan has tried nearly every winger he has with the 31-year-old center, who as recently as 2015-16 produced 27 goals and 58 points with the New York Rangers. However, not a single one of them has stuck.

It doesn’t sound like the Penguins are ready to admit failure here, but they also aren’t happy. The Penguins gave up a ton to get Brassard. So far, he has yet to prove that he can be the right third-line center for their team.

“He should be a fit,” Rutherford said. “He’s played some of his best hockey [this season]. He came in and had a good camp. He played well until he got hurt again. Since he got hurt, he hasn’t seemed to be able get it back on track.

“It’s there. Will it come back or how long will it take? I don’t know. But we need him to be better.”

Yes, the Penguins absolutely need Brassard to be better. Whether or not that will actually happen is the primary topic of this week’s column.

2. A simple glance at the standings should tell you that the Penguins need results. They’re 25 games into the season and only two points clear of the Eastern Conference basement. As captain Sidney Crosby said after Monday’s practice, “I wouldn’t say it’s early anymore.”

Which means, in theory, that Sullivan — even more than usual — needs to find lines that work, that score, that have productive shifts.

Brassard and Phil Kessel have done little of that over the past two games, but Sullivan is bucking a recent trend of his and trying to remain patient. He’s sticking with Brassard and Kessel. For now.

The coach has had an itchy trigger figure during much of his tenure here, but he seems intent on figuring out, once and for all, whether Brassard and Kessel can actually play together.

On Tuesday against Colorado — which is riding an 11-game point streak and arrives here as one of the best teams in the NHL this season — it’s likely Brassard and Kessel will get another chance to make it work, with Zach Aston-Reese on the left side.

For Sullivan, it’s always a delicate balancing act between short-term results and long-term development.

“There’s always a fine line,” Sullivan said. “We’re trying to find combinations that bring success. We’re trying to allow combinations to work through the process. We’re also trying to evaluate whether or not we thinking it has potential to find traction.

“When’s the right time to split up a line or when’s the right time to allow guys to stay together and work through things? I think [it’s] the coaches’ instinct just based on what we see. It’s something that we discuss daily with our group. We’ll make decisions daily based on what we see.

“It’s not like our coaching staff is hesitant to make change because we’ve certainly made a fair amount. It’s a matter of whether or not we think it’s the right thing to do at this time for the group.”

3. To be fair to Brassard and Kessel, they really did look good together last Tuesday against Winnipeg. However, the next night in Colorado was ugly.

Brassard was on the ice for one five-on-five shot on goal and 11 against. They combined to produce one five-on-five scoring chance. One!

Saturday against the Flyers showed tepid progress, with four five-on-five scoring chances produced. But only one of those qualified as high-danger, per naturalstattrick.com, and the eye test didn’t exactly scream that they were a threat to score.

After the game, Sullivan said essentially that he and his coaching staff would go back to the drawing board and revaluate some things.

At practice Monday, however, Sullivan didn’t return to the Kessel-Evgeni Malkin pairing that many expected, the one that was the Penguins’ best early in the season. He kept things status quo.

With a horde of reporters gathered around his dressing room stall after practice, Brassard mostly danced around the Kessel topic.

“We played one or two games,” Brassard said when asked whether he felt his line was close to breaking through. “The lines are always changing pretty much every game. We had some guys injured who came back.

“When you say my line, yeah, for [Tuesday] it’s Phil, me and Zach. Who knows if we’re going to finish the game together. Who knows what’s going to happen in the future. I’m just going to try and focus on [Tuesday] and make plays with those guys.”

4. Something interesting about Brassard that may indicate how he truly feels about playing here: He routinely slips in comments like this, about the lines changing or his limited ice time.

You know how you change it? Give the coach a reason to keep your line together or play you more.

5. Sullivan insisted Brassard doesn’t need to change his game to become more like, say, Nick Bonino, who thrived on going to the tough areas of the rink, playing solid defense and making smart passes.

It doesn’t mean it won’t work, but Brassard isn’t the same type of player. He’s a speed-and-skill guy.

More than anything, for Sullivan, it’s about cooperative play. It’s about Brassard and Kessel working together, and the coach said that doesn’t solely fall on Brassard, who has one point — a goal — in eight games since returning from a three-week absence because of a lower-body injury.

“It’s hard to just identify one guy on a line and say, ‘He’s the reason.’ ” Sullivan said. “When you look at line combinations, they must have cooperative play to have success. The game’s too hard out there. Teams defend hard. It takes cooperative effort for lines to have success both offensively and defensively.”

6. Strip this down to its core, and I don’t think it’s overly complicated.

Sullivan is sticking with Brassard and Kessel right now because he has to. And because Malkin and Kessel haven’t produced much together, either. It’s the perfect time to ride it out.

The optimist in me wants to say that Brassard and Kessel will be fine. They’re both skilled, and sooner or later this will work.

Only they haven’t clicked yet, and how much longer can the Penguins afford to wait?

7. I asked Brassard flat-out Monday whether he thought he had any chemistry with Kessel.

“Yeah, there’s chemistry,” Brassard said. “We just have to make plays.

“It’s hard to score in this league five-on-five. You might have two or three chances a game. You have to try and capitalize on it. We’re just going to try and do our best [Tuesday].”

While I understand what Brassard is saying, we’re talking about two guys who combined make $13 million per season — although they only cost the Penguins $9.8 million because the Maple Leafs and Golden Knights are picking up part of their salaries.

Creating offense is hard, but elite players — as Kessel and Brassard are paid — should be able to do it. At least ones that are capable of playing together.

8. Much like Kessel in the postseason, there have been some mixed messages regarding Brassard’s most recent lower-body injury.

“He’s trying to get back to that point since he’s come back from the injury,” Sullivan said of Brassard. Rutherford’s comments were similar.

“I don’t think the injury has any issue,” Brassard said of a lower-body injury that forced him to miss nine games.

I do think it’s possible for both of these things to be true. Brassard is working his way back and doesn’t want to make excuses for his lack of production. Sullivan and Rutherford want to protect the player.

“Before he got hurt, he was playing really good hockey for us,” Sullivan said of Brassard. “There was a lot that we liked about his game. He’s trying to get back to that point since he’s come back from the injury.”

It should be noted that Brassard was playing left wing at that time — he had three assists in a blowout win at Calgary on Oct. 25 — and may actually profile better there on the Penguins.

Unfortunately, though, that job isn’t available right now. Jake Guentzel has found his groove, and Brassard must figure it out at third-line center. Or potentially move on.

“I think he’s got to play his game,” Sullivan said. “I think he has to hang onto pucks in the offensive zone. I think he has to support the puck down low in the offensive zone when his linemates are fighting for it or have it.”

But mostly, it’s what Rutherford said: The Penguins simply need Brassard to be better.

9. Moving on to other parts of my conversation with Rutherford …

The Penguins have dropped eight of 12 since his epic rant before the game at Washington on Nov. 7, the one where he basically started threatening to break up the team.

In a subsequent conversation we had at UPMC Lemieux Sports Complex, Rutherford said he would be monitoring what happens to determined whether or not he ultimately thinks this group has become stale.

I asked him Monday where he stood with that idea.

“I don’t know if stale is the right word at this point,” Rutherford said. “It just seems that once a week we have at least one or two players that contribute to a good effort in the wrong way and cost us games. That’s what happens when things aren’t going right.”

10. That said, Rutherford sees signs of progress that the Penguins are almost out of it.

Look at enough analytics, and they’ll paint the same picture. For example, the Penguins are controlling 57 percent of the five-on-five scoring chances over the past six games. The Penguins have done a lot of good things. They simply haven’t gotten on a winning streak, which they need to do.

“I really feel that there’s a lot of positive signs that we will start to win,” Rutherford said. “But, we can’t afford to have individuals have off-nights when our team is working well enough to win games. That’s what we have to come out of at this point.

“We went through the real bad stretch where we weren’t playing well, but we did deserve to win a couple of those games. We didn’t. Then once we got through that stretch, we started to play better as a team.

“We’re at that point now, but it doesn’t do you any good if you don’t win. We’re good enough to win.”

11. I think that’s mostly fair, although that “real bad” stretch was … well, really bad. I don’t know how many of those games the Penguins legitimately deserved to win.

Definitely not the Maple Leafs (5-0) or Devils (5-1) at home. Probably in Washington (2-1). Not at Ottawa (6-4) or at home against Tampa (4-3, four power-play goals allowed).

Whatever. I will agree with Rutherford on the idea that the Penguins need to pick up points. I think there was a period of the season where you could focus more on the process and ignore the results. We’ve passed that. They need the results. Otherwise …

12. I believe Rutherford must be cognizant of when it’s time to call this a transition year.

It’s not now, mind you, but I don’t think it would be the worst thing in the world if the Penguins just admitted it wasn’t going to happen and set themselves up appropriately for the rest of the Crosby/Malkin Era.

If this year turns out to be a failure on the ice but winds up sustaining the rest of the championship window, I hardly think anyone is going to look at the Penguins like they blew it.

But again, we’re not there yet. Just something I think Rutherford is keeping in the back of his mind.

13. My sense now is that I do think Matt Murray was dealing with a legitimate, physical injury. Previously, I had thought his current absence was more mental than anything.

That said, I think the timing of his lower-body issue could’ve been worse. Good time to step away for him, maybe unplug a little and clear his head.

In my opinion, goaltending is one of the things that has held the Penguins back recently. The individuals having off-nights Rutherford mentioned above absolutely involves the goaltenders allowing too many soft goals.

Getting the good version of Murray back will do wonders for that, but Rutherford knows that, as a whole, the guys getting paid to stop the puck need to be a lot better.

“In order for us to get to where we want to get to where we want to get to — and that’s playing into June — we have to get that consistent goaltending,” Rutherford said. “I believe we have the guys to do it.

“I’m a big believer in Matt Murray. You don’t do what he did in the first two years and end up not having the ability to be a good goalie in this league.”

14. Murray skated before practice Monday, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s back with the group soon. He looked excellent, at least in the limited, individual drills I watched.

There seems to be little concern over the physical side of things with Murray, even though his injury history is not short.

Rutherford is mostly concerned with Murray regaining his mental edge.

“There’s something to be said for the mental aspect of the game and dealing with all situations,” Rutherford said. “He definitely has it. He was the key goalie to winning the two Stanley Cups. That’s what he has to find as he goes forward.”

15. Touching on a few other topics …

It would be impossible to write something like this and ignore Tom Wilson’s illegal perfectly fine hit on New Jersey Devils left wing Brett Seney from Friday night.

Here are a few things I know are true:

• It was extremely late.

• As such, there was no reason whatsoever to make the hit.

• Wilson has, well, a bit of a reputation for doing things that the NHL Department Safety deems illegal.

It was, at minimum, a careless play by Wilson, who was given a match penalty but no supplemental discipline for the hit. In my opinion, it showed someone who isn’t close to receiving the message the league is trying to send.

16. I almost can’t blame him for the last part. The NHL doesn’t do nearly enough to show it takes head injuries seriously, even though, as a society, I’d like to think that we now do. Or at least more seriously than we once did.

Why should he change when the people in charge aren’t forcing him to by allowing such plays to go unpunished? Or by cutting short a previous suspension?

If parents looked the other way when their kids misbehaved, or they eased off punishments for no clear reason, don’t you think those same kids would continue to flout the rules?

17. My biggest problem with the Wilson situation, however, doesn’t involve the league. It has to do with Wilson’s teammates and the Capitals organization.

Nobody thinks anything is wrong. Nobody thinks there’s a trend here. Nobody thinks he’s failing to get the message. They all think everyone else is crazy.

It did take a while, probably too long, but eventually the Penguins stopped siding with Matt Cooke, realizing that hitching their wagon to how he was playing, and the pain he inflicted, was a bad idea.

18. Dominik Simon has a pretty idea what it takes to mesh with Crosby right now.

“Get him the puck, and he’ll score,” Simon joked with me before Saturday’s game against the Flyers.

While it’s tough to argue with Simon’s logic, there’s definitely been more to it than that.

Remember last postseason, when Simon got chance after chance to play with Crosby and seemed in over his head? Not anymore.

I’ve been very impressed with what Simon has done on the Penguins’ top line this season, to the point that, when Hornqvist returned against Philadelphia, I didn’t question for a second the decision to leave Simon there.

19. “I just think this year’s Dom’s brought more consistency to his overall game,” Sullivan said. “He has great offensive instincts. For a guy who’s not overly big in stature, he’s really strong on the puck. He’s strong in the battle areas. We think one of his greatest assets is his ability to play in traffic, the give-and-go game down low. That’s an area where Sid thrives.”

Some of this simply has to be maturity. It may be easy to overlook, but Simon is just 24 years old. Saturday’s game was just his 63rd in the NHL. Reading off Crosby is hardly an easy task.

Full credit to Simon: Where we’ve seen Sprong fail to elevate his game, Simon has seemingly taken the next step.

“You learn every time you’re on his line,” Simon said. “Definitely helps to play with him more, then you know where he’s going. He’s such a smart guy. It’s really nice to play with him because he’s always in a good spot.”

20. Simon is currently on pace for 13 goals and 43 points, respectable totals for someone who has not yet logged a full NHL season.

Dig a little deeper, and Simon has been driving play quite a bit. His five-on-five shot rate of 56.5 ranked third on the team, while he was No. 1 in scoring-chance (60.3) and high-danger (63.4) percentages among regulars.

Some of that is being strong on pucks. It’s also thinking the game the way Crosby does and getting the mental side of thinks to connect with the physical side.

Not saying Simon is immovable like Guentzel might be on Crosby’s left wing, but the results have been markedly better than they used to be.

“It’s a lot of different things,” Simon said. “It’s not just shooting and passing. “It’s about reading the game, playing smart and putting pucks behind them. It depends. Little stuff.”

Little stuff that seems to be adding up to bigger stuff.

Jason Mackey: jmackey@post-gazette.com and Twitter @JMackeyPG.

[flauntpage]

Lather, Rinse, Repeat – Same Old, Same Old After Rangers 5, Flyers 1

I usually don’t have an agenda when writing about the Flyers.

It is my intention to always provide an informed opinion or analysis based on data or conversation with people in the know – even if the opinion is unpopular.

But heading into last night’s game in New York – I will admit – I had it in my head that I was going to write a story with a specific, predetermined angle.

I was going to sit down at the keyboard and tell you how impressed I have been of late with the Flyers. After coming back from a bye and playing a very strong game against New Jersey Saturday. I was going to talk about Sean Couturier and Jake Voracek being overlooked as All-Stars in the NHL this year. I was going to talk about the improved play of young guys like Travis Konecny, Jordan Weal, and Nolan Patrick.

I had the whole thing planned in advance. It was going to be the perfect catapult into the lovefest that will be the Eric Lindros number retirement ceremony tomorrow night.

Then the game happened.

The Flyers were completely outworked and buried by a divisional opponent – in a matchup that is critical to the playoff race, no less – for the second time in six games.

And my plan was blown to smithereens.

It’s no wonder I tend to skew toward skepticism with this team.

And I’ve got to tell you, it’s difficult.

I know what you’re thinkin: “Cry me a river SanFilippo. It’s sooooo hard to write about sports for a living.”

And on that level, you are 100% right, and I have no reason to sit here bitching.

But, when you cover an inconsistent team, it is as equally frustrating on the writer as it is on the fan – and I’m pretty much only writing on game days (to this point anyway…)

And it’s why, when anyone asks me – on Twitter, in the comments section here on Crossing Broad, or in line at the Springfield Wawa – what I think about the Flyers, I say I don’t think they are a playoff team.

And it’s because you can’t be this inconsistent and expect to be there.

Yeah, they’re only three points out. Yeah, they’ve played pretty well overall since the 10-game losing streak.

But it’s also easy to get caught up in a smaller sample without taking the bigger sample into consideration:

But that just basically means they're a 500 team, no? because I can just as easily say they've lost 15 of their last 27 games if I wanted to push a more negative narrative.

— AntSanPhilly (@AntSanPhilly) January 17, 2018

Update: They are now 12-5-1 since the 10 game losing streak and have lost 16 of 28.

And there’s no reason to recap the 5-1 loss last night. The Rangers were the better, more determined team. Brian Elliott didn’t have a good game, but his defense left him on an island to face breakaway after breakaway.

The Flyers were as awful as they were against Pittsburgh two weeks ago. Brandon Manning and Radko Gudas continue to defy logic by playing, and playing poorly, while Travis Sanheim sits in the press box.

And it was another game where, if Claude Giroux, Sean Couturier, and Jake Voracek don’t create offense, no one else really picks them up.

So yeah, there’s your takeaway from the game.

But it makes writing something new and interesting about this team all the more difficult.

I can sit here and rehash the reasons why I don’t think they’re a playoff team, but I did that in November, and again a couple weeks ago.

I can sit here and criticize Dave Hakstol again for allowing the same foibles that bite the team consistently to continue to occur, and I can suggest that he isn’t the right man for the job.

I can sit here and wonder what exactly Ron Hextall’s plan is with this team as he throws some young players right into the fire (like Travis Konecny and Nolan Patrick), declares a need for patience with others (like Sam Morin and Oskar Lindblom) and lets others wallow as a repeated healthy scratch (Sanheim) while replacement level players get time ahead of them.

But that starts to become old. That starts to become predictable.

There is also the possibility that the Flyers youth isn’t as good as it has been purported to be. That’s not to say that the young players are going to be busts – I think Ivan Provorov is going to be a star and Shayne Gostisbehere has already showed us what he’s going to be, but everyone else has left us with unanswered questions. But because of their youth we have to wait and see if those questions eventually get answered.

Meanwhile, a lot of other young players are in the NHL and thriving in other organizations – which makes you wonder if the plan, while prudent to a point, may be too conservative.

Maybe my mistake, though, has been assuming I have to be the person who imparts wisdom onto the Flyers fans with each of these posts, but that once they get past their Twitter-induced vitriol, they’re actually pretty savvy and don’t need me telling them what they need to hear.

Take @Tidal22 for instance:

Twitter is a tire fire, we can all agree, but this team is an average team, waiting on tomorrow. The question is when does tomorrow come? There’s enough here in terms of core and prospects, to step forward and try to win, but when will they?

— Tidal22 (@Tidal22) January 17, 2018

My fear has been, you draft well, you don’t stick your neck out, 28 and 93 start to degrade, you’re paying 9, 53, 11 and others and now you’re back to being relatively capped, with the same general talent level, placed differently in the lineup.

— Tidal22 (@Tidal22) January 17, 2018

But I’ve gone through every stage of grief during this process..denial, bargaining, anger and I accept that, while, eventually, it should work, the current GM may not be the one to finish it, if he doesn’t stick his neck out sooner or later and become a little bit more aggressive

— Tidal22 (@Tidal22) January 17, 2018

You’re lingering in a weird spot where you’ve done no real roster building, outside of adding youth, which is good, but complicated, as you need all that youth to mature in the same time frame. It’s harder than it appears, which is why TB, NJ and others took blended approach.

— Tidal22 (@Tidal22) January 17, 2018

You are operating on such a fine margin when a single decent move could make a huge difference to those odds. They’ve been tinkering with lineups for years. They lack the depth. Develop or commit. I’d rather see one or the other at this point, but that’s just me

— Tidal22 (@Tidal22) January 17, 2018

Kyle, I don’t know this guy from Adam, but we should give him a forum. He can be my backup if I have a conflict!

But he’s not alone. There are others out there. Other smart fans who see what the reality of the Flyers situation really is:

Talk about wasting an opportunity and announcing that the Flyers are not ready for prime time.

— Brett Littman (@BLitt1978) January 17, 2018

Brett brings up a legit concern. The Flyers have looked dreadful in the two most important games of January so far – a home game against Pittsburgh and the game last night in New York. Maybe it’s just Tuesdays that are an issue (I kid) or maybe the games against the teams they are chasing cause them to play a little too conservatively.

I know, they played a pretty good game against the Islanders last week, and while, yes, the Flyers are chasing the Islanders too, there’s something different about approaching the Islanders, who have a dreadful defense and horrible goaltending, and going against the Penguins – who are two-time defending Stanley Cup Champions, and going up against the Rangers in New York where the Flyers have won two games – in seven years!

The schedule doesn’t get easy. In fact, it’s daunting. A lot of good teams coming up.

The thing is with the Flyers, sometimes they outplay good teams (St. Louis, New Jersey in recent games), and sometimes, they get badly outplayed (as we’ve already discussed).

Which is what makes them, ultimately, a .500 team.

The Flyers are where Sixers fans didn’t want to see the Sixers before the great Process commenced.

They took a different path here, for sure. And this is technically supposed to be on the way back up in the process, however, if the Flyers miss the playoffs this season, it’ll be the first time they missed in back-to-back seasons in 25 years – which flies in the face of Process-understanding logic.

So, how do you get out of this repetitive circle of inconsistency and mediocrity?

Change.

Something has to change. I don’t care what it is. Make a trade. Fire a coach – even if it’s not the head guy.

(I’m a big Ian Laperriere fan. I actually think he’s a good coach and communicator. However, the penalty kill is abysmal. It might be the worst penalty kill unit in Flyers history. In the last 11 games, the Flyers have allowed 11 power play goals in just 31 attempts [PK% of 64.6]. That’s abysmal. They’re only slightly better for the whole season [74.5%] and something needs to change here pronto. So if it’s Lappy, it’s Lappy. But ignoring it is perplexing.)

Waive a veteran (Jori Lehtera anyone? He’s playing in all three phases of the game and hasn’t scored a goal and only has three assists in 26 games this season).

Do something.

Otherwise, this will be a repetitive spin cycle for another four months… both on the ice, and on this blog.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat – Same Old, Same Old After Rangers 5, Flyers 1 published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv

[lorrainecparker]

ART OF THE CUT with the editing team for Transformers: The Last Knight

Art of the Cut takes a step into the epic – not just with the film we’re discussing – but because to cover the editing of Michael Bay’s Transformers: The Last Knight, we spoke to four editors in three separate interviews. The exciting thing for readers of Art of the Cut is that when you get six top editors on a single picture, they all learn from each other in ways that are impossible without working on the same footage and with the same director. Those important lessons are at the core of this Art of the Cut.

The six editors listed as “editors” are Roger Barton (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales), Adam Gerstel (Star Trek Into Darkness, Previs editor), Debra Neil-Fisher (The Hangover), John Refoua (Olympus Has Fallen) , Mark Sanger (Gravity), and Calvin Wimmer (13 Hours). We had the opportunity to speak to all of them except Barton and Wimmer.

HULLFISH: What are the challenges of working with so many editors or are there only advantages?

SANGER: For me – and I’m not just saying this because they were all really good people to work with – there were no real challenges individually. The challenges as a group were that Michael would often have us working on sections that would overlap. And we would have to communicate all the time to ensure that we weren’t wasting time doubling up. We had to ensure that we were always aware of what the other editors were working on (and what they had already done) because often we found that when I had been cutting one version of a scene three weeks beforehand and so when Adam would go in and be looking at that same scene three weeks later, I would check what he had done and then go back to him and say, “Hey, you know, when I was going through your version, I found this moment that was of no use to me in my version, but seeing what you’ve done, take a look at it.” We were collaborating on scenes even when one of use was assigned to a different scene. We would peek our head around the corner and say, “Hey, take a look at this shot.” It was really challenging just to ensure that we never trod on each other’s shoes. The benefits are endless because due to our schedule restrictions you could never make a movie of this size with this volume of material without several collaborative editors all working at the same time.  It’s an impossibility.

REFOUA: None of us, except Roger, had worked on a movie with so many other editors before, so it took a while for us to figure out how we were going to do this and what does Michael (director, Michael Bay) want?  Eventually, you settle into a rhythm and you really have to put your ego on hold because a scene that you work on — Michael, likes to move scenes around from editor to editor.  He just wants editors to try different things and eventually he’ll say, “I like that one from this guy…This part from that guy.” So that took a little getting used to.

GERSTEL: What was great is after you put a scene together, you get to see somebody else cut the same scene and it really brings to light a different way that you hadn’t thought about. And so the next time you go to cut a scene in the film that may be similar you’re already now thinking of two different way of doing it. It really expanded your view because you’ve seen so many versions of the scenes while also  having an intimate knowledge of what footage was there to put them together. You knew what challenges you had when cutting them and you see how somebody else dealt with those same challenges. It’s quite a learning experience.

NEIL-FISHER: It was fun actually. It was great to see How each of us approached the material differently. Learning from each other was really awesome. Especially for me. I don’t work as often on action pictures so it was really fun to see everybody’s versions on those scenes. I was fascinated by how many versions you can do of an action scene. How exciting and interesting each one was. And then moving on from here I take that with me and use it on the next thing I’m working on.

GERSTEL: Exactly. And this was a complicated story. There’s a lot in there. It has a lot of depth, a lot of layers. And so there was constant conversation about how best to structure it. Michael loved to intercut and he also is not tied to the script so everything is up for grabs and we were always trying new ideas. We would sit, all of us in the room and just talk about what was the best way to put a scene together or put a sequence together. So it wasn’t just always one person taking a stab and then another person taking a stab. There were many times when we were all just discussing it together. Almost like a writers room for editors.

HULLFISH: Every couple of years I go to this thing called Editors Retreat, and one of the great things about that is just getting a chance to spend time with colleagues, talking about the art and techniques and struggles and geeking about technology with someone else who cares.

REFOUA: There’s something about editors. We’re all at a certain wavelength. I like editors. They’re my favorite people actually. On Transformers we would all talk to each other a lot. And when Michael handed off your scene to someone else, it was interesting to see what that editor would do with the same material. I respected every one of the other editors. They’re all accomplished.  Sometimes the scene would pass through several other editors and then come back to you. I was always very curious to get into the details of what other editors had done and I really enjoyed being surprised with cuts they had made. There was a lot of camaraderie between all of us.

GERSTEL: It was definitely was a collaborative process. We really worked well together.

HULLFISH: At one point there were seven editors on the show. Tell me a little bit about how it worked. How were scenes divvied up?

GERSTEL: We would get all the dailies in and Michael would talk about the dailies with us and about what he saw in a scene. The way that Michael works is not traditional: “It was not – You take this scene. You take this scene. That’s your scene. That’s mine. Never shall the two meet.” When we got dailies it was “who wanted to take what” unless Michael had a specific request for someone to cut something, which would happen, but for the most part, we would divvy up the dailies based on what we were interested in cutting that day. Michael would give notes and say, “OK I like this version. OK, John, now you take a stab at it. OK, Mark, now you take a stab at it. Deb, you take a stab at it.” Everybody cut everything. So really, by the end of it, we had all cut every scene. There had been a version of every scene that every editor cut.

NEIL-FISHER: And it leads you to be quite inventive because maybe you would have approached it the same way the other person did, but now you were challenged to come up with a new version. It definitely made for an interesting challenge.

HULLFISH: So even though you thought, “Yeah, that’s how I would cut it. It’s perfect,” you couldn’t just say, “I’m going to leave it.” Right?

GERSTEL: Michael shoots so much, so there’s a wealth of footage to use. And for every scene that he shot there were five scenes that could be cut from it. So it definitely took a team to put this footage together. He shot three million feet of film on this one. Just going through that amount of footage – no one person can do it and come up with the best version. You really need a collaborative effort.

HULLFISH: Were there advantages to just seeing the way other people approached the same material? Very rarely do editors get a chance to see what somebody else would do with the same material.

SANGER: Yeah I couldn’t agree more. The greatest thing about the group that we had is that there were no egos. When you have that volume of material there are hundreds of different ways of putting the movie together. All we were concerned with was getting Michael’s vision onto the big screen, and that meant looking at each other’s work.

What I find even most fascinating was seeing how other editors work. John Refoua would always be very fascinated by my slow and archaic way of working and was always telling me, Why don’t you do it THIS way?” and would show me some hotkey that would get me through a process that I’ve been doing for 16 years, but he’d show me something that would take half the time.

Another gratifying aspect would be sitting down with these experienced editors and seeing them make the same habitual mistakes with their processes that you make and getting some relief from the fact that it’s not just you. The daily craft technical process: I found that quite useful watching how the other guys work.

HULLFISH: Talk to me a little bit about your approach. When you’ve got that much dailies for a specific scene did you have to approach it differently than maybe a more standard coverage?

Megatron in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

SANGER: I like to do it organically depending upon the style of the director.  All directors shoot differently so I actively avoid setting myself a particular way of working. That’s part of the fun of going into a new project with a new director: the way they shoot determines how I will assemble. But there is one key area that I won’t change and that’s how I get my assistants to prep the material only up to a certain level.  Then beyond that, I will prep it myself because that’s how I learn the dailies.

The late and very great Jim Clark always used to mark up his own scripts, rather than use the script supervisor’s version. He would watch the dailies and mark up his own script as he learned them each day. Many of the old school British editors did things that same way. I was only their apprentice at the time but I’m proud to have learned from their wisdom and so what I do is my own version of that. 

Some directors will shoot very quick takes while others leave the camera running for fifteen minutes at a time. I will adapt how I break down my dailies depending on how the shoot went.

With Michael Bay, you might get 10 hours of dailies for a single scene, and when that comes in you think, “How on earth am I going to get him an assembly by the end of the day?” I decided that 95 percent of my day would be spent assessing and breaking down the dailies. Then, as I was doing it I was developing a mental structure of how I was going to put that scene together. I work fast and make notes as you go. And then at the very last minute, I cut the scene and got it uploaded to him for wrap. You physically can’t go through 10 hours of material and then spent five hours editing. But you can go through 10 hours of material methodically and understand all the dailies and then put together a version at the end of the day that is solid.

That’s just what I did, the other editors have their own processes. But we all adapted to Michael’s process and combined it with our own and all were based on necessity due to the volume of material that we receive each day.

I create an old-fashioned KEM roll of all of the dailies for a scene then what I’ll do is I’ll then go on and mark up — particularly on a movie like this when there are so many different variations of the lines — I will go in and mark up the same moment even though they may say different lines — I’ll mark up the same moment with the same coloured marker for instance within the KEM roll and then what that means is you can then go through and see every different delivery and performance for any given version of that moment. Once I mark all those up I then sort my markers in my marker bin by color and I know that all the white ones have that moment I’m looking for I just click click click and I see every different iteration of that moment.

Left to right: Laura Haddock as Viviane Wembly and Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: I love it! I do something very similar but it takes me up longer so I might have to adapt your methodology!

SANGER: It takes a while to prep.

HULLFISH: My methodology is to take the KEM roll and then break the edits up into those same sections, but I’ll actually re-edit them in order so all of the set-ups for the first 7-8 seconds of a scene then the second 7-8 seconds so that you can play it as a sequence. So you take the KEM roll and use markers so you can jump from marker to marker to marker.

SANGER: Basically it means that you can leave your KEM roll intact. You can be virtually jumping to those moments throughout the same roll. If you’ve got a scene with three takes, it’s not worth doing because you can just go to the bin and open the takes you want. But if you’ve got multiple variations or if you are looking for specific moments. For instance, on Gravity, all those breaths that you hear are selected and edited together. Sometimes it was Sandra’s performance from beginning to end, sometimes if we needed to change the structure of the scene, then we’d need to edit Sandra’s performance and while we always honored her original performance, if we were making a change to the scene that meant that we would be trying something new, then I would need to be able to go in and access individual breaths. And those are all marked up. That gives you a lot more flexibility.

Left to right: Optimus Prime and Bumblebee in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: I love that technique. I might have to adopt that. You really have to set your ego aside a little bit when you’re working with that many editors. Plus, Michael is just randomly taking “your” scene and giving it to another editor… that would be hard, I’d think.

SANGER: No, I don’t think it is. For me, that was freeing because normally as an editor you have the whole movie on your shoulders, whereas with Michael there is one clear leader on the film who is managing everything so when you sign on you know that editorially you’re going to be bouncing ideas back and forth between everybody else. And for me, we were sharing a burden. It’s a huge epic movie and to be able to share that burden between a bunch of like-minded individuals was a pleasure. The trick is that you know going in that’s what it’s going to be like. I think if you had an ego going in and you turned up and worked with a bunch of guys it just wouldn’t work because it was a well-oiled machine.

REFOUA: Sometimes I have selects and sometimes I don’t. Michael does his own selects and sends them to us but he says, “You are not restricted to these.” You get a good idea of what he wants in a scene by those selects. Michael shoots a lot of footage and a lot of really cool shots. There are not one or two shots that I think, “I have got to use these.” There are tens of cool shots for each scene. The dailies themselves are just gorgeous. Every shot!  When I´m watching the dailies it´s a constant: “Wow this is a great shot! That’s a great shot!”  Basically, my approach is to just dive in and go down a whole bunch of roads and then back up and do another version and another version and another version. Eventually, I get to something I want to show him. I really like to sleep on a scene though. Sometimes on this movie, I had to do it quickly.  Usually, I like to go home and look at the scene the next day.

Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: Me too.

REFOUA: Michael shoots everything live. All the explosions are live. All the smoke is live and the human stunts are live.  What we have is a bunch of plates with explosions, smoke, and stunts in them. Our main challenge, in action scenes, was trying to figure out: what’s supposed to happen here? We would talk amongst the editors and say, “I think this is supposed to happen here. And I think this shot’s for that. And a lot of times, Michael would say, “That shot isn’t for that spot!” or he’d say, “That’s cool! I can use this. Yeah, this is a good place for this shot.”

NEIL-FISHER: I definitely went through each scene looking from a specific point of view. If I was starting the scene fresh, I would look through the film and pulled selects of what I thought were the pieces that would work for me. I went through the dailies and found pieces that were going to aid my version of that scene.

HULLFISH: John mentioned that Michael will create his own selects reels. Was it weird using somebody else’s selects?

GERSTEL: No not at all. They were just suggestions from him. You didn’t have to take it as final. It was just, “Here’s what Michael pulled as his options.” Often, they were the same thing we would have pulled or a slightly different version. And sometimes we even shared each other’s selects.

Mark Wahlberg as Cade Yeager in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

SANGER: The selects reels were great at giving you some idea as to what’s in his head.  The material was always very usable and often varied in style, tone, and performance.  As an editor that can allow for infinite possibilities from the material. So Michael goes through and he makes the modern day equivalent of a process I truly miss – the lunchtime dailies screening, where the editor would sit next to the director, watch dailies and hear just what he or she was thinking. Michael doesn’t have time to sit down and go through things in depth because his schedule is so frenetic, but he knows his material precisely from the shoot and skims through, supplying his favorite moments.

He has an amazing database-like brain. He knows every shot in the movie based on which day he shot it.  After you’ve assembled it you’ll have a preliminary conversation about where to take it from there. But it’s imperative you get that select reel before you start the scene because, without it, you would be lost at sea, you could be creating an infinite number of different movies due to the sheer volume of usable material.

HULLFISH: Some editors like to watch dailies backward to forward. I would think that with Michael Bay you need to be watching from beginning to end because you’re watching the scene evolve.

SANGER: Absolutely right. Well observed. The scene is often improvised. And so you need to watch the day to understand how Michael’s thoughts evolve across its course because take one is often very different from take five. What’s happening is everybody is warming up: the camera guys, Michael, the actors… and there’s a momentum that is achieved by take five, and you know that invariably he’s got to where he wants to be by that take. But that doesn’t mean to say that he won’t want to use moments from take three. Michael isn’t building from one to ten and then sticking with how he found the scene be at 10. What you’ll find is that he’s going on a journey with every scene and he gets to a point where he feels between one and ten he’s got everything that he wants. Many directors out there, you know that you can use the last of each of the set ups and that would be their favorite. With Michael, it will be anything at all across all takes of the scene. But you have to understand how his brain process worked.

Bumblebee in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: Michael’s got a very specific style. Everyone recognizes him as a very distinctive director. Does that make it difficult or interesting or present challenges to an editor when you’re presented with this amazing Michael Bay shot that has to be put in this specific spot?

REFOUA: He likes his shots and he fights for them and he wants them in and sometimes we have to rearrange a scene just to get that shot in so that it makes sense. And Michael does have a style. 

GERSTEL: Every shot is like that for sure. And that’s the challenge: there’s so much good material. You have to pace it. You can’t make every shot the big Michael Bay shot. So you have to pick which one works the best and will service the scene and story. It’s a challenge of too much good stuff.

SANGER: On any other movie, you’d know, “Oh, that’s the key shot in the scene.” But on a Michael Bay movie, it’s just like any other shot. And as you start to watch the rest of the shots in the dailies, you start to understand what’s in his head. When you then see the combination of his other selects you then get a better idea of what the scene needs to be and as John says, every single one of those shots will in itself be a little mini masterpiece.

NEIL-FISHER: And he does so many of his effects ��practical” there’s a lot of explosions that are practical, car flips and etc that are done on set and then you’re adding all the robots in later. He shoots a lot of great angles of these practical effects and you have to figure out what will be the best plate for the robots. What would look coolest when ILM adds the robots in. It makes for really complicated choices.

Left to right: Mini-Strafe, Mini-Slug, Isabela Moner as Izabella and Mini-Grimlock in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: Mark, does Michael’s distinct style restrict you or free you as an editor?

SANGER: Freed by it!  I’ve never seen dailies like it. Because of Michael’s back catalog, you immediately have a good sense of the moments he’ll want to use there. You know specifically that he wouldn’t necessarily go with a moment that his other contemporaries might choose. You get to the point where you think, “I know that Michael will want that moment. Because at that moment that character’s turning around and the light is hitting his face at THIS point, and I know that I can use that specifically at this moment. There is a shorthand that we all developed because Michael’s style is a known quantity. And that really does help. That gives you that broad foundation to your initial cut. Knowing Michael’s style and having the privilege of being able to emulate it on your first cut and then collaborate with him on your second and third cut is a joy.

HULLFISH: I figured that with the budget of the movie and with Michael Bay there would be a huge amount of footage. What is the solution to that? How do you deal with that much footage?

REFOUA: Michael likes to see a scene cut and then he’ll react. He shoots a lot even for the visual effects sequences.  On this movie I learned, even more than on any other movie before, to just put my ego away.

Left to right: Sir Anthony Hopkins as Sir Edmound Burton and Hot Rod in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

GERSTEL: I’ve never seen more cameras on a shoot. We had something like twenty-six camera bodies. There were setups where there were several cameras rolling. They were all different and you’d really have to just go through it especially on the effects-heavy material. You wouldn’t get many takes, but they were really, really well covered.

HULLFISH: And did you guys do any multi grouping or grouping of cameras in multi-cam?

GERSTEL: We really didn’t and some of the reason is that not all of the cameras are rolling at the same time.

HULLFISH: People prepare their bins sometimes in special ways where they’ll put a multi-group in and then put the two cameras that form the multi-group above it.

GERSTEL: Mickey Mouse ears.

HULLFISH: So that brings me to another question. You had to have a large number of editors using the same bins. So how did that work out? How did you guys come to a quorum on how bins were going to be arranged?

NEIL-FISHER: I was in a completely different building also. So even though we were sharing the same media we had to figure out ways to keep a master cut and do our own cuts and integrate them every day. So it was quite an elaborate process.

Cogman in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

GERSTEL: We were all very adaptable too. I kind of mold my process to whatever situation I’m in. So we all came up with the version of the bin that worked for everyone. There was no one who said, “I have to have all of my bins in thumbnail view with each row organized with all the takes in a column.” It wasn’t like that. Whatever was the most agreeable to everyone we just all worked with it.

SANGER: The scene bins were all shared but we had our own folder where you would go to the scene bin and take what you need and you go in your own folder and work privately with your own particular method. We all shared the same scene bins but for example, John would say to me, “There’s a really cool combination of shots of a scene that I was working on, and he would talk me through where it was in his folder. And basically, that folder would be what the Avid Project folder would be like on a John Refoua movie. And so there would be little sequence and you grab that from there and drag it across into your folder. So yes we’re all sharing the same dailies but we would work in our own areas and then supply our cut material back into the common area.

HULLFISH: And with so many editors working on the same scenes, did you have to come up with a common methodology for bin structure or how bins were laid out or did everybody do it differently? How did that work?

REFOUA: Michael likes to watch his dailies and there are a lot of bins set up for him and then for us.  Since everybody likes their bins different, they were organized in a more generic way that anybody could open up and see what was going on.

Bumblebee fights off a Sentinel in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: What was the methodology? How did you have the bins laid out?

REFOUA: We had an assistant go through, Eric Brodour, and that was his responsibility to get all of the scene bins and organize them by the script. Then he would put a little title card in there and the name of the title card would be the action that’s happening in the scene. And all pertinent clips would fit under that. That’s the way he did it and it seemed to make sense. Everybody was the least offended by it.

HULLFISH: So by title card, did he import a little JPEG that just said those words?

REFOUA: No. He’d just make a title card with the title tool in the Avid. It’s just black and you name it whatever it is that you want to be the name of the clip.  Sometimes he would use a lot of dashes to clearly mark the separation.

HULLFISH: I have done interviews with multiple people — I know the whole Star Trek team — and they would actually import JPEGs with gigantic words so that when you’re looking at Frame view you could read the organizational material. When you were re-cutting a scene that had already been cut by another editor, did you start from scratch or did you try to save some of it or not look at the previous edit?

REFOUA: We all had to deal with cutting each others’ scenes. I do the same thing on my own scenes. A month later you say, “Hey, is there a better way to do this?”.

Isabela Moner plays Izabella in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: It makes sense how you worked on individual scenes, but how did the editorial work when you got to the larger structural ideas of the overall movie?

REFOUA: Gradually the movie, as you put it together, it divides itself into sections. So Michael would say, “I want so and so to make a pass on this section. And I want so and so to try and shorten it and I want so and so to work on this thing that they do or I want somebody to check the jokes and make sure that we have the best jokes.” On Transformers, the editors became a team. We didn’t function as much as individuals but really the teamwork takes over. I had never been in that kind of situation to that extent, so that was cool and sometimes Michael would want three different versions of the same scene.

SANGER: He’ll look at scenes individually for a long time and then he might look at scenes assembled with a couple other scenes around them. But then we’ll start looking at things in reels. Instead of looking at those scenes within the reels for three or four weeks or four or five months in advance there’ll come a point where he’s happy with individual scenes then you’ll watch them in reels and when he’s happy with the reels, then you watch them in the movie. And so you kind of go in these much larger steps than many directors who would work on a scene by scene basis and then a reel by reel basis MUCH earlier on in the process. Michael works on a scene by scene basis for much longer and then makes these big leaps where we’re often watching the whole movie maybe on a Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. The changes that are going on within those five days are huge because with five editors you can get quite a lot happening in that amount of time. But it’s piece-meal for much longer at the beginning.

HULLFISH: That’s got the potential to just be a political nightmare but I’m glad that it worked out for you guys.

REFOUA: Really you have to put the politics away because you’re making a Michael Bay movie. You’re not making a John Refoua movie.

HULLFISH: That’s the quote of the day right there. 

Mark Wahlberg plays Cade Yeager in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: That’s cool. That’s awesome. One of the things that Debbie kind of alluded to was kind of having specialties, like Mark Sanger, came from a background in VFX. He was a VFX editor before he cut Gravity. Debbie came from all this place of doing a bunch of comedies. Did you find that people were specializing or asked to be specialists in certain areas?

NEIL-FISHER: Since I hadn’t worked with Michael prior to this, he saw what was on my resume and that was my introduction to him. So I understand why he sort of wanted to see what my take would be on the comedy scenes first. But eventually, once you get to know him we were all working on everything.

GERSTEL: I think you’re exactly right. Likewise, I started as a VFX editor and a lot of times I would be dealing with VFX-heavy sequences. But like Deb said, as soon as you get to know Michael more and there are more scenes to cut, we all had to jump in and all cut everything. So everyone mixed it up. I feel like each one of us had cut the entire movie and it became a real patchwork of all of our versions.

NEIL-FISHER: Versions of editing, but also versions of our thoughts. We spent a lot of time working on the story, honing the story, and making it make sense with Michael. He trusted all of us. He would have long discussions about what was working, what wasn’t and what we needed to work on story-wise, what we needed to work on pace-wise. It was a really collaborative effort and he was very interested in all of our opinions and what we all had to contribute.

SANGER: Michael had never worked with any of us before. There was a period at the beginning where each of us was brought on to handle a particular aspect of what he had planned in his head. And at that point, he was able to quickly see where our abilities lay. It was not compartmentalized in any way. Sometimes there were scenes where Michael was looking for somebody particular. There were certain reasons he picked each of us individually and initially we would be handed each of those moments and then over the course of the show everybody had a dip into every different scene.

Director/Executive Producer Michael Bay on the set of TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: Before your Best Editing Oscar win for Gravity, your background was as both an assistant editor and as a VFX editor. Did your time as a VFX editor help?

SANGER: If you look at my early resumé I jump from first assistant editor to VFX editor and then occasionally I’d do both simultaneously. This was out of an urge to work with different directors and a necessity to pay the bills rather than any particular passion for VFX.

This background knowledge does help from the point of view of understanding how you are limiting or benefiting the VFX supervisor with your editorial decisions.  For instance, there’s a scene in T5 where a character gets ejected out of a car as it transforms into an autobot. I cut it together one way and showed it to Michael and he said, “That’s not the way I directed it to work, but I really like it.” So I needed to make sure I checked in with Scott Farrar at ILM because if a director likes a scene cut one way but the dailies don’t accommodate for that to work during the VFX work, then as an editor you’d be responsible for creating a VFX shot that is subpar. It’s unfair to assume that the VFX guys must simply do anything that you dictate. There’s a constant line of communication that needs to be managed between the editor and VFX to achieve the best looking visual effects in the movie.

HULLFISH: Jonny Elwyn asked me what I learned from writing my Art of the Cut book and that’s my main takeaway: I needed to set my ego aside much more than I do in the edit room.

REFOUA: Yeah. By the way, you did a great job on that book. I have it. I like the format.

Director/Executive Producer Michael Bay on the set of TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: Well, thank you very much. Was Michael the arbiter of who started out with a scene or did you guys choose between you? Or a post-sup?

REFOUA: Sometimes Michael would say I want a certain editor to work on a specific scene because he felt that editor was stronger at this or that. For example, because Debra had done all these comedies, he would ask her to do certain comedy passes. But generally, we just picked between us what scenes we each wanted to do.  We all talked about the sequences and showed them to each other for feedback.  It was very good to hear what other editors had to say and have the chance to implement notes from colleagues before showing it to Michael.

HULLFISH: I can understand how four or five editors work on scenes, but then the story starts coming together as a whole… The movie starts coming together in sequence and reels and as one cohesive piece. How did the editors work when it got to that stage? Even though people are working on separate sequences you still have to look at the whole film and say, “What happens?”

REFOUA: Michael would look at the reels and say, “I want this to be faster. I want this to be slower.”  His notes just like anything else.  And we would also go through the movie on our own. I would look at a whole reel and say to the other editors, “Don’t you think we should do this?” or “Don’t you think we should do that?” There was a lot of back and forth amongst editorial.  We discussed things a lot. I don’t know if it’s the most efficient way to do it but it’s just the way we did it and it was rewarding because you engage other editors. And you get to see what they think and the ideas they come up with.

Optimus Prime in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

GERSTEL: We would watch a screening of the film and we would have a couple of pages of notes that we would go through. We would take sections of the movie to work on separately and put it all back together again.

NEIL-FISHER: We had an area in the Avid where we would put things in and we’d make sure that he saw it and we’d say, “Here’s my version. Here’s what I thought it should be.” We were always against the time pressure of when are we going to screen it next and what version of that scene he would prefer. So then we’d sit with him and go through our individual versions.

GERSTEL: We would have this version of the movie that was at the top of the project and we had a special bin and he would say, “This can go in… no, I want to work on this more… that can go in…”

HULLFISH: I’m really interested in that workflow. So at the top of the Avid project folder, there’s a specific bin for Michael to look at and then stuff would get moved from that bin into the main movie once it had been approved and chosen?

NEIL-FISHER: He literally wrote “PUT IN” next to that cut. And we had an amazing group of assistants that helped navigate through all this material and all these cuts and to keep them straight at all times because it could get quite confusing: what was current what wasn’t current. We kept his bin very current and we would archive all the old cuts because Michael would remember them and say, “You know the cut you did a couple of weeks ago?” He would ask for that again and we would have to go find it and our assistants knew exactly where that was.

HULLFISH: Beyond keeping 3 million feet of film and VFX organized, it’s enough of a nightmare just with one editor working through their own revisions.

GERSTEL: Also keeping in sync. three or four separate ISISes.

HULLFISH: Wow. So there were multiple ISISes in different locations?

GERSTEL: Yes. Michael has a home in Miami and a home in L.A. Both have an ISIS. We have an ISIS in the main building at Bay Films and there’s another in a separate building that Debra was in and while Michael was on location, shooting, there was an ISIS wherever he was plus when Mark was in London there was an ISIS there. In addition, Michael had a “travel Avid” which had a RAID with all the footage as well.

NEIL-FISHER: All of these had to be synced with each other and updated, including with all of the visual effects that were coming in. Every version of visual effects, every render, every everything had to be added because if Michael looked at something and something you did that required a render wasn’t there then he wouldn’t be able to see it. The assistants had to make sure all of that was up to date.

HULLFISH: I don’t want to think about the complexity of that syncing.

GERSTEL: The assistants were really rock stars. We had the best assistants to be able to handle all of that.

Director/Executive Producer Michael Bay on the set of TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: With one editor and one director you’ve kind of got a unified editorial vision and then the director can speak to that. You guys didn’t really have that because there were so many of you. What did that do to the film that there were so many editorial voices?

NEIL-FISHER: There were a lot of editorial opinions but I think the one editorial voice is Michael’s that we’re all serving. We all have opinions and ideas but we were obviously all focusing on what does Michael want, what is he looking for. As you do on any picture, work for the director. Figure out what his take is on this material and his vision and then help him reach that goal.

GERSTEL: He was the ultimate filter. Although we all had our own colors and our own opinions it all filtered through Michael. So it became a cohesive patchwork because he shaped it in the end so it didn’t fit into the puzzle until he put his stamp on it.

HULLFISH: Anything specific about collaborating with Michael that was informative to your own editorial style?

NEIL-FISHER: He’s just full of energy. He’s full of energy in his work and in life. And that’s something that carries through the whole process. All of us working together may have certain ways of working, but Michael drove this whole thing.

GERSTEL: I took away that there are so many different ways to look at something. I’ve never re-thought a scene so many times. It is always, “What can be the better version? … there’s always the better way to do it.

NEIL-FISHER: Yeah. keep on pushing the material.

GERSTEL: And this type of material is incredibly flexible. He really does anchor to practical photography, special effects, and the human characters. But at the same time, there’s quite a lot of room via the visual effects and the robots. So scenes can be really restructured and this film is the most flexible I’ve ever seen. So you can completely restructure. You can interweave them in all different ways. You are never tied to the first take. You’re never tied to the script. It was a great benefit. It’s also a huge challenge because the possibilities are almost limitless.

Director/Executive Producer Michael Bay on the set of TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: You mentioned that you had to use your imagination a lot on this especially where robots were concerned. And one of the things John mentioned to me that I thought was really interesting was that he used sound effects a lot of times to help him with his imagination whether it’s robot stomps or the sound of a robot transforming. Just the sound itself would help.

GERSTEL: Yeah. We have nothing visually. They don’t use any sort of temp comps. Michael has it all in his head. And in fact, putting something in there that’s not what’s in his head is more distracting. So sound was a huge, huge tool to pace the scene. I mean, how long does it take for the robot to fall down? We would have conversations about physics and so you would use sound to tell that story and be able to feel that it’s right because you don’t know what’s there until the visual effects come back.

HULLFISH: So no pre-viz or post-viz at all?

GERSTEL: Very, very little.

NEIL-FISHER: Sometimes Michael didn’t like the pre-viz or it wasn’t exactly as he’d imagined, so he’d rather it not be in.

GERSTEL: The scene had to be right before it got turned over to visual effects and that’s when you got animation.

SANGER: In the old days pre-vis was a necessity because the work all had to be budgeted prior to shoot and then strictly adhered to on set. Nowadays on the really big movies, I find directors often don’t stick to it so closely.  It has become more of a rough gauge.  Now when directors get to the set they know that there is some inspiration that  happens during shoot where they may want to change things and nowadays they have more of the ability to do that: for better or worse. Without pre-viz, you are often put in a position of having no dailies and being told, “Go cut a scene.” So with my VFX background, I can say, “I know what Michael will want” so I can edit something together using the previz as a foundation that will inform the visual effects team. So often you’re cutting together a framework that will inform what a sequence could ultimately be like and they’ll pick it up from there. You do have to have a great director like Michael in order to manage that. Because in the wrong hands what you get is laziness.

HULLFISH: Without the use of pre-viz or post viz were sound effects helping you to imagine the scene better and pace the scene?

SANGER: I don’t work that way. The first pass of the scene will be with the mute button pressed. I’ll cut the scene with no sound whatsoever. And then when I’m really happy with that I’ll bring the sound back in and I’ll listen to the dialogue and make any adjustments based on the dialogue. And frankly the sound effects and the music I put on frankly for the studio so they can see ultimately that it’s going to be a movie. Because we have those tools to do it and so we do. But for me, if a scene doesn’t work visually with no sound or dialogue… if you can’t play the scene through on mute without depending upon the sound and music to carry it then something’s wrong.

HULLFISH: Did you find that you were needing to recut stuff once animation came back?

GERSTEL: In fact, visual effects would come back and Michael would say, “Ignore the animation. What you see I’m not happy with it.” So you’re constantly recutting and going back to the fresh plates. Or an animator might come up with something that informs a whole new idea and now you’re going back to dailies to try to accommodate that idea.

Left to right: Isabela Moner plays Izabella and Jerrod Carmichael plays Jimmy in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: With so much action and VFX did you guys have to make a conscious effort to make or expand those moments of personal connection or understanding character?

NEIL-FISHER: It’s sort of built into the script, the personal moments for the characters. But it is a balance between those two things. And that’s certainly a Michael Bay movie.

HULLFISH: You were just talking about how malleable the scenes were so I was trying to figure out whether even outside of the script whether you were trying to make a conscious effort to say, “Oh my gosh, there’s so much action, we just need to have a moment of connection right here.”

GERSTEL: Just like any other film, we’re focusing on characters and whether that character is serving the film and whether their arc works.

NEIL-FISHER: How they’re motivated.

GERSTEL: Yeah. So all of those are certainly considerations, and because it is practically photographed film, it’s not like it’s ALL CG, there’s plenty of humans in it, and he also does a lot of ad libs too. So, a scene may be written in a certain way but he’s not tied to it. Especially on the comedy pieces, you get tons of different takes and ideas as Michael will let the actors just explore and come up with different ways.

HULLFISH: Would you like to speak to that ad-libbing, Deb?

NEIL-FISHER: You can see where Michael took the actors off on a tangent and it lent to a few different versions of the comedy. It expanded those moments and was fun to work on.

HULLFISH: On the score, I know Steve Jablonsky did all the previous movies. Did you guys stay in his musical universe or expand temp outside of his universe?

GERSTEL: He was actually on very early. Michael wanted to bring him on as early as he could. So he was providing us with actual score early on and temp music … Michael has a very, very specific ear for what he wants and you do stay in that world. Stay in that Steve Joblonsky/Hans Zimmer world.

NEIL-FISHER: And Michael did not want to use the old Transformers music.

GERSTEL: Yes. Stay in the “Steve” world MINUS Transformers. He wanted this to be a fresh take. This is not the fifth movie. It is more akin to a new version. We’re really delving into the history of Transformers. There’s a lot of new ideas in this movie. And so musically speaking he also wanted to kind of set it apart.

Left to right: Director/Executive Producer Michael Bay and Isabela Moner on the set of TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: So, no Transformers music but Steve Jablonsky music. Well, he’s got a big enough body of work.

GERSTEL: There was plenty to go to.

HULLFISH: Adam, you said there were so many re-cuts of scenes, so did you sometimes say, “Well, maybe I should just approach it differently from the beginning where I don’t approach it in the same way I did last time… whether that was using a selects reel or some other method?

GERSTEL: When I’m cutting a scene fresh from dailies I would do a selects reel, but if I was re-cutting I wouldn’t really go to a selects reel. I would go directly to dailies and work my way through it.

NEIL-FISHER: I tend to not look at other people’s cuts right away and then I cut a version and then go look to see how someone else approached it too. I tend to do what you’re saying which is to look at a scene myself and do a version and then I say, “So, what did everybody else do and what’s going to make it different.”

GERSTEL: I was on from day one of photography so I really did have a selects reel for every scene in the movie.

NEIL-FISHER: For me, it inspires a cut, going through the selects reel.

GERSTEL: The good moments — whether or not they go together — they’re always the good moments, then you figure out how to put them together.

HULLFISH: So, you guys would have multiple selects reels then I would guess. Even once a single editor cuts a selects reel you still make another version of it to boil it down a little bit.

HULLFISH: Did each person have their own assistant or were there just a couple of assistants?

REFOUA: There were five editors working and at one point there were up to seven editors but there were always four assistants.

Left to right: Mark Wahlberg and Director/Executive Producer Michael Bay on the set of TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: You mentioned that Michael delivers his own selects reels. Does he pull them himself or does he have an assistant that helps him?

REFOUA: No. He operates the Avid. He’ll go through the dailies himself and just build a reel and then send it to us. He doesn’t have to be precise. Sometimes he would actually play around with a scene and then say, “I played around with this. Can you fix it?”

NEIL-FISHER: And there were Michael’s selects on top of that.

GERSTEL: Dupe detection became a real friend. You would have just finished cutting and then: Oh, Michael’s got a selects reel ready!” So you would check it out to see what he thinks. So you could take his selects reel, throw it at the end of the sequence and then you get a little color light up on each repeated shot so you’d know if he also had it as a select.

HULLFISH: I had actually heard of somebody else doing the same thing with a director where the director would make a selects reel and they would use dupe detection to see how many of the selects made it to the scene that had been cut previously. Very interesting idea. It was a way for the director to visually see how on track the editor was with their own idea of the scene.

GERSTEL: He definitely had a very specific reason for picking things. So you have to really compare and find out why he picked something.

NEIL-FISHER: Plus you can discuss his selects with him intelligently when you do watch your version of a scene.

GERSTEL: “Speaking intelligently” is a good way to put it because after the end of a day Michael would say, “OK, what do you think about that? You can’t just say, “Oh, I thought it was great.” Because he’d say, “Why? Why was it great?” And he’d really want to discuss what the options are, why they’re good, and even how the could be better.

NEIL-FISHER: And what you liked, what stood out…

HULLFISH: How do sound effects change the pacing or rhythm of a scene?

NEIL-FISHER: I always cut with sound effects personally and present my cuts with sound effects and music, I just feel like that’s the better way to present the cut that I’m selling to whoever it is that I’m selling to. So it’s part of my workflow and we have a ton of sound effects loaded into the Avid. The sound team has worked with Michael for years and they are so on it from the beginning: any requests we have they were always right there with whatever we needed.

GERSTEL: I can’t tell if a scene is working until it has sound effects and music. It really helps you understand the pacing. I have to smooth sound out in general before I can even tell if a cut is working. So I’m always presenting a refined cut.

HULLFISH: Talk to me a little about sound effects. Do you like adding them yourself? Was there enough of an audio team that you didn’t have to worry about that?

REFOUA: On this one, I put in sound effects in the beginning or if a note required it. You have these plates of soldiers or stunt men rolling over, falling down, fighting, with explosions going on and then there’s supposed to be a robot that will be added later. The sound effects were how we sort of indicated the robot action before the animation passes would come in. Here’s the sound of a robot transforming. Here’s the sound of the robot walking. Once we got past that stage we had one assistant, Joe Galdo, who actually got a well-deserved associate editor credit, responsible for communicating to the sound department and to music and cutting in the sound effects and updating everything for sound and music. He was also the liaison between Michael, the editorial team and the sound department. Joe was fantastic. All of the assistants were fantastic. They worked crazy hours every day.

HULLFISH: Then there’s probably a VFX editor in there someplace I’m assuming in addition to the assistants.

REFOUA: The funny thing is I brought on a first that I’ve worked with before, Steve Bobertz. All of the assistants were in one room together and they sort of, among themselves, split up who’s going to do what and Steve, who’s been a first on many movies, took care of the visual effects. Actually, I think this time, his credit is VFX editor.

Left to right: Megatron and Josh Duhamel as Lennox in TRANSFORMERS: THE LAST KNIGHT, from Paramount Pictures.

HULLFISH: What about temp music? I know Steve Jablonsky did the score and he’d done scores for the previous movies. Did you guys try to stay within his musical universe?

REFOUA: Yeah. Fortunately, he’s done a lot of movies so we’d try to pick stuff from what he had done. 

HULLFISH: Did he provide additional cues that maybe he’d done that had never seen the light of day? Kind of like a stock a library of his own music or were you working just from the actual soundtracks.

REFOUA: His music editors gave us the tracks that were used in all the different movies, which is not something you can buy on a CD. We had access to all that stuff, which was very good.

HULLFISH: That’s nice. Was there a music editor on the movie?

REFOUA: At a certain point, we had a few music editors constantly changing and modifying the score to reflect Michael´s notes.

HULLFISH: What was that interaction like. Were you cutting stuff in or were you just leaving it to somebody else?

REFOUA: We always cut music and sound effects in ourselves. Sometimes, if I didn’t have time, I’d ask Joe, “Hey, can you put some music to this?” And since he’s worked with Michael for 10 years, he was very familiar with the kind of stuff Michael would like so he would do the work, if he had the time.  Once we started screening the movie for Michael and ourselves, the music editors and Joe took over.

HULLFISH: Some of the folks that started out on cutting on film say they kind of miss the days when you could not have to stick a temp score in or that your picture cut needed some imagination for a studio executive to watch to know that was going to work.

NEIL-FISHER: That might be of a time when people didn’t do it and it was not expected but I have just always cut that way. I always assume that people are not going to use their imagination well enough to understand the cut. Maybe it’s because I started working in commercials and we always had to sell the client on the cut that I just always did it from the beginning. It’s just the way I work.

GERSTEL: Likewise for me. I have never worked in a world where it was an option to NOT cut in sound effects and music.

HULLFISH: I’ve talked to now almost 100 editors. There are still directors who will wait all the way until the first audience screening before they want to hear music in a cut. I think it’s rare for most people, but it does still happen. Everybody needs to have that music in there at least by the time you start doing screenings, but the director’s cut sometimes you get all the way through a director’s cut without temp music. Anything else that you’re going to take away or some revelation about editing that you learned from this group of editors?

GERSTEL: I just think that this was such a collaborative process. I enjoyed working with my fellow editors so greatly. We all really had great relationships. I just take away this really wonderful experience of working as a team.

NEIL-FISHER: Yeah, a non-competitive, collaborative effort and really a great experience.

HULLFISH: Did you learn any new techniques or ideas from your fellow editors?

REFOUA: Yes. You know that was an interesting thing, because a scene I’d worked on, someone else would work on and afterward you could see: “That’s why he did it this way.” We talked about things all the time. There were four of us for a while and then five of us and we talked about what we thought Michael wants and deal with the notes that Michael had given us and try to interpret them. So that was really good. There was constant communication between all of us.

HULLFISH: Can you think of a big takeaway to your editorial style or approach to anything that you got from one of our your fellow editors or from working with Michael Bay.

SANGER: The list is endless. It really is endless because the collaborative efforts of the whole team, you could not help but soak up editorial styles, technical shortcuts, habits that the other guys picked up. Certainly in the case of the editors just being in the same room as them I don’t think it’s arrogant to say that we were all learning off each other. And that was joyous. Take away from working with Michael? Again the list is endless. It was very interesting to see his method of how he goes through his decision-making process of what to use and what to disregard. Just seeing how a director with such a huge back catalog of movies makes his decisions. His decision-making process is something that so many people will never get the opportunity to see.

These three interviews – more than 10,000 words were all transcribed with SpeedScriber – in just minutes.

To read more interviews in the Art of the Cut series, check out THIS LINK and follow me on Twitter @stevehullfish

The first 50 Art of the Cut interviews have been curated into a book, “Art of the Cut: Conversations with Film and TV editors.” The book is not merely a collection of interviews, but was edited into topics that read like a massive, virtual roundtable discussion of some of the most important topics to editors everywhere: storytelling, pacing, rhythm, collaboration with directors, approach to a scene and more. Oscar nominee, Dody Dorn, ACE, said of the book: “Congratulations on putting together such a wonderful book.  I can see why so many editors enjoy talking with you.  The depth and insightfulness of your questions makes the answers so much more interesting than the garden variety interview.  It is truly a wonderful resource for anyone who is in love with or fascinated by the alchemy of editing.” In CinemaEditor magazine, Jack Tucker, ACE, writes: “Steve Hullfish asks questions that only an editor would know to ask. … It is to his credit that Hullfish has created an editing manual similar to the camera manual that ASC has published for many years and can be found in almost any back pocket of members of the camera crew. … Art of the Cut may indeed be the essential tool for the cutting room. Here is a reference where you can immediately see how our contemporaries deal with the complexities of editing a film. … Hullfish’s book is an awesome piece of text editing itself. The results make me recommend it to all. I am placing this book on my shelf of editing books and I urge others to do the same.”

The post ART OF THE CUT with the editing team for Transformers: The Last Knight appeared first on ProVideo Coalition.

First Found At: ART OF THE CUT with the editing team for Transformers: The Last Knight

[shapesnnsizes]

Coconut Oil Is Still Healthy, Despite AHA Claims

After reviewing four major studies, the American Heart Association (AHA) recently issued a “presidential advisory” stating that saturated fats, including coconut oil, should be avoided, recommending that they be replaced with polyunsaturated fats like canola oil, soybean oil, and corn oil (1). A presidential advisory is a report initiated by the AHA president to “address a topic of special current importance.” While this has been all over the news, the report is really nothing new. In fact, the AHA has consistently recommended the reduction in dietary saturated fat to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease since 1961 (2, 3). I’ve previously written an extensive report on why saturated fat does not cause heart disease. I’m not going to rehash all of that in this article, so be sure to check it out if you haven’t. Instead, this article will zero in on the issues with this particular advisory and focus on the coconut oil claims in particular.

Cherry-picking studies is effective

There have been at least 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in recent years that have not found a clear link between saturated fat consumption and heart disease. The authors themselves note in the introduction:

“In the past few years, meta-analyses of observational studies and randomized clinical trials have come to discordant conclusions about the relationship between dietary saturated fat and risk of CVD” (1).

They then proceed to pick four core studies (4, 5, 6, 7) from these meta-analyses that they deemed to be most “well performed.” This is certainly not the first time that cherry-picking has occurred in the history of saturated fat or nutrition research. You might recall the famous “seven countries study” in which Ancel Keys, father of the saturated fat–heart disease hypothesis, picked seven of 22 countries to demonstrate an initial relationship between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease (8). Furthermore, the publication dates of these four core studies were 1969, 1970, 1968, and 1979! The authors report that no definitive large-scale clinical trials have been conducted since then, which is true, but this represents a major public health issue. If we continue to pull up the results of the same old studies year after year to shape today’s nutrition recommendations, the AHA will continue to promote 40-year-old nutritional science for the next several decades.

Worried about the AHA’s statement on saturated fat? Don’t be.

Industry influence in nutritional sciences

Unfortunately, nutritional sciences are rife with industry influence, and the AHA is no exception. While the AHA is a nonprofit organization, it receives significant funds from industry leaders. Representatives from companies like Nestlé, Coca-Cola, The Sugar Association, the United Soybean Board, and the US Canola Association also serve on its “Industry Nutrition Advisory Panel.” From the AHA website:

“The American Heart Association’s Industry Nutrition Advisory Panel (INAP) is a unique, strategic relationship between the American Heart Association’s Nutrition Committee and food industry leaders. In existence since 1995, INAP provides a platform for open dialogue, sharing of information and planning cooperative programs in areas of mutual interest such as diet and nutrition and cardiovascular disease” (emphasis mine).

You can easily imagine how a few pushy industry leaders might be able to influence AHA recommendations.

The difference between statistical significance and clinical significance

Furthermore, in interpreting the findings of any study used to inform human health, it’s important to distinguish between statistical significance and clinical significance (9). In statistics, we say that a result is significant when the observed difference between treatment groups is extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance. For example, one group might have slightly higher cholesterol than another group. Clinical significance, on the other hand, is the practical importance of the observed difference in treatments. For example, does this difference actually cause heart disease? In this case, the authors looked at clinical significance by assessing the number of actual cardiovascular events, but only for a handful of studies. The remainder of their report was built around changes in LDL cholesterol, which is only a risk factor for heart disease. They present several studies that observed changes in cholesterol ranging from 0.6 to 2.1 mg/dL after altering saturated fat intake. Yes, this is statistically significant, but can that tiny change in cholesterol make a difference in the number of clinical outcomes? Consider the variability of cholesterol tests. One research group took repeated blood samples from the same people for cholesterol analysis over several days, without any intervention. They found that LDL cholesterol fluctuated more than 20 percent (about 17 mg/dL) in 95 percent of subjects and more than 40 percent in 45 percent of subjects (10). In other words, you could get your cholesterol tested today and be told you are in perfect health and get tested tomorrow and be recommended statins. LDL-Cholesterol versus LDL-Particle Number Additionally, the AHA report only discusses LDL cholesterol (LDL-C). One study found that of 136,905 coronary artery disease hospitalizations, almost half of patients presented with normal LDL-C (11). The number of LDL particles (LDL-P) is a much stronger predictor of cardiovascular disease risk than LDL cholesterol, and it’s possible to have normal LDL-C and high LDL-P (12, 13, 14). Preliminary studies comparing lipid profiles after subjects followed a low-carb, high-fat diet and a high-carb, low-fat diet suggest that saturated fat does not increase LDL-P (15).

Why we can’t rely on animal models to study lipid metabolism

The report next turns to a number of studies suggesting that saturated fat feeding in rodent and primate models results in the development of atherosclerosis. However, there are major differences in lipid metabolism between humans and rodents, and even between humans and nonhuman primates. This is a major problem with animal nutrition research. This book chapter provides an excellent review on the evolution of human lipid metabolism:

“To accommodate the high energy demands of our large brains, humans consume diets that are of much higher quality (i.e., more dense in energy and fat) than those of our primate kin (Leonard and Robertson, 1992, 1994). On average, we consume higher levels of dietary fat than other primates (Popovich et al., 1997).” The need for an energy-rich diet also appears to have shaped our ability to detect and metabolize high-fat foods. […] compared to large-bodied apes, humans have an enhanced capacity to digest and metabolize higher fat diets. Our gastrointestinal (GI) tract, with its expanded small intestine and reduced colon, is quite different from those of chimpanzees and gorillas and is consistent with the consumption of a high-quality diet with large amounts of animal food (Milton, 1987). Finch and Stanford (2004) have recently shown that the evolution of key “meat-adaptive” genes in hominid evolution were critical to promoting enhanced lipid metabolism necessary for subsisting on diets with greater levels of animal material” (16).

Simply put, we need to be very careful about translating results from animal models of lipid metabolism to humans.

Paleolithic diet improves lipid profile and CVD risk

It’s also worth noting that field studies of 20th-century hunter–gatherers found them to be largely free of cardiovascular disease symptoms and risk factors. This is despite consuming a diet that is 28 to 58 percent fat by energy, with as much as half of this coming from saturated fat (17). Several studies have shown benefits of a modern Paleolithic-type diet on lipid profile and cardiovascular risk factors (18, 19, 20). However, most of these studies are using a Paleolithic diet that is actually lower in saturated fat than the control group. Because of this, I turned to ketogenic diets to determine the influence of very-high-fat diets on cardiovascular risk. In a study published in the Journal of Nutrition, after six weeks of a ketogenic diet, fasting serum total and LDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL were unchanged, but HDL cholesterol tended to increase (21). This suggests a more favorable lipid profile, though due to small sample size and short duration, clinical significance could not be determined.

The proven benefits of coconut oil

Bringing our discussion back to coconut oil, the claims made in the AHA report simply don’t stand up to research. It appears the authors performed the following logic:

Premise: 4 core studies from the 1960s and ’70s → saturated fat causes heart disease

Premise: coconut oil has a high content of saturated fat

Conclusion: coconut oil causes heart disease and should be avoided

This logic relies on some faulty assumptions, namely that saturated fat causes heart disease (it doesn’t) and that all saturated fats are the same (they’re not). Most importantly, studies have shown that coconut oil:

Improves blood lipid profile (22, 23)

Reduces weight circumference (24, 25)

Is anti-inflammatory (26)

Is antimicrobial (27)

May promote weight loss (28)

May improve antioxidant status (29, 30)

May protect against Alzheimer’s disease (31, 32)

So, to sum up, don’t stress about eating coconut oil. The stress is probably more likely to give you heart disease! Did you like this article? Will you continue to eat coconut oil? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

[paleorecipecookbook]

Coconut Oil Is Still Healthy, Despite AHA Claims

After reviewing four major studies, the American Heart Association (AHA) recently issued a “presidential advisory” stating that saturated fats, including coconut oil, should be avoided, recommending that they be replaced with polyunsaturated fats like canola oil, soybean oil, and corn oil (1). A presidential advisory is a report initiated by the AHA president to “address a topic of special current importance.” While this has been all over the news, the report is really nothing new. In fact, the AHA has consistently recommended the reduction in dietary saturated fat to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease since 1961 (2, 3). I’ve previously written an extensive report on why saturated fat does not cause heart disease. I’m not going to rehash all of that in this article, so be sure to check it out if you haven’t. Instead, this article will zero in on the issues with this particular advisory and focus on the coconut oil claims in particular.

Cherry-picking studies is effective

There have been at least 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in recent years that have not found a clear link between saturated fat consumption and heart disease. The authors themselves note in the introduction:

“In the past few years, meta-analyses of observational studies and randomized clinical trials have come to discordant conclusions about the relationship between dietary saturated fat and risk of CVD” (1).

They then proceed to pick four core studies (4, 5, 6, 7) from these meta-analyses that they deemed to be most “well performed.” This is certainly not the first time that cherry-picking has occurred in the history of saturated fat or nutrition research. You might recall the famous “seven countries study” in which Ancel Keys, father of the saturated fat–heart disease hypothesis, picked seven of 22 countries to demonstrate an initial relationship between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease (8). Furthermore, the publication dates of these four core studies were 1969, 1970, 1968, and 1979! The authors report that no definitive large-scale clinical trials have been conducted since then, which is true, but this represents a major public health issue. If we continue to pull up the results of the same old studies year after year to shape today’s nutrition recommendations, the AHA will continue to promote 40-year-old nutritional science for the next several decades.

Worried about the AHA’s statement on saturated fat? Don’t be.

Industry influence in nutritional sciences

Unfortunately, nutritional sciences are rife with industry influence, and the AHA is no exception. While the AHA is a nonprofit organization, it receives significant funds from industry leaders. Representatives from companies like Nestlé, Coca-Cola, The Sugar Association, the United Soybean Board, and the US Canola Association also serve on its “Industry Nutrition Advisory Panel.” From the AHA website:

“The American Heart Association’s Industry Nutrition Advisory Panel (INAP) is a unique, strategic relationship between the American Heart Association’s Nutrition Committee and food industry leaders. In existence since 1995, INAP provides a platform for open dialogue, sharing of information and planning cooperative programs in areas of mutual interest such as diet and nutrition and cardiovascular disease” (emphasis mine).

You can easily imagine how a few pushy industry leaders might be able to influence AHA recommendations.

The difference between statistical significance and clinical significance

Furthermore, in interpreting the findings of any study used to inform human health, it’s important to distinguish between statistical significance and clinical significance (9). In statistics, we say that a result is significant when the observed difference between treatment groups is extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance. For example, one group might have slightly higher cholesterol than another group. Clinical significance, on the other hand, is the practical importance of the observed difference in treatments. For example, does this difference actually cause heart disease? In this case, the authors looked at clinical significance by assessing the number of actual cardiovascular events, but only for a handful of studies. The remainder of their report was built around changes in LDL cholesterol, which is only a risk factor for heart disease. They present several studies that observed changes in cholesterol ranging from 0.6 to 2.1 mg/dL after altering saturated fat intake. Yes, this is statistically significant, but can that tiny change in cholesterol make a difference in the number of clinical outcomes? Consider the variability of cholesterol tests. One research group took repeated blood samples from the same people for cholesterol analysis over several days, without any intervention. They found that LDL cholesterol fluctuated more than 20 percent (about 17 mg/dL) in 95 percent of subjects and more than 40 percent in 45 percent of subjects (10). In other words, you could get your cholesterol tested today and be told you are in perfect health and get tested tomorrow and be recommended statins. LDL-Cholesterol versus LDL-Particle Number Additionally, the AHA report only discusses LDL cholesterol (LDL-C). One study found that of 136,905 coronary artery disease hospitalizations, almost half of patients presented with normal LDL-C (11). The number of LDL particles (LDL-P) is a much stronger predictor of cardiovascular disease risk than LDL cholesterol, and it’s possible to have normal LDL-C and high LDL-P (12, 13, 14). Preliminary studies comparing lipid profiles after subjects followed a low-carb, high-fat diet and a high-carb, low-fat diet suggest that saturated fat does not increase LDL-P (15).

Why we can’t rely on animal models to study lipid metabolism

The report next turns to a number of studies suggesting that saturated fat feeding in rodent and primate models results in the development of atherosclerosis. However, there are major differences in lipid metabolism between humans and rodents, and even between humans and nonhuman primates. This is a major problem with animal nutrition research. This book chapter provides an excellent review on the evolution of human lipid metabolism:

“To accommodate the high energy demands of our large brains, humans consume diets that are of much higher quality (i.e., more dense in energy and fat) than those of our primate kin (Leonard and Robertson, 1992, 1994). On average, we consume higher levels of dietary fat than other primates (Popovich et al., 1997).” The need for an energy-rich diet also appears to have shaped our ability to detect and metabolize high-fat foods. […] compared to large-bodied apes, humans have an enhanced capacity to digest and metabolize higher fat diets. Our gastrointestinal (GI) tract, with its expanded small intestine and reduced colon, is quite different from those of chimpanzees and gorillas and is consistent with the consumption of a high-quality diet with large amounts of animal food (Milton, 1987). Finch and Stanford (2004) have recently shown that the evolution of key “meat-adaptive” genes in hominid evolution were critical to promoting enhanced lipid metabolism necessary for subsisting on diets with greater levels of animal material” (16).

Simply put, we need to be very careful about translating results from animal models of lipid metabolism to humans.

Paleolithic diet improves lipid profile and CVD risk

It’s also worth noting that field studies of 20th-century hunter–gatherers found them to be largely free of cardiovascular disease symptoms and risk factors. This is despite consuming a diet that is 28 to 58 percent fat by energy, with as much as half of this coming from saturated fat (17). Several studies have shown benefits of a modern Paleolithic-type diet on lipid profile and cardiovascular risk factors (18, 19, 20). However, most of these studies are using a Paleolithic diet that is actually lower in saturated fat than the control group. Because of this, I turned to ketogenic diets to determine the influence of very-high-fat diets on cardiovascular risk. In a study published in the Journal of Nutrition, after six weeks of a ketogenic diet, fasting serum total and LDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL were unchanged, but HDL cholesterol tended to increase (21). This suggests a more favorable lipid profile, though due to small sample size and short duration, clinical significance could not be determined.

The proven benefits of coconut oil

Bringing our discussion back to coconut oil, the claims made in the AHA report simply don’t stand up to research. It appears the authors performed the following logic:

Premise: 4 core studies from the 1960s and ’70s → saturated fat causes heart disease

Premise: coconut oil has a high content of saturated fat

Conclusion: coconut oil causes heart disease and should be avoided

This logic relies on some faulty assumptions, namely that saturated fat causes heart disease (it doesn’t) and that all saturated fats are the same (they’re not). Most importantly, studies have shown that coconut oil:

Improves blood lipid profile (22, 23)

Reduces weight circumference (24, 25)

Is anti-inflammatory (26)

Is antimicrobial (27)

May promote weight loss (28)

May improve antioxidant status (29, 30)

May protect against Alzheimer’s disease (31, 32)

So, to sum up, don’t stress about eating coconut oil. The stress is probably more likely to give you heart disease! Did you like this article? Will you continue to eat coconut oil? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Source: http://chriskresser.com June 27, 2017 at 07:12PM

[denisalvney]

Coconut Oil Is Still Healthy, Despite AHA Claims

After reviewing four major studies, the American Heart Association (AHA) recently issued a “presidential advisory” stating that saturated fats, including coconut oil, should be avoided, recommending that they be replaced with polyunsaturated fats like canola oil, soybean oil, and corn oil (1). A presidential advisory is a report initiated by the AHA president to “address a topic of special current importance.” While this has been all over the news, the report is really nothing new. In fact, the AHA has consistently recommended the reduction in dietary saturated fat to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease since 1961 (2, 3). I’ve previously written an extensive report on why saturated fat does not cause heart disease. I’m not going to rehash all of that in this article, so be sure to check it out if you haven’t. Instead, this article will zero in on the issues with this particular advisory and focus on the coconut oil claims in particular.

Cherry-picking studies is effective

There have been at least 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted in recent years that have not found a clear link between saturated fat consumption and heart disease. The authors themselves note in the introduction:

“In the past few years, meta-analyses of observational studies and randomized clinical trials have come to discordant conclusions about the relationship between dietary saturated fat and risk of CVD” (1).

They then proceed to pick four core studies (4, 5, 6, 7) from these meta-analyses that they deemed to be most “well performed.” This is certainly not the first time that cherry-picking has occurred in the history of saturated fat or nutrition research. You might recall the famous “seven countries study” in which Ancel Keys, father of the saturated fat–heart disease hypothesis, picked seven of 22 countries to demonstrate an initial relationship between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease (8). Furthermore, the publication dates of these four core studies were 1969, 1970, 1968, and 1979! The authors report that no definitive large-scale clinical trials have been conducted since then, which is true, but this represents a major public health issue. If we continue to pull up the results of the same old studies year after year to shape today’s nutrition recommendations, the AHA will continue to promote 40-year-old nutritional science for the next several decades.

Worried about the AHA’s statement on saturated fat? Don’t be.

Industry influence in nutritional sciences

Unfortunately, nutritional sciences are rife with industry influence, and the AHA is no exception. While the AHA is a nonprofit organization, it receives significant funds from industry leaders. Representatives from companies like Nestlé, Coca-Cola, The Sugar Association, the United Soybean Board, and the US Canola Association also serve on its “Industry Nutrition Advisory Panel.” From the AHA website:

“The American Heart Association’s Industry Nutrition Advisory Panel (INAP) is a unique, strategic relationship between the American Heart Association’s Nutrition Committee and food industry leaders. In existence since 1995, INAP provides a platform for open dialogue, sharing of information and planning cooperative programs in areas of mutual interest such as diet and nutrition and cardiovascular disease” (emphasis mine).

You can easily imagine how a few pushy industry leaders might be able to influence AHA recommendations.

The difference between statistical significance and clinical significance

Furthermore, in interpreting the findings of any study used to inform human health, it’s important to distinguish between statistical significance and clinical significance (9). In statistics, we say that a result is significant when the observed difference between treatment groups is extremely unlikely to have occurred by chance. For example, one group might have slightly higher cholesterol than another group. Clinical significance, on the other hand, is the practical importance of the observed difference in treatments. For example, does this difference actually cause heart disease? In this case, the authors looked at clinical significance by assessing the number of actual cardiovascular events, but only for a handful of studies. The remainder of their report was built around changes in LDL cholesterol, which is only a risk factor for heart disease. They present several studies that observed changes in cholesterol ranging from 0.6 to 2.1 mg/dL after altering saturated fat intake. Yes, this is statistically significant, but can that tiny change in cholesterol make a difference in the number of clinical outcomes? Consider the variability of cholesterol tests. One research group took repeated blood samples from the same people for cholesterol analysis over several days, without any intervention. They found that LDL cholesterol fluctuated more than 20 percent (about 17 mg/dL) in 95 percent of subjects and more than 40 percent in 45 percent of subjects (10). In other words, you could get your cholesterol tested today and be told you are in perfect health and get tested tomorrow and be recommended statins. LDL-Cholesterol versus LDL-Particle Number Additionally, the AHA report only discusses LDL cholesterol (LDL-C). One study found that of 136,905 coronary artery disease hospitalizations, almost half of patients presented with normal LDL-C (11). The number of LDL particles (LDL-P) is a much stronger predictor of cardiovascular disease risk than LDL cholesterol, and it’s possible to have normal LDL-C and high LDL-P (12, 13, 14). Preliminary studies comparing lipid profiles after subjects followed a low-carb, high-fat diet and a high-carb, low-fat diet suggest that saturated fat does not increase LDL-P (15).

Why we can’t rely on animal models to study lipid metabolism

The report next turns to a number of studies suggesting that saturated fat feeding in rodent and primate models results in the development of atherosclerosis. However, there are major differences in lipid metabolism between humans and rodents, and even between humans and nonhuman primates. This is a major problem with animal nutrition research. This book chapter provides an excellent review on the evolution of human lipid metabolism:

“To accommodate the high energy demands of our large brains, humans consume diets that are of much higher quality (i.e., more dense in energy and fat) than those of our primate kin (Leonard and Robertson, 1992, 1994). On average, we consume higher levels of dietary fat than other primates (Popovich et al., 1997).” The need for an energy-rich diet also appears to have shaped our ability to detect and metabolize high-fat foods. […] compared to large-bodied apes, humans have an enhanced capacity to digest and metabolize higher fat diets. Our gastrointestinal (GI) tract, with its expanded small intestine and reduced colon, is quite different from those of chimpanzees and gorillas and is consistent with the consumption of a high-quality diet with large amounts of animal food (Milton, 1987). Finch and Stanford (2004) have recently shown that the evolution of key “meat-adaptive” genes in hominid evolution were critical to promoting enhanced lipid metabolism necessary for subsisting on diets with greater levels of animal material” (16).

Simply put, we need to be very careful about translating results from animal models of lipid metabolism to humans.

Paleolithic diet improves lipid profile and CVD risk

It’s also worth noting that field studies of 20th-century hunter–gatherers found them to be largely free of cardiovascular disease symptoms and risk factors. This is despite consuming a diet that is 28 to 58 percent fat by energy, with as much as half of this coming from saturated fat (17). Several studies have shown benefits of a modern Paleolithic-type diet on lipid profile and cardiovascular risk factors (18, 19, 20). However, most of these studies are using a Paleolithic diet that is actually lower in saturated fat than the control group. Because of this, I turned to ketogenic diets to determine the influence of very-high-fat diets on cardiovascular risk. In a study published in the Journal of Nutrition, after six weeks of a ketogenic diet, fasting serum total and LDL cholesterol and oxidized LDL were unchanged, but HDL cholesterol tended to increase (21). This suggests a more favorable lipid profile, though due to small sample size and short duration, clinical significance could not be determined.

The proven benefits of coconut oil

Bringing our discussion back to coconut oil, the claims made in the AHA report simply don’t stand up to research. It appears the authors performed the following logic:

Premise: 4 core studies from the 1960s and ’70s → saturated fat causes heart disease

Premise: coconut oil has a high content of saturated fat

Conclusion: coconut oil causes heart disease and should be avoided

This logic relies on some faulty assumptions, namely that saturated fat causes heart disease (it doesn’t) and that all saturated fats are the same (they’re not). Most importantly, studies have shown that coconut oil:

Improves blood lipid profile (22, 23)

Reduces weight circumference (24, 25)

Is anti-inflammatory (26)

Is antimicrobial (27)

May promote weight loss (28)

May improve antioxidant status (29, 30)

May protect against Alzheimer’s disease (31, 32)

So, to sum up, don’t stress about eating coconut oil. The stress is probably more likely to give you heart disease! Did you like this article? Will you continue to eat coconut oil? Share your thoughts in the comments below! Coconut Oil Is Still Healthy, Despite AHA Claims published first on https://chriskresser.com

[projecteve1]

New Post has been published on Getting Balance | Finding Happiness and Wellbeing

New Post has been published on http://gettingbalance.com/just-pee-pants-birth-recovery-moms/

Did I Just Pee My Pants? Birth Recovery for Moms.

In an effort to get back into shape fast, new moms often start high-impact, high-intensity exercises too soon, resulting in a number of issues that may last for years to come. What I wasn’t told when I had my first baby is that the first 16 weeks postpartum is a critical time to allow your body to heal–from the inside out. After your baby is born, you have an incredible human in your arms, but you’re left with an unfamiliar body. Your organs have been displaced, your hormones are awry, you are sleep deprived, and feeling soft around the middle.

As a mom, nutritionist, and fitness professional with over 16 years of experience working with prenatal and postpartum women, the question that I get from new moms almost every day is, “When will I get my body back?” The reality is that when your jeans don’t fit and you feel doughy all over, the last thing you want to hear is, “Nine months up, nine months down.” Is this an ‘old wives tale’ or is it reality? I can honestly say that this saying holds just a little bit of bit of truth. The first nine months postpartum are a roller coaster of hormonal fluctuations. I recommend that new moms wait at least nine months (or longer) to try on their pre-pregnancy jeans. Every mom experiences a different recovery period, just like every pregnancy and delivery is unique–we just don’t talk about what’s going on with our bodies as much as we talk about our birth stories.

New moms often feel frustrated, shameful, and insecure about how much their bodies have changed after the birth of their baby. Finding a safe space to talk about your new mom body is as important as finding the right type of fitness class for you and your baby. The challenges that new moms experience go beyond fitting into your pre-pregnancy jeans or contemplating if a bikini will ever adorn your newfound curves again. Wrist pain, back pain, urinary leakage, pain or discomfort during sex, and a separation of the abdominal muscles (known as diastasis recti) are just a few of the common physical issues that new moms experience in the first six to 16 weeks postpartum–and beyond.

What’s a mom to do?! Follow these four simple tips to ease your recovery.

No more crunches. Sit ups, roll-ups, scissors, and bicycle movements designed to strengthen your abs actually create an incredible amount of intra-abdominal pressure, resulting in pelvic floor and abdominal recovery issues.

Stop running. Take a temporary break from high-impact exercises such as jumping and running, which can make your core issues worse. Look for low-to-no impact ways to get your heart rate up and break a sweat such as indoor cycling, power walking, and strength training.

Nutrition matters. Eat more plants, stop counting calories, and drink a lot of water. Stay away from isolated vitamins and opt for whole food nutrition from fruits and vegetables to nourish your body from the inside out.

Don’t be afraid to ask for help. Speak to a licensed Core9 Birth Recovery provider or a licensed physical therapist who specializes in women’s health to determine the severity of your issues. Most moms are able to see results in a four week course, focused on birth recovery or diastasis repair.

So what are you waiting for? Take care of your body now–it’s the only one you’ve got!