Challenge accepted.  I have never heard of this movie, but apparently it's playing down the street.  I will  attend the 10:00 showing this very evening.

THIS BETTER BE GOOD, HERR SUBMARINE.

Well, everybody got their panties in a twist over this one, but I happen to genuinely think Serkis qualifies as a "lead animator" for Caesar.   He didn't use a mouse and keyboard, but not so long ago using a mouse and keyboard wasn't considered "animating" either.   I'm not saying he should get credit for something he didn't do, I'm saying the fx team should acknowledge what he DID do.    And might have, if not for the misguided Oscar campaign that gave the impression their contribution was negligible. 

On Troopers we had three input-device animators: two were stop-motion animators by experience, and one (whom I hired personally) was a puppeteer.   (We also had about ten keyframe animators who only used a computer.)   All three input device animators used the exact same setup, except two used the device like a stopmo armature and keyframed poses, while the puppeteer used the device in realtime and captured performances live.

One of our computer-only animators was ADAMANT that the stopmo animators were "animating", and the puppeteer wasn't... even though the only difference was how fast they did it.   It was a ridiculous argument, but the hatred of motion capture among "real animators" runs deep and still exists to this day. 

I think it's a silly and arbitrary way to look at it.   Personally I don't care how the data gets into the computer, or how many people had their hands on it along the way.   I only care if you believe the end result as a character on screen.  And if so, then everybody deserves to take a bow.   I still don't think Caesar deserves a Best Actor Oscar, but he deserves an FX Oscar, and in a fair world without these silly turf wars Serkis would be duly credited for his contribution to the effect.   

There certainly didn't seem to be the same animosity if you look at the making-of's for King Kong and Lord of the Rings, where the FX teams were generally profuse in their praise of Serkis and the contribution he made.

Yeah, the DiF glossary is just for stuff WE made up, either some expression we coined in a commentary and then kept using (magic bean, Goldblums), or an expression that is SO *ahem* inside baseball that the average listener probably hasn't ever heard it before (footprint in the snow).

Phrases like deus ex machina or inside baseball, we didn't invent 'em, we're just usin' em.

But I don't think we've invented any DiF-centric phrases in quite a while.   At least I can't think of any... anyone else?

I haven't used Audition since Adobe replaced it with Soundbooth (I actually liked Audition better, especially when it comes to adjusting levels.)  So all I can say is from hazy memory about Audition, while looking at the file in Soundbooth.

Your overall audio level is about right - there's a lot of clipping on the waveform, but for a voice track that's not really a big deal.   I assume that's a Levelator artifact... I dunno exactly what Levelator does, but it seems like it does the same thing as the Normalize function that Audition already has.   

Normalize boosts the audio level of a file, or a selected part of a file, as loud as it can go, without letting any point in the file get louder than the peak level.    Usually you can just let Normalize do its thing on the entire file and be done with it -  unless you happen to have some extremely loud sounds here and there, in an otherwise quieter track.    Those are easy to spot in Audition, they'll be giant spikes in the waveform.    In that case, select and reduce the volume of those moments specifically, so they're more at the level of the rest of the track, and then Normalize the overall track afterward.

Anyway, hunt around the Audition menu and find Normalize and see how that works for ya.

Fair enough. Just wanted to make sure that if you're gonna do some custom-codey business, it doesn't have to be fancy preferential voting.