Why has CGI in sci-fi gotten so expensive?

[Gotham Central]

Everytime I listen to commentary on BSG or Stargate, you hear about how expensive it is for them to do so many vfx. Its to the point that if they use too many in some eps, they have virtually none in another.

I just find this odd considering that shows like Babylon 5 or seaQuest managed to make extensive use of CGI in almost every episode.

Now, obviously the CGI has improved considerably since the somewhat cartoonish effects of B5, but then again, the software and the computers have actually gotten (relatively) cheaper and more powerful. So why are they getting so stingy with the fx?

 

[Psion]

Everytime I listen to commentary on BSG or Stargate, you hear about how expensive it is for them to do so many vfx. Its to the point that if they use too many in some eps, they have virtually none in another.

I just find this odd considering that shows like Babylon 5 or seaQuest managed to make extensive use of CGI in almost every episode.

Now, obviously the CGI has improved considerably since the somewhat cartoonish effects of B5, but then again, the software and the computers have actually gotten (relatively) cheaper and more powerful. So why are they getting so stingy with the fx?

I'll throw out some vaguely-informed possible explanations to indulge male-answer syndrome and keep things moving while better-edumacated people compose their own replies.

First, I'd expect that the market has changed considerably since B5 and Seaquest. Animators and modelers might be demanding and getting more money in the last fifteen years and that will certainly drive up the cost. Further, add-on products to certain packages for features such as mass movement, volumetrics, special particle functions, etc. probably drive up the cost of CGI. Some of these special packages might reduce the efficiency of rendering software, slowing the rendering process down and thereby requiring more nodes in a renderfarm (thus driving up cost). Finally, there's probably a need to one-up work done previously. This leads to a demand for custom code and artestry that might take more expensive talent or longer post-production times.

 

[mswood]

As the above poster mentioned, in almost all avenues of life (let alone film/tv production cost have increased. In some causes quite dramatically.

And the quality and scope of CGI has risen dramatically.

When B5 was on the air it was the primary CGI show being produced, and as such it managed to show scope and complexity that model based shows (read Trek) couldn't do. BUt the quality of those shows was exceptionally low. But as I fan, I personal overlooked that with the trade off being the type of effects showed.

But you could see when Voyager started doing CGI effects as their primary visual Fx the vast difference in quality between the two shows. They had the resources teh B5 didn't.

And with most things each year the audience expects bigger battles, more complex shots, a wider array of what CGI can show, and they also expect the quality of those shots to improve year after year.

And with the advent of DVD, then the advent of High Def the quality demands jump even higher as effects that looked presentable on 480i are no longer acceptable.

Then for the shows you mention there are other factors primarily that they are shows with exceptional small fan bases. And producers aren't given a ton of money to throw around. And one of the things that is easy to down size is the FX. If BSG had the budget of Heroes I would expect a ton more, but it probably has about a 1/3 of that shows budget (probably less then what TNG had during its 3rd year of production).

 

[Good Will Riker]

And one of the things that is easy to down size is the FX. If BSG had the budget of Heroes I would expect a ton more, but it probably has about a 1/3 of that shows budget (probably less then what TNG had during its 3rd year of production).

1st year of production.

TNG's 5th season budget equaled that of TNG's 1st season -- the 1st year of that show's budget was more than each of the subsequent seasons (2,3,4), especially when it came to the F/X. Which is the reason why when "bean counter" Rick Berman took a more central role on the show when the studio dethroned Gene Roddenberry (their "P.R." tool in initially launching TNG and garnering initial fan support.) and placed Berman in charge, you tended to see less phaser shots and less holographic effects in the conference room and the holodeck of the earlier seasons in the later seasons. The music quality went down too, I might add.

 

[Small White Car]

TV shows have to compete for attention with $100 million movies (so doing a lot of cheap effects is no longer an option) and you see why they have to spend top dollar on effects. Getting the 2nd best just isn't good enough.

Did you know that the GEICO gecko is done by the same company that does most of the CG characters in the Harry Potter films? When the bloody ads are getting Hollywood-level effects, what choice do the shows have? They HAVE to buy the best of the best, or even the freak'n COMMERCIALS during the show will show them up!

 

[Siwilliams]

Why is it that the remake Star Trek gets a $250 million Budget (is that right? I thought I read that somewhere) but the previous Star Trek movies got no where near that much. Star Trek 4 was a succuess, $109 million domestically and then Star Trek 5 gets a crap budget (and I know, Star Trek - The Next Generation had been going on for two years by the release of Star Trek 5, but still, Star Trek 4 was huge). Why not give Star Trek Generations a bigger budget, then they would not have had to use some stock footage. Star Trek Insurrection made $70, it made its money back and made some profit, so why not give Star Trek Nemesis a bigger budget? I don't know, just seems weird to give this new one such a huge budget. Why was Star Trek The Motion Picture considered a flop? It cost $45 million and and made $82 million, that is profit right there, its' not Star Wars, but it is nothing to be pissed about either. I amazed though on Star Trek II The Wrath Of Khan and Star Trek III The Search For Spock, Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, and Star Trek V The Final Frontier on doing so well and with such small budgets. What is more surprising is the excellent effects in Star Trek Generations with the budget they were given and even with Star Trek First Contact and Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country. The effects to Star Trek 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 still look excellent, it is Star Trek 5 that got the crap budget, even that one has some decent effects. If Paramount asks Shatner if he wants to redo the effects and a special edition of Star Trek 5, I think he should decline, since he wanted to do something with it with the last DVD release. Paramount declined. That dvd release was the time to do a proper director's cut/special edition.

 

[ialfan]

Why is it that the remake Star Trek gets a $250 million Budget (is that right? I thought I read that somewhere) but the previous Star Trek movies got no where near that much. Star Trek 4 was a succuess, $109 million domestically and then Star Trek 5 gets a crap budget (and I know, Star Trek - The Next Generation had been going on for two years by the release of Star Trek 5, but still, Star Trek 4 was huge). Why not give Star Trek Generations a bigger budget, then they would not have had to use some stock footage. Star Trek Insurrection made $70, it made its money back and made some profit, so why not give Star Trek Nemesis a bigger budget? I don't know, just seems weird to give this new one such a huge budget. Why was Star Trek The Motion Picture considered a flop? It cost $45 million and and made $82 million, that is profit right there, its' not Star Wars, but it is nothing to be pissed about either. I amazed though on Star Trek II The Wrath Of Khan and Star Trek III The Search For Spock, Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, and Star Trek V The Final Frontier on doing so well and with such small budgets. What is more surprising is the excellent effects in Star Trek Generations with the budget they were given and even with Star Trek First Contact and Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country. The effects to Star Trek 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 still look excellent, it is Star Trek 5 that got the crap budget, even that one has some decent effects. If Paramount asks Shatner if he wants to redo the effects and a special edition of Star Trek 5, I think he should decline, since he wanted to do something with it with the last DVD release. Paramount declined. That dvd release was the time to do a proper director's cut/special edition.

Actually Star Trek XI is rumoured to have around a $150 million budget which is still twice that of the last film but much less than most blockbuster summer films these days. In contrast The Dark Knight had a $180 million budget and Spiderman 3 $350 million.

 

[Siwilliams]

Why is it that the remake Star Trek gets a $250 million Budget (is that right? I thought I read that somewhere) but the previous Star Trek movies got no where near that much. Star Trek 4 was a succuess, $109 million domestically and then Star Trek 5 gets a crap budget (and I know, Star Trek - The Next Generation had been going on for two years by the release of Star Trek 5, but still, Star Trek 4 was huge). Why not give Star Trek Generations a bigger budget, then they would not have had to use some stock footage. Star Trek Insurrection made $70, it made its money back and made some profit, so why not give Star Trek Nemesis a bigger budget? I don't know, just seems weird to give this new one such a huge budget. Why was Star Trek The Motion Picture considered a flop? It cost $45 million and and made $82 million, that is profit right there, its' not Star Wars, but it is nothing to be pissed about either. I amazed though on Star Trek II The Wrath Of Khan and Star Trek III The Search For Spock, Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, and Star Trek V The Final Frontier on doing so well and with such small budgets. What is more surprising is the excellent effects in Star Trek Generations with the budget they were given and even with Star Trek First Contact and Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country. The effects to Star Trek 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 still look excellent, it is Star Trek 5 that got the crap budget, even that one has some decent effects. If Paramount asks Shatner if he wants to redo the effects and a special edition of Star Trek 5, I think he should decline, since he wanted to do something with it with the last DVD release. Paramount declined. That dvd release was the time to do a proper director's cut/special edition.

Actually Star Trek XI is rumoured to have around a $150 million budget which is still twice that of the last film but much less than most blockbuster summer films these days. In contrast The Dark Knight had a $180 million budget and Spiderman 3 $350 million.

Actually isn't Spiderman 3 - $256 Million?

 

[ialfan]

Why is it that the remake Star Trek gets a $250 million Budget (is that right? I thought I read that somewhere) but the previous Star Trek movies got no where near that much. Star Trek 4 was a succuess, $109 million domestically and then Star Trek 5 gets a crap budget (and I know, Star Trek - The Next Generation had been going on for two years by the release of Star Trek 5, but still, Star Trek 4 was huge). Why not give Star Trek Generations a bigger budget, then they would not have had to use some stock footage. Star Trek Insurrection made $70, it made its money back and made some profit, so why not give Star Trek Nemesis a bigger budget? I don't know, just seems weird to give this new one such a huge budget. Why was Star Trek The Motion Picture considered a flop? It cost $45 million and and made $82 million, that is profit right there, its' not Star Wars, but it is nothing to be pissed about either. I amazed though on Star Trek II The Wrath Of Khan and Star Trek III The Search For Spock, Star Trek IV The Voyage Home, and Star Trek V The Final Frontier on doing so well and with such small budgets. What is more surprising is the excellent effects in Star Trek Generations with the budget they were given and even with Star Trek First Contact and Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country. The effects to Star Trek 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 still look excellent, it is Star Trek 5 that got the crap budget, even that one has some decent effects. If Paramount asks Shatner if he wants to redo the effects and a special edition of Star Trek 5, I think he should decline, since he wanted to do something with it with the last DVD release. Paramount declined. That dvd release was the time to do a proper director's cut/special edition.

Actually Star Trek XI is rumoured to have around a $150 million budget which is still twice that of the last film but much less than most blockbuster summer films these days. In contrast The Dark Knight had a $180 million budget and Spiderman 3 $350 million.

Actually isn't Spiderman 3 - $256 Million?

I'm not sure. All I know is the Wikipedia article said $350 million.

 

[DontFeedPhil]

One word...Middlemen. And to explain. You have alot of these 3-d software programs that are basic. They can do basic but amazing things. But where the artists/cgi developers really get nailed is the extras. The plugins. Have you ever tried looking at what some of these plugin packs go for? Holy shit. Thats why. ANd in order to make top notch effects you need all of these plugin packs. So the cgi companies need to pay for them and they turn around and charge more for their work.
And then these plugin companies wonder why their shit is being pirated all over the place. Cause a production house that is being payed millions to make a movie can afford them. But the average guy in his parents basement that wants to mess around and make a model of his favorite ship or character cannot affor many thousands of dollars in plugins to be able to make his model look even close to a professional one. Therefore the average guy is wayy behind the learning curve and you have less overall people able to do the work unless they pay the money to go to school and get lucky and get a job in a companie that can afford those plugins.
You see its a vicious circle. And who wins???the greedy plugin makers. And who loses???The average Joe the fx artist...

 

[JonathonWally]

One word...Middlemen. And to explain. You have alot of these 3-d software programs that are basic. They can do basic but amazing things. But where the artists/cgi developers really get nailed is the extras. The plugins. Have you ever tried looking at what some of these plugin packs go for? Holy shit. Thats why. ANd in order to make top notch effects you need all of these plugin packs. So the cgi companies need to pay for them and they turn around and charge more for their work.
And then these plugin companies wonder why their shit is being pirated all over the place. Cause a production house that is being payed millions to make a movie can afford them. But the average guy in his parents basement that wants to mess around and make a model of his favorite ship or character cannot affor many thousands of dollars in plugins to be able to make his model look even close to a professional one. Therefore the average guy is wayy behind the learning curve and you have less overall people able to do the work unless they pay the money to go to school and get lucky and get a job in a companie that can afford those plugins.
You see its a vicious circle. And who wins???the greedy plugin makers. And who loses???The average Joe the fx artist...

I'm willing to bet ILM is worth more than Adobe and Autodesk put together.

Actually, I don't know. I could be wrong now that I think about it since Autodesk makes AutoCAD as well as Maya.

 

[Siwilliams]

Actually Star Trek XI is rumoured to have around a $150 million budget which is still twice that of the last film but much less than most blockbuster summer films these days. In contrast The Dark Knight had a $180 million budget and Spiderman 3 $350 million.

Actually isn't Spiderman 3 - $256 Million?

I'm not sure. All I know is the Wikipedia article said $350 million.

Looked it up at box office mojo, it says $258 Million

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman3.htm

 

[Tulin]

Now, obviously the CGI has improved considerably since the somewhat cartoonish effects of B5

Bullshit.

Watch the space battle in "Shadow Dancing" and tell me that looks like a cartoon.


It's jealousy. Plain and simple.

 

[Canadave]

Another factor is that CGI is surprisingly time-consuming. Many people think you just click a button and it all gets done, but in reality, models need to be built in painstaking detail, and then have to be animated. Add in the time to render these things, and you begin to have an expensive operation.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Another thing is outsourcing it, I believe B5 did the effects in house, with computers they bought themselves, so after initial investment they could do it themselves. Where as now it's outsourced to effects houses, and they have hundreds of employees working every day on your effects. So basically for a top notch effects work you're talking about paying the wages of hundreds of people to get it delivered on time.
I seem to remember on one of the SGA commentaries they're talking about how now they have an in-house effects team, and it's working out cheaper for them to so as much of the effects work as they can in-house and only outsource the really hard and time consuming stuff.

 

[Hermiod]

Another thing is outsourcing it, I believe B5 did the effects in house, with computers they bought themselves, so after initial investment they could do it themselves. Where as now it's outsourced to effects houses, and they have hundreds of employees working every day on your effects. So basically for a top notch effects work you're talking about paying the wages of hundreds of people to get it delivered on time.
I seem to remember on one of the SGA commentaries they're talking about how now they have an in-house effects team, and it's working out cheaper for them to so as much of the effects work as they can in-house and only outsource the really hard and time consuming stuff.

Yes, they also brought up the drastic difference in quality of the storm effects between "The Storm" (which was pretty poor, in their opinion) and "The Eye".

 

[Gotham Central]

Isn't Sanctuary all CG all the time, including virtual sets? I don't watch the show so I have no idea of the visual quality, but it would seem to me that if they can do it all the time then the other shows should be able to just as much. I'm sure Sanctuary has a smaller budget than Atlantis or BSG.

One other thing, B5 had a significantly smaller budget than any of the Trek shows (which is why they went total CG before everyone else).

 

[Gotham Central]

B5 definately had good effects for its time, when you go back and watch it now, there is definately a toonish appearance to the CG. Even JMS has said that he wishes he could go back and fix some of it.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Isn't Sanctuary all CG all the time, including virtual sets? I don't watch the show so I have no idea of the visual quality, but it would seem to me that if they can do it all the time then the other shows should be able to just as much. I'm sure Sanctuary has a smaller budget than Atlantis or BSG.

One other thing, B5 had a significantly smaller budget than any of the Trek shows (which is why they went total CG before everyone else).

It's all in-house (I believe), also I suppose it's easier/quicker to render static lighting and only slightly moving images/sets/backdrops, than huge space battles, with lots of moving models and many or dynamic lighting sources.

 

[Gotham Central]

Hmmm...this would appear to be yet another example of how outsourcing is not nearly as cost effective as we have been led to believe.


As a side note, Crusade, made even more exclusive use of CG work than B5. It was doing the virtual sets before anyone (though they were of dubious quality to be sure).

You would think that with more people needing CG services, there would be more providers and thus it should be getting relatively cheaper not more expensive.