$150 million budget? Really?

[RobertScorpio]

But with CGI there is also the tendency to pile on more and more FX, since it's cheaper and easier to do it, possibly bringing the FX budget back up to non-CGI levels.

I don't think it's a question of "more", rather "how far do yo want to refine it".

You can always add more details to a scene, little things you don't really see but improve the realism. But there's a curve there; the more time you spend on details, the less you'll actually get in return.

You see that a lot with, for example, 3d model hobbyists. Some can make absolutely gorgeous models, but if a professional spent 5 years on something he'd be fired before he knew it; that timespan makes it commercially unviable. That's also what separates the professionals from talented hobbyists: they can get the most out of a very short amount of time and they recognize the moment the curve is becoming too shallow.

This is true. If anyone here has watched the "making of" spots from the LOTR special editions, you know just how big the "pile on" can get. Peter Jackson is a CG artist's love/hate poster-boy.

So, is it the consensus that the budget went to ILM? What explains why JJ had so little set money that he had to film in breweries and warehouses?

I actually dont care why they used the brewery. My non TREK fans thought it looked FAR more realistic than the "love boat' looking stuff of TNG era trek...

Rob

 

[darkwing_duck1]

What's to believe about it? That neon tubes are the pinnacle of design.

Look, Abrams and crew had plenty of money to build something like this...

http://techspecs.acalltoduty.com/images/galaxy/ed-engineering1.jpg

... but they didn't want that. They wanted a cavernous, complex, real-to-a-contemporary-audience space. They didn't have the budget for that. In fact, after INS and NEM, it is amazing the film got the money it did.

They could have gone the NX route. That looked "industrial" while still maintaining the "clean" feel of Treknology. That would be one way. The E-E Engineering would have been a nice mix of "industrial" and Trek-futuristic too.

I don't care HOW enamored JJ is of the idea of "starship as cruise ship" as a design motif. The Engineering section and shuttlebay scenes looked like they were on completely different ships, and clashed with the minimalist simplicity of the uniforms.

 

[ST-One]

I thought CGI was supposed to make FX work CHEAPER, since you didn't have to build models, light models, film models, etc...

That's a pretty stupid thing to say. The CGI in this film has more detail than in any physical model ever built. Do you think that just pops up fully formed with no effort?

No, but with computers doing all the actual work it's SUPPOSED to be faster and easier to do more.

This ^ is a stupid and insulting comment to any CG-hobbyist let alone professional.

 

[Devon]

How much CGI was used for the ship battles in FC compared to Nemesis?

Most of FC was done with models. There was some CG though.

There was quite a bit actually. If I recall, I think only the Enterprise-E and Borg Exteriors were physical, and I could be pushing it with the Borg ship claim. I seem to recall hearing that the new Akira Class ships and whatever else other new Starfleet vessels were all CG (in that no physical filming model exists of these still.) Don't know if the Defiant and the Miranda-Class refits were CG though.

 

[ST-One]

Only a virtual camera can pull off a pull-back from the bridge viewport, and up and over the top of the Enterprise as gracefully as it was done in the new film.

IMO that was one of the few shots where the CG enterprise looked unimpressive. The graphics did not hold up quite so well when you're that close to the ship.

Get glasses.

 

[ST-One]

How much CGI was used for the ship battles in FC compared to Nemesis?

Most of FC was done with models. There was some CG though.

True.
The reference model for the Enterprise-E turned out to be so good that ILM used that instead of the CG-version they wanted to use (the shot were she jumps to warp is fully CG though).
The Borg-ships (Cube and Sphere) were also miniatures as was the Phoenix.
I'm not sure about the Defiant, but the rest of the battle-fleet was entirely CG.

Add to that all the live-action CG-enhancements: the Borg Queen as she slips into her body, the phaser-beams, the Borg-Queen's death, ...

Let's just say there was a fair amount of CG AND miniature work in that film.

 

[ST-One]

Damn!

 

[Maurice]

^^^Dude: Multi Quote.

Let's not forget that CGI is all over the place in these films, not just the spaceships and stuff. There's digital set extensions, crowd replication, digital matte paintings, etc. etc. CGI *can* be cheaper, but the trend towards more and more pre-vis ends up adding cycles to the production, and eats up a lot of money, especially because the the pre-vis is required to be closer and closer to the final shot.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Slate's Hollywood Economist: True Cost of CGI
December 12, 2005

The Chronicles of Narnia dominated box office receipts this weekend. The film relies heavily on digital effects for its spectacular images and action sequences, impossible to achieve using traditional film techniques -- but at a much greater cost. Alex Chadwick talks with Slate contributor Edward Jay Epstein about whether digital effects are ruining Hollywood.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5048864

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

I doubt most of it went to actors.

Actors only blow your budget if you hire huge superstar guys like Bruce Willis, Will Smith or Tom Xenu Cruise