Come on, be nice, it's a common misconception.
In some cases, CG can actually be cheaper, like for big crowd scenes where you only need to hire 12 extras and can duplicate them over and over.
$150 million budget? Really?
- Thread starter darkwing_duck1
- Start date
Come on, be nice, it's a common misconception.
In some cases, CG can actually be cheaper, like for big crowd scenes where you only need to hire 12 extras and can duplicate them over and over.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Is it cheaper or not? Thats all we're asking. The dude who made BAB-5 says he used CGI back then because it was cheaper.
So...CGI requires a lot of Computer experts, let alone, computers...
Real effects required model makers and camera dudes and whatever....
If they had done TREK 11s effects with tech from the 70s, would it have been more expensive to do...or not...yes or no...
Rob
But you wouldn't have been able to do many of the sequences we saw.
That comparison is of no use, for I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) most of Star Trek's effects could simply not be done with technology from the 70's.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I am not an expert, so give me an example. I mean, STAR WARS/Battlestar Galatica, Empire Strikes Back, 2001, Close Encounters were all done back then in the stone-age. And even more recent movies (some aspects of ID4 and Stargate) were still done with models.
Rob
This is a good point that I hadn't considered. It would be very interesting to see where money was allocated for production, distribution, and marketing.
I've gotten the feeling that much money was spent creating "buzz" for some time leading up to the release. This of course targeted the mass audience that this film was intended for.
Personally I think it's a shame as I was completely underwhelmed by the sets, which I feel then led to shortfalls in cinematography.
I've gotten the feeling that much money was spent creating "buzz" for some time leading up to the release. This of course targeted the mass audience that this film was intended for.
Personally I think it's a shame as I was completely underwhelmed by the sets, which I feel then led to shortfalls in cinematography.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Oh let me say real quick..I am NOT against the CGI for this movie. I thought it was stunning work, best CGI I have ever seen in a space movie. So...not coming down on CGI at all...loved it.
Rob
Rob
Today's high-end CG production allows for shots that could not be created with a film camera, lights, and support systems. The illusion of movement, of exotic lighting, of atmospheric and energy effects are all possible and made more realistic by using CG. Models and textures are just the tip of the asteroid. 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. In addition, rendered CG scenes are, by their electronic nature, already part of the post production pipeline and are easier to incorporate into the digital editing environment of modern film post production. A studio wouldn't even attempt to make a film with so many FX shots using miniatures.
Really good CGI can be visually stunning, and Star Trek was beautifully done, but every time I watch TWOK, I sit there thinking how you can't beat a good old fashioned physical model.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned. But as we all know, there are some really terrible visual effects companies out there. Just look at Insurrection. Only ILM do really good CGI, presumably at huge cost. So I would think that for all but the biggest budgeted pictures, good models are still very viable.
Maybe I'm just old fashioned. But as we all know, there are some really terrible visual effects companies out there. Just look at Insurrection. Only ILM do really good CGI, presumably at huge cost. So I would think that for all but the biggest budgeted pictures, good models are still very viable.
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.
Better?
If you're 50 and think the last decent album was Kool and the Gang, maybe.
There are definitely things that CGI does much faster and cheaper, so the logic holds. And we don't have access to the budget for STXI, department by department, do we? So we don't know what was spent on what.
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".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.
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.
CGI on the level of replicating older model effects would be cheap. But it's an escalating thing; you can do way more with CGI, so people are always pushing to deliver new thrills, which means it's not cheaper ultimately.
