I assume your comments about big Hollywood and backhanded compliments were directed towards me. I know the mods want to move this back towards a discussion on simply Axanar, so it's the last I will comment on this.
However, let me lay out some facts to you because you are seemingly getting very upset and personal about my comments. I am an artist. I work on shots. I do this because it pays decently, it lets me work in a creative field, and to put it simply, because it's something I'm good at. I have no massive financial stake in it in terms of profits, I'm not a business owner or a producer. Your continued idea that us "Big Hollywood Types" are sitting there hoping for Axanar to fail because somehow it will cut into profits, or show that good stuff can be made inexpensively is simply wrong. It shows your continued lack of knowledge of this industry.
In fact, it's the exact opposite. We love seeing awesome work coming out of smaller companies and independent films. Hell the company that I work for works on independent films sometimes, including some of the early efforts of the directors who are doing this massive blockbusters. No one looks down upon them. We don't flash a sign that says Hollywood only. However, your statement that I keep offering back handed compliments is simply not true. It was all based around your assertion that the VFX work in this was as good, if not better then the work done in the Abrams films, and to put it simply, it's not.
I know Tobias posts on here sometimes and if he sees this I want to say by no means am I putting down his work (I know he does mostly 3d, I don't know who is doing the comp work). I think it looks great, and the fact that I know that they do not have a blockbuster budget to work with adds to appreciation of the quality of the work.
That being said (and I would assume those working on the film would agree, I don't want to put words in their mouth) that making something that looks comparable to a $150 million blockbuster is pretty much impossible. It's all about budget, and what you can get away with for how much you want to spend. I can spend $30,000 on a Volkswagen GTI and say it's a great performance car, which it is, but I'm not going to sit there and say its as great of a car on a technical level as a Ferrari 458 that costs $250,000. It's just not. Yes, I would be paying for name of the Ferrari somewhat, but I'm also paying for the more advanced technologies and materials employed in the building of that Ferrari.
I'm sure that if some anonymous donor dropped $200 Million in the hands of the Axanar producers that the film wouldn't look the same as it does now. They would probably build more practical sets, they would probably hire one of the big VFX firms with their resources, or give Tobias the money to be able to expand his business and acquire the people and computing horsepower in order to make something that looks like a summer blockbuster. The approach and methodologies to making a film change completely when you have that sort of money backing you.
Also you don't seem to recognize the resources need to put something on screen that looks like a summer blockbuster, compared to what Axanar is trying to do. I don't know what their final output size is, or what they shot on camera wise, but lets just say its 1920 HD, or even 2k, since that seems to be a standard for most TV shows and smaller films. Most summer movies are being output at 4k, 6k, and hell IMAX film plates are something like 18k in digital resolution (I don't think they render to that size however). The amount of detail that needs to be put into those shots compared to something that is HD requires a massive amount of work, especially if you include the rendering time it takes to kick out those images. Also a lot of tricks that you can try to do to make things look good at a lower resolution simply don't hold up at that kind of scale.
So stop with your constant repetition that I'm trying to backhandedly compliment the work done on the film, I'm not. The work needed for a small independent production, versus a studio backed blockbuster are two different animals (in both good and bad ways on both sides).
Also, your argument that since this looks as good as the Star Wars prequels, and those did well in theaters as blockbusters, somehow makes this equivalent work is laughable. I would say most moviegoers and fans now look back at them and say that they over relied on CG. Also they were made 10 years ago. In terms of updates of VFX technology, that was a lifetime ago. There are programs now that you can guy off the shelf that were, at the time, proprietary and you could only dream of getting your hands on. Why do you that there is such a push now by Disney to show that Abrams (the man you love to hate) is shooting the new Star Wars on film, with large practical set pieces and locations, and practical puppets and effects? That's what a massive budget also gives you the ability to do, and coupled with some great work that ILM and others will do, I'm sure it will look fantastic.
So in short, stop parading around that I'm giving backhanded compliments and dissing their work. Appreciating the work, and the film, in context of how it's made is part of the deal. I think it looks good, and will allow them to tell the story they want to tell, which at it's core, is the basis for all film making.
P.S. Tobias if you read this and need experienced nuke compositors, I'd love to get a crack at some shots.
)
