"well over 1,000 visual-effects shots"...

[EyalM]

I found this tid-bit in Abrams interview for Sci Fi Wire:

...and added that the film is not ready to be shown. "Our visual effects, unlike something like Iron Man, we have well over 1,000 visual-effects shots,"

Is that a lot for a movie these days? I honestly don't know.


The full interview:
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=57630

 

[Sector 7]

^ I'm not sure either. I'm sure it's not as many as in say, Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, but more than Stargate: Continuum.

 

[M'Sharak]

I found this tid-bit in Abrams interview for Sci Fi Wire:

...and added that the film is not ready to be shown. "Our visual effects, unlike something like Iron Man, we have well over 1,000 visual-effects shots,"

Is that a lot for a movie these days? I honestly don't know.

According to this, last year's Transformers had 630. This has a statement that The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King used 1488 effects shots as compared to "A normal major motion picture averages about 200 effects shots." I didn't find a count for Iron Man, but I wasn't really looking very hard.

So yeah, I guess "well over 1,000" probably still counts as a lot.

 

[Tralah]

I'm surprised the number is so high, especially when Abrams tried to build and use real sets as much as possible. I guess it indicates we'll be getting a lot of space scenes!

 

[number6]

I will sooooo boycott this film if it has fewer efx shots than LOTR!!!

 

[M'Sharak]

"Effects" covers a lot of territory, though. Not all effects shots are grand-scale or set-replacing; they can and will include the smaller and more subtle things, too, but it does seem like there will be a lot to look out for in this movie.

 

[number6]

Putting in CG sombreros takes time and the team will be working 'round the clock right up until the release date.

 

[captcalhoun]

ROTK had shit loads of FX shots because Gondor was CG'd and so were the Pelenor Fields, Isengard, the Black Gate, Sauron's tower in Morrrrrdorrr and all those walking shots of the Ents, or the Ollyphants, the ghost army, the digitally duplicated armies of extras as the Rohirrim, the Uruk-Hai etc...

and while Transformers may have had fewer shots, they were more complex...

some of those 1000 fx shots for Trek could be CG enhancements of the San Fransisco skyline at the Academy or the Vulcan landscape rather than a fleet of Warbirds battling the Enterprise and the Kelvin, for an example...

 

[PixelMagic]

Yes, over 1000 shots is ALOT. Most big movies have like 750.

 

[trevanian]

Nobody's commented on quality vs quantity or shot length vs quantity? I mean, TMP had barely half that many shots (565 I think, 200 more than STAR WARS), but they ran for half the length of the picture.

A lot of this will probably be rig removal, but even so, it sounds like a very busy background for a lot of shots. Once you step up the numbers like this, it probably means everything is done at 2K, too, so quality will suffer some, especially in daylight stuff.

 

[FalTorPan]

Nobody's commented on quality vs quantity or shot length vs quantity?

Hey, this is the message board where people bicker over the ideal length of an upcoming film when they know nothing about its story.

 

[trevanian]

Nobody's commented on quality vs quantity or shot length vs quantity?

Hey, this is the message board where people bicker over the ideal length of an upcoming film when they know nothing about its story.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting in this forum months back.

 

[FalTorPan]

Nobody's commented on quality vs quantity or shot length vs quantity?

Hey, this is the message board where people bicker over the ideal length of an upcoming film when they know nothing about its story.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting in this forum months back.

Sorry, man. Off-topic, a certain "kosmologist" recently completed his first short film in many years, and is writing another movie.

 

[RoJoHen]

Hopefully this means there will be lots of kickass space battles!

 

[Procutus]

Even more than space-battles, I'm interested in seeing just how realistic they make the planet-scenes and other 'space-related' images.

Oh yeah, and a certain ship named 'Enterprise'.


​

 

[Bad Atom]

Part of me wants to see the Trek universe depicted more realistically, at a more epic scale, beyond anything we've seen before. The other part of me is terrified it's going to degenerate into a CGI wankfest, despite Abrams' comments to the contrary. There's just too much pressure to compete with other CGI-heavy summer action flicks.

 

[jgdst]

Part of me wants to see the Trek universe depicted more realistically, at a more epic scale, beyond anything we've seen before. The other part of me is terrified it's going to degenerate into a CGI wankfest, despite Abrams' comments to the contrary. There's just too much pressure to compete with other CGI-heavy summer action flicks.

I don't think it'll abuse CGI the way a lot of films do these days. If you look at Abrams' other productions, he tends to do as much live action as he can, and uses psychology over obvious visuals (I'm discounting a certain cloud of black smoke there...).

As much nervousness as this film's creating among the fans, I think in this respect at least, he'll get the CGI/live action ratio right

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped posting in this forum months back.

You did?

 

[Jack Bauer]

Sounds epic.

 

[Therin of Andor]

uses psychology over obvious visuals (I'm discounting a certain cloud of black smoke there...).

I'd say that still fits, even with Lostzilla! We didn't see a visual for the longest time and even now we can't be sure we saw what was really there.