|05 May 2013||#31|
Performance Technology Supervisor
Join Date: Jul 2002
Originally Posted by Pyke: AAAAAAAAAnd thats what blows up movie budgets!
I think you'd be surprised at how much and how big you can accomplish with how little time and resources when vision is clear and unchanging.
Gazillion dollars ironclad contracts, key studio staff changing their mind frequently and radically, and re-shoots are the number one budget blossoming and budget multipliers.
If you're Steven Spielberg you can get War of the Worlds with huge (for the time) sequences in done in a few months for very little. Hell, your connational did it with D9 too.
If you're not, and try the same thing iteratively instead of having a clear end vision shared by all, that's when you get world war Z
Come, Join the Cult http://www.cultofrig.com - Rigging from First Principles
|05 May 2013||#32|
vfx goon / gfx ho
Los Angeles, USA
Join Date: May 2002
I have said it many times but I think the whole previs postvis "production hub" method is, or should be, making a lot more efficient use of resources possible.
I think even for stuff where there aren't 10 vendors, you can still get a lot out of good pre-planning and doing rough vfx during editing.
Even just do some damn boards, figure out what you might want before you go tearing off with a camera and a bunch of people waiting on you to make up your mind about stuff.
There's always room for happy accidents and discoveries on the day, but if you do that whole "I'll know it when I see it" thing, it's just a big headache for all involved, especially if you're indecisive all the way down to full post.
|05 May 2013||#33|
Quezon City, Philippines
Originally Posted by hypercube:
Editing in an efficient and effective way can always make your effects easier to manage, same with the duration of the shots. I think there's a tendency to want to do longer shots now because it is "easier" (relatively) to do so, and you couldn't in the past. Nowadays you can really showcase and linger on something cool if you want to, and have the edits be more about the pacing and mood rather than cutting away to hide a dodgy effect.
Definitely can agree with that.
It's just that, it wasn't just about "making it easier via the edit". In a modern version, you could do, for example, an over-the-shoulder shot of T-800 and when it fires the shotgun you have multiple shreds and squibs going off in "one shot" on the T-1000 (because this time he's in frame and running towards them).
Like you said, longer, more continuous shots.
But one of the reasons the edit in T2 for that shotgun-and-squibs sequence was so good was the opposing angles made it seem like they were "trading" (like boxers). One on the left, one on the right, then back to the guy on the left, then back to the guy on the right.
Now, only James Cameron would know whether that edit was a result of him trying to make the FX more feasible, or whether he did want it to look like a back-and-forth trade.... I guess you can argue it was both.
I do agree also though that there were usually some things that one wished they lingered on longer back in the day - but you knew they couldn't because it was just not too good.
I think a strong vision, and today's budget/technology balance should actually allow to do certain editing decisions by choice (rather than out of necessity to hide an effect as it was in the old days).
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
|05 May 2013||#34|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Thread automatically closed
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.
Note that as CGTalk Members, you agree to the terms and conditions of using this website.
|Thread Closed share thread|