New Robocop movie?

[Dolemite]

Agreed. It's to the point where they insert CG where physical effects would not only be easier to do, but would look better as well.

[cka]

but not cheaper

also I don't think anybody in the movie-going public these days is all that eager to see the robot by ray harryhausen (if they even know who dude is)

[Dolemite]

You'd think CG is cheaper, but then why is Brave's budget $185 million?

And I'm certainly not advocating a return to stop-motion animation. I'm just saying everything should have its place- full CG, physical props, and a combo of the two, with each helping to enhance one another. For example, Ron Pearlman's Hellboy suit had subtle CG effects added to it to occassionly to make the muscles flex appropriately. It was an effect that actually could have been used more, IMO. Del Toro's movies like Hellboy are a good example of films that get the effects mix right.

Too many filmmakers these days cop out and use CG for every little thing. It's easier to buy into something when the actors are playing off of a real prop and not a chalk line on the floor indicating where the videogame effect will be inserted.

[Some Stupid Japanese Name]

Im with Dole on this one.
Effects departments need to go back and re watch Jurassic Park.
That was how this stuff got done right.

[EvilMog]

Im with Dole on this one.
Effects departments need to go back and re watch Jurassic Park.
That was how this stuff got done right.

Damn right!

[Advocate]

You'd think CG is cheaper, but then why is Brave's budget $185 million?

Cause the entire movie is CG; from characters to scenery.

Iron Man was a mix of both Practical(The Suit by Stan Winston) to CG (The UI for the suit and Computer). I get what you are saying and I agree. Just your example was a bad one.

[Dolemite]

It wasn't an example- it was a legitimate question. You'd think actually building sets and props and shooting at locations around the world and having to drag around all those crew members and cameras and lights and every other piece of equipment everywhere as well as the actors commanding higher salaries than if they were sitting behind a mic in a studio would be more expensive than a film made out of (as Ruthless Reviews once said) pixels and Diet Dr. Pepper.

I guess I just don't understand the expenses involved in making an all-CG movie. I know it involved a shitload of animators and computers, but that much more than a live-action film with CG effects added?

[Dolemite]

Im with Dole on this one.
Effects departments need to go back and re watch Jurassic Park.
That was how this stuff got done right.

Exactly. And going to the trouble of balancing the CG and practical effects so perfectly is what makes Jurassic Park still hold up so well to this day, visually speaking.

[cka]

I'm guessing it's just because that movie is Pixar and Pixar thinks they're the be-all-end-all of animated CG movies so they can get obnoxiously huge budgets through Disney

e: and on a smaller, insert-in-post scale cg is cheaper because that's only a team working on a model in Maya or whatever and doing the inserts after all the shooting is done, whereas with a model they'd need to pay for labour and materials and other miscellaneous odds and ends

[Rumpy]

$185 mill is pretty middle of the road budget for a summer movie. Keep in mind Pixar spends a good 3 years on each movie, they constantly upgrade the programs they use, there's a lot of research and development in there too. The Incredibles is a good example here. Human characters with every natural element imaginable. Hair and cloth movement, water (oceans and wet characters), wind, fire, ice. It took them forever to get that all to work right.

It's also who's doing the work too, District 9 was done for around $30 million and that looks(ed) amazing. Attack the Block is a great example of small budget and bad ass CG effects too. Comes down to talent I think, a lot of FX houses do shit composting work (lack of skill or time of course). There's a lot of CG around that you never notice though, a lot of backgrounds on TV and movies are put in post (the last Potter movie is a great example of that).

I hate CG blood, looks terrible and the squib effect is so cheap and easy to do it's insulting.