5 ms·

I guess this partially explains why making a movie or TV episode can cost millions / hundreds of millions of dollars :-/ Yes, Dothraki being an actual language

I guess this partially explains why making a movie or TV episode can cost millions / hundreds of millions of dollars :-/ Yes, Dothraki being an actual language is probably "better" than Leia speaking gibberish to Jabba, but to me it feels like it's way past the point of diminishing returns.

eafkuor 8y ago
Honestly paying this guy to invent a language mustn't have been that expensive. It's just one extra salary in a show that employs hundreds/thousands of people. And I think these details help create a stronger following, because nerds love this kind of stuff. The community behind the Dark Souls games for example wouldn't be the same without all the secrets in those games.
ghaff 8y ago
See also the articles about the level of detail in the costumes in Game of Thrones. There is a lot of attention to detail, probably including a fair bit that doesn't make it on camera, in big budget video/film productions. You could probably cut a lot of it and still have a "pretty good" final product. But being obsessive about detail rather than being content with good enough in all sorts of aspects of production, including the acting, is one of the things that separate competent shows from really good ones.
- ggambetta 8y ago
  I get that. But spending a lot of money on things that don't make it to the final cut always felt like a waste to me. I'm very very marginally into filmmaking (see bio), and I've always had the impression that costs and time could be cut drastically just with better planning. I often wonder what would happen if you applied startup principles to making a movie. Thinking in terms of MVP, customer value, efficiency, on top of the artistic vision. This is not just talk, I'm putting my ideas to practice by producing two zero-budget feature films with an extremely lean mentality. Let's see how they turn out :)
  - de_watcher 8y ago
    Reminds me of "The Matrix" with detailed sketches of how exactly should it look.
    - magic_beans 8y ago
      Most movies do this. See: http://www.storyboardsinc.com/news/archives/2274 http://www.storyboardsinc.com/news/archives/2274
    - laumars 8y ago
      That's called a story board. As far as I'm aware all movies and a fair few TV shows do this because it's cheaper to sketch your idea out before you hire expensive camera crew, lighting, etc
    - ghaff 8y ago
      A lot of effort (and lots of time) can go into the development of a show or film. Yes, it can cost quite a bit of money in absolute terms to go through multiple rewrites, conceptual development, storyboards, screen tests, etc.--sometimes over the course of years--but it's still generally dirt cheap compared to the daily costs once you flip on the production switch.
  - Quarrelsome 8y ago
    you don't know what's gonna make the final cut though. Stuff like language creation is super early on in the process at which point you're trying to engineer a system for success. It makes sense because you don't know what you're gonna end up with and overshooting is better than missing.
    - DanAndersen 8y ago
      Exactly -- that was part of the mindset behind Weta when they were working on the Lord of the Rings movies. They rejected the attitude of avoiding detail "because no one would see it anyway," because putting in that detail would then open up flexibility in terms of what shots could actually be done, because there was the confidence that whatever they made would hold up.
- saiya-jin 8y ago
  While it makes sense to give attention to details, I see too much detail put into things without any effect on the result. Movies are primarily about good acting and scripts. One could slash budget significantly and still have the same final product. I wonder how much effort studios do in this space. One example - GoT - their costumes have details ie in sewing that you can only see when somebody takes a camera and shoots it up close on purpose. It will never be visible in show, not even in 4k and huge screens. Shows/movies moved past realism with how good dress/weapons/decorations looked in the past. If you visit any medieval castle, the stuff for kings and queens pales with what even mediocre TV shows can produce.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  If there is a lot of money, people will spend it. As long as everything goes up this is fine. When things start to get flat, money will dry up.
- endtime 8y ago
  I don't know the first thing about filmmaking, and my terminology will probably be wrong, but...my uninformed speculation is that creating coherent, consistent, high quality raw material gives the editors (or whoever) freedom to compose the best final cut.
robbiemitchell 8y ago
I don’t see how this explains those massive costs. It’s one salary out of hundreds of millions, and it’s a one-time investment. Plus, once you have a language, you can translate an English script into it vs constantly making up (inconsistent) foreign dialogue as you go.
- ygra 8y ago
  Well, the language is extended as needed, so it's still making up foreign words as you go. They just have to fit into the language properly.
- ggambetta 8y ago
  By "partially explains" I meant that if you spend money in this kind of thing, minor details that sometimes don't even end on the final cut, the costs can add up. I'm wondering to what extent the producers get good value for their money, or whether the Pareto principle applies here - is it possible to make something 80% as good for 20% of the cost, by focusing on the 20% that matters? For an extreme example, think Transformers, where hundreds of millions and dollars can't save bad writing. Making things better at the screenplay level is probably much more cost-effective than spending millions in VFX (or, in this case, creating a full language where subtitled not-entirely-random gibberish would probably do)
  - ghaff 8y ago
    I'd say Transformers did a pretty good job of doing what it set out to do (make money) even if you and I don't care for it :-) Certainly there are good "little" movies that get made on a relative shoestring. And even more shorts and arthouse fare. And modern video equipment makes it a lot easier to mostly use natural lighting and the like. That said, mainstream TV and movies have made most of our standards pretty high. I'm always somewhat amazed by how much gear gets brought in by a video crew to shoot a few minutes of talking heads to use on a company web site.
  - majewsky 8y ago
    > think Transformers, where hundreds of millions and dollars can't save bad writing The box office result says otherwise. (Note: I'm explicitly making an economical argument, not an artistic one, since that's what the thread focuses on.)

eafkuor 8y ago

Honestly paying this guy to invent a language mustn't have been that expensive. It's just one extra salary in a show that employs hundreds/thousands of people. And I think these details help create a stronger following, because nerds love this kind of stuff. The community behind the Dark Souls games for example wouldn't be the same without all the secrets in those games.

ghaff 8y ago

See also the articles about the level of detail in the costumes in Game of Thrones. There is a lot of attention to detail, probably including a fair bit that doesn't make it on camera, in big budget video/film productions. You could probably cut a lot of it and still have a "pretty good" final product. But being obsessive about detail rather than being content with good enough in all sorts of aspects of production, including the acting, is one of the things that separate competent shows from really good ones.

ggambetta 8y ago
I get that. But spending a lot of money on things that don't make it to the final cut always felt like a waste to me. I'm very very marginally into filmmaking (see bio), and I've always had the impression that costs and time could be cut drastically just with better planning. I often wonder what would happen if you applied startup principles to making a movie. Thinking in terms of MVP, customer value, efficiency, on top of the artistic vision. This is not just talk, I'm putting my ideas to practice by producing two zero-budget feature films with an extremely lean mentality. Let's see how they turn out :)
- de_watcher 8y ago
  Reminds me of "The Matrix" with detailed sketches of how exactly should it look.
  - magic_beans 8y ago
    Most movies do this. See: http://www.storyboardsinc.com/news/archives/2274 http://www.storyboardsinc.com/news/archives/2274
  - laumars 8y ago
    That's called a story board. As far as I'm aware all movies and a fair few TV shows do this because it's cheaper to sketch your idea out before you hire expensive camera crew, lighting, etc
  - ghaff 8y ago
    A lot of effort (and lots of time) can go into the development of a show or film. Yes, it can cost quite a bit of money in absolute terms to go through multiple rewrites, conceptual development, storyboards, screen tests, etc.--sometimes over the course of years--but it's still generally dirt cheap compared to the daily costs once you flip on the production switch.
- Quarrelsome 8y ago
  you don't know what's gonna make the final cut though. Stuff like language creation is super early on in the process at which point you're trying to engineer a system for success. It makes sense because you don't know what you're gonna end up with and overshooting is better than missing.
  - DanAndersen 8y ago
    Exactly -- that was part of the mindset behind Weta when they were working on the Lord of the Rings movies. They rejected the attitude of avoiding detail "because no one would see it anyway," because putting in that detail would then open up flexibility in terms of what shots could actually be done, because there was the confidence that whatever they made would hold up.
saiya-jin 8y ago
While it makes sense to give attention to details, I see too much detail put into things without any effect on the result. Movies are primarily about good acting and scripts. One could slash budget significantly and still have the same final product. I wonder how much effort studios do in this space. One example - GoT - their costumes have details ie in sewing that you can only see when somebody takes a camera and shoots it up close on purpose. It will never be visible in show, not even in 4k and huge screens. Shows/movies moved past realism with how good dress/weapons/decorations looked in the past. If you visit any medieval castle, the stuff for kings and queens pales with what even mediocre TV shows can produce.
_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
If there is a lot of money, people will spend it. As long as everything goes up this is fine. When things start to get flat, money will dry up.
endtime 8y ago
I don't know the first thing about filmmaking, and my terminology will probably be wrong, but...my uninformed speculation is that creating coherent, consistent, high quality raw material gives the editors (or whoever) freedom to compose the best final cut.

robbiemitchell 8y ago

I don’t see how this explains those massive costs. It’s one salary out of hundreds of millions, and it’s a one-time investment. Plus, once you have a language, you can translate an English script into it vs constantly making up (inconsistent) foreign dialogue as you go.

ygra 8y ago
Well, the language is extended as needed, so it's still making up foreign words as you go. They just have to fit into the language properly.
ggambetta 8y ago
By "partially explains" I meant that if you spend money in this kind of thing, minor details that sometimes don't even end on the final cut, the costs can add up. I'm wondering to what extent the producers get good value for their money, or whether the Pareto principle applies here - is it possible to make something 80% as good for 20% of the cost, by focusing on the 20% that matters? For an extreme example, think Transformers, where hundreds of millions and dollars can't save bad writing. Making things better at the screenplay level is probably much more cost-effective than spending millions in VFX (or, in this case, creating a full language where subtitled not-entirely-random gibberish would probably do)
- ghaff 8y ago
  I'd say Transformers did a pretty good job of doing what it set out to do (make money) even if you and I don't care for it :-) Certainly there are good "little" movies that get made on a relative shoestring. And even more shorts and arthouse fare. And modern video equipment makes it a lot easier to mostly use natural lighting and the like. That said, mainstream TV and movies have made most of our standards pretty high. I'm always somewhat amazed by how much gear gets brought in by a video crew to shoot a few minutes of talking heads to use on a company web site.
- majewsky 8y ago
  > think Transformers, where hundreds of millions and dollars can't save bad writing The box office result says otherwise. (Note: I'm explicitly making an economical argument, not an artistic one, since that's what the thread focuses on.)