3 ms·
The article is a puff piece, it doesn't have any detail so I'd take it with a grain of salt with regards as to what actually happened and how much it cost. Als
by pilsetnieks 6y ago
The article is a puff piece, it doesn't have any detail so I'd take it with a grain of salt with regards as to what actually happened and how much it cost.
Also, this sentence a couple of paragraphs down:
> Though buying a 747 plane and blowing it up may have been more efficient, Christopher Nolan later seems to insinuate that it may not have been the cheaper option
seems to muddle the waters somewhat.
- jacobr1 6y agoI can imagine the time to deliver the plan and rig the explosives might be only roughly a week. And the shot where it blows up is only going to take that one day or night. Then there is cleanup time. So the whole thing only takes a few weeks. On the otherhand a good CGI shot is going to take months. So even if the plane isn't cheaper overall, weeks vs months still might makes sense in the overall production timeline if the premium isn't that much higher.