8 ms·
I guess Cinemablend isn't going to fact check this claim? It's typically much cheaper to do anything like a plane crash in a computer (or models + computer). E
by trimbo 6y ago
I guess Cinemablend isn't going to fact check this claim?
It's typically much cheaper to do anything like a plane crash in a computer (or models + computer). Even 20 years ago, when I was bidding visual effects, I bet it would have been cheaper. [Note, I haven't seen the movie, so maybe there are 50 angles of it exploding, in which case it might not be]
The cost of a mothballed plane is probably trivial compared to the daily cost of Tenet's movie set. You've got all of the actors (or maybe stunt people in this case) and crew members, so their salaries, food, hotels, costs of being on location and so on. The cost of renting the location itself. Constructing things you're going to destroy, cleaning up, etc.
My guess is that Nolan wanted to do it this way because it's more fun. Nolan knows it's cheaper to do it in CGI, but blowing stuff up in CGI is boring. He gets to sit in a desk chair and look at something blowing up on a screen instead of seeing it IRL. And he can call the shots because he's Nolan, he directed, wrote and produced the thing.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago> cleaning up I would not underestimate this cost.
- csours 6y ago> "[Note, I haven't seen the movie, so maybe there are 50 angles of it exploding, in which case it might not be]" There are quite a few angles of it exploding, as well as it being a major set piece with people running around it before, during, and after the explosion.
- ehsankia 6y agoYeah the plane is part of almost a good 10-15% of the movie.
- ComputerGuru 6y agoBasing the choice on the result we now see in the cinema is a fairly tautological affair. I mean, when you’ve made the decision to go with a real one then you might as well include as many shots and angles as you can get and milk it for all it’s worth. The real question is if the movie could have been done with fewer angles and interior shots.
- trimbo 6y agoI probably shouldn't have even included that note. I'm not current on the state of the art but I can't imagine there's any scenario where an effect like that would be cheaper to do practically than in CGI/models.
- berkut 6y agoWhile I agree in general, I work in the VFX industry as a software dev writing a renderer that's used for blockbusters, and one situation where CG still isn't quite "there" yet IMO is fluid effects and explosions (which is somewhat combined with the simulation of them as well as the rendering). So much iteration time can go into attempting to get the right "shape" of the simulation, as well as "colours" (smoke, combustion, flame), whether via a black-body spectral shader or a more artist-driven one, and it's very difficult to get people to agree on what looks "real" or "right", especially compared to say hard-surface rendering. Doing it practically (assuming the correct scale, and fuels were used) might (depending on directors and producers' opinions) make people "just" accept that the result is "realistic", and remove a lot of the uncertainty, at the very least just because they can't tweak things afterwards, and what was recorded is the result they get, as opposed to having a team of 10s of people iterating for months (including lots of compute time for simulations and rendering) trying to get something the people at the top are happy looks "real".
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y ago> and one situation where CG still isn't quite "there" yet IMO is fluid effects and explosions (which is somewhat combined with the simulation of them as well as the rendering) To be honest, the non-CG crash scene in the snippets that I've seen looked off too. Random fireballs starting in random locations.
- eloisant 6y agoWhen doing non-CG crash for movies, they often stuff the vehicle with explosives for a more spectacular result. They know it's not realistic, because they take the decision to add all these explosives. Now when reality gets influenced by fiction, ISIS actually used bombs that make a lot of flames, more than necessary for warfare, just to make their propaganda videos similar to the Hollywood movies their recruiting targets have been watching all their life.
- manquer 6y agoPerhaps to make it look worse on tv to get coverage . I am sure recruiting videos could just as well use CGI if they wanted to. Likely anyway does, skifull editing and manipulation are required for any propoganda content anyway.
- ilestkempo 6y agoNolan did confirm this in an interview. I don't remember which one, but it was quick remark. He also said reselling the most valuable parts of the 747 quickly made it a lot more affordable.
- manquer 6y agoThey didn't say cheaper. Lot more efficient. CGI maybe cheaper, but going by timelines of any software project it certainly won't be remotely faster.