4 ms·
Fifteen million euros for machinima? Where is the money going? I can see how Source would be a good way to make a reasonable-looking animated movie on the chea
by planetguy 14y ago
Fifteen million euros for machinima? Where is the money going?
I can see how Source would be a good way to make a reasonable-looking animated movie on the cheap. But with a reasonable amount of money to spend, then either:
a) You're reusing enough existing stuff (character models, physics enginey stuff, et cetera) that you can't possibly spend that much money, or
b) You're re-doing enough stuff from scratch that there doesn't seem to be much advantage to doing it in Source rather than something more conventional like Maya [or whatever they're using nowadays]
- grovulent 14y agoIn making an animated movie heaps of money goes in all sorts of places besides the animation itself. Writers, directors, actors and all the other production crew folks etc... distribution, advertising and so on... Who knows what the break down is - and whether the choice to use source is based on cost efficiencies alone. Perhaps they are going for a particular visual style... I would have thought the source engine is sufficiently old enough to give such a film an interesting retro aesthetic...
- jonknee 14y agoThat's a very small amount of money for a feature film. Pixar would likely spend an order of magnitude more.
- hyperbovine 14y agoAre you using that term for effect, or...? The most expensive Pixar films to date have cost around US$200m.
- alexhawket 14y ago$200m USD is $158m euros.. so yes, that's, an order of magnitude more.
- rkudeshi 14y agoAn order of magnitude generally means a multiple of 10, as I understand it. So yes, a Pixar movie ($200m) is an order of magnitude more expensive than this film ($18.6m).
- hyperbovine 14y agoApologies -- saw "fifteen" and read "fifty".
- alexhawket 14y agoFor a typical pixar/dreamworks movie, it takes about $1.25 million/per minute of film. It can take a week just do 3 seconds of animation and all the labour is, of course, exceptionally talented and extremely expensive.
- dannytatom 14y ago"For a typical pixar/dreamworks movie, it takes about $1.25 million/per minute of film." Not doubting you, but do you have a source for this?
- xyzzyz 14y agoWhile original Shrek had $60M budget, which meant $666k per minute, the sequel took $150M to produce, which meant $1.66M per minute.
- alexhawket 14y agoA friend of mine works in film, so I know the ballpark costs from conversations with him. You can find production costs for films on the net fairly easily. Puss in Boots, for example was $130 million and Kung Fu Panda 2 was around $150 million. So you're looking at 1.25m to 1.5m per minute.
- 89a 14y agoIs there anything at all "typical" about the biggest CG film studios on the planet? One of them the pioneer of the entire artform…
- wtracy 14y agoAs far as I can tell, they're not re-using models from an existing game, just using the game engine as a renderer.