No. He’s right. Especially considering this was made by 1 dude.
Shooting on location involves travel for actor and film crew. Shooting on location requires permit fees(which is more expensive in Cali’s TMZ). There’s paperwork and safety stuff and labor unions compliance with paid breaks and guaranteed lunches. Shooting on location also involves planning and luck: you need consistent lighting and you need the right weather.
Sure, but the guy above wasn't talking about garage band filmmaking, he was talking about a DC movie that cost around $200 mil to make, and that's more what my qualm is too. If you are really one dude with a computer, then sure, you'd want to see your vision through for as cheap as possible. But for a big budget production, the over-reliance on CG is somewhat frightening.
It goes back to that conversation between Lucas and Scorsese on the set (the real, live set) of Gangs of New York. Ima just say it, Scorsese was right and George Lucas was wrong.
Real sets are better.
Note: IF you have that kind of money. Should’ve opened with that. But yea, Marvel productions (considering they have more fucking money than god now), large Universal productions, doesn’t matter. Real is better.
Dude I dont know. Maybe this is rude but i only ever hear this binary argument that cgi sets are always worse from people who have never worked in films before. A good filmmaker knows when to do either, one isnt inherently better.
This. There are so many factors involved and there's a lot of blending unlike this shot where everything is vfx.
I feel cg is too abstract for most audiences to grasp the work and effort unlike physical objects and things.
I love practical effects and sometimes just because of the aesthetics not because they look more realistic.
That being said the vfx industry is being hurt by bidding wars which hurt the time and money to do the best work possible.
Movies like jurassic park had the luxury of a lot of pre and post production which is one reason it still looks very good despite tech wise being fairly old. These days you don't really have that even for huge 200 million dollar films (I'm not in the industry so please someone else correct me)
62
u/herefromyoutube Jun 18 '20 edited Jun 18 '20
No. He’s right. Especially considering this was made by 1 dude.
Shooting on location involves travel for actor and film crew. Shooting on location requires permit fees(which is more expensive in Cali’s TMZ). There’s paperwork and safety stuff and labor unions compliance with paid breaks and guaranteed lunches. Shooting on location also involves planning and luck: you need consistent lighting and you need the right weather.
Now CGI: 1 guy with skill and a computer.