Help
McLovin, on 01 December 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:
QuickTidal, on 01 December 2011 - 08:50 PM, said:
We didn’t know how other people made films, we just used logic, which it turns out, nobody uses.
Stanton's being more than a little unfair there, IMO. Pretty obvious that it's a LOT easier to tweak computer animations than it is live action. The cost of making a movie would skyrocket, and fewer would get put out. On the other hand, that might not be a bad thing, as long as it raises the quality...
I would argue that's not the case at all. In fact, having a dude/team sit and redo digital scene's probably takes weeks each time they have to redo it...while asking for multiple takes (many big directors do this, Scott, Nolan, Spielberg, Tykwer, Soderbergh) or even going back to do reshoots after assembly of sequences would cost much less. Effects work in Hollywood has a ridiculous premium on it these days and costs an effing fortune. If you look at the budget of an effects film these days, the percentage paid to one or more effects companies is staggering, usually well over 60%. Thus, having actors paid to come on set for a week or two of reshoots is NOTHING costwise compared to having digital teams for PIXAR sit and redo a scene 4 times.
I think he has a very good point about the future of film-making.
I mean seriously, the BEST films are made by demanding directors who make their cast do multiple (sometimes up to ten takes) of a scene to get different results and pick the best one. A lot of Hollywood directors will do 2 or 3 takes and then just have to deal with the results. Harrison Ford HATES Ridley Scott because BLADE RUNNER was such a long, repetitive shoot...meanwhile Scott created one of the most enduring, dark future sci-fi masterpieces ever by doing so and being that demanding.
I'm all for it.
