CGI Cost Question

Discussion in 'Transformers Movie Discussion' started by Bumblebee765, Apr 20, 2012.

  1. Bumblebee765

    Bumblebee765 Wrecker

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Posts:
    4,884
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    202
    Likes:
    +151
    Okay, I understand that it costs more for more TransFormer screen time, but I don't know why? Does ILM charge per-model, or for time that is spent animating? Whoever can answer this, thank you in advance! :) 
     
  2. Aernaroth

    Aernaroth <b><font color=blue>I voted for Super_Megatron and Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Posts:
    24,232
    News Credits:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    367
    Likes:
    +1,105
    Basically each model is kind of like a puppet. They build the frame, texture over it, and then move it at the joints to make the animation.

    That frame takes time and work to design, build, and animate. More transformers, more time, more work, more money.

    So when you add more transformers, you have to pay extra to design and build those unique models, and when you give them more screentime, you need to pay to have those models moved around and then textured and rendered in high-quality, all of which costs money.

    ILM's pricing is likely by time the work takes, or maybe they bid for the job, but most likely they charge by the amount of time and work that they do.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2012
  3. Nachtsider

    Nachtsider Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Posts:
    12,543
    News Credits:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    201
    Likes:
    +11
    I always have the feeling that the CGI, while undeniably expensive, doesn't cost as much as one might think, and that the TFs receiving comparatively little screen time is purely Bay's stylistic choice.
     
  4. TylerMirage

    TylerMirage I vawnt my berdt.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Posts:
    7,355
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Likes:
    +13
    ^Regarding Bay's stylistic choice and it's bearing on the budget: Probably not as much as people make it out to be. Yes, reducing the number of parts on each character would obviously have an effect on price/manpower and time, but the way some people act (not you, Nacht) is that if they were to reduce Optimus' part count from 10,108 to something like 5000 that it would suddenly open up a gold-filled well and free up an additional $50 million in the budget. Yes, some money would be saved, but not enough to warrant/pay for an additional 45 minutes of robot screentime in the movie.

    This. You've got the time spent, machines/programs used, all of the different steps in creating and visualizing these sequences and characters for the screen and staff to pay that all add up.

    OP, next time you watch a big VFX-driven film, watch the credits and look at the names under all of the different "VISUAL EFFECTS BY..." headings. See all of those people? All of them? Like, anywhere from 100-500 people? All of those people have a job to do in the visual effects world and all of those people have to be paid for their work (a small percentage may be volunteers). That's $$$ right there.
     
  5. Wheeljack_Prime

    Wheeljack_Prime Don't eat me

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Posts:
    11,702
    News Credits:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    277
    Likes:
    +334
    ^Yeah, a bunch of comparitively small costs that just end up adding up.
     
  6. TylerMirage

    TylerMirage I vawnt my berdt.

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Posts:
    7,355
    News Credits:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    176
    Likes:
    +13
    Yeah, they would add up to something way more significant - I won't deny that - but it'll never be as significant as many people make it out/want it to be. Let's just say $10 million realistically saved vs the $50 million that people want in order to "let's have Characters w, x, y and z all have way more screentime and dialogue and their own personalized fight scene and transformation sequence and let's have three new CGI action sequences!".

    EDIT: Also, money could also be saved by decreasing the amount of human cast, changing locales, or tweaking the story in such a way as to decrease the overall runtime. There's lots of things that could be done to save money; not just decreasing the number of parts on the complex designs of the robots. Personally, I think it boils down to the fact that these movies aren't always written with the mindset of "let's have the robots be the stars/lets place the majority of the focus on them" because they know that (even with simpler designs) these robots are going to be very expensive to create. They're written about the humans first, with the robots as the second thought (more or less). If they truly wanted the robots to be the stars, they'd do what was in their power to make sure that we get the gosh-darn robots. "What can we do to make sure the robots get the spotlight? How can we change this scene so that plot point 1 is explained, but also have the Transformers prominent?" and so on.

    Again, for the record, I'm not saying that there'd be no money saved. It's all about the little things adding up. I'd be very interested in asking someone like Farrar specific questions regarding the costs of the VFX work. :) 
     
  7. Ephland

    Ephland Let's Go Rangers

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Posts:
    8,672
    News Credits:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Likes:
    +2,053
    The bolded part is the answer.
     

Share This Page