The Energon Pub

Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:15 pm

I understand budget issues prevents them from focusing the majority of the time on the bots, I really do. So my question is simple: Is it more expensive to shoot a live action film and insert CGI robots, or to do the whole thing in CGI?

Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:26 pm

Hmmmmmm.... At this moment in time, to do the whole thing in CGI, with the same attention to detail that the CGI characters have in the live action movies, would be way more expensive. Five, ten years down the line though, it won't be and it will be a common thing.

News Credits: 24 · Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:26 pm

The CGI is way more expensive than the real shoot. And let's not forget that no matter how good are the CGI artists there will always be a fake look in CGI (especially about the actual people). I still haven't seen a human CGI face that will trick me that it's real. The best recent example is the CGI of the young Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy. You can see it in the trailer. It looks so fake.

Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:34 pm

Not to mention creepy.

I guess until CGI becomes more economical, we have to settle for anthropocentric live action TF films.

Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:29 pm

I think that even when CGI becomes more economical, we'll still see real actors in the movie because you can't fake real human emotion... yet.

Tue Dec 07, 2010 6:30 pm

I don't mind live actors and prefer them to CGI humans. It's just I hope someday, the Transformers themselves can have more screen time.

Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:19 pm

I'd say its more expensive to do a CGI/Live Action film then a full on CGI film. Reasons being for any type of live action, you need to deal with filming permits, locations, tons and tons and tons of equipment, on location housing (Hotels and such) for both cast and crew, transportation for all the above, not to mention larger then life props for photo refrence (For the CGi people) and actor inter-action. And thats just the real world stuff....then you get to computer artist, animation artist, compositing artist, post production artist, concept artist, design artist, render farms, in house and out house sourcing......

The $$$$ add up very quickly.

Verses a full on CGI film, trying to be photoreal like say....Beowulf or is action heavy with real actors but 70-80% CGI (Backgrounds, sets, props, so on and so forth) like 300 are very cost effective. I believe 300 was done on a fraction of the budget that say....a movie like Gladiator was done...I think, it's been a while. But regardless it is cheaper to do full on CGI films, especially when I see a new CGI film cranked out every other month now it seems. What costs more is the quality of the film, which thanks to HD and BluRay films....computer artist have to be more prone to fix and blend the two worlds.

A full on CGI Transformers film which is done styalized verses trying to do something photoreal might be more cost effective, and if things ever go to say, Cybertron, more then capable and necessery. Even so, when a film grosses as much as the 2 TF films have, I think it's a cheap shot the Production houses don't want to shell out more $ for the budget or more time for the production to get a quality piece of film. It's something I have an issue with about Pirates 4, the franchise made alot of money, yet Disney went cheap with the 4th installment "just because". Same might be said with TF3, I'm not sure what the budget is, but the production schedule is truly aweful, hence why my hopes aren't too high this go around.

Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:47 pm

It doesn't make sense that they would go cheap on a third or fourth sequel if the first few movies sold well. Wouldn't that warrant spending more money to make more money in the long run? Am I being idealistic?

Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:01 pm

I agree, it doesn't make sense. But thats what happens. I wish I could tell you why, but I think Ian Black said it best when he said, "Hollywood, imagine a room full of monkeys, and they're slinging feces at each other....thats hollywood."

Thats about as logical an answer as your going to get.

Wed Dec 08, 2010 12:47 pm

I've never heard that saying before, but it does seem apropros.

Wow! You got Optimus to pose for a photo with you! Did he sign any autographs as well? :-D

Wed Dec 08, 2010 1:34 pm

It doesn't make sense to go cheap on the thrid movie when all the others have done well. But, could it also be because they feel the movie might not do as well in the long term, especially since there are so many other guaranteed money makers coming out at the same time. TF2 was #1 for how long when it came out? Like I said in another thread, Green Lantern is coming out before it, and the last Harry Potter and Captain America are coming out after it. It'll be very easy for DOTM to fall to 4th place and not necessarily because it's bad.

Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:41 pm

I've aways sort of felt the 'cgi is expensive, that's why you barely have any transformer footage' is a line of bull, looking at other moves that are so CGI heavy, almost constantly, Bay just wanted more for explosions and army guys