MovieJuice Diary (which, if they just trasposed two letters to make it "MovieJuice Dairy" would put milk and juice on equal footing) posts a fine, fine CGI Rant.
I think (and I could be wrong, here), but the most expensive part of a movie is usually the star. If you have to insure, feed, transport, and pamper her(and her entourage) on the planet Tatooine, wouldn't that be more expensive than hiring a geek to make a desert on her Mac?
Good point, but I was really talking about the second half of your post. I would think it would be more expensive for those TV shows to make CGI backgrounds than to just go outside.
It might often be that they shoot real desert (with perhaps the sky being CGI). It's just easier to bring a small film crew to shoot the desert and then shoot the actors in a studio than it is to bring EVERYONE to the middle of the desert and shoot it all there.
I bet it's not even CGI, but a photograph. The example I'm thinking of, from TV Guide (a while back), was that the loading dock of the hospital in ER was always filmed before a blue screen and composited digitally later.
I thought there was a french film made in the last few years where the backgrounds were entirely computer generated. It was a period film and the backgrounds were famous French paintings.
I remember hearing that 95% of the shots had blue screen in them somewhere, but Sky Captain did ALL the sets and most of the props in CGI, whereas there were tons of sets and props built in the real world for Phantom Menace.
I always through The Phantom Menace was "the first big-budget film shot entirely with backgrounds produced in a computer".
Why would they put those poor people in a desert and shoot everything else with blue screen?! That's silly.
I saw in TV Guide that even ER and Law & Order use blue screen for outdoor shots, to save on location expenses.
Really? It would seem to me that such detailed CGI would be just as expensive as filming on location, if not more so.
I think (and I could be wrong, here), but the most expensive part of a movie is usually the star. If you have to insure, feed, transport, and pamper her(and her entourage) on the planet Tatooine, wouldn't that be more expensive than hiring a geek to make a desert on her Mac?
Good point, but I was really talking about the second half of your post. I would think it would be more expensive for those TV shows to make CGI backgrounds than to just go outside.
It might often be that they shoot real desert (with perhaps the sky being CGI). It's just easier to bring a small film crew to shoot the desert and then shoot the actors in a studio than it is to bring EVERYONE to the middle of the desert and shoot it all there.
I bet it's not even CGI, but a photograph. The example I'm thinking of, from TV Guide (a while back), was that the loading dock of the hospital in ER was always filmed before a blue screen and composited digitally later.
Nope, there were plenty of shots where the actors were on location. For example, they really were in a desert for all those Tatooine shots.
(or was that a tongue-in-cheek dig at the movie?)
I thought there was a french film made in the last few years where the backgrounds were entirely computer generated. It was a period film and the backgrounds were famous French paintings.
I remember hearing that 95% of the shots had blue screen in them somewhere, but Sky Captain did ALL the sets and most of the props in CGI, whereas there were tons of sets and props built in the real world for Phantom Menace.
OK, but we're talking about backgrounds here. Not props and sets.
Oh, okay. Yeah, then I think Phantom Menace was like %95, and certainly paved the way for a 100% film like Sky Captain.