The CGI Paradigm Shift

tl77

Well-Known Member
They use "digital sets" as a time and money saver on "The Mandalorian", and that would also be a good technique now due to the
pandemic, but the digital "face replacement" stuff still requires hiring an actor and a ton of CGI people, and is way more expensive that hiring an actor, or even a famous "star" actor. Most of any film budgets these days are going to CGI production houses, not "star salaries" ...when you watch a Marvel or Pixar film, and there are 10 minute long end credits? all those of names going by received some kind of pay check, and that pay check came out of the film's budget, so this would not be a "cost effective" way to make movies

 

FettFan

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Yeah, but we lost out on an animated kaiju vs mecha movie by the guy that ended up making King of the Monsters last year.

Neat artwork, but ultimately a regurgitation of three other franchises.


 

MonorailCoral

Active Member
I heard the live action Jungle Book was pretty good.

Disney keeps putting their more recent hand-drawn films up against big blockbusters and barely advertises them, then comes to the conclusion that they flopped for no other reason than because they're hand-drawn.

In other words, the same way GM sells cars.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
They use "digital sets" as a time and money saver on "The Mandalorian", and that would also be a good technique now due to the
pandemic, but the digital "face replacement" stuff still requires hiring an actor and a ton of CGI people, and is way more expensive that hiring an actor, or even a famous "star" actor. Most of any film budgets these days are going to CGI production houses, not "star salaries" ...when you watch a Marvel or Pixar film, and there are 10 minute long end credits? all those of names going by received some kind of pay check, and that pay check came out of the film's budget, so this would not be a "cost effective" way to make movies


It's not about saving cost...

It's about 'can we make movies given the constraints we have...'
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
They use "digital sets" as a time and money saver on "The Mandalorian", and that would also be a good technique now due to the
pandemic, but the digital "face replacement" stuff still requires hiring an actor and a ton of CGI people, and is way more expensive that hiring an actor, or even a famous "star" actor. Most of any film budgets these days are going to CGI production houses, not "star salaries" ...when you watch a Marvel or Pixar film, and there are 10 minute long end credits? all those of names going by received some kind of pay check, and that pay check came out of the film's budget, so this would not be a "cost effective" way to make movies
Original art is expensive, but digital assets (such as character models, lighting, audio, and virtual sets) can be reused and upgraded easily, making them much more cost-effective.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Plus they never get moody, make demands, hit puberty, etc etc...
Right!
This is also why, as things develop, the likenesses on the screen will NOT closely resemble famous actors. CGI characters don’t get caught up in scandals, don’t age, and never die!
 

tl77

Well-Known Member
Original art is expensive, but digital assets (such as character models, lighting, audio, and virtual sets) can be reused and upgraded easily, making them much more cost-effective.
In a Pixar movie "yes" But blending digital and live action is expensive because of how time consuming it is
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
In a Pixar movie "yes" But blending digital and live action is expensive because of how time consuming it is
Even that depends on how they blend digital and live action. For Dinosaur (way back in 2000), most of backgrounds were live-action and filmed on location. The CGI characters were then superimposed. This approach is much simpler, faster, and cheaper (and socially distant) than blending live action actors and sets with CGI (like most of the Marvel movies).
 

tl77

Well-Known Member
Even that depends on how they blend digital and live action. For Dinosaur (way back in 2000), most of backgrounds were live-action and filmed on location. The CGI characters were then superimposed. This approach is much simpler, faster, and cheaper (and socially distant) than blending live action actors and sets with CGI (like most of the Marvel movies).
yeah, that's true all the movies like Alvin and the Chipmunks where they add animated characters to live action backgrounds is the easiest way to use CGI, a lot of The Mandalorian is real people standing in-front of giant TV screens... but green screening actors into digital stuff is the slowest, hardest, expensive option... and I never think it looks that good. The Mandalorian method is the most convincing, I think. I was surprised to see the "making of" and see much of it "wasn't shot on location" but in front of the giant screens
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
yeah, that's true all the movies like Alvin and the Chipmunks where they add animated characters to live action backgrounds is the easiest way to use CGI, a lot of The Mandalorian is real people standing in-front of giant TV screens... but green screening actors into digital stuff is the slowest, hardest, expensive option... and I never think it looks that good. The Mandalorian method is the most convincing, I think. I was surprised to see the "making of" and see much of it "wasn't shot on location" but in front of the giant screens
I agree. The "holodeck" video backdrops work surprisingly well!
the-mandalorian-unreal-engine.jpg
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
"Everything" about making movies/TV in a corporate world like this is about cost saving

This is a reaction to

1) No one being able to travel
2) No one being able to gather in large groups
3) Limited access to key assets
4) The liability of starting work and then being halted
5) The impracticality of trying to keep an entire production crew in a bubble

It's about how to create content in a decentralized or more distributed manner.

The 'cost savings' method would be to do it live action in person... it's quicker and cheaper.
 

gljvd

Active Member
They use "digital sets" as a time and money saver on "The Mandalorian", and that would also be a good technique now due to the
pandemic, but the digital "face replacement" stuff still requires hiring an actor and a ton of CGI people, and is way more expensive that hiring an actor, or even a famous "star" actor. Most of any film budgets these days are going to CGI production houses, not "star salaries" ...when you watch a Marvel or Pixar film, and there are 10 minute long end credits? all those of names going by received some kind of pay check, and that pay check came out of the film's budget, so this would not be a "cost effective" way to make movies


They can start developing AI learning technology to do most of the work and use artists to go and touch up


This is a fan edit. Imagine if they had Mark come in and do all the acting and then used machines to make him younger like this.

Compute power keeps getting better


these are the consumer cards but look at the processing jump

The professional cards will dwarf the chips used for the Mandalorian
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
This is a fan edit. Imagine if they had Mark come in and do all the acting and then used machines to make him younger like this.
I think you mean Harrison, but yeah, this is the sort of thing that is advancing by leaps and bounds. Imagine a character that isn't based on a real human actor at all. There would be no need to bring him in for reshoots and no need to artificially age/de-age him.
 

gljvd

Active Member
I think you mean Harrison, but yeah, this is the sort of thing that is advancing by leaps and bounds. Imagine a character that isn't based on a real human actor at all. There would be no need to bring him in for reshoots and no need to artificially age/de-age him.
nah i meant Mark , he signed the cgi contract. I doubt Harrison ever would lol
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Top Bottom