Live action vs. Animation

[Deeth Irteen]

Here's something I've been wondering. Which is more expensive to produce: A live action film or a film that uses CG animation?

[Valkysas]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

depends on the quality you're going for.

[Deeth Irteen]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

I'm talking about big-budget blockbusters (movies that don't suck)

[John Mora]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

Live-action.

[Tintenfisch]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

Ask the people responsible for Waterworld.

[marcus]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

Definitely live action. Actors request more money than voice actors, there are more people involved, set construction, rigging, lighting, special effects, sound, etc. For comparison purposes:

Coraline: 60-100 million (the figures are often jump around but 60mil is the most quoted)
The Dark Knight Returns: 185 million
Wall-E: 180 million (I don't even know what this was spent on; Wall-E was a pretty good film but it wasn't visually or technically impressive)
Kung-Fu Panda: 130mil
Pirates of the Caribbean at World's End: 300 million (anything involving water built sets are ridiculously expensive; one of the reasons why Waterworld had a huge budget)

Now some films are both visually impressive and produced on a budget.

Pan's Labyrinth: 19 million
Saw: 36 million (this is the combined budget of all five movies!)
Children of Men: 76 million

I'm not savy on Hollywood but this leads me to believe that majority of the budget comes from the set. Any movie that spans multiple locations obviously has to rent those areas, build the set, and pay for the housing of the crew and relocation. Pan's Labyrinth took place in a single area with a few additional sets (and I'm pretty sure Saw was filmed entirely in a single studio and I wouldn't put it past me if every scene was filmed in the SAME room).

Finally, some actors ask for ridiculous pay no matter what film they're in. There's a list somewhere giving the average price each actor asks for and prolific guys like Jim Carrey never settle for less than 20 million.

[Magus]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

Wall-E was a pretty good film but it wasn't visually or technically impressive

[marcus]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

it looked like every other CGI movie to me except with robots and blobs for people.

[Magus]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

There is a ****TON more to that movie, visually and technically, than 'bots and blobs.

[highwind]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

bots blobs and boring!

[John Mora]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

Let me say some things:

1. Saw and its sequels are not visually impressive and to claim such is silly.

2. Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men weren't produced in Hollywood, so costs would naturally go down. Plus, Children of Men doesn't really have lots of visual effects going for it. Basically it was visually impressive because of excellent cinematography.

[Magus]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

bots blobs and boring!

[highwind]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

[marcus]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

There is a ****TON more to that movie, visually and technically, than 'bots and blobs.

I'll repeat myself: it looked like every other pixar 3D animated movie. It was well written, especially considering most of the robot's personalities were expressed through body language, but the actual art design wasn't impressive when compared to other 3D movies.

There's just nothing I care for in 3D films and it's probably because video games and stuff cheapen the feel. For example, people are gushing over the new screenshots for the [url=http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768Cry Engine 2[/url] and all I can think is "So what."

1. Saw and its sequels are not visually impressive and to claim such is silly.

I thought the props were cool. Everything nowadays is generated with computers so when I see actual handcrafted props I instantly grow attached to them. Underworld was a "hollywood fantasy film" but they didn't use many computer effects (commentary mentions 1200 uses of digital post effects which is like 1/10 of the average film) and the result was much more impressive.

I don't know about you guys, but I can almost always spot when something is computer generated or not and it leaves a cold feeling with me. Doing things by hand can look horrible if you're not talented but well executed hand props are amazing. I honestly thought the mandrake in Pan's Labyrinth was computer generated but in the making of it turned out to be a remote controled robot. I thought the scene where the other world in Coraline disappeared was computer effects but they actually created a set that gradually receded into white space.

There's nothing impressive to me about computer effects but you guys should know me by now.

2. Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men weren't produced in Hollywood, so costs would naturally go down. Plus, Children of Men doesn't really have lots of visual effects going for it. Basically it was visually impressive because of excellent cinematography.

Unlike video games, film has pretty much reached the peak of its evolution. There's only so many ways to transmit video onto a screen and now everything is done through post effects. There seem to be a recent influx of films that stress good camera work and directing over POST EFFECT POST EFFECT POST EFFECT. I was expecting The Dark Knight to be as cheesy looking as the Spiderman movies but good camera work combined with great lighting outweighed the need for GREEN SCREEN after GREEN SCREEN. Even Iron Man relied more on great directing than special effects. Sure, there was a lot of action and computer effects, but the suit itself was hand built and fully functional which really added to the scenes where Iron Man was on the ground and blowing crap up.

[/rant]

[Kefka Jr.]

Re: Live action vs. Animation

Boring is made from tiberium ore and is the most expensive to produce

Seriously though, just the opening shots of Wall-E in the dilapidated city alone is full of all sorts of details that would be expensive to render.

But also I'm sure a lot of the budget went to get John Lasseter a jet-propelled swivel chair