Budgeting Special Effects
KCRW’s The Business hosted by Claude Brodesser-Akner is both a radio show and podcast dealing with the inner workings of the business of Hollywood.
Claude’s interviews with directors, screenwriters, advertising executives and actors/actresses are often fascinating, if not enlightening, especially if you share an interest in how films are created like I do.
In his interview with actor/director Jon Favreau entitled “No Special Effects, It’s Really Director Jon Favreau”, Jon reveals his love/hate relationship with CGI effects and why home brewed effects are still relevant and useful. His philosophy is that while computer generated imagery has its place (namely a toolbox of endless possibility) it can also cloud the visual aesthetic of a movie.
While CGI has improved over the years, providing the backbone for things like sci-fi vistas and mythological creatures as well upping the ante on disaster sequences it’s also — in most cases — immediately recognizable if it doesn’t blend in with live action.
Recently Favreau was chosen to direct the film adaptation of Iron Man, a task not to be taken lightly and even though the film itself has a much bigger budget than his other films, he’s also made the decision to budget the special effects. His reasoning is two-fold; that the film’s budget is targeted at a specific amount and to effectively blend CGI with live action without going overboard.
In all honesty, this is something that I wish more directors (including George Lucas) would come to terms with. Audiences are typically overwhelmed with joy when a superb CGI sequence is pulled off but to echo Favreau’s thoughts, in most cases it’s easily noticed and can take you out of the movie, detaching you from the film’s otherwise engrossing atmosphere and aesthetic.
Yet, to play devil’s advocate I suppose it’s a tricky thing to avoid and I’d imagine why most directors and producers go out on a limb blindfolded, hoping that whatever is put together by their masters of illusion comes across successfully not only in a visual manner but also allowing various CG elements to interact with live action in a realistic way.
One Comment, Comment or Ping
kartooner
I should have mentioned that I’m not advocating that Hollywood shouldn’t utilize CGI. Not at all, just that they should really consider the benefits of using that facet of special effects for certain sequences, or whether or not it really adds anything.
We are the toughest critics so if it’s needed (like in the new Spiderman 3 movie), it better look good.
My favorite CGI sequence in fact goes back to that reflective water snake alien creature (lots of words there) in The Abyss.
Dec 1st, 2006
Reply to “Budgeting Special Effects”