WOULD THE EFFECTS COST 90 MILL TODAY? - Starship Troopers (1997) Discussion

[–] leo-hork-na 9 years ago

90 million USD (in 1996, when the movie ws filmed I suppose) adjusted by inflation would be 135, 956, 214.18 USD today. So I think SFX would be even cheaper today and better, like most technologies.

reply

[–] p-nygren 9 years ago

They would be "cheaper" but not better, sadly. At least what I think. Many new movies with huge budgets have terrible cgi. Starship Troopers, being almost 20 years old, has superb cgi. Too bad the actors didn't get good enough instructions as to how big the bugs would truly be in the final release (shooting above the bugs in most shots).

reply

[–] Lucious-Nightingale 9 years ago

So why has cgi not progressed since this film

reply

[–] MuggySphere 9 years ago

That's a very good question and I don't think anyone can answer that.

reply

[–] Stanley_Kubrick_2 8 years ago

So why has cgi not progressed since this film

Because back in the 90's this was all done by artists. Now it's all done on the cheap in countries like India.

All the best CGI was done in the 90's IMO (True Lies, Mission Impossible, Twister, Starship Troopers) and now it all looks like a PS3 game or worse.

reply

[–] rhemerik 8 years ago

Seen Twister recently? FX haven't aged well.

I think CGI these days is 'better', however more lazily applied. Back in the '90's filmmakers took great care in combining CGI with practical effects and efficient lighting.

Nowadays CGI is pretty much applied to everything straight away.

reply

[–] bigbadwolf666 8 years ago

I completely agree.

To this day, with this cheesy b rated script, actors, etc... what makes this movies is its awesome cgi and with the terrible cgi that'll make your head puke nowadays this is by far one of the best i've ever seen. The cgi team in this movie did an outstanding job.

 Why am I such a misfit? I am not just a nitwit. 

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

It's quite self-evident it would cost much less today. Computers get faster all the time, so the same quality CGI becomes cheaper and cheaper every year.

If you're asking if the same nominal amount of money, not corrected for inflation would be enough for the same quality CGI, the answer is probably yes, too.

But if this movie was done today, they'd probably use better CGI. And it's hard to tell if they would cost more than the original version.

reply

[–] estocade 8 years ago

Thing is cgi gets better with every year but it is the direction that truly matters.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

Computers get faster all the time, so the same quality CGI becomes cheaper and cheaper every year.

Faster also costs more. Just look at the Titan range of GPUs and see what Pascal costs today by comparrison.

But if this movie was done today, they'd probably use better CGI. And it's hard to tell if they would cost more than the original version.

Better CGI means more work in creating finer graphics, which costs more money.

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

You're not making sense in this context.

Faster also costs more.

It doesn't cost more. For the same price, we have much faster computers than we did 20 years ago.

Better CGI means more work in creating finer graphics, which costs more money.

With the same amount of work you get better results than you did 20 years ago, because you have better tools now.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

It doesn't cost more. For the same price, we have much faster computers than we did 20 years ago.

The PC might be able to render 800 polygons per m/s versus 8 polygons per m/s from 20 years ago, for example... but the cost of that $300 today is only $507 in adjusted dollars, whereas the swanky faster GPUs are upwards of $1500 already... and a professional level industrial GPU is about $6,000.
So proportionally, kit is about three times more today than it would have been 20 years ago.

With the same amount of work you get better results than you did 20 years ago, because you have better tools now.

Yes, but the same amount of work only renders 800 polygons, whereas modern graphics require 8,000,000 polygons, for example.
More detail requires more work, which costs more money. If that weren't the case, games like Elite Dangerous would still be dev'd by two blokes at home rather than a massive team....

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

So your conclusion is the same CGI would cost the same or even more than it did 20 years ago. Understood.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

So your conclusion is the same CGI would cost the same or even more than it did 20 years ago. Understood.

Yes, for several reasons:

- The same CGI would still require kit compatible with all the other filming equipment, which would need to be more modern than what we had 20 years ago, thus more expensive.

- The same CGI still requires people to create it and salaries have increased in the last 20 years.

These figures are higher, both directly compared and when adjusted for inflation.
However, you'd never turn a profit with a film 20 years out of date on the CGI, so you'd still have to step things up to current standards, which again costs even more.

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

No it doesn't make any sense.

You'd need much less equipment and/or human resource to do the much simpler old CGI, so it'd cost much less overall.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

You'd need much less equipment and/or human resource to do the much simpler old CGI, so it'd cost much less overall.

Except it doesn't work that way.

If you use the same old equipment, the people who can still use it well enough are in very short supply and will cost a LOT to hire - More money.
Duplicating the same effects with modern kit will take longer and need more expensive kit, as well as more staff to ensure accuracy and compatability - More money.

If budget is your issue, you'd be better off aiming for graphics about 5-10 years old, using affordable mid-range kit, resulting in a reasonable balance of cost/quality, which is what a lot of amateur film makers use for things like fan projects on YouTube.
Taking things to any one of the extremes outside of that will rack the cost up.

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

It works exactly this way. Twenty years old quality CGI is much cheaper now and that's it.

You're bringing up irrelevant things, and totally missing the point of the original question. No one asked for the same CGI pixel for pixel, just the same quality.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

It works exactly this way. Twenty years old quality CGI is much cheaper now and that's it.

If you say so. You're *clearly* an industry professional...

No one asked for the same CGI pixel for pixel, just the same quality.

Actually, OP does specify "the exact same effects"...!
Half those effects were a combination of CGI assets modelled over physical assets, the latter of which are VERY expensive today compared to modern FX and even more expensive to create completely digitally... in fact, some would argue impossible to replicate digitally, which is why the CGI in films like Star Wars Eps 1-3 still sucks compared to the original puppetry from the 1970s.

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

Actually, OP does specify "the exact same effects"...!

Then ask him if he meant it your way or my way. You'd might be surprised.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

You ask. I simply took the post at face value and responded with what was asked for.

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

Actually no, you didn't. I was talking about quality levels from the very beginning, and you replied the same topic. Your "pixel for pixel the same CGI" obsession came only in a later post of yours, as an escape way from a losing argument.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

Actually no, you didn't. I was talking about quality levels from the very beginning

YOU may have introduced that specification... The OP did not.

Your "pixel for pixel the same CGI" obsession came only in a later post of yours, as an escape way from a losing argument.

Again, you actually introduced that in post 11.
Up to that point my responses actually concered amount of work and costs of equipment, while briefly touching on the differing results from these variables.

As for "losing the argument", while I have challenged your assertions, I've yet to hear anything to substantiate your claims aside from your mere opinion which is tantamount to "because I say so"...

reply

[–] zee944 8 years ago

You replied to MY post, which was very clearly about quality and related costs. I've just checked and it seems everyone else in the topic were talking about the same thing I did. But it shouldn't surprise you, as you were talking about it too in your first few posts.

My logic with "better technology for the same price" is evident from the very beginning. What you've brought up to "challenge" it was either irrelevant or lacked logic.

reply

[–] ttaskmaster 8 years ago

You replied to MY post, which was very clearly about quality and related costs.

You were talking about speed, assuming faster is cheaper and equating that to equality of product, before deciding they'd use better quality anyway.
This later part I actually agree with, but have also explained why...

I've just checked and it seems everyone else in the topic were talking about the same thing I did.

Not really. Most are looking toward better CGI and arguing that even today's tech often does not produce higher quality.

But it shouldn't surprise you, as you were talking about it too in your first few posts.

Nope.
I addressed amount of work, speed of technology and cost of both. I only addressed it after you brought it up.

My logic with "better technology for the same price" is evident from the very beginning.

Which I have already challenged and disproven based on the cost of 'better technology', both numerically and adjusted for inflation. It also follows no actual logic beyond "I think it should be this".
Upon what financial reasoning do you base this 'logic' of yours?

What you've brought up to "challenge" it was either irrelevant or lacked logic.

Says who? You?
So far that's just more of your say-so and still nothing to actually substantiate your claims beyond simply claiming it.

reply

[–] Zyclone 8 years ago

I don't think they used much CGI in this movie, so the costs might be higher if they'd make this movie today.
But if they'd use CGI, it'd be much cheaper today (all CGI-hardware and software is cheaper and better today).

[// Man of European lineage whose native language isn't English]

reply

[–] Lucious-Nightingale 8 years ago

Thank you Zyclone

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

90 mil for the effects? The total budget was 105 mil so surely the effects didnt cost that much. In any case, no matter what you think of the movie (ive always loved it) over 20 years on and this is one of the finest visual effects movies ive ever seen, probably one of the last to use practical effects combined with cg made by true artists with loving time, care and commitment.

reply

[–] twinA (4921) 6 years ago

There are just some elements CGI cannot do
what practical effects can: depth.

The limitations of special effects in the film may
have been a good thing; no easy cookie-cutting
with the big bug battles - it would just be hack
and slash explosions galore.

~~/o/

reply

[–] dmac8 (5050) 6 years ago

way ahead of its time. The Fifth Element too.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Its such a shame we dont see effects work like this anymore. The 90s were a great time for vfx, the perfect marriage of practical and digital. Even the human digital doubles in ST were better than some produced nowadays.

Ive just accepted that cgi looks like animation these days, which is ironic as in terms of photo realism some of todays effects work looks about as real as Harryhausen creations.

reply