Why Do Movies With Special Effects Cost So Much Money?
 

I'm talking about your big summer blockbusters with loads of special effects...what about special effects is so costly? Is it just because studios have to pay computer animators?

What about creating effects on a computer makes a budget skyrocket?

Lots of manpower?

That and most summer blockbusters hire the biggest actors... and Will Smith ain't cheap...

I think you answered your own question.

Computers cost money. So does the time of those who know how to use said expensive computer equipment.

Didn't The Matrix Revolutions, at one point, have ten effects companies working to finish the effects in time? That could be a factor.

Re: Why Do Movies With Special Effects Cost So Much Money?
 

The wareze programs. The technicians. The graphic desginers. The effects artists. The computer programmers. Etc., etc.

Quite a few films have numerous effects companies working on finishing the effects in time; mostly due to the advanced technology in Hollywood meaning quicker turnaround time from production to release. I remember the film Evolution had to hire numerous effects companies so that the film could be released on time.

The costs of making movies has gone through the roof all around. When you consider that a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark cost roughly $40 million in current dollars, an amount that wouldn't even begin to cover making a movie of similar scope today, you maybe start to think that costs have spiraled out of control.

Well, special effects ain't cheap. You have to pay the artists to make it, which can be quite pricey. A movie like Spiderman has a ton of people working on it all making a decent amount of change, new techniques are usually created for the big movies. Remember most movies hire effect firms to do the work for them, and they set prices for so much work. I doubt they are cheap. Having done some work with computer graphics myself, I can also tell you processing power, rendering, manpower, equpiment all of that adds up.

Not to mention, movies use much more than computer graphics. Star Wars is hardly just CG, but incorporates more models and miniatures than any other movies ever made. LoTR put together a system of over 2,400 computers networked for rendering, not to mention the hundreds of technicians working on the movie. Nonetheless special effects aren't cheap, especially when many of the more expensive films are breaking new ground with every movie, such as The Hulk, Polar Express, Final Fantasy, or so on. Now, I'm sure some will say those movies looked like crap, but nonetheless the technical aspects to create those are expensive.

Now, of course Hollywood also has its issues of bloated budgets whether due to executive or star egos, unrealistic union demands or just bad accounting. But special effects are not cheap. Of course, then you have movies like Troy where people make a big deal about the CG, but nobody seems to really talk about the absolutely gigantic set they built. Or waterworld, the infamous 175 million dollar movie, where the floating city was itself a nearly 10 million dollar set (which sunk, and they built another).

Let's also remember movies are not just some actors and a director, but usually a combination of thousands of contributors, at least for the big movies. Try making a two year project with over a thousand employees and not spend any money, especially when some are making massive bucks. Raiders of the Lost Ark may only be a 40 million dollar movie if adjusted today, but if anyone tries to claim that it somehow looks more expensive then Spiderman 2 then I'd say you're crazy. Some movies have bloated budgets, but many movies honestly just show a hell of a lot more than we used to. Matrix Reloaded had its big car chase on the freeway, something I can safely say was much more elaborate than anything made in the 1970s (at least in terms of car chases). That scene alone cost 40 million dollars, but you have to include them building a 3 mile freeway from scratch, and destroying over 300 automobiles, not to mention the crew and permits and so on.

Big budget movies are not something new. If adjusted, Cleopatra would cost something around 300 million dollars. In fact, the renaissance of the 1970s was not just a counter culture revolution, but a revolt against the failing big budget projects of the studios from the 1960s.

I liked how studios took more risks back in the day with big budget epics and casts of everyone who was hot at the time. Doesnt happen a lot anymore.

I do think one thing the studio had in its favor back in the old days was that actors were not freelance, but instead under studio contract. of course, we see a lot of films with all star casts so I don't really see what the difference is today. And studios still spend lots of money on some quite risky projects. Honestly I don't think then is much different then now. I mean, we've got Alexander and Troy and King Arthur and LoTR all that have come out within the last year. Disregarding quality (there were lots of crappy big budget epics back then too), all these films were big budget, epic in scope, and filled with fairly known actors. Granted, they don't all star 5 A listers a piece, but I don't think anyone is going to argue that's even a good idea.

PRICE GOUGING!!!!!!!!

I'm serious.

Alot of movies just go overboard with the special effects and make things look really flashy instead of believable. Hell, i think the futuristic cities in Firefly look more believable then some of the cities in Episode 1 and 2.

R&D, creating your own proprietary software, hardware, man hours, training, change in director's vision, render farms, Silicon Graphics machines, Maya, Alias/Wavefront, Renderman, Nurbs, etc etc etc.

Think of every shot that is computer generated. Each of those shots has anywhere from 1 - 10 people working on it. Now consider a decent amount of work is around 200 - 500 shots.

I don't see price gouging as a big part considering the lowest bid wins. Or even lead effects houses will farm out projets to smaller houses.

Psssst. just play along.

Well, that's just crazy. Firefly had hazy, plain looking futuristic cities lacking in particular detail. Star Wars had ultra detailed, crisply clear cities teeming with life and activity.

Eh but that's my opinion. Some people like simplicity versus a particular crazy and cluttered look, but the Star Wars films with their neon and cluttered and clean Blade Runner look, I loved that.

I asked myself the same question after watching Casshern last month. It was amazing to see how much CG work could be done for $6m. And most of it looked very good too.