"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM8Rfsk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-2F7808.22003511022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <ScadneNaO_pYhyzanZ2dnUVZWhednZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "David Johnston" <david@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:5jr1r3hk9e1mmpqaqnj02d7bk80fl0gfh5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Holy crap having a CGI dinosaur every episode must be expensive
>>
>> CGI has gotten cheaper in a decade since XENA and HERC.
>>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> Only if you don't care about the results.
>
> --
> Star Trek 08:
>
> No Shat, No Show.
The technology only gets better, faster, cheaper. BATTLESTAR GALACTICA has
far better, cheaper, faster fx than STAR WARS, SW: EMPIRE STRIKES BACK,
SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE, ST: THE WRATH OF KHAN,
etc.
The REAL problem, Anim, as you well know, is that expectation rises also
as
people see cutting-edge movie fx. Cutting edge, expensive, glacially slow
TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY morphing technology back in the early 1990s is
common place today, cheaper, faster, better even for tv or home computer
animation software. The problem is that audience expectations have risen.
So yeah, cutting edge movie fx today is better, but more expensive than tv
fx today which can be better than home computer fx, but that's almost
always
going to be the case because you have a budget for one 2-3 hour movie
versus
the budget of weekly 10-20something episode season.
-- Ken from Chicago
|
