This is a great post from Scott Squires. In it he discusses value and costs of Visual Effects in movies.
Peter Berg, Director of BATTLESHIP, was interviewed on a podcast recently.
Berg: But the money is all going to… the business to be in is ILM. That’s whose making all the money..
Masters: The effects houses.
Berg: Yeah in particular ILM. I mean and they do great work but its what these films cost because you’ve got these giant visual effects components and they dictate the prices on them.
In my experience, there has always been discussion on the effects side of the movie industry about whether a director has worked on a visual effects laden film or not. This discussion usually involves trying to decide how many revisions you’ll have to do because the director doesn’t know he has to figure it out and communicate it effectively well before he or she sees something that could be put into a rough cut.
I hope Scott’s post can spell it out for actors turned producer/directors or upcoming directors who want to expand their storytelling with visual effects.
Just because you can dream it, doesn’t mean it can be done without many people helping you achieve it. The number of people working on the visual effects for a movie can sometimes outnumber all the crew on the principal photography of a film. Films are a collaboration from everyone involved.
Peter Berg should be thanking everyone at ILM and the countless supporting people and companies for helping him achieve his directorial vision, not complaining about where the lion’s share of the budget went.
Try making Battleship without a visual effects crew and it’ll look like you’re in the bathtub playing with toy boats.
