Originally posted by: Klingon_Jedi
Um, CO, Wrath of Kahn's special effects were done by Lucas and Co. ILM did the effects for Star Trek II, III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII. Though I believe the Genesis Video was outsourced as ILM didn't do CG at the time. So how ILM could've been ahead of itself...
At a budget of 11,000,000, that's only 2 million under Star Wars, and 7 under Empire. So I don't see how that makes it any more "low budget" than Star Wars. It's not an astronomical figure, but certainly not a B movie like the term "low budget" suggests.
Zombie, yes it did recycle footage from The Motion Picture. This is however due to the shear abundant amount shot for that film. It was felt that instead of wasting money shooting establishing shots, a couple of shots from TMP could be edited and fit in. They even reused models. I'm sure if they hadn't you'd be hear saying how they wasted money, which they would've. It's a wonderful exercise in intelligent cost cutting. This was done to conserve money for the Mutara Nebula sequence, which I still think is one of the best examples of model effects on film.
For what the film called for, I'd say Wrath of Kahn is easily on par with the classic trilogy in terms of how models can exceed CGI.
Um, CO, Wrath of Kahn's special effects were done by Lucas and Co. ILM did the effects for Star Trek II, III, IV, VI, VII, and VIII. Though I believe the Genesis Video was outsourced as ILM didn't do CG at the time. So how ILM could've been ahead of itself...
At a budget of 11,000,000, that's only 2 million under Star Wars, and 7 under Empire. So I don't see how that makes it any more "low budget" than Star Wars. It's not an astronomical figure, but certainly not a B movie like the term "low budget" suggests.
Zombie, yes it did recycle footage from The Motion Picture. This is however due to the shear abundant amount shot for that film. It was felt that instead of wasting money shooting establishing shots, a couple of shots from TMP could be edited and fit in. They even reused models. I'm sure if they hadn't you'd be hear saying how they wasted money, which they would've. It's a wonderful exercise in intelligent cost cutting. This was done to conserve money for the Mutara Nebula sequence, which I still think is one of the best examples of model effects on film.
For what the film called for, I'd say Wrath of Kahn is easily on par with the classic trilogy in terms of how models can exceed CGI.
Text
I take your word for it, but I guess how are the OT effects that much better than Wrath of Khan? I mean it is like night and day!
But as I mentioned before, the inferior effects don't take away from the power of the movie, and I think it is a lesson to directors, that a good story and good drama can override a more visual experience to many. I for one wasn't turned off by the effects in Wrath of Khan, but just noticed how much better the OT effects were.
I guess another question should be, you have a generation of younger fans that love these new effects, and eat up all this CG crap. So aren't the directors just givng to the fans what they want?
For me personally, I think most of these movies that are overloaded with CG look like one big animated film with actors placed into it.