Hat Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Probably, yeah. But there's something that makes me think that Avatar required a little more money and work than Sing for Absolution promowow, just wow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechagodzilla Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Probably, yeah. But there's something that makes me think that Avatar required a little more money and work than Sing for Absolution promo Avatar took 12 years+ to create. There were no costumes, those suits were computer-made too. Btw, I'm not saying that SfA cost nothing, I just think that KoC did cost more, since Muse had to hire an entire troupe. I know the suits were computer made. What I meant was the headgear that covered their hair, as that can technically be classed as costume wear But hey, I'm knitpicking. Muse hired a company called Ark VFX in order to make the SfA video. http://www.newtek-europe.com/uk/community/lightwave/ark_VFX/1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Avatar took 12 years+ to create. Just because there were 15 years between the original script and the release of the movie doesn't mean it took 15 years to create. 4 years is closer to how long it took to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLlSS Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 I could picture KoC but it was filmed in the middle of nowhere to save money. Possibly Starlight (Renting a ship for a day can't come cheap) All I know is that they didn't have to pay for the ship in Starlight, because someone who owned a ship had a daughter who loved Muse so Muse could use it for free. But I'm sure the fuel must've been expensive... I reckon the most expensive one to make was either KoC or Bliss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechagodzilla Posted December 12, 2011 Share Posted December 12, 2011 Just because there were 15 years between the original script and the release of the movie doesn't mean it took 15 years to create. 4 years is closer to how long it took to make. Fair enough. I just remember reading that a year or so ago in a magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kueller Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Just because there were 15 years between the original script and the release of the movie doesn't mean it took 15 years to create. 4 years is closer to how long it took to make. Also considering the SfA video is much shorter, and I doubt Muse had anything near the budget of Cameron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Also considering the SfA video is much shorter, and I doubt Muse had anything near the budget of Cameron. ...I don't understand you people. NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT SFA HAD A PRODUCTION EVEN CLOSE TO AVATAR. I brought up the Avatar comparison, and it was because some idiot said that SFA was just CGI stuff, and therefore it couldn't have been very expensive. Therefore I remind him that Avatar was also mostly CGI, but that is still more expensive than all of Muse's music videos put together. Conclusion: CGI does not equal cheap. The conclusion is NOT that the costs for SFA are anywhere close to Avatar. Goddamn... To make it easier for you: If SFA is cheap because it's mostly CGI, that must mean that Avatar is also cheap. Do you get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FabriPav Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 CGI does not equal cheap. that's for sure. I was just ironic with that "there's something that makes me think that Avatar required a little more money and work than Sing for Absolution promo". What I meant is that the kind of CGI work that SfA required was (obviously) different from what Avatar had, not that SfA was cheap because it was CGI. My conclusion is that a CGI video will likely be cheaper than a real short-film shot in Romania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 that's for sure. I was just ironic with that "there's something that makes me think that Avatar required a little more money and work than Sing for Absolution promo". What I meant is that the kind of CGI work that SfA required was (obviously) different from what Avatar had, not that SfA was cheap because it was CGI. My conclusion is that a CGI video will likely be cheaper than a real short-film shot in Romania I know you were sarcastic, which is why you must have missed my point. You specifically said that KoC was probably more expensive than SFA because "Sing for Absolution is only computer made", and that had nothing to do with Avatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kueller Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 ...I don't understand you people. NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT SFA HAD A PRODUCTION EVEN CLOSE TO AVATAR. I brought up the Avatar comparison, and it was because some idiot said that SFA was just CGI stuff, and therefore it couldn't have been very expensive. Therefore I remind him that Avatar was also mostly CGI, but that is still more expensive than all of Muse's music videos put together. Conclusion: CGI does not equal cheap. The conclusion is NOT that the costs for SFA are anywhere close to Avatar. Goddamn... To make it easier for you: If SFA is cheap because it's mostly CGI, that must mean that Avatar is also cheap. Do you get it? Just because there were 15 years between the original script and the release of the movie doesn't mean it took 15 years to create. 4 years is closer to how long it took to make. I was more reaffirming what you had said. That of course SfA's PV wouldn't take a lot less time to make than Avatar. I was one of the ones to mention the SfA video as one of the most expensive too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I was more reaffirming what you had said. That of course SfA's PV wouldn't take a lot less time to make than Avatar. I was one of the ones to mention the SfA video as one of the most expensive too Wait what. Sfa DEFINITELY took a lot less time than Avatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareeh Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I'd suggest Neutron Star Collision... They sold their soul for that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Posted December 15, 2011 Share Posted December 15, 2011 I'd suggest Neutron Star Collision... They sold their soul for that one Nice one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareeh Posted December 16, 2011 Share Posted December 16, 2011 Nice one. Don't worry, I've packed my bags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.