3D animation and history

[elchriso]

Seeing how advanced 3D animation is sometimes (I often find myself tricked for a split second to think it's the real thing,) it surprises me that this hasn't been utilized for historical films and the like. The potential for what can be made is amazing. It seems to me like you could make a really epic film/documentary or what have you that really gives you a feel for the time without having the limitations of live action getting in your way. It'd be cool I tell ya.

[Nivek]

Originally Posted by elchriso

Seeing how advanced 3D animation is sometimes (I often find myself tricked for a split second to think it's the real thing,) it surprises me that this hasn't been utilized for historical films and the like. The potential for what can be made is amazing. It seems to me like you could make a really epic film/documentary or what have you that really gives you a feel for the time without having the limitations of live action getting in your way. It'd be cool I tell ya.

The Main problem is that still exist a Stigma Against animation as 'for kids' even here in the Semi Historical Bolivar movie that happen.

We need somewhat doing one so direct and crude and be rated as that for start maybe the possibilities of having that... but will be 2d in the short term.

[Alex Richards]

Well, lets start with the fact that 3D is expensive to produce in the full avatar style, or requires post-production work on existing 2D/CGI films for other examples. Fundamentally, there aren't any existing historical films to apply this to, and it would be a very hard idea to get funding for in Holywood.

What's needed is, I think, someone with a lot of cash to spend deciding to privately fund an 'epic film' based on history, involving lots of big battle scenes and sweeping scenery and so forth (think Lord of the Rings style cinematography, but of a real series of events, so Alexander the Great's conquests might work), and for it to be a big success, as in near-profitable or profitable. That would open the door so to speak for other films to get funding.

[HeWhoIsMe]

Originally Posted by Alex Richards

Well, lets start with the fact that 3D is expensive to produce in the full avatar style, or requires post-production work on existing 2D/CGI films for other examples. Fundamentally, there aren't any existing historical films to apply this to, and it would be a very hard idea to get funding for in Holywood.

What's needed is, I think, someone with a lot of cash to spend deciding to privately fund an 'epic film' based on history, involving lots of big battle scenes and sweeping scenery and so forth (think Lord of the Rings style cinematography, but of a real series of events, so Alexander the Great's conquests might work), and for it to be a big success, as in near-profitable or profitable. That would open the door so to speak for other films to get funding.

Actually, having worked in the field I'll have you know that production costs have severely declined lately. Mostly because the ridiculously pricey software has become "easier" to obtain(*cough* *cough) and more experts in the field have sprouted out all over the world(SE Asia is growing into a powerhouse lately but the UK, Canada and Australia are also contenters. Naturally the US is the biggest player, I just don't really like the US that's why they are last in my list...)

More importantly the quality has remained more than acceptable in the low-budget range! All those self-taught experts flooding the field lately have really helped make 3d animation and VFX in general a lot more affordable.

Also, in most low-budget productions most of the money is spent on shooting the live footage(usually in costly studios) and paying the live actors.

For example, I don't know if you ever seen this and I don't know what the title was, but back in 2009 History Channel aired a 12-episode documentary series about the 1204 sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders...I saw it back then not knowing the story behind it.

Then picking up a 3D industry magazine a couple of months later I read that the whole of the 3D modelling/animation, merging of live and VFX footage, editing AND directing was done by a single English guy on his PC!!!!! I was blown away, the guy was a one man crew and he made it look easy, too...

Though the article never mentioned what History Channel paid him I can't believe he got anything less than six figures for that one. And that would still be REALLY cheap considering if it wasn't for him they would probably have to hire a whole bunch of guys to fill in for him, ending up paying per episode what they paid him for the whole deal!

But most important it was good. His textures were flawless! His lighting left me aghast. The animation was more than acceptable. And even though I, as a professional, could still spot where he cut corners to save money, the average viewer would never know!

Bottom line...Avatar cost that much because James Cameron is James Cameron and the bastard won't even get out of bed for less than half a billion dollars...

I would, however, point you towards another amazing alien movie..."District 9"...before you look it up and watch it, if you haven't already, just know that it had a budget of "just" 19 million dollars...that's like less than peanuts when you're talking blockbuster production costs!!! And the end result would easily stand side by side with "Avatar" any day of the week!

[Nivek]

Thanks for the info He, that show us some realities of the cinema business.

So even keep cost in modest size, still the stigma of being fully animated(even with modern tech, like LA Noire or Heavy Rain ones) still is the main barrier?

I would gladly pay 10 bucks for a whole 3D napoleon epic movie, or one about either The Civil or WW1 (we have killed enought nazi)