[jim]

Its worth remembering that film work helps towards the costs of keeping those old warbirds flying.

[flyXwire]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Yeah, I understand that. And, going along with that, I understand that insurance premiums are going to be sky high (no pun intended). Before CGI, movies of this type were made with real airplanes, and the scenes were shot successfully. I understand CGI eliminates the risks involved with actual flying- and CGI technology is getting better all the time. My point is this-and I should have touched on it in my previous post- in addition to the pacing of the flight sequences, and the realism involved with filming actual airplanes, how much will it cost using CGI to make the movie vs. filming with real airplanes? As I understand it, CGI stuff still isn't cheap. If the costs are somewhere in the same neighborhood for both, why not go with the real ones? Again, just a thought...

The implementation of CGI technology has gone down in cost quite a bit. A lot of the studios also 'farm-out'
their CGI work to Asian countries therefore maximazing cost-effectiveness and labor costs.
There is another point I wanted to make on my previous post and that is the cost of building replicas of actual warbirds props to look pretty and add a little more accuracy to the era of the film it is trying to convey. Have you any idea how much money it will add to the overall implementation of these things? If it is to be real flying
replica, you also need to consider spending on gas and maintenance repairs and the whole kit n kaboodle that goes
along with it. If you were in charge of coordinating the total budget that you need to allocate for a film project,
don't you think you need to be a little more financially creative? Give that one a thought for a minute...

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by flyXwire

The implementation of CGI technology has gone down in cost quite a bit. A lot of the studios also 'farm-out'

their CGI work to Asian countries therefore maximazing cost-effectiveness and labor costs.

There is another point I wanted to make on my previous post and that is the cost of building replicas of actual warbirds props to look pretty and add a little more accuracy to the era of the film it is trying to convey. Have you any idea how much money it will add to the overall implementation of these things? If it is to be real flying

replica, you also need to consider spending on gas and maintenance repairs and the whole kit n kaboodle that goes

along with it. If you were in charge of coordinating the total budget that you need to allocate for a film project,

don't you think you need to be a little more financially creative? Give that one a thought for a minute...

Hey man, I'm just asking some questions here. I don't claim to be a film making expert. I realize making movies is expensive, and every thing added to the film drives up the budget.
Consider this about movie budgets, though- I would think the money that a studio allocates for the making of a film would depend in large part on the director involved. I would think a project involving Steven Spielberg, or someone of that caliber (who make movies that make money) would have a lot more money allocated to it than one being made by a less well known director. If he wanted to make a WW1 film, and use real airplanes to do it, I don't think he (Spielberg) would have a problem getting it done.

[MoMo]

In todays movie making environment, movie studios and their production teams have very different sets of principles to adhere too when making films fraut with inherent dangers like dogfighting scenes and such. Sure it looks very realistic to say the least, to use real airplanes to depict specific dogfight manuevers that's more believable, right? But you also have to look at the big picture here: planning those stunts poses alot more safety issues and concerns for the pilots and crews involve in making it work properly. More risks of accidents are involved and therefore, directors and teams try to minimize such things from happening in order to achieve the best possible combinations of scenes that's acceptable and will work for even the most anal critics among us. That's when CGI comes into the picture, and it is almost an invetible and indespensable tool when it comes to that art of making make-believe films that we can all enjoy watching as entertainment and suspend disbelief for 2 hours of our life. You follow so far?

That's my .02 cents anyway....

FlyXwire

Yes, sure Fly, I agree with many of your points on safety and such, but don't you think that there are thousands of fliers out there who would give their eye teeth to fly WW2 replicas? Don't forget, CGI is killing off stunt fliers, stunt men, et al in order to ruin movies by rendering unrealistic scenarios which just don't work? Fly Boys had a really poor script, too many undeveloped characters, was badly paced because of the intrusive love story, but just might have crawled out the mire if it had had great, realistic flying scenes/sequences. The Blue Max managed to achieve this balance. Aces High managed it better.

I fear that the WW1 airwar genre ( which found its zenith in the Hollywood movies of the 20s and 30s ) has only been revived because of the utilisation of CGI, with all its possibilities.

I see a lousy remake of Dawn Patrol on the sun tinged horizon.

[Shawn 507]

Well I for one would pay to see real planes doing real flying than CGI stuff. I mean really were is the stunt in stuntman these days? Sorta like a F22 pilot calling himself a fighter pilot. Whats next, movies of deceased actors in CGI? And what really goes into a WW1 kite anyways that you couldn't VISMOD with modern stuff? And if the plot sucks, all the CGI in the world wont save the movie, but what do I know?

[Cardinal]

Here in NZ we've got the real deal as regards flying (replica) WW1 biplanes and a Film Director/Producer (Peter Jackson) who has a passion for classic/ vintage aircraft .

[smartd]

I have the Great War Flying Museum about an hour from me and Old Rhinbeck down in NY.



http://www.oldrhinebeck.org/collection


First World War (WWI) Planes -- Great War Flying Museum

[MoMo]

Here in NZ we've got the real deal as regards flying (replica) WW1 biplanes and a Film Director/Producer (Peter Jackson) who has a passion for classic/ vintage aircraft
Cardinal

Good point Cardinal. Get on the phone to Jackson and tell him that we want better, more realistic fly movies.

[MoMo]

Thanks for the link, Smarted!

[MoMo]

Well I for one would pay to see real planes doing real flying than CGI stuff. I mean really were is the stunt in stuntman these days? Sorta like a F22 pilot calling himself a fighter pilot. Whats next, movies of deceased actors in CGI? And what really goes into a WW1 kite anyways that you couldn't VISMOD with modern stuff? And if the plot sucks, all the CGI in the world wont save the movie, but what do I know?

I'm with you, Shawn.