Dark Knight Director Shuns Digital Effects for the Real Thing

wired.com

17 points·noodle··6 comments

While we are trying to draw parallels, I've got one:

You can eat too much of your own dog food.

Lucas loves his ILM, and rightfully so, but that doesn't necessitate CGI fire on the torches in the new Indy movie. Just because you have a lot of cool software and talented people doesn't mean you NEED to use them.

This reminds me of the CineFX 100th anniversary issue. It was organized as a series of interviews with visual effects professionals, and the running theme basically came down to, "Do it right in the camera, don't fix it in post."

It's actually also appropriate here, because one of the reasons that the visual effects guys pointed out is that doing it right up front costs a LOT less than "fixing it in post" and takes a lot less time.

i submitted this because i kind of think its insightful and has parallels in the world of startups and tech. thoughts?

Extravagance in movies seems to pay off more than splurging does in startups. I am guessing because it builds hype and thats what sells tickets.

If you're spending lots of money on a never-seen-before shot, that ends up on screen, and the moviegoer benefits from it; the product gets better, more people go and see it, and that pays. If you spend a lot of money on first-class flights and Cuban cigars for founders and staff, it doesn't - from my experience - make the product better. So there's a difference.

The cigars tasted nice, though.

Personally, I think the discussion on the competitive advantage of the IMAX film format is a significant parallel (only one lab to process the film, offers huge visual depth, but at significant cost, company had some financial trouble, etc. etc.). Also, of course, the glaringly obvious parallel: Nolan's workspace is the "Garage".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com