A Quote by Brit Marling

Sometimes big budget means explosions! CGI! CGI, the possibilities are so limitless that it begins to be impractical. I'm more interested in the kinds of movies where the science fiction world has a set series of rules and you operate in it because of, maybe, constraints in the budget.
I think sometimes big budget means explosions! CGI! CGI, the possibilities are so limitless that it begins to be impractical.
Unless you're making Marvel movies, I think CGI usually suffers, especially in mid-budget-range horror movies where you see CGI.
It can have an enormous effect because big budget movies can have big budget perks, and small budget movies have no perks, but what is the driving force, of course, is the script, and your part in it.
Large-budget movies start to lose focus on the story and the actors, and it becomes purely about the visual, or CGI, or framing with the cranes, or whatever it may be.
I prefer the smaller budget versus the bigger budget because the mentality that goes along with big budget filmmaking doesn't really suit me; the mind-set that money is the answer.
The vast majority of the CGI budget is labor.
People regard CGI as a gimmick; they almost blame CGI for a bad story or a bad script. They talk about CGI as if it's responsible for a drop in standards.
Our ethos for 'Now You See Me 2' was that everything in the movie at least had the potential to be done in real life, and I'd say over 90% of it was actually done in-camera with no CGI. Of course, movies like this are always going to be bound by the rules of Hollywood, being there's going to be enhancements of CGI.
Science fiction is a weird category, because it's the only area of fiction I can think of where the story is not of primary importance. Science fiction tends to be more about the science, or the invention of the fantasy world, or the political allegory. When I left science fiction, I said "They're more interested in planets, and I'm interested in people."
The nature of the movies is different than it was five years ago, and they're all driven by the possibilities of CGI, which means you can make anything happen on screen that you can possibly desire.
Look, I've done some low-budget movies and I've done some big-budget movies, and the big-budget movies were always kind of disorganized.
We tried to do Yoda in CGI in Episode I, but we just couldn't get it done in time. We couldn't get the technology to work, so we had to use the puppet, but the puppet really wasn't as good as the CGI. So when we did the reissue, we had to put the CGI back in, which was what it was meant to be.
We developed during the 1990s a series of budget process rules that helped us bring to heel these deficits, diminishing every year and moving the budget so into surplus.
We see films all the time, whether they have access to all kinds of intellectual property or artifacts, and the one thing that they don't get is story. So I think whether you're talking about a biopic or an action film or a science-fiction film that has all the CGI in the world, if you're not trying to connect with an audience, it doesn't really matter.
The quality of CGI, audiences are now so used to it. They don't know what is CGI and what is real.
But one of the rules I don't like to break is we still do - 95% of our movies are low budget. We're offered bigger, larger budget movies to produce a lot, and we don't do them. That's not to say there aren't exceptions, there are a few exceptions, but I try and stick by the rules that produce what I think is the highest quality, most innovative work and try and let the rules go that make us feel like we're retreading.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!