![]() ![]() So please don’t get into a battle over bean-counting here. ![]() He’s mentioned in interviews that it lends more realism to scenes than studio filming. Throughout the TV series and movies he’s done, you’ll see a large amount of location shooting. He’s well-known for choosing locations over studio sets whenever possible. The catalyst in the equation for this particular film (which neither of you are taking into account) is JJ Abrams. ![]() Lower budget and independent films use locations more because they can’t afford to built large set pieces. Studios tend to use studio sets more often because it affords them greater control which, in the long run, is cheaper and easier than location shooting. Got a good feeling about that.ĭennis and Daren: You both make very good points, and your individual experiences with TV and film serve you both well. The room in the photo has a “dated futuristic” look to it, just like many of the original TOS sets. Maybe it’s splitting hairs, but I wouldn’t classify that as a “location.” That is natural sunlight, but all the trees and plants are miniatures, some of which were re-used for “Return of the Jedi” just a year later. lolĪctually, the scene at the end of TWOK was shot in the parking lot of the ILM studios, in miniature. Insurrection – Practically everything that wasn’t a spaceship or laboratory. … Oh, and First Contact used that abandoned missle silo for the launch site, plus the location of the refugee camp… (don’t know what else to call it… the place where Cochrane and the gang worked and drank.) Any overages not handled by that deal are required to be paid for by the producers if a change in the deal is not made.Īnyway… my point was that if a location is viable, it is always cheaper for the production budget to use it rather than build a big set… and the generalizations made in your previous post weren’t exactly on the nose. Most films aren’t, in fact, even made by the studios in a legal sense… they are produced by independent producers having a deal with the studio to pay for agreed budgets. It is all a decision by the producers of an individual film whether or not the stages of a studio are a viable expense, since it counts against their budget whether they stay there or go somewhere else. Whether or not the studios charge themselves for soundstage space, etc… they STILL count it in the budget of the film… the subsidiaries and facilities are in fact MORE expensive because of this… so that they can report greater earnings. Trek VI: The Klingon Prison was mostly all in a location at Bronson Caves, in Hollywood, plus of course the Chambers at the peace conference… Trek V: Paradise City, El Capitan, Sha-Ka-Ri (though the stone temple at the end was re-created on set for control purposes) (The Aircraft Carrier that stood in for the Enterprise as well) Trek III: a local college campus for the vulcan temple scene (the procession, that is.) Trek I : yellowstone national park for Vulcan The previous trek movies used quite a few locations… the only one that didn’t was Trek II. The reason that TV doesn’t use locations as much, is the fact that the cost of a standing set can be amortized over the run of the series, divvied up between the various episodes. The only limitation of shooting on a location is the fact that the production can not control weather, if it’s an exterior, or the lighting needed is not available as is. Nearly all lower budget films are shot using locations rather than sets. But Location shooting on a feature is usually always cheaper than building a large, complicated set… Especially if there is not much that needs to be done to change the location to suit the production’s needs.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |