the alligator eats the bigger number, BUT when you're only using it to describe "greater than/less than" with a single number it gets more complicated.
<5 is "less than 5", you can remember because < looks like an L for Less than. >5 is greater than five. >=5 or <=5 is then "greater than or equal to 5" and "less than or equal to 5" respectively
3D animation is a massive time and money sink that people don't appreciate, especially if it looks ugly or fake. You could easily budget a film that uses a lot of 3D animation that would cost over 1 billion but it's not like it'd look any better than a film that cost 100 million.
Also, the US Navy is well aware that Top Gun is prime propaganda, so they let the film use their jets for cheap. The US military co-operating with Hollywood in exchange for okaying the scripts is a long standing tradition. They don't have to specifically censor films, the film makers just know that they won't even bother trying to approach the US military about co-operation unless it makes the military look good.
>You could easily budget a film that uses a lot of 3D animation that would cost over 1 billion but it's not like it'd look any better than a film that cost 100 million
The Mario movie cost 100 million and these recent Pixar-Disney flops cost around 200 million each. Does the Mario movie LOOK half as good as those films? Just keep pouring more and more detail into your film but it doesn't look any better. The Disney people were bragging bout how they added each individual hair to each of the characters faces in Strange World. Do you think audiences cared or noticed?
So just imagine a film that has 5x more detail than Strange World and it'd easily cost about 1 billion but functionally not look any better.
hence why crimson tide's CNN scene take place on the Foch, a french carrier. the USN wouldn't let them film because they didn't like how it painted the navy.
whatever
Top gun is good kino and I'm fine with it. propaganda THAT transparent really is not that insidious.
It's not money laundering, but it is a money scam. Look at all of the credits on movies that are cgi heavy. These cgi departments are incredibly bloated and inflating the budget massively. I'm sure they have some sort of union that forces Hollywood producers to hire x amount of them too.
Its just efficient tax planning for the studio and if they are "outside" companies they will be companies with common ownership who are most definitely large shareholders of Disney
It's hilarious to me that studios memed computer animation as being "cheaper" than traditional animation/effects, and yet all of these big budget films have insane special effects, huge budgets, but the movies aren't that good and the scripts are still bad.
A movie like Gremlins, with practical effects, is better than many of the CGI-laden bullshit movies that come out today.
CGI is a TOOOOOOOL, and studios need to re-learn this truth.
Without a compelling script/story, your movie will be shit.
>CGI is a TOOOOOOOL
James Cameron has been trying to tell them that for decades, but nobody fricking listens even though he’s released three consecutive “top three of all time” movies
The tv show 'Supercarrier' (1988) was initially supported by the Navy but storylines started to make the Navy look bad (drug use, theft, infidelity, etc) so they stopped giving the production assistance. >The producer, Charles Fries, said in response that the Navy "wanted a sleepy show about life on a Supercarrier" and that he was "happy to be relieved of the cooperation because naval personnel were stifling our writers relationships and dialogue".
The show was yanked from their air after eight episodes and then cancelled. If you rely on the military for use of their facilities and equipment, you should avoid pissing them off.
Pixar budgets are so big because they always invent new technology for their movies and aim for more photorealistic details. the water and fire simulations in the movie reportedly cost a lot of rendering and drove the budget up. Meanwhie, half of top gun maverick is just talking scenes on the ground which doesn't cost hardly anything. and the other half is just them flying around in the sky, and renting the planes was way cheaper than making them be cgi.
Jews.
$200 million>$177 million
In English, doc!
large heap of stone taller than small heap
does the alligator eat the smaller or bigger number
the alligator eats the bigger number, BUT when you're only using it to describe "greater than/less than" with a single number it gets more complicated.
<5 is "less than 5", you can remember because < looks like an L for Less than. >5 is greater than five. >=5 or <=5 is then "greater than or equal to 5" and "less than or equal to 5" respectively
people are expensive to pay and animation is a lot of time
3D animation is a massive time and money sink that people don't appreciate, especially if it looks ugly or fake. You could easily budget a film that uses a lot of 3D animation that would cost over 1 billion but it's not like it'd look any better than a film that cost 100 million.
Also, the US Navy is well aware that Top Gun is prime propaganda, so they let the film use their jets for cheap. The US military co-operating with Hollywood in exchange for okaying the scripts is a long standing tradition. They don't have to specifically censor films, the film makers just know that they won't even bother trying to approach the US military about co-operation unless it makes the military look good.
The best example of this is independence day. The military was on board until they read the script and learned it mentioned area 51.
>You could easily budget a film that uses a lot of 3D animation that would cost over 1 billion but it's not like it'd look any better than a film that cost 100 million
Explain
>Explain
The Mario movie cost 100 million and these recent Pixar-Disney flops cost around 200 million each. Does the Mario movie LOOK half as good as those films? Just keep pouring more and more detail into your film but it doesn't look any better. The Disney people were bragging bout how they added each individual hair to each of the characters faces in Strange World. Do you think audiences cared or noticed?
So just imagine a film that has 5x more detail than Strange World and it'd easily cost about 1 billion but functionally not look any better.
Law of Diminishing Returns
hence why crimson tide's CNN scene take place on the Foch, a french carrier. the USN wouldn't let them film because they didn't like how it painted the navy.
whatever
Top gun is good kino and I'm fine with it. propaganda THAT transparent really is not that insidious.
>Lost 10,000 aircraft in Vietnam having its air support totally obliterated by rice farmers
Kek
Frick ameriKKKa and ameriKKKans
Kek, is that why we burned half their country to the ground??
>obliterated by rice farmers with state of the art antimissile tech from USSR
Don't bother. esl non Americans are moronic
Money laundering
Stop using that term you dont know what it means
It's not money laundering, but it is a money scam. Look at all of the credits on movies that are cgi heavy. These cgi departments are incredibly bloated and inflating the budget massively. I'm sure they have some sort of union that forces Hollywood producers to hire x amount of them too.
Its just efficient tax planning for the studio and if they are "outside" companies they will be companies with common ownership who are most definitely large shareholders of Disney
Shitty cgi costs a lot for some reason.
One is race mixing propaganda. The other is a good movie.
US Military sponsored the movie so it made the budget low. Very low.
because you have 1000 animators and other troons asking for $80k a year to pay for their surgeries and starbucks lattes
ESG funding
top gun was an old school movie, it was made to be entertaining, elemental is a propaganda reel
It's hilarious to me that studios memed computer animation as being "cheaper" than traditional animation/effects, and yet all of these big budget films have insane special effects, huge budgets, but the movies aren't that good and the scripts are still bad.
A movie like Gremlins, with practical effects, is better than many of the CGI-laden bullshit movies that come out today.
CGI is a TOOOOOOOL, and studios need to re-learn this truth.
Without a compelling script/story, your movie will be shit.
>CGI is a TOOOOOOOL
James Cameron has been trying to tell them that for decades, but nobody fricking listens even though he’s released three consecutive “top three of all time” movies
~~*lockheed matrin*~~
The tv show 'Supercarrier' (1988) was initially supported by the Navy but storylines started to make the Navy look bad (drug use, theft, infidelity, etc) so they stopped giving the production assistance.
>The producer, Charles Fries, said in response that the Navy "wanted a sleepy show about life on a Supercarrier" and that he was "happy to be relieved of the cooperation because naval personnel were stifling our writers relationships and dialogue".
The show was yanked from their air after eight episodes and then cancelled. If you rely on the military for use of their facilities and equipment, you should avoid pissing them off.
Pixar employs an army of programmers to build and maintain their proprietary software for 3D animation which costs a lot of money.
Pixar budgets are so big because they always invent new technology for their movies and aim for more photorealistic details. the water and fire simulations in the movie reportedly cost a lot of rendering and drove the budget up. Meanwhie, half of top gun maverick is just talking scenes on the ground which doesn't cost hardly anything. and the other half is just them flying around in the sky, and renting the planes was way cheaper than making them be cgi.
Pixar animation has become wannabie live-action, they try for visual hyperrealism that doesn't actually improve the films