It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use miniatures or CGI(cinemablend.com)
cinemablend.com
It was more efficient to blow up a real 747 than to use miniatures or CGI
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2546992/why-christopher-nolan-actually-blew-up-a-real-plane-for-tenet
226 comments
https://youtu.be/iv1ZRdgSrsM
That's wasteful. I hope someone can prove him wrong by doing it in CGI.
Aren't many of these 50 year old airframes are being decommissioned and towed to aircraft boneyards anyway? I assume most of the aircraft would still be usable for being picked apart there.
And to be a movie prop it doesn't need to even have all the parts for airworthiness, it could practically be an empty hull with broken engines and you wouldn't see a difference.
And to be a movie prop it doesn't need to even have all the parts for airworthiness, it could practically be an empty hull with broken engines and you wouldn't see a difference.
Yeah there's a huge boneyard at Davis–Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, AZ. I would imagine that many of those will sit there into perpetuity, some scrapped for parts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davis%E2%80%93Monthan_Air_Forc...
Pretty sure that's the play. Buy it while it's still certified, but almost on its way to the boneyard.
Maybe it was just a 737 Max... X-D
Jokes aside, I wonder how much one of those decommissioned planes costs. Maybe disposing off a decommissioned plane is the hardest job and nobody cares about stripping out parts — in either case I’m very curious about the actual costs.
A practical advantage of CGI is that you can tweak it and redo till you get it right, whereas in the real scenario you have one take so you better make it count. But I don’t know if we should even seriously discuss a comparison; in all probability it’s more of a PR stunt. (Maybe one good enough to be worth spending a substantial fraction of the marketing budget!)
Jokes aside, I wonder how much one of those decommissioned planes costs. Maybe disposing off a decommissioned plane is the hardest job and nobody cares about stripping out parts — in either case I’m very curious about the actual costs.
A practical advantage of CGI is that you can tweak it and redo till you get it right, whereas in the real scenario you have one take so you better make it count. But I don’t know if we should even seriously discuss a comparison; in all probability it’s more of a PR stunt. (Maybe one good enough to be worth spending a substantial fraction of the marketing budget!)
Surely you can buy one approaching end of life? They don't fly the engines or airframe forever.
There are good ways to recycle multiple tons of high quality metal.
The article is a puff piece, it doesn't have any detail so I'd take it with a grain of salt with regards as to what actually happened and how much it cost.
Also, this sentence a couple of paragraphs down:
> Though buying a 747 plane and blowing it up may have been more efficient, Christopher Nolan later seems to insinuate that it may not have been the cheaper option
seems to muddle the waters somewhat.
Also, this sentence a couple of paragraphs down:
> Though buying a 747 plane and blowing it up may have been more efficient, Christopher Nolan later seems to insinuate that it may not have been the cheaper option
seems to muddle the waters somewhat.
I can imagine the time to deliver the plan and rig the explosives might be only roughly a week. And the shot where it blows up is only going to take that one day or night. Then there is cleanup time. So the whole thing only takes a few weeks. On the otherhand a good CGI shot is going to take months. So even if the plane isn't cheaper overall, weeks vs months still might makes sense in the overall production timeline if the premium isn't that much higher.
Just as a hypothetical, filming a movie that hundreds of millions of people will enjoy, and saving thousands of hours of expensive professional labor, might be one good way to recycle it :)
More seriously, is the metal on an old airframe of high quality? I'd wonder whether the accumulated decades of wear and weathering might make it hard to recycle for anything like another airplane. But this isn't my field, so I'm just guessing.
More seriously, is the metal on an old airframe of high quality? I'd wonder whether the accumulated decades of wear and weathering might make it hard to recycle for anything like another airplane. But this isn't my field, so I'm just guessing.
Does wear and weathering matter if you're just going to shred it and melt it down anyway?
Yeah, it's not free, but great CGI for a blockbuster movie is not cheap.
I could easily see them spending more on that than the scrap value of the plane. But presumably the stunt coordination itself is also expensive.
I could easily see them spending more on that than the scrap value of the plane. But presumably the stunt coordination itself is also expensive.
The metal doesn't get vaporised in the explosion. There's still at least $50k of scrap aluminium there for someone to salvage
I would be interested to know the reality of how this plays out. In one sense I would expect stuff to be degraded and scattered, on the other hand, of course the raw materials don't dissappear.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24526292
Movie "explosions" don't usually actually explode things, that would be dangerous to the crew. They just make pretty flames, and use air cannons to send stuff flying in controlled ways.
Movie "explosions" don't usually actually explode things, that would be dangerous to the crew. They just make pretty flames, and use air cannons to send stuff flying in controlled ways.
DC-3 airframes are still flying and often refitted with turboprops. The original radial engines are getting expensive to maintain, parts are getting tough to source.
The DC-3 is unpressurized. Pressurized aircraft have a much shorter lifespan due to metal fatigue.
My thought as well. I feel bad when I pull an extra square of paper towel off the roll for no reason. Imagine just destroying tons of metal filled with electronics for a pretty picture. It's probably more waste than the average person would go through in mulitple lifetimes.
Oh well.
Oh well.
Do you guys think airplanes are recycled or something??
They are
What is it that you think airplanes are made out of?
I think it has be be ‘virgin’ aluminium alloys, and not anything recycled due to contamination issues (I assume).
Your basically just talking about an empty shell. Used parts are an active market so anything useful is stripped off and sold. After you crash it you just send it to the aluminum smelter, which would have been it's fate anyways. No real waste.
No more or less "wasteful" than anything else that happens in big budget movie production. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent to tell a story. If people like the story the movie investors make a profit. If not, they take a bath.
Of course someone else could tell the same story cheaper. Anyone with a smartphone can make a movie. The cheapest production cost generally isn't what people value in art and entertainment.
Of course someone else could tell the same story cheaper. Anyone with a smartphone can make a movie. The cheapest production cost generally isn't what people value in art and entertainment.
Congrats to Tenet for hitting break-even last week, despite tanking at the U.S. box office.
https://variety.com/2020/film/box-office/tenet-box-office-ch...
https://variety.com/2020/film/box-office/tenet-box-office-ch...
Goes to show how 80+% of countries have basically solved Covid.
The US seems intent on not reopening even in places that clearly have covid under control.
For example, NYC. Just what exactly are they waiting on? Has the curve not been profoundly flattened? How many cases per day until they feel safe reopening?
For example, NYC. Just what exactly are they waiting on? Has the curve not been profoundly flattened? How many cases per day until they feel safe reopening?
Viruses spread exponentially. It only takes one case to start a massive outbreak. No matter how many cases there are today, anywhere that 'reopens' will have unacceptably high case numbers sooner rather than later.
Nowhere can return to what used to be normal ('reopen') until enough people have been vaccinated--with a truly effective vaccine--to prevent new outbreaks from spreading. This will take years or decades.
Nowhere can return to what used to be normal ('reopen') until enough people have been vaccinated--with a truly effective vaccine--to prevent new outbreaks from spreading. This will take years or decades.
Also with hospital beds and an exponentially spreading virus, once you're at 50% capacity (sounds like you've got a lot of headroom right?) you're actually out of beds and over flowing by the next wave (2-3 weeks later with this disease).
Okay so if cases start going back up, shut things back down.
There's unfortunately a pretty fine line between "oh good, we shut down in time" and "oh shit, there's an out of control growth of infections" that makes that somewhat difficult.
Recovering from a destroyed local economy is also somewhat difficult. Economic despair and anxiety is not without its own health consequences, either.
NYC has had about the same number of daily cases for 3 months.
NYC has had about the same number of daily cases for 3 months.
> NYC has had about the same number of daily cases for 3 months.
Given exponential growth, that’s a “stay the course” indicator, not “loosen up”.
Given exponential growth, that’s a “stay the course” indicator, not “loosen up”.
Meanwhile, the city is dying. MTA debt is up to $18 billion, population is shrinking rapidly, and stores and restaurants are closing at record rates.
We’ve gone from everything is closed to most things are partially open, and the rates are the same. Time to stop burning the local economy to the ground.
We’ve gone from everything is closed to most things are partially open, and the rates are the same. Time to stop burning the local economy to the ground.
You're under the impression that'll be all better with an out-of-control pandemic raging through the city again?
Here's the thing, even if testing was instant, people are likely to get tests only after they have symptoms and symptoms appear after people are contagious. Basically the test numbers we get today show us what the spread was like two weeks ago. And it takes time to shut things back down.
This makes it really hard to open up, unless the situation is really good, because there's a good chance of overwhelmimg system again before you have a chance to lockdown.
This makes it really hard to open up, unless the situation is really good, because there's a good chance of overwhelmimg system again before you have a chance to lockdown.
Even when the system was “overwhelmed” it didn’t cause complete systemic breakdown. There was no superlinear mortality.
This was absolutely not the case in Italy, where many people died because no ICU spaces were available for them.
If it didn't happen elsewhere, it didn't happen because lockdowns, and other physical distancing measures, worked.
Arguing against taking defensive measures because they worked is like arguing that Y2K was a non-event without taking into consideration the hundreds of millions of dollars that were put into making sure it was a non-event.
If it didn't happen elsewhere, it didn't happen because lockdowns, and other physical distancing measures, worked.
Arguing against taking defensive measures because they worked is like arguing that Y2K was a non-event without taking into consideration the hundreds of millions of dollars that were put into making sure it was a non-event.
Localize lockdown may make sense in some places and in the beginning. It definitely doesn't make sense to sill have lockdown now, even in italy. We have better data and better treatment method compare to back in March.
There's latency in identifying the spike. And people are not going to deal well with yoyoing lockdowns. They'll become less effective each time.
matz1(2)
There's no way that $200 million is break even for that movie.
The budget alone was $200 million, which doesn't factor in marketing...which will probably be higher than normal since they had to run a marketing campaign multiple times as it was pushed back throughout the months. Often times that alone can be as much as the movie budget.
The budget alone was $200 million, which doesn't factor in marketing...which will probably be higher than normal since they had to run a marketing campaign multiple times as it was pushed back throughout the months. Often times that alone can be as much as the movie budget.
With Hollywood Accounting they would have inflated the costs as much as legally possible.
But the marketing isn’t done by the studio, it’s undertaken by the distributor. Different pockets, right? You can’t reconcile line items across different accounts (although I hear Hollywood is very creative with accounting).
It didn't break even yet. Looks like's its maybe half way.
The ticket price is split with the theater, so the movie only gets part. You need the box office receipts to be larger (usually 2x+) than the production + marketing costs.
From the article "Given its $200 million production budget, the movie needs to reach approximately $400 million worldwide to break even and closer to $450 million to get out of the red and into the black."
The ticket price is split with the theater, so the movie only gets part. You need the box office receipts to be larger (usually 2x+) than the production + marketing costs.
From the article "Given its $200 million production budget, the movie needs to reach approximately $400 million worldwide to break even and closer to $450 million to get out of the red and into the black."
There's no basis for calling it a failure (or success) since many theaters aren't open and the ones that are have a limited capacity. And there's no covid box office precedent.
They clearly didn't release it thinking it might perform up to pre-covid standards. They knew they were sacrificing a big opening and they obviously figured they'd take a hit but make most of it up with a longer run, bluray, rerelease, etc.
They clearly didn't release it thinking it might perform up to pre-covid standards. They knew they were sacrificing a big opening and they obviously figured they'd take a hit but make most of it up with a longer run, bluray, rerelease, etc.
> the ones that are have a limited capacity
I got to see it at a local theater capable of showing the 70mm version, and they had sectioned off two seats between any person or couples. So effectively they had less than half of the normal capacity.
On the bright side for them, it's been sold out 4+ weeks in advance for quite a while now.
I got to see it at a local theater capable of showing the 70mm version, and they had sectioned off two seats between any person or couples. So effectively they had less than half of the normal capacity.
On the bright side for them, it's been sold out 4+ weeks in advance for quite a while now.
A mothballed 747-100 might be worth almost nothing, literally cents on the dollar, especially as anything valuable will usually have been removed by various parties before it even hits the boneyards. And during the current situation where air cargo, the only viable use for even airworthy old 747s, is not growing I can see some broker selling a plane in the low single digit millions. An airworthy 747 will of course be worth more but the article doesn’t mention that and it seems unlikely.
I'm reasonably sure he would have used a "near end of life", but currently operating 747.
"Un-mothballing" isn't cheap. I suppose maybe you could find one in a small, corrupt, country, but outside of that, it would be expensive.
"Un-mothballing" isn't cheap. I suppose maybe you could find one in a small, corrupt, country, but outside of that, it would be expensive.
Why couldn’t a mothballed/not airworthy one be used? So long as you can film the scene at whatever boneyard it’s parked, it seems like the easiest and cheapest option.
Tenet finished shooting before covid hit.
They're worth a good bit less than single-digit millions. For context, you can pick up an airworthy 15 year old 777 right now for ~5 million dollars.
Last time I spoke with a widebody broker a few months ago, an old 747 with no equipment was a smidge less than $100k. Though with COVID, airworthy 747 freighters are 30-50 million....
Last time I spoke with a widebody broker a few months ago, an old 747 with no equipment was a smidge less than $100k. Though with COVID, airworthy 747 freighters are 30-50 million....
There's likely some middle ground. Like a 747 that is ALMOST due a heavy check and mx cycle and very close to end of life.
Yikes, that’s even greater depreciation than I thought. Even then that 777 seems almost too good to be true with the current fuel prices, do you have the link or the details on it?
Afraid no link - I'm actually in the process of buying 777s right now at a bit less than that (and then hopefully flipping for 5 apiece). Fresh out of a heavy C check, too.
But if you're curious re:prices, you can call the dealer listed on Controller.com as selling a 777. He's actually got several for sale in that neighborhood (and is super friendly, too - Eric).
But if you're curious re:prices, you can call the dealer listed on Controller.com as selling a 777. He's actually got several for sale in that neighborhood (and is super friendly, too - Eric).
Thanks for the info. Sounds like you got a great deal on those 777s. How much effort does it take to go through one of those flips? I imagine relocation and storage might be a hassle depending on where they’re at.
More complicated than buying a used car, but not horrible. The biggest issue is getting seller alignment.
On the cash front, ferry flights to the US are the biggest expense by far. A 777 burns ~$10,000 in fuel per hour, so positioning from (say) Asia to a boneyard in California adds up quickly... with crew, ferry insurance, landing fees & sundries you end up at $200-$250k. Parking runs around $3-5k per month in the desert, too.
On the cash front, ferry flights to the US are the biggest expense by far. A 777 burns ~$10,000 in fuel per hour, so positioning from (say) Asia to a boneyard in California adds up quickly... with crew, ferry insurance, landing fees & sundries you end up at $200-$250k. Parking runs around $3-5k per month in the desert, too.
This is a stupid question, but is there any way to monetize a ferry flight like that? Could you still bring along some cargo, or would insurance or increased fuel cost (or perhaps lack of airworthiness for cargo?) make it not worth it?
I figure if you're starting at, say, $150k to ferry it, might as well fill it with some junk.
I figure if you're starting at, say, $150k to ferry it, might as well fill it with some junk.
I guess a big question will revolve around “is the airplane completely airworthy for commercial cargo transports”. If you park it in the desert to “die” it is possible the answer is: no. Also adding the complexity that the cargo you transport probably isn’t destined for the desert either.
Ferry permits can be issued to airplanes “not airworthy and operating outside their certified range” if I am not mistaken.
Ferry permits can be issued to airplanes “not airworthy and operating outside their certified range” if I am not mistaken.
That is an excellent question - and one that I don't know the answer to. It's something we're looking into.
Incidentally though, the FAA minimum liability coverage for a widebody is $750 million, and the policies I've seen do allow for cargo onboard (though not passengers).
Incidentally though, the FAA minimum liability coverage for a widebody is $750 million, and the policies I've seen do allow for cargo onboard (though not passengers).
Why is parking in the desert so expensive? Security/insurance? Is the sand bad for the plane?
My guess is that it used to be cheap, but now you’re paying for somewhere with a runway that has space. Then there’s still some maintenance tasks that may or may not be included.
Location location location?
Who do you flip to? Like what do they want to do with it?
Also, is it possible to buy non-airworthy ones and fix them up and sell them as air worthy ones? Or is it too expensive?
Also, is it possible to buy non-airworthy ones and fix them up and sell them as air worthy ones? Or is it too expensive?
This is why people buy them and turn them into eclectic houses. It's a fun idea. I'd never be able to sell my wife on it, but the boy in me likes it.
~19 feet wide by ~12 feet high sure beats a used shipping container at 7' 8" wide x 7' 10" high, despite the ovalish shape. Probably terrible to hire some pilot driver service to move it about though, even if it is just the fuselage.
The people who tried to haul the carcass of a 747 to Burning Man discovered how difficult it is to coordinate anything that is such an oversized load, on public highways.
Most of the places I can think of that I could get local government permission, and buy cheap land, to put a 747 house in place... Have a near 1:1 venn diagram overlap with places that might have a half mile dirt driveway with trees on both sides, where it would be difficult to get a truck and traditional dimension single-wide mobile home into, nevermind a 747.
Most of the places I can think of that I could get local government permission, and buy cheap land, to put a 747 house in place... Have a near 1:1 venn diagram overlap with places that might have a half mile dirt driveway with trees on both sides, where it would be difficult to get a truck and traditional dimension single-wide mobile home into, nevermind a 747.
They didn't just try, they did it. I've partied in it multiple separate Burns.
This year they definitely had some issues getting it off of the playa, but your comment might imply to the unfamiliar that they didn't succeed in getting it on-playa.
This year they definitely had some issues getting it off of the playa, but your comment might imply to the unfamiliar that they didn't succeed in getting it on-playa.
I didn't say they didn't get it there, but it took a lot of coordination with electrical and telecom companies to remove wiring (it's way, way over 13'6"), and they were only hauling it through mostly empty desert and rural areas. Time and effort from local law enforcement to shut down public roads and such. I can't even imagine trying to take a 747 fuselage down a road anywhere more populated that has aerial electrical/telecom wiring.
There is a guy in Oregon who lives in a 727-200, but that's a lot less work to take down a road.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/airplane-home-in-the-woo...
There is a guy in Oregon who lives in a 727-200, but that's a lot less work to take down a road.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/airplane-home-in-the-woo...
> I didn't say they didn't get it there
I know, I tried to word my comment carefully to avoid implying that you were being intentionally misleading. I was just clarifying for the benefit of the unfamiliar
I know, I tried to word my comment carefully to avoid implying that you were being intentionally misleading. I was just clarifying for the benefit of the unfamiliar
Yes. I imagine just getting someone to cut off the fuel-tanks-througout wings is a challenge. Moving it afterwards is likely very hard.
It's just a kerosene/diesel tank (jet fuel is basically kerosene or diesel depending on grade) an aluminum one at that. As far as cutting up fuel tanks goes it doesn't get any easier. Though that won't anyone you hire from trying to screw you on price "because fuel".
Or a boat, where 1000s of people live. Dry comfortably.
Haha yes, I just watched 3 videos on YouTube, and so far they have been all been single men. My wife says she's interested though, as long as it's a comfortable place to live and looks decent. (Some of the ones I found on YouTube sort of looked like someone was squatting in an abandoned plane.)
One of the people also talked about turning a second one into an AirBnb, so I think that's a great idea. It would be a very unique place to stay, so I think it would be fully booked if you're in a decent location.
One of the people also talked about turning a second one into an AirBnb, so I think that's a great idea. It would be a very unique place to stay, so I think it would be fully booked if you're in a decent location.
Not an example of living in the fuselage, but a unique take on building with one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/747_Wing_House
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/747_Wing_House
Oh yeah! I remember seeing that on The World's Most Extraordinary Homes. You can watch that episode here: https://www.netflix.com/watch/80213105?trackId=200257859
Don’t sell your wife on it. Sell your wife for it.
Well, you know what they say: The two happiest days of your life are the day you buy a broken down widebody 747, and the day you blow it up.
This made me laugh. Thank you.
Wow, I would have never guessed that! That makes me think that it might be fun to buy a piece of land and live inside an old 747. I found this video where someone is living inside a Boeing 727: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iat-WgSvGME
Here's another person living in a 727: https://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=rKm5oF2p-II
This one has a much nicer interior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwLlI9abgU
According to one of the comments on the first video, they spent 120k on the plane, and another 100k to move it to the forest. I would probably want to spend another ~300k for renovations and everything else (proper foundation, shower, kitchen, water and sewer lines, etc. etc.)
It's not cheap, but that's a lot cheaper than I was expecting. Especially compared to the average house in an expensive city. I think it might also be a lot more fun than living in a "tiny house".
I recently read this "Why We Don't Like Our Underground House" article that was posted on HN: https://dengarden.com/misc/The-Pitfalls-of-an-Underground-Ho... That was a reminder that doing something unconventional can be risky and cause lots of unexpected problems. So it would probably be a good idea to also spend a lot of money on architects and engineers to make sure that everything is done properly and there's no surprises.
Here's another person living in a 727: https://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=rKm5oF2p-II
This one has a much nicer interior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwLlI9abgU
According to one of the comments on the first video, they spent 120k on the plane, and another 100k to move it to the forest. I would probably want to spend another ~300k for renovations and everything else (proper foundation, shower, kitchen, water and sewer lines, etc. etc.)
It's not cheap, but that's a lot cheaper than I was expecting. Especially compared to the average house in an expensive city. I think it might also be a lot more fun than living in a "tiny house".
I recently read this "Why We Don't Like Our Underground House" article that was posted on HN: https://dengarden.com/misc/The-Pitfalls-of-an-Underground-Ho... That was a reminder that doing something unconventional can be risky and cause lots of unexpected problems. So it would probably be a good idea to also spend a lot of money on architects and engineers to make sure that everything is done properly and there's no surprises.
A better price break down is probably:
$120k on the plane. $5k to move it into the forest. $95k fee for not having friends with heavy equipment. $200k for making somebody else do the renovating for you. $50k on materials. $50k on markup.
Neither the weight nor size of the plane are astronomical. The square footage to renovate isn't that high either. The reason it costs so much is that it's odd and every time you pay someone else there's a huge cost associated with a one-off and everything about the project is one-off.
$120k on the plane. $5k to move it into the forest. $95k fee for not having friends with heavy equipment. $200k for making somebody else do the renovating for you. $50k on materials. $50k on markup.
Neither the weight nor size of the plane are astronomical. The square footage to renovate isn't that high either. The reason it costs so much is that it's odd and every time you pay someone else there's a huge cost associated with a one-off and everything about the project is one-off.
transporting a dead airplane should cost much more than 5k
That's where this comment comes in:
> $95k fee for not having friends with heavy equipment.
> $95k fee for not having friends with heavy equipment.
There is one by me that is on the roof of a water park. 6 water slides start from the fuselage. https://www.wingsandwaveswaterpark.com/
Of course, it's next door to, and both started by the guy who ran the now defunct evergreen aviation.
Of course, it's next door to, and both started by the guy who ran the now defunct evergreen aviation.
I suspect one of the largest problems with converting an airliner into a house would be getting the legal permission to do it.
Obviously, the fact that it has been done means that it is legally possible in some jurisdictions, but it's likely to be an uphill battle--or completely impossible--elsewhere.
Communities that require newly constructed buildings to match the character of the neighborhood likely would never grant permission for an airliner house. Jurisdictions that don't have this requirement would still require building code compliance, which could be extremely difficult to achieve as the technical standards used in aviation are not comparable to those used in conventional construction or mobile homes. At minimum, you'd have major issues with insulation requirements, fire resistance, and emergency egress.
After all of this, you'd still need to find a bank willing to issue a construction loan/mortgage, and an insurer willing to cover the finished product.
$300K might be a very low-end estimate of the costs involved to make everything physically and legally proper.
Obviously, the fact that it has been done means that it is legally possible in some jurisdictions, but it's likely to be an uphill battle--or completely impossible--elsewhere.
Communities that require newly constructed buildings to match the character of the neighborhood likely would never grant permission for an airliner house. Jurisdictions that don't have this requirement would still require building code compliance, which could be extremely difficult to achieve as the technical standards used in aviation are not comparable to those used in conventional construction or mobile homes. At minimum, you'd have major issues with insulation requirements, fire resistance, and emergency egress.
After all of this, you'd still need to find a bank willing to issue a construction loan/mortgage, and an insurer willing to cover the finished product.
$300K might be a very low-end estimate of the costs involved to make everything physically and legally proper.
> It's not cheap, but that's a lot cheaper than I was expecting.
Seems like quite a bit to live in a 747 in the middle of nowhere. Why not just buy an already-built $500K house in the middle of nowhere? It would be bigger and save you a whole lot of hassle.
Seems like quite a bit to live in a 747 in the middle of nowhere. Why not just buy an already-built $500K house in the middle of nowhere? It would be bigger and save you a whole lot of hassle.
Why does anyone do anything that’s not strictly necessary? Because it’s cool.
proper foundation
I got quite nervous as the plane appears to be resting on a pile of wood pellets.
I got quite nervous as the plane appears to be resting on a pile of wood pellets.
Wood cribbing can hold up ships. Unlike a house or conventional building the plane has enough strength to not fall apart when subject to uneven loading and the three point foundation is going to make it basically impossible to twist it apart if one piling sinks and the others don't. As long as it's level enough for the owner's satisfaction it should be fine.
The property tax may be extremely high if the property is evaluated at the price of a flying plane, not at purchasing price.
> Wow, I would have never guessed that!
Airliners are merely business tools - operators have no romance for any plane.
If a 777 is even 2% more efficient than a 747, the 747 is grounded and chopped up.
The related factors are that 4 engines is more maintenance than 2 engines, the classic 747 is no longer certified for passenger use in the USA (wiring and fuel-tank inerting ADs), and ETOPS allows twin-engine flight on almost all commercially-viable oceanic routes. (ETOPS makes me nervous af.)
Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.
Airliners are merely business tools - operators have no romance for any plane.
If a 777 is even 2% more efficient than a 747, the 747 is grounded and chopped up.
The related factors are that 4 engines is more maintenance than 2 engines, the classic 747 is no longer certified for passenger use in the USA (wiring and fuel-tank inerting ADs), and ETOPS allows twin-engine flight on almost all commercially-viable oceanic routes. (ETOPS makes me nervous af.)
Source: commercially-rated airplane pilot.
> ETOPS makes me nervous af
The only case I can think of where an ETOPS flight had both engines fail due to something other than fuel exhaustion was BA38, and it's hard to say a quad jet would have managed better there. I can understand the gut feeling that the safety factor has been reduced, but given several decades without horror stories is it really still something to be nervous about?
The only case I can think of where an ETOPS flight had both engines fail due to something other than fuel exhaustion was BA38, and it's hard to say a quad jet would have managed better there. I can understand the gut feeling that the safety factor has been reduced, but given several decades without horror stories is it really still something to be nervous about?
FYI: Actually several have diverted. You should study the ETOPS requirements to see how nervous the regulators are. Each ETOPS flight has special requirements for alternates that have lodging, food and reasonably nearby (timewise) maintenance. (Cold Bay is not a fun place to be stranded.)
It's unlikely that an airliner can maintain altitude on one engine, so the risk is high that once a problem occurs, things can go bad fast. Ditching 300 passengers in the open ocean guarantees fatalities.
I understand that non-pilots think "it's handled", but that's not really the case.
That's why the old expression "it's a 4-engine ocean" came about.
"Small Planes Over Big Oceans (ETOPS Explained)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g
It's unlikely that an airliner can maintain altitude on one engine, so the risk is high that once a problem occurs, things can go bad fast. Ditching 300 passengers in the open ocean guarantees fatalities.
I understand that non-pilots think "it's handled", but that's not really the case.
That's why the old expression "it's a 4-engine ocean" came about.
"Small Planes Over Big Oceans (ETOPS Explained)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSxSgbNQi-g
What does it mean to say that regulators are “nervous” about ETOPS? Regulators are always nervous; that is their job. If they permit something it is because they have determined it is safe enough.
It’s really weird to imply that losing one engine is a ditch situation. Modern airliners can take off on one engine. ETOPS 330 certifies them for operation on one engine for 5.5 hours continuously. They may have to descend a bit from max altitude but there’s a big difference between that and ditching.
More flights have experienced fatal crashes due to pilots flying a perfectly functional airplane into the terrain, than from both engines failing. On objective evidence, you should be more worried about the pilots than the engines.
“It’s a 4-engine ocean” is indeed an old expression.
It’s really weird to imply that losing one engine is a ditch situation. Modern airliners can take off on one engine. ETOPS 330 certifies them for operation on one engine for 5.5 hours continuously. They may have to descend a bit from max altitude but there’s a big difference between that and ditching.
More flights have experienced fatal crashes due to pilots flying a perfectly functional airplane into the terrain, than from both engines failing. On objective evidence, you should be more worried about the pilots than the engines.
“It’s a 4-engine ocean” is indeed an old expression.
> It's unlikely that an airliner can maintain altitude on one engine, so the risk is high that once a problem occurs, things can go bad fast. Ditching 300 passengers in the open ocean guarantees fatalities.
This is a super misleading technical truth. There usually is an engine out altitude where it’s most efficient to fly on a single engine. Just like there is an altitude where it’s most efficient with both engines operating. The two don’t need to be the same.
Planes don’t automatically become ETOPS certified, every plane gets tested.
The first step is to certify the type of aircraft itself, for which it is flown on a single engine for the required time of the ETOPS rating. So ETOPS-180 means 180 minutes of flying with a single engine. Not in a simulator, with a real aircraft.
The second step is that each operator also has to become ETOPS certified. You can’t just buy an ETOPS certified jet and fly it over the atlantic. There are additional requirements for crews and mechanical staff, including more regular checks of the aircrafts.
Lastly, this is all based on statistics. So operators have to publish statistics about their fleet. If say engine outs are increasing for a specific airframe and/or operator, it’s possible that their ETOPS rating goes down or is completely suspended.
This is a super misleading technical truth. There usually is an engine out altitude where it’s most efficient to fly on a single engine. Just like there is an altitude where it’s most efficient with both engines operating. The two don’t need to be the same.
Planes don’t automatically become ETOPS certified, every plane gets tested.
The first step is to certify the type of aircraft itself, for which it is flown on a single engine for the required time of the ETOPS rating. So ETOPS-180 means 180 minutes of flying with a single engine. Not in a simulator, with a real aircraft.
The second step is that each operator also has to become ETOPS certified. You can’t just buy an ETOPS certified jet and fly it over the atlantic. There are additional requirements for crews and mechanical staff, including more regular checks of the aircrafts.
Lastly, this is all based on statistics. So operators have to publish statistics about their fleet. If say engine outs are increasing for a specific airframe and/or operator, it’s possible that their ETOPS rating goes down or is completely suspended.
> It's unlikely that an airliner can maintain altitude on one engine, so the risk is high that once a problem occurs, things can go bad fast.
There's nothing likely or unlikely about it - for an aircraft operating an ETOPS flight, the performance characteristics with one engine operative are well known, and taken into consideration when doing the mandatory diversion planning.
There's nothing likely or unlikely about it - for an aircraft operating an ETOPS flight, the performance characteristics with one engine operative are well known, and taken into consideration when doing the mandatory diversion planning.
>Actually several have diverted
I’m not a pilot but isn’t that a good thing? Diverting a flight as opposed to... crashing?
I’m not a pilot but isn’t that a good thing? Diverting a flight as opposed to... crashing?
You know how in a bureaucracy heavy industrial workplace even the most distant of "near misses" gets the book thrown at it even if it doesn't make sense.
Well flying is like that kind of workplace but cranked to 11.
Well flying is like that kind of workplace but cranked to 11.
Right, but if an engine is going to fail... it’s going to fail. Whether it’s over land or over sea, it’s going to fail. I haven’t heard of anything saying jet engines are more likely to fail over the open ocean. So that plane would be diverted anyway, even if the failure happened over land. The only difference in risk is how far the plane has to go to find a runway they can land on, which still can be a problem over land because it’s hard to safely set a 747 down in the middle of the Congo or the Amazon or Siberia or northern Canada, etc. And even the biggest 787 can land on a shorter runway than even the smallest 747.
Again I’m not a pilot but it seems like diverted planes isn’t the problem, the problem is finding a safe place to set the plane down if a failure does happen. Yes the ocean makes that difficult, but so does a lot of land.
Again I’m not a pilot but it seems like diverted planes isn’t the problem, the problem is finding a safe place to set the plane down if a failure does happen. Yes the ocean makes that difficult, but so does a lot of land.
Land can actually make it trickier in some aspects. If your aircraft experiences depressurization, a rapid descent to a breathable altitude is required (how rapid depends on the aircraft). In mountainous areas this can be difficult (but is, of course, planned for).
Yeah but what's the insurance bill...
Steven Spielberg used an old 747 for War of the worlds and the set is still on the tram tour at Universal Studios.
Apparently the airplane itself was free, but it cost $250k to transport it to the location of filming!
Apparently the airplane itself was free, but it cost $250k to transport it to the location of filming!
Are you able to explain what your line of work is?
Right. Mythbusters blew up an airliner, on a budget that I expect would be a rounding error for Nolan.
https://youtu.be/4yG2h1aDB6k
https://youtu.be/4yG2h1aDB6k
He mentioned in an interview[0] they removed and sold the engines beforehand
[0] https://youtu.be/aEdl1bByYLY?t=349
[0] https://youtu.be/aEdl1bByYLY?t=349
They really aren't worth anything. My uni got a boneyard 737 to display near the Aero building here in India. Plane itself was free, transporting it to uni costed $50,000.
For the curious, heres the plane : https://www.google.com/maps/@12.7994926,80.2283484,166m/data...
For the curious, heres the plane : https://www.google.com/maps/@12.7994926,80.2283484,166m/data...
And 737s have increasingly taken over from 747s for commercial use.
They really haven't. Routes that used to be flown by 747 are now flown by other widebodies: 777, 787, A330, A350. The 737 has neither the range nor the capacity to take over most routes the 747 used to fly.
Not to mention that you're probably not going to diminish the remaining scrap value by "blowing it up" in movie terms. A fireball and debris cannons aren't going to do nearly the damage of real explosives. Worst case you're basically pre-shredding it.
[deleted]
I doubt they bought anything. They didn’t need a 747, they needed to blow one up. One that looks airworthy, not the cheapest crap they could get.
I can’t imagine them fixing up a well scavenged airframe, I imagine they took a nice, but retired frame, blew it up, and sent it back to the yard.
Of course the internals would be scrapped ahead of time, but why not airworthy? Tons of these things sitting in the desert.
Makes me think of someone using an insured rental car to shoot the big scene of their breakout movie
I can’t imagine them fixing up a well scavenged airframe, I imagine they took a nice, but retired frame, blew it up, and sent it back to the yard.
Of course the internals would be scrapped ahead of time, but why not airworthy? Tons of these things sitting in the desert.
Makes me think of someone using an insured rental car to shoot the big scene of their breakout movie
Airworthy means “can legally fly”. There are many airframes sitting in the desert that are far from airworthy, but would look just fine with a wash and wax.
There's a few around the world that have been essentially abandoned. High cycle time aircraft, engines stripped, avionics gone and useful parts taken.
There is a whole industry around salvaging old jet aircraft for parts, movie sets, furniture, etc.
An old 747 fuselage would be well under a million. Even less for 727s and 737-200s.
There is a whole industry around salvaging old jet aircraft for parts, movie sets, furniture, etc.
An old 747 fuselage would be well under a million. Even less for 727s and 737-200s.
What’s your source on air cargo not growing? I would have thought it was boom in with eCommerce going through the roof. (Perhaps the same amount of goods, but distributed through many more packages)
[air] Cargo tonne km (CTKs) were down about 13% year on year as of July, but are recovering. You can find relevant charts here.
https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/iata/iata-outlook-carg...
https://www.aircargonews.net/airlines/iata/iata-outlook-carg...
The measures taken by the governments of some large countries in response to COVID-19 have had pretty severe negative impacts on the economy of those countries, which would surely have a downward pressure on air freight. People who recently lost their job are unlikely to be spending up large on Amazon.
Interestingly, real disposable Personal Income per capita is actually up in the US. See eg https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A229RX0
But the economy has nose dived. The amount of goods will have also decreased surely?
Most intercontinental freight moves on boats. They can move orders of magnitude more than a plane.
Eh, there's a hell of a lot of aluminum in there and their weigh a lot. You price floor is still gonna be pretty high.
(but not millions high).
(but not millions high).
Should have used a 737-max, probably could pick one up for close to free :)
[deleted]
Reminds me of this: “India's mission to Mars cost less than the movie Gravity” https://www.vox.com/2014/9/24/6838079/india-mars-mangalyaan
I don't doubt that a decomissioned/mothballed 747 would be cheap or worthless -- in the same way you can basically get an old upright piano for free just by offering to take it away from someone's home.
My question is actually a logistical one: how on earth do you get a presumably inoperational 747 to wherever it is that you need to shoot it exploding?
Or do they just fly a crew and equipment out to god-knows-where, set up ginormous green screens behind it and detonate it in whatever airplane graveyard it sits in?
Given the massive transportation costs either way, I'm inclined to believe this headline is false, but good publicity. ;)
My question is actually a logistical one: how on earth do you get a presumably inoperational 747 to wherever it is that you need to shoot it exploding?
Or do they just fly a crew and equipment out to god-knows-where, set up ginormous green screens behind it and detonate it in whatever airplane graveyard it sits in?
Given the massive transportation costs either way, I'm inclined to believe this headline is false, but good publicity. ;)
You usually slice it up along the fuselage and remove the wings, similar to how they left the factory in the first place. Then take it away in an operational 747 then shut it together again at the destination.
Woah, you can transport a 747 with another 747?
At least one way: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=747%20space%20shuttle&iax=images&i...
It’s 747s all the way down.
The plane was destroyed on an abandoned runway within a few hundred metres of a 747 junkyard. I think it's fair to say that transportation was less difficult in this situation than most.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnGXerN0tlo
Here is a video of Jeremy Clarkson getting an English Electric Lightning installed in his front garden, much to his wife's dismay (as you might expect)
Here is a video of Jeremy Clarkson getting an English Electric Lightning installed in his front garden, much to his wife's dismay (as you might expect)
Wife: Does this shows up on rad... err, satellite?
Husband: ...yeah.
Wife: So we could become a bombing target.
Husband: ...No?
Wife: You don’t think they’ll mistake us for an airbase?
Husband: We’ll be able to use this, in the summer, as a place to get out of the heat!
Husband: ...yeah.
Wife: So we could become a bombing target.
Husband: ...No?
Wife: You don’t think they’ll mistake us for an airbase?
Husband: We’ll be able to use this, in the summer, as a place to get out of the heat!
IIRC there is a stage in a life of an aircraft when it's not suitable to carry passengers, but still can be flown around by the crew.
You can apply for a special permit for a ferry flight with no passengers. In this case they just towed it from one part of the airfield it's stored at to the filming location a few hundred metres away, though.
Pop the wings off and put it on a extra side truck.
Or move the shoot to where the plane is, which might be easier.
Or move the shoot to where the plane is, which might be easier.
It's a shame Nolan didn't use the Mexican presidential plane, lol. It's for sale.
I would have paid to see that.
This reminds me of how it was cheaper for the US to go to the moon than it would have been to fake the moon landing with the technology of the time. At least I remember reading an article a few years ago with that premise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw had fun exploring what they could and could not fake.
This video goes through why the video technology at the time simply wasn't even good enough to enable faking the moon landing. Even if they wanted to.
https://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs
https://youtu.be/_loUDS4c3Cs
While it is a bogus conspiracy theory, I got more of an understanding why people could think of it as reasonable after seeing 2001 and realizing it came out _before_ the moon landing.
Compare the moonlanding poster in https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/03/04/prospiracy-theories/
I wonder what's the chance of failure on that kind of shoot. Redoing the CGI explosion to tweak it would be likely cheaper than 2 planes. Or is there a "plane failed to explode nicely" insurance?
Pure speculation, but I’d guess people who are already responsible for handling explosives in a safe way would also be responsible for making a sufficiently “nice” boom.
I’m assuming they have ways to plan how things are going to explode and maybe even ways to test it somehow before the shot.
I’m assuming they have ways to plan how things are going to explode and maybe even ways to test it somehow before the shot.
Original source: https://www.gamesradar.com/tenet-christopher-nolan-747-plane...
What he actually said was "efficient" not "cost effective".
What he actually said was "efficient" not "cost effective".
Ok, we've changed the title to say that. Thanks!
I guess Cinemablend isn't going to fact check this claim?
It's typically much cheaper to do anything like a plane crash in a computer (or models + computer). Even 20 years ago, when I was bidding visual effects, I bet it would have been cheaper. [Note, I haven't seen the movie, so maybe there are 50 angles of it exploding, in which case it might not be]
The cost of a mothballed plane is probably trivial compared to the daily cost of Tenet's movie set. You've got all of the actors (or maybe stunt people in this case) and crew members, so their salaries, food, hotels, costs of being on location and so on. The cost of renting the location itself. Constructing things you're going to destroy, cleaning up, etc.
My guess is that Nolan wanted to do it this way because it's more fun. Nolan knows it's cheaper to do it in CGI, but blowing stuff up in CGI is boring. He gets to sit in a desk chair and look at something blowing up on a screen instead of seeing it IRL. And he can call the shots because he's Nolan, he directed, wrote and produced the thing.
It's typically much cheaper to do anything like a plane crash in a computer (or models + computer). Even 20 years ago, when I was bidding visual effects, I bet it would have been cheaper. [Note, I haven't seen the movie, so maybe there are 50 angles of it exploding, in which case it might not be]
The cost of a mothballed plane is probably trivial compared to the daily cost of Tenet's movie set. You've got all of the actors (or maybe stunt people in this case) and crew members, so their salaries, food, hotels, costs of being on location and so on. The cost of renting the location itself. Constructing things you're going to destroy, cleaning up, etc.
My guess is that Nolan wanted to do it this way because it's more fun. Nolan knows it's cheaper to do it in CGI, but blowing stuff up in CGI is boring. He gets to sit in a desk chair and look at something blowing up on a screen instead of seeing it IRL. And he can call the shots because he's Nolan, he directed, wrote and produced the thing.
> cleaning up
I would not underestimate this cost.
I would not underestimate this cost.
> "[Note, I haven't seen the movie, so maybe there are 50 angles of it exploding, in which case it might not be]"
There are quite a few angles of it exploding, as well as it being a major set piece with people running around it before, during, and after the explosion.
There are quite a few angles of it exploding, as well as it being a major set piece with people running around it before, during, and after the explosion.
Basing the choice on the result we now see in the cinema is a fairly tautological affair. I mean, when you’ve made the decision to go with a real one then you might as well include as many shots and angles as you can get and milk it for all it’s worth.
The real question is if the movie could have been done with fewer angles and interior shots.
The real question is if the movie could have been done with fewer angles and interior shots.
Yeah the plane is part of almost a good 10-15% of the movie.
I probably shouldn't have even included that note. I'm not current on the state of the art but I can't imagine there's any scenario where an effect like that would be cheaper to do practically than in CGI/models.
While I agree in general, I work in the VFX industry as a software dev writing a renderer that's used for blockbusters, and one situation where CG still isn't quite "there" yet IMO is fluid effects and explosions (which is somewhat combined with the simulation of them as well as the rendering).
So much iteration time can go into attempting to get the right "shape" of the simulation, as well as "colours" (smoke, combustion, flame), whether via a black-body spectral shader or a more artist-driven one, and it's very difficult to get people to agree on what looks "real" or "right", especially compared to say hard-surface rendering.
Doing it practically (assuming the correct scale, and fuels were used) might (depending on directors and producers' opinions) make people "just" accept that the result is "realistic", and remove a lot of the uncertainty, at the very least just because they can't tweak things afterwards, and what was recorded is the result they get, as opposed to having a team of 10s of people iterating for months (including lots of compute time for simulations and rendering) trying to get something the people at the top are happy looks "real".
So much iteration time can go into attempting to get the right "shape" of the simulation, as well as "colours" (smoke, combustion, flame), whether via a black-body spectral shader or a more artist-driven one, and it's very difficult to get people to agree on what looks "real" or "right", especially compared to say hard-surface rendering.
Doing it practically (assuming the correct scale, and fuels were used) might (depending on directors and producers' opinions) make people "just" accept that the result is "realistic", and remove a lot of the uncertainty, at the very least just because they can't tweak things afterwards, and what was recorded is the result they get, as opposed to having a team of 10s of people iterating for months (including lots of compute time for simulations and rendering) trying to get something the people at the top are happy looks "real".
> and one situation where CG still isn't quite "there" yet IMO is fluid effects and explosions (which is somewhat combined with the simulation of them as well as the rendering)
To be honest, the non-CG crash scene in the snippets that I've seen looked off too. Random fireballs starting in random locations.
To be honest, the non-CG crash scene in the snippets that I've seen looked off too. Random fireballs starting in random locations.
When doing non-CG crash for movies, they often stuff the vehicle with explosives for a more spectacular result. They know it's not realistic, because they take the decision to add all these explosives.
Now when reality gets influenced by fiction, ISIS actually used bombs that make a lot of flames, more than necessary for warfare, just to make their propaganda videos similar to the Hollywood movies their recruiting targets have been watching all their life.
Now when reality gets influenced by fiction, ISIS actually used bombs that make a lot of flames, more than necessary for warfare, just to make their propaganda videos similar to the Hollywood movies their recruiting targets have been watching all their life.
Perhaps to make it look worse on tv to get coverage .
I am sure recruiting videos could just as well use CGI if they wanted to. Likely anyway does, skifull editing and manipulation are required for any propoganda content anyway.
I am sure recruiting videos could just as well use CGI if they wanted to. Likely anyway does, skifull editing and manipulation are required for any propoganda content anyway.
Hi, if I wanted to have a career doing what you do whats path if course I should take considering im a total novice in programming.
I'm not sure I'm afraid... I started programming when I was quite young, and have always been interested in it, and in terms of the VFX / Graphics industry, I've only been involved in that for the past 10 years, before that I was in other industries, so I really stumbled into doing it.
All the graphics / VFX knowledge I now have is self-taught (other than learning off colleagues) as well as experience working in the industry.
I'd say learning how to program is a good starting point, if you are really interested in graphics it's probably a good idea move into low-level programming (C,C++,CUDA) that's used in the HPC realm, because often the code will need to be extremely optimised. However, you can still do cool things in a higher-level language.
All the graphics / VFX knowledge I now have is self-taught (other than learning off colleagues) as well as experience working in the industry.
I'd say learning how to program is a good starting point, if you are really interested in graphics it's probably a good idea move into low-level programming (C,C++,CUDA) that's used in the HPC realm, because often the code will need to be extremely optimised. However, you can still do cool things in a higher-level language.
Thank you. I've always felt this is a niche field and hence not may resources are available online.
Thanks a bunch for your output :)
Thanks a bunch for your output :)
There are high-intensity 6-month VFX training programs at art schools where you learn the full pipeline. I don't think most VFX people know much programming, but it can be helpful in certain situations.
Im actually a lot more interested in rendering and the programming side of graphics. Its just wherever I search I can't find a clear cut path for this ... this isn't something I want to transition into next year - fundamentally I want to understand the systems of rendering and probably transition in into a consultant of sorts in the graphics field. Im sorry I know its vague... but I can't be more clear either
The Applied Mathematics program at UCLA (and others I'm sure) have produced many CG researchers under the direction of Joseph Teran. I'm sure there are many other great programs and professors; this is just one that I know about from colleagues that have gone through the program.
https://www.math.ucla.edu/people/ladder/jteran
https://www.math.ucla.edu/people/ladder/jteran
It sounds like the problem is people don't have a feel for what real explosions look like because they don't see them often enough. And if they do have good reference it's probably for controlled explosions rather than rare catastrophic explosions which I'm sure is quite a surreal experience.
Nolan did confirm this in an interview. I don't remember which one, but it was quick remark. He also said reselling the most valuable parts of the 747 quickly made it a lot more affordable.
They didn't say cheaper. Lot more efficient. CGI maybe cheaper, but going by timelines of any software project it certainly won't be remotely faster.
I would estimate that if you include the true environmental costs of destroying a plane with explosives, this is not accurate.
Here's a photo of the plane after making the movie: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24526292
Okay. Looks like 'blowing up' isn't an accurate description.
It looks like the Boeing planes may be good for something after all! (sarcasm)
"Cheaper to do it for real" might only work out if you actually get the shot you need on the first try. There's probably directors out there who went for the same approach with less financial success.
It's funny that the article mentions The Dark Knight without mentioning that in that movie Nolan blows up a real building in the scene in which the hospital is destroyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nJTZzgBwnQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nJTZzgBwnQ
I miss 80s-90s action flicks :/ cgi, even in 2020, looks like cgi.
Glad the article did a shout to Tom Cruise. The helicopter stunt scenes in the last MI were _absolutely phenomenal_.
Glad the article did a shout to Tom Cruise. The helicopter stunt scenes in the last MI were _absolutely phenomenal_.
Bravo Nolan.
The HN headline is click-bait.
The quote is 'more efficient' rather than cost effective and article goes on to say that it may been more expensive.
I'm guessing that 'more efficient' means you buy a 747 and film it being blown it up and move on to the rest of the film. Where as CGI or miniatures take longer and add more risk if they don't look right on the first attempt.
I'm guessing that 'more efficient' means you buy a 747 and film it being blown it up and move on to the rest of the film. Where as CGI or miniatures take longer and add more risk if they don't look right on the first attempt.
When I worked in the VFX industry we would come up against those sorts of situations all the time. For most clients it was never an issue of cost and more about the lead up time involved. For example, a lot of time goes into research and ensuring you get good reference photography and physical measurements. For something like a plane you would need to track down the exact make/model and send out a survey team for a few days to a week. Obviously this doesn't include the work done to determine how the plane would disintegrate and what the resulting explosions would look like. Someone in the art department would probably spend a week or more compiling plane crash reference.
Sure, there are outfits that won't go to that amount of trouble but the end result is almost always junk.
Sure, there are outfits that won't go to that amount of trouble but the end result is almost always junk.
I must say that I lost interest in all-cgi action sequences. Too smooth and cartoonish to feel real. I miss the roughness of the movies from the 90s. The archetype is something like Die Hard 3. From a cinematographic point of view, I fully support using real planes when possible.
So recently I was watching through Marvel movies to get ready to finally watch the last two Avengers ones. I'm not crazy about them but it's ok fun. Part of the problem with them is what you say, the action is so much CGI it just turns meh.
But then I was watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and I was not very engaged but following it. At some point I caught myself having a elevated heart-beat and at the edge of my seat. This was the highway bridge scene.
I asked myself what is going on, I don't really care that much about the characters or plot, why am I so engaged?
Then I saw this episode of Corridor Crew's Stuntmen React[1], where one of the stunt performers mentioned almost every stunt in that scene was a practical stunt. And with that it all made sense.
[1]: https://youtu.be/SgGpPRBTBTI?t=45
But then I was watching Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and I was not very engaged but following it. At some point I caught myself having a elevated heart-beat and at the edge of my seat. This was the highway bridge scene.
I asked myself what is going on, I don't really care that much about the characters or plot, why am I so engaged?
Then I saw this episode of Corridor Crew's Stuntmen React[1], where one of the stunt performers mentioned almost every stunt in that scene was a practical stunt. And with that it all made sense.
[1]: https://youtu.be/SgGpPRBTBTI?t=45
Take a look at Jurassic Park sometime, the Spielberg one from 1993. They used animatronics for most of the dinos and they look almost real still, almost 30 years on.
The same with the original Star Wars trilogy, they're all models lit by actual lights so there's a depth and "realness" to the lighting that makes it look so much more authentic than even modern CGI.
The same with the original Star Wars trilogy, they're all models lit by actual lights so there's a depth and "realness" to the lighting that makes it look so much more authentic than even modern CGI.
Indiana Jones special effects were pretty interesting too in that regard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN4weKvqmb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YceegyOXzh0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN4weKvqmb8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YceegyOXzh0
There is some selection bias going on. There was an amazing amount of bad and unconvincing special effect in movies before cgi. We just tend to remember the successful and convincing examples. Modern movies and tv productions have an amazing amount of cgi going on, and we only notice the effects when they are not convincing.
[deleted]
And I guess with CGI since the possibilities are endless, the bikeshedding about how it must look also doesn't help with efficiency.
I agree with you, the HN headline is click-bait.
I agree with you, the HN headline is click-bait.
[deleted]
What if you significantly mess up the first attempt with a real explosion? Like to the degree it isn't usable at all. Anyone know any costly examples of this?
During filming of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, the bridge explosion had to be done twice. The first time a miscommunication caused it to be blown before the cameras were ready. No idea how costly it was, though.
I once got a tour of ILM through a coworker -- this is a very real concern even with blowing up miniatures.
So you always make three: the one you plan to blow up, the backup, and the one you hope will go into the archives to show people later.
So you always make three: the one you plan to blow up, the backup, and the one you hope will go into the archives to show people later.
Is it that likely, as messing up the CGI? You could just abort before explosion if all your cameras don't look ok.
Some failures might not be obvious until the big red button has been pushed. What if the C4 in the cockpit is dud? What if the igniter at the wing spar is dud? What if the wires to the empennage have not been connected properly? What if the undercarriage collapses before the windows blow out? What if the vertical stabilizer's collapse causes a wind that exposes the hidden cameras from other angles?
This is fun, I should go on.
This is fun, I should go on.
Please do!
You would think blowing up a real 747 is riskier if it fails on the first attempt.
> Where as CGI or miniatures take longer and add more risk if they don't look right on the first attempt.
Well, at least next attempts would be relatively cheap with CGI. Less so for the 747.
Especially with https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect in operation.
Well, at least next attempts would be relatively cheap with CGI. Less so for the 747.
Especially with https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect in operation.
I imagine that the problem with that was that he started filming this thing before the coronavirus came around.
I can’t see a 747 going for much more than scrap metal cost these days.
I can’t see a 747 going for much more than scrap metal cost these days.
While they're being taken off passenger routes, a cargo conversion makes them great propositions: they have a greater higher Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) and Maximum Landing Weight (MLW) than anything else in the same price class both in terms of purchase price and running costs.
A 747-400 is about $15m, and can carry 412 metric tons. A 747-8 will cost you more, but you're heading up to 447 metric tons.
The only stuff that can lift more is: an A380 which will be _at least_ 10 times the price for an extra 130 tons MTOW, but you can only hand with ~50 tons more, so 80 tons of that is for range you might just not need in a cargo operation; a Strarolaunch which is a complete non-starter on many counts; or, finally an Antonov An-225 which comes at a high purchase price and a whole bag of operational problems you likely don't want as a cargo operator, including high running costs and a relative scarcity of spare parts.
There are plenty of businesses out there who can throw down money for a 747 in reasonable working condition and be confident they'll recoup that after other costs, and also know there are lots and lots of parts out there that will help them keep their fleet in the sky for a long time, and pilots and ground crew with plenty of experience on them too.
A 747-400 is about $15m, and can carry 412 metric tons. A 747-8 will cost you more, but you're heading up to 447 metric tons.
The only stuff that can lift more is: an A380 which will be _at least_ 10 times the price for an extra 130 tons MTOW, but you can only hand with ~50 tons more, so 80 tons of that is for range you might just not need in a cargo operation; a Strarolaunch which is a complete non-starter on many counts; or, finally an Antonov An-225 which comes at a high purchase price and a whole bag of operational problems you likely don't want as a cargo operator, including high running costs and a relative scarcity of spare parts.
There are plenty of businesses out there who can throw down money for a 747 in reasonable working condition and be confident they'll recoup that after other costs, and also know there are lots and lots of parts out there that will help them keep their fleet in the sky for a long time, and pilots and ground crew with plenty of experience on them too.
I assume MTOW must mean the total take-off weight, not the cargo weight. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Specifications it suggests about 125 tonnes, which - if I'm correct - means that quoting the MTOW is unhelpful.
Also looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Retirement_and_... it disagrees with running costs you say
"The 747-400's leasing, resale and salvage value has dropped steeply because it is relatively expensive to operate. As most 747-400s are now more than 20 years old, airlines are beginning to replace them. Airlines using the 747-400 have been retiring the model, replacing it with more fuel efficient aircraft"
Also looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747-400#Retirement_and_... it disagrees with running costs you say
"The 747-400's leasing, resale and salvage value has dropped steeply because it is relatively expensive to operate. As most 747-400s are now more than 20 years old, airlines are beginning to replace them. Airlines using the 747-400 have been retiring the model, replacing it with more fuel efficient aircraft"
Running cost is a cutthroat competition, companies replace aircrafts for 5-10% better fuel efficiency, which is up to 70% of the running cost. If 747 has 20% worse fuel efficiency than the most modern plane on the market, then it is considered very inefficient, but it actually costs only ~15% more to operate, assuming everything else is comparable.
Two were sold a couple of months ago for $48M total:
https://fortune.com/2017/11/22/boeing-747-jets-taobao-auctio...
Running it seems the going price is $16+ or so
But this was filmed in Victorville and they likely had an old stripped 747 laying around that could have been bought for very little
The airport itself received a $600k+ location fee:
https://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20191108/new-details-emerg...
https://fortune.com/2017/11/22/boeing-747-jets-taobao-auctio...
Running it seems the going price is $16+ or so
But this was filmed in Victorville and they likely had an old stripped 747 laying around that could have been bought for very little
The airport itself received a $600k+ location fee:
https://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20191108/new-details-emerg...
You sure? I flew recently. Things aren't that different now, and even restaurants are opening up.
I was going to say more, but let's not start a big coronavirus subthread in the middle of a neat CG thread. However, it's kind of interesting how normal it seemed to fly. Everyone is very cautious, things are sterilized, and there's not even any drink cart anymore -- it's individually-wrapped packs of food, to dampen contamination.
Not saying whether it's good or bad that things are going back to normal-ish, just that they seem to be trending that way.
I was going to say more, but let's not start a big coronavirus subthread in the middle of a neat CG thread. However, it's kind of interesting how normal it seemed to fly. Everyone is very cautious, things are sterilized, and there's not even any drink cart anymore -- it's individually-wrapped packs of food, to dampen contamination.
Not saying whether it's good or bad that things are going back to normal-ish, just that they seem to be trending that way.
Almost every major passenger airline is retiring their 747s. The only ones still in the air are the 747-8, which are relatively new, and cargo planes.
Yeah, but it's not due to COVID-19. At most, COVID-19 accelerated it a bit, but four-holers were being phased out well before COVID-19.
It is in large because of the virus: the reduction in demand for flights made the 747 the prime target for retirement.
Without a pandemic they would have been replaced gradually by newer planes, now they are just sitting unused so they are sold and scrapped.
This is inaccurate.
The phase-out of the 747 was well on the way long before the pandemic was ever a twinkle in a pangolin's eye, or wherever it came from. Those airlines that still fly them are mostly not changing their plans to either phase them out or keep flying them due to the pandemic.
As at the end of 2019, there was not a single scheduled passenger operator of the 747 anywhere in the Americas, and only two in Europe (BA and Lufthansa). Prior to the pandemic, BA announced plans to retire all 747s in 2024. They brought forward the date due to the downturn, but they're the only airline to do so for their 747 fleet as far as I can tell. Lufthansa flies the new 747-8 and is very unlikely to retire them any time soon.
There are still plenty of 747 operators in Asia: among others, Air China, Air India, Thai, Rossiya, Korean, China Airlines. Thai and China Airlines both had existing plans before the pandemic to retire their aging 747s, and the rest have all indicated that they plan to keep flying them.
The phase-out of the 747 was well on the way long before the pandemic was ever a twinkle in a pangolin's eye, or wherever it came from. Those airlines that still fly them are mostly not changing their plans to either phase them out or keep flying them due to the pandemic.
As at the end of 2019, there was not a single scheduled passenger operator of the 747 anywhere in the Americas, and only two in Europe (BA and Lufthansa). Prior to the pandemic, BA announced plans to retire all 747s in 2024. They brought forward the date due to the downturn, but they're the only airline to do so for their 747 fleet as far as I can tell. Lufthansa flies the new 747-8 and is very unlikely to retire them any time soon.
There are still plenty of 747 operators in Asia: among others, Air China, Air India, Thai, Rossiya, Korean, China Airlines. Thai and China Airlines both had existing plans before the pandemic to retire their aging 747s, and the rest have all indicated that they plan to keep flying them.
SPOILERS
Blog spam. Original blog post:
https://www.gamesradar.com/tenet-christopher-nolan-747-plane...
It’s Nolan. He doesn’t like CGI when he can avoid it.
This doesn’t pass the smell test.
This doesn’t pass the smell test.
To my surprise the airplane was pretty much unbroken from the outside.
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9719776
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9719776
It seems like we have come full circle, in Escape from New York (1981) it was cheaper to build a miniture New York skyline and attach fluorescent tape to the edges rather than create a CG wireframe model for the "computers" in the main characters glider.[1][2]
[1] https://www.amc.com/talk/2008/06/the-behind-the
[2] https://youtu.be/xxYmMRxnEic?t=68
[1] https://www.amc.com/talk/2008/06/the-behind-the
[2] https://youtu.be/xxYmMRxnEic?t=68
I ran into this counterintuitive situation when trying to do better simulations of a fusion reactor I designed. High end physics simulation software that might do the job starts at $50k. Then there will still be tradeoffs on the accuracy of the simulation.
Because of the way it uses some older, off the shelf equipment for a key part of the device, I might actually be able to build a prototype for that price.
Because of the way it uses some older, off the shelf equipment for a key part of the device, I might actually be able to build a prototype for that price.
I do sometimes wonder about the environmental impact of the entertainment industry. Destroying something for the sake of entertainment seems ... I don't know ... wasteful?
In this case, yes the plane was probably mothballed anyway, and yes actually blowing it up will give a more realistic result in a shorter time than CGI. But were the environmental impacts even considered when making the decision?
In this case, yes the plane was probably mothballed anyway, and yes actually blowing it up will give a more realistic result in a shorter time than CGI. But were the environmental impacts even considered when making the decision?