Firstly, I should look closer next time. ;) Secondly, if that is indeed the case, then it was probably less time consuming and, naturally, a more money saving way to instead use digital effects for this.
But dozens of movies today, including those that you’d think would have no need for CGI (e.g. Oscar-ish character driven films, period pieces, etcetera) have a good amount of CGI in them. They use CGI for everything from background shots, buildings to even everyday objects. A lot of the time it’s not noticeable, therefore from a production standpoint it can pay off to save time and $$.
As far as Glass is concerned, if the end result looked convincing enough (I say it did), then not using a real water tank is fine by me. Some, mainly CGI detractors, would say it’s nothing more than convenience, albeit if at the end of the day it was cheaper+easier for Shyamalan to use CGI for a single shot that doesn’t last long on screen (keep in mind, Glass was made for a cool $20 million), I think it made sense to go CGI.
This kind of thing is commonplace now, and it’s not a big issue for me.
reply
share
bozo_500 (12555)
5 years ago
I didn't know if the whole tank was CG? If it was I didn't notice. I do remember the water spill looking abit CG though.
reply
share
sdwilson79 (27)
5 years ago
It was more the tarpaulin on the top of the water tank that was obviously CGI.
I get that hiring in a water tank to sit there will cost money and logistics, but really, on a big budget movie they are going to scrimp on that?
Just strikes me as dumb to waste time CGI-modelling something you can rent from a hardware store.
I don't know how long it takes to render something like that though, I guess if they are paying a flat fee to a CGI agency you will work them as much as you can.
Wonder how many other props and background items are CGI that go unnoticed?
reply
share