theBRB Banner

 Forum      Theater      Contests      Stockpile

Welcome Guest.

Login | Register

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Article Discussion  (Read 14255 times)
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« on: March 06, 2006, 11:06:12 AM »

I know this conversation has been brought up many times on TFN. Fig is especially tired of it Im sure lol. But this article made me think;

"The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie," said Lucas, a near-billionaire from his feverishly franchised outer-space epics. "Those movies can't make their money back anymore. Look at what happened with 'King Kong.'" The portly Lucas, whose "Star Wars" sequel was nominated for the Oscar in makeup, was clearly in Yoda mode at Saturday's Weinstein Co. party ó Harvey Weinstein's first Oscar bash since he abandoned Miramax to Disney last year. "I think it's great that the major Oscar nominations have gone to independent films," Lucas told me, adding that it's no accident that the "small movies" outclassed the spectaculars in this year's Academy Awards. "Is that good for the business? No ó it's bad for the business. But moviemaking isn't about business. It's about art!"

"In the future, almost everything that gets shown in theaters will be indie movies," Lucas declared. "I predict that by 2025 the average movie will cost only $15 million."
[/b]

What do you guys think?

These days, living is expensive. So do you go into the filmmaking industry for the money or the love of the art?

Personally, its for the love of the art. The money is good too but its mostly because I want to tell a compelling story (whatever that may be in the future). Now if my story just happens to take place in another planet and theres a Galactic size War, so be it. As Dustin said on this article;

"Several of us here at TheForce.net still crave our annual movie blockbuster, Hollywood style, with big explosions and great special effects!"[/b]

As do I. Im a huge fan of Sci-Fi Fantasy/Action/Adventure movies. And by "Action" I don't mean Ghettoness in Outer Space. I won't even give it second thought if it were.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2006, 11:06:34 AM by ObiJuan2080 » Logged
Blank avatar

Funk, E

« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2006, 11:21:37 AM »

The thing is, huge budgets aren't needed for the big explodey action flick.  Look at the Japanese flick Casshern--that thing had more action, giant robots, explosions than most movies that've come out in the past few years combined, along with some damn good special effects, and it had a budget of something like $11 million.
Logged
Blank avatar

ObiJuan2080

Administrator and Contest Supervisor


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1868


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2006, 11:23:56 AM »

Thats the first I've heard of that flick. I'm gonna look it up.

EDIT: Actually I have seen that (the trailer that is). I didn't know about the films budget though. Impressive.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2006, 11:27:26 AM by ObiJuan2080 » Logged
Blank avatar

Rico



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 165


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2006, 01:25:02 PM »

Quote
The thing is, huge budgets aren't needed for the big explodey action flick.  Look at the Japanese flick Casshern--that thing had more action, giant robots, explosions than most movies that've come out in the past few years combined, along with some damn good special effects, and it had a budget of something like $11 million.
Y'know why?  Because they pay their workers a shite-rate.

Believe me, before I started doing this stuff professionally, I was all about making smaller-budgeted movies.  I would always jump on the "there's no reason for movie to cost so much" bandwagon.  Since working in the industry, and constantly having to watch my back for fear of getting screwed by sharkey producers, I've settled down a bit.  Producers are inherently bad people, and they will try to cut costs anywhere along the line.  They'll try to get you to work for free, and they'll try and get you to work without breaks or meals every 6 hours.

Do movies have to cost upwards of 200 million?  Probably not.  Are the grips working on the 200 million movie eating better than the ones working in Bollywood?  Definitely.


- Rico
Logged

We're doing fine on the One and Nine line.
-- The Beastie Boys; "An Open Letter to NYC"

Blah, blah, blah... Yorksnob.
-- Zep
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2006, 03:56:25 PM »

It's kinda pointless to talk about this without just realizing that we have an example right on this site of why lower budget films will take over.

Ian's Ideality, while not comparable to $200 mill. budget films, is a great example of what can be done on a budget of practically nothing. Certainly $0 million, heh.
Imagine Ian as the FX leader with a real FX crew and a budget of $5 million.
I'd be more than happy to bet that it could rival ILM.

Everything in film is getting cheaper as computers are getting more powerful for the average person.

Seems like there's some article every day that points this out... as if they're the first ones to realize it.

Basically... TV/Film/etc are getting cheap. The next thing will be feature length films as IMAX... we're not at that level yet. Then 3D projected (holographic or something) films... etc.
The pros will always be a step ahead, but for traditional stuff, we've practically caught up.

Plus... the budget is just how much they spend on pieces of what they make... not how good the film is.


When I get into the field for real, I'll be needing a budget. Depending on the picture, I might just laugh at a low budget of $15 millioin; it also might be twice as much as we need, and I'd be very happy. It depends on the film.
In the end...  I think prices are lowering... as the arc for improvements in films is nearing a max... they're really not much more that  can happen. The next big FX thing would probably be realistic CG characters REPLACING human actors. Still.... not that shocking, eh?
Logged
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2006, 04:24:05 PM »

I dunno. I don't think Indie films are gonna replace huge budget films in theatres (or if they do, only temporarily) for one reason: They're gonna get smart.

I think that, seeing this trend, the studios are gonna try to buy up independent directors, or at least try to imitate the "styles". This'll give two options. 1.) Films will be made for really cheap, cause the directors will bring with them their own expertise on how to create films on a budget, or 2.) We'll start seeing a bunch of indie filmakers sucked in, and never heard from again.

I think the best combo would be halfway between, where they just continue to make their independent films on a bigger budget, and the studio leaves them alone, but that's crazy. Cheesy

The average movies uses WAY more money than it needs to. The one time I worked with an actual, "Hollywood" guy, I walked away pissed. Well, not pissed, cause he's a cool guy, but irked at his... let's see... He wanted complete control over the lighting, so he had us board up all the windows in the room, using up a complete roll of duct tape. "Hey!" I said, "It will be DARK outside by the time we start filming! And this cardboard won't fall down if we use less than half a roll of tape on it!" He said, "Doesn't matter. Put it up."

The lesson that was taught to me: Some people waste time doing pointless things, and spending money on other pointless things.

Robert Rodriguiz is awesome. Seriously. I love that guy. He made a 7,000 dollar movie, and got it distributed by a studio. But the reason I like him is cause he still edits his own movies. Or at least used to, I don't know if he's edited his MOST recent... And he gets it done fast. He only shoots what he needs. I love that.

But yeah, as Rico said, it costs a lot, cause there's a lot of people to pay, and there's a lot to get done. I still think a little efficiency goes a long way.

But then again, I love efficiency.

Hehe. I really hope Ideality doesn't let you guys down. Cheesy
« Last Edit: March 06, 2006, 04:24:33 PM by Mrdodobird » Logged
Blank avatar

rogue_09

Administrator?


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1910


View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2006, 04:29:27 PM »

Ian, if you're talking Sin City, yes, Rodriguez edited that as well.

Rodriguez is an excellent example of what Ian is talking about with the studios picking up indie directors and letting them loose with the studio backing them.  After Rodriguez made his $7,000 indie flick, the studio backed the sequel which he made for only $7 million.  And when you think about the action in Desperado, $7mill is pretty freaking cheap, especially for the studio.
Logged
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2006, 04:32:50 PM »

And HOW much did Desperado make? Cheesy
Logged
Blank avatar

Sage

Administratah


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1051


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2006, 04:33:04 PM »

Quote
I really hope Ideality doesn't let you guys down.


Well...  The link in your sig is letting me down RIGHT NOW.

Heh.  Maybe it's just me but I'm gettin' nothin'.

Sage H.
Logged

Don't make me destroy you.  And stuff.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/rogue_09/mWo.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2006, 04:38:01 PM »

Hehe. Link is workage.  
Logged
Blank avatar

Rico



Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 165


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2006, 05:08:48 PM »

Don't mean to offend, but you guys are missing the point.  The majority of the budget doesn't go to editing or even VFX.  It goes into production.  Unless it suddenly gets a whole lot cheaper to live in America, movies are not going to drop in price.


- Rico
Logged

We're doing fine on the One and Nine line.
-- The Beastie Boys; "An Open Letter to NYC"

Blah, blah, blah... Yorksnob.
-- Zep
Blank avatar

djr33

« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2006, 05:21:43 PM »

Ian, by above comment about ideality isn't about plot, acting, directing, or anything, but FX. I like your work, don't get me wrong... but your fx really do come close to rivaling pro stuff. The rest is 'just' good Wink

The cheaper stuff gets, the less people will be needed for a movie in production. That might lower the price, Rico.
Logged
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2006, 05:24:42 PM »

So Rico, you talkin' about wages, or payment for materials? Wages I'd have to agree (for the most part), but for matrials, I'm sure there are ways they could cut corners. Conceivably.  
Logged
Blank avatar

rogue_09

Administrator?


Karma: +0/-0
Posts: 1910


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2006, 05:31:45 PM »

Well, talking about Rodriguez's editing was a bit of a side track.  

In terms of production, Desperado cost $7M and made around $25M.  And Rodriguez is notorious for doing every little trick he can to keep the budget down.  Granted part of that includes shooting in Mexico when he can, but hey, do what you gotta do.  Isn't that why lots of things are being shot in Canada nowadays?

Another case in point, again citing Desperado, Rodriguez used only two stuntmen for every stunt in the film, even when there were dozens in one scene.  His logic being, why bother paying twelve stuntmen when you can use two just as effectively?  If big budget Hollywood flicks adopt this same style of thinking, they can keep costs down just as well, no?
Logged
Blank avatar

Mrdodobird

« Reply #14 on: March 06, 2006, 05:34:26 PM »

Rodriguiez. w00t.  
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to: