PDA

View Full Version : Why do so many bad movies cost so much?



shrox
05-06-2007, 06:11 PM
How do these CG studios justify the cost of what they making? Is it by the hour, project or what? And why are so many compositing jobs off color, often too red or too blue?

Remember when it was said that animation is dead because it costs too much?

voriax
05-06-2007, 06:25 PM
How much of a movie's budget actually goes to a CG studio relative to how much work they do on the movie?
I wouldn't have thought very much, since generally unless it's a full-blown "money is no object"-like movie, the CG effects can be pretty amateurish. Which would lead me to believe that the budget for some films' CG isn't in the millions, but rather in the hundreds of thousands ..or less. But eh, I'm just guessing.

Anyone got a breakdown of where money goes in films? Apart from the 20% or so that goes to the lead actor...

shrox
05-06-2007, 06:47 PM
How much of a movie's budget actually goes to a CG studio relative to how much work they do on the movie?...

That is better wording of my question. Do they every get docked for bad CG? "A Sound of Thunder" comes to mind...actors on a treadmill in front of a green screen, and bad lighting in many composite scenes.

lardbros
05-10-2007, 11:17 AM
The worst example i've ever seen is an IMAX film here in the UK about Santa Claus. Not sure of the exact title as my brain has blanked it out completely. I only saw the trailer and it looks appalling!!! Seriously bad... and to me looks like a Lightwave job too. Those procedural textures are obvious when no work at all has gone into disguising them.

The animation was even worse than the texturing and modelling. Feet floating, going through the floor and very poorly timed animation making a complete mess of everything they had done wrong already! Sorry if anyone here actually worked on it, and fair enough if you got paid a nice amount of money to do it, but it gives CG such a bad name. True, i'd have said yes to the job, but then i would have had sleepless nights about those feet slipping through the floor... it takes around 2minutes to fix in the graph editor! I have honestly seen better work from 10 yr olds who have been working on CG for afew months! Ah well! Would love to know how much this movie cost to make!... and then how much it surely couldn't have made at the box office!

Surrealist.
05-10-2007, 12:07 PM
Check out this page (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0227061hollywood1.html) and see if you get any answers.

Mr_Bester
05-10-2007, 12:40 PM
To save everyone from reading the entire budget for the Village, it's FX was budgeted at just over a million for "Special Effects" and "Visual Effects". It's total budget was 70+ million. So for heavier SFX film, you should expect more.
Dug

serge
05-10-2007, 12:54 PM
To save everyone from reading the entire budget for the Village, it's FX was budgeted at just over a million for "Special Effects" and "Visual Effects". It's total budget was 70+ million. So for heavier SFX film, you should expect more.
Dug
Thanks. Yeah, as far as I remember The Village didn't have much Special Effects, so I guess one million is quite a lot.

Mr_Bester
05-10-2007, 01:33 PM
Thanks. Yeah, as far as I remember The Village didn't have much Special Effects, so I guess one million is quite a lot.
It did mention wire removal and other things, but that was in the $500,000 portion....

Dexter2999
05-10-2007, 08:17 PM
Most of the money goes to the actors, director, and producer.

Ghost Rider was budgeted at $110 million. After paying Nicolas Cage $20million, then paying the director, the producer, and the other key talent I would be surprised if there was $55 million left over.

That is $55 million to pay for camera crew, lighting, costumes, set, make up and hair, catering, sound, editing, sound track, post audio, etc...

For the movie SAHARA, from what I hear they spent nearly $800,000 on perks for the two main stars. Not their salary, PERKS!!! I bet that was at least half of the effects budget. On that movie the records show Penelope Cruz's hairstylist got paid $130,000. I bet you no effects artist made that much on that movie.

The spiraling cost of movies is due to talent, and other key players...NOT effects houses. Producers just can't learn to say NO!!

Andyjaggy
05-10-2007, 08:55 PM
Part of me knows the talent and acting is more important then the special effects. Still though, seems kind of unfair sometimes :)

voriax
05-10-2007, 10:09 PM
I wish I got paid $20million to prance around in front of blue screens and yell at empty air which would afterwards be converted to virtual sets and CG monsters .. by us.
Actors really do get paid too much. Very irksome when you see some actor's crap performance, then find out they got paid a million dollars for their month's work. Sorry, not the point of the post ;)

Would be good to find out the effects budget of a relatively effects-laden movie.. The new James Cameron movie "Avatar" is meant to be very heavily produced with visual effects and CG. The budget for that movie is around US$200mil+. I wonder how much of that is going to the effects departments?

Dexter2999
05-10-2007, 10:10 PM
Part of me knows the talent and acting is more important then the special effects. Still though, seems kind of unfair sometimes :)

Depends on the movie. For Ghost Rider, they didn't need Nic Cage. The guy that used to play Pacey on Dawsons Creek could have done that role and that movie STILL would have made money, because the public paid to see the flaming skull ride the motocycle and that was all CG.

Even George Lucas predicts that film prices will tumble. Digital film making and distribution are cutting the legs out from under an antiquated and bloated system, where greedy people are looting the coffers. However, as much as I think GL himself would have loved to have used no name talent in his films he does realize that you still need some experienced talent.

Another example is SUPERMAN RETURNS. How many people paid to see Brandon Routh? How many people paid to see a guy in a cape fly and have bullets bounce off of him?

Actors like Tom Cruise are living in a house of cards. In case you weren't aware Tom's current asking price is $65 million plus 35% of DVD sales. I think the next decade will see a point where even the $20 million payday becomes scarce.

If you have a great story and good actors there isn't a need to pay these outrageous salaries. For $20 million, the salary for one big name actor, Kevin Smith could make two or three movies.

Verlon
05-11-2007, 03:44 AM
Funny, we all scream when a movie is all effects and no story....

Well, I am glad someone actually having a hand in the movie is getting paid. When thhe price of movies tumbles, do you think the ticket prices will go down? DVD prices will plummet? Or do you think Sony Pictures and Fox Studio will have some nice profitable quarters on the books?

Also on Superman Returns, they were trying to make the movie for like 20 years. A whole bunch of people got paid who did nothing for the final movie. Tim Burton got millions in guarranteed money and he didn't even direct (thankfully, because he had some ROTTEN ideas). Further, he brought his own writer who got paid and didn't even write.

Penelope Cruz's hairstylist may have gotten $130,000, but at least she worked on the actual movie. Far better than having said stylist make 30 times as much to shout a bunch of bad ideas, leave in a huff, and derail a movie I was actually anxious to see.

oDDity
05-11-2007, 05:07 AM
If there was a referendum, I personally vote to have all greedy movie stars publically executed.
That'd make for better entertainment that the crap they currently produce.
Demanding $65 million to prance around talking rubbish, pretending to be some fictional character for a few weeks, should literally be a criminal offence with a death penalty.
If Tom Cruise was brutally murdered tomorrow, I'd laugh out loud about it, and I mean that.
Not much chance of that though, since he probably has 20 security guys with him at all times.

tyrot
05-11-2007, 05:29 AM
If there was a referendum, I personally vote to have all greedy movie stars publically executed.
That'd make for better entertainment that the crap they currently produce.
Demanding $65 million to prance around talking rubbish, pretending to be some fictional character for a few weeks, should literally be a criminal offence with a death penalty.
If Tom Cruise was brutally murdered tomorrow, I'd laugh out loud about it, and I mean that.
Not much chance of that though, since he probably has 20 security guys with him at all times.

dear oddi

SouthPark's Trey Parker was saying almost the same thing in Team America's dvd.

best

shrox
05-11-2007, 07:47 AM
If there was a referendum, I personally vote to have all greedy movie stars publically executed...

Not publically, privately, and with no press coverage.

Andyjaggy
05-11-2007, 08:48 AM
Maybe if we split the income between all the actors making 20 mil for a movie and all the actors starving in their parents basement we would come out to a decent average wage.

Verlon
05-11-2007, 09:06 AM
If there was a referendum, I personally vote to have all greedy movie stars publically executed.
That'd make for better entertainment that the crap they currently produce.
Demanding $65 million to prance around talking rubbish, pretending to be some fictional character for a few weeks, should literally be a criminal offence with a death penalty.
If Tom Cruise was brutally murdered tomorrow, I'd laugh out loud about it, and I mean that.
Not much chance of that though, since he probably has 20 security guys with him at all times.


Well, those who can get the big paycheck....do

Those who can't.....post.


If someone came along and offered you $65 million to do some animating in a movie, you'd take the high road and say, "No, thank you. I'd really prefer $9 an hour." I'll get back to you when I believe that.

It is simple supply an demand. Tom Cruise has complete control of the supply of Tom Cruise. The moving going public demands to see it. Presto -- Mr. Cruise gets paid.

Acting, like 3D animation, is an art. Tom Cruise is an artist. He gets paid. People like his work enough that he can insist on a big paycheck. Why shouldn't he? If Tom Cruise can say to the studio that his name on the movie is a (nearly) sure bet to add $100 million to the box office (versus another actor in the same role), what is wrong with him wanting a large portion of that? Are you just mad that you can't afford to put him in your next project?

Prance around? He broke several ribs filming MI:3. You want to pay me to get broken bones, you'd better be prepared to through some big money around. 16 hour days living in a trailer, papparazi, no privacy, can't even talk to a person without someone posting a picture and saying your cheating on your wife with them....And when the public gets tired of you....your career is over regardless of how good you are at your job. Might as well make a buck while you can.

Again, if we were to regulate movie star salaries, do you think WE as moviegoes and DVD buyers will see any benefit? Do you think that, in a fit of philanthropy, the big movie studios are going to suddenly offer to pay 3D animators more? No, seriously...do you think that?

The CEO at your favorite movie studio will get a bigger bonus. The board of directors will help themselves to a nice raise, but you and I will get nothing. They'd probably even spin it as a way to RAISE prices.


Of course, I couldn't expect someone who sees a brutal murder as a laughing matter to understand that.

Andyjaggy
05-11-2007, 10:15 AM
As much as I sometimes enjoy Oddity's posts its funny how you notice a definite increase in tension and arguing on the forums since he has come back :)

Tom Wood
05-11-2007, 11:00 AM
It's been a star-driven business for so long that there really isn't much else they can do. Everything comes down to the poster and what names are on it. Put unknown names on the poster and the movie almost always tanks. And, with non-US presales providing much of the equity needed to get a greenlight, those buyers have to recognize the names on the poster too. Which drives the whole process toward big stars.

Producers operate out fear of failure. If they get top stars and the movie still tanks, they can point to the names on the poster and say - I did it right, there must be another reason. And, once they do get a big star, there's even more pressure to spend more on the rest of the movie, like the effects. Then there's the average $50 million in advertising. It all snowballs and when it works, it's great. But when all that money tanks anyway....ouch.

TW

gatz
05-11-2007, 12:39 PM
William Goldman has a great take on the "star system." Essentially a producer admitted to him that it doesn't work, but fear keeps it in place. It's the Hollywood version of the CYA meeting where a "committee" reaches a descision so that no one person is responsible.

As for the extraordinary sums given to actors. It seems that it's pay back for decades of abuse under the studio monopoly. It doesn't help the film and ultimately fewer films are made. But then the "golden age" of cinema only impresses if you ignore the piles of dreck that the classics have been culled from.

Dexter2999
05-11-2007, 12:44 PM
It doesn't boil down to the name on the poster! That is what I am trying to point out.

It is about the STORY. Names can help sometimes but if your story is strong enough people will still come.

I do agree that the producers now are operating out of failure. They forced into a hole with investors saying "Who is in it? I don't know him. If you get Tom Cruise I will give you some money." So they pay. Producers are having a hard time convincing investors to take a chance on new talent even when hiring name talent can decimate their profit margin (30% of DVD sales!!!??? OUCH!!!!)
I wish more producers would demonstrate that a good story with new talent is a better profit making machine than a star. GOOD WILL HUNTING, HARRY POTTER, SUPERMAN RETURNS, are all examples of great stories that made out huge at the box office when no one in the public knew the actors name. I think more often than not especially in the action genre this can be the case. People come to see magic and super heros, they don't care who the talent is as long as they are good enough to not spoil the movie.
Did anyone care that Jet Li turned down THE MATRIX? NO? because as he said, the movie didn't need him. Some movies, especialy ones that require a finess of the character that perhaps new talent may not have developed do require experience. This is not the case for every role and I think Hollywood should be turned on its ear. An influx of new talent and a diminishing of mega salries, show the elite that they can be replaced and they will come into line or not work. Talent is double dipping and it needs to stop. Between mega salries and gross points deals and what the distributors take off the top it is a wonder that people even invest in movies. Now, producers are happy if the theater breaks even, because they make all their money in DVD and ancilliary viewerships. But low and behold now the actors want 30% of that?

If I was a producer I would start looking for those starving actors living in their parents basements. Lets see how many of them would break three ribs on a movie working for $2million.

How dare we expect them to only work for $10million dollars. Wow, I mean how will he get by when his career is over? How will he support his gardner and pool man and the nanny and the maid? What about his publicists 401K?

Above the line talent loots the piggy bank, and the below the line talent pays the price when jobs move overseas or to Canada (or the CGI team has to relocate to New Mexico) so they can make back their money through tax breaks or exchange rates...or both.

It's all BS.

oDDity
05-11-2007, 01:04 PM
Prance around? He broke several ribs filming MI:3. You want to pay me to get broken bones, you'd better be prepared to through some big money around. 16 hour days living in a trailer, papparazi, no privacy, can't even talk to a person without someone posting a picture and saying your cheating on your wife with them....And when the public gets tired of you....your career is over regardless of how good you are at your job. Might as well make a buck while you can.
Yeah, his lifestyle sounds like a living nightmare. That's why he always has that smug smile on his face.
Firemen, police and soldiers get injured - and killed - all the time, doing work that actually matters, and they wouldn't get paid 65 million if they had 20 lives each.
I don't agree that simply by having Tom Cruse in a movie, means it earns 100 million more. How could they ever prove that?
Make two versions, one with him and one without?
His movies are all cheap trash anyway. I wouldn't cross the street to piss on a poster for his latest movie, so I can't imagine anyone paying to see it simply because he's in it.
He's no better an actor than thousands of others.
It's all just a big game, where the lucky ones come out on top.



Again, if we were to regulate movie star salaries, do you think WE as moviegoes and DVD buyers will see any benefit? Do you think that, in a fit of philanthropy, the big movie studios are going to suddenly offer to pay 3D animators more? No, seriously...do you think that?
I'm neither a movie-goer or a DVD buyer.
Haven't been to see a movie since I was 10 and haven't bought a DVD, well, ever.
You won't believe this, but I haven't even seen movies such as The Matrix, Spiderman or Harry Potter.
If everyone was like me, the entire industry would collapse into oblivion tomorrow, and good riddance, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the world, that how useless it is.
What is it with the modern world, where all the most useless people earn the most money?

Lightwolf
05-11-2007, 01:13 PM
It's all just a big game, where the lucky ones come out on top.
...
What is it with the modern world, where all the most useless people earn the most money?
Welcome to capitalism ;)
(And yes, there have been studies prooving that intelligence has no connection to income whatsoever).

Cheers,
Mike

tyrot
05-11-2007, 01:23 PM
As much as I sometimes enjoy Oddity's posts its funny how you notice a definite increase in tension and arguing on the forums since he has come back :)

dear andy

you are dam* right about it :)

oddi, tom is good in "magnolia"..you cant deny it..


best

oDDity
05-11-2007, 01:31 PM
Better than 1000 other actors would have been?
Nope.
In fact ,there are so many good actors in the world, you could easily have found a 1000 who'd have done it better than him.
It's not about talent though.
Of course, I'm biased, seeing as how I totally despise american culture, and how it has dragged the entire world down with it to the current nadir. Completely vacuous, puerile nonsense doled out for the zombies to entertain their pickled brains for a few hours.
That's not just movies, but TV, music, computer games, and even large swaths of literature.

Verlon
05-11-2007, 01:58 PM
Oddity: If you haven't paid for a movie since you were 10 (or probably ever since somone likely bought the ticket for you at 10), what do you care? This has no bearing on you at all. Might as well complain that birds fly and fish swim.

Yes, firemen and police officers get hurt in their line of work too. They are horribly underpaid, but that is another matter. Its not like big movie studios are going to suddenly donate to firefighters and the police either.

As for knowing how much of a box office draw a star is, they know that some names sell tickets. No names don't sell tickets. Since you don't go to movies, you probably don't understand that very well. There are several names at work that will often influnce me in my moviegoing choices because I like the movies they make (or dislike for that matter).

And hating american culture doesn't make you cultured, or intelligent, or artistic. It just makes you hateful. You think everything coming out of whatever it is you don't hate is a timeless classic?

We produce our diamonds, and we produce our lumps of coal. But, like everything else we produce, we produce LOTS probably about the same ratio as the rest of the world, but its a lot more coal to sift through.

jasonwestmas
05-11-2007, 02:09 PM
Pickled Brains, haha! I feel like that a lot when I'm around people where I am now. Hoping to move. . .not sure where.

shrox
05-11-2007, 03:26 PM
My original post was mainly about CG heavy films. I have heard that Spiderman 3's CG looks less than realistic, and being the most expensive movie ever, it got me to wondering where did all that money go?

As far as breaking ribs, heck I did that just for the thrill of going FAST on a streetluge. Of course I didn't plan on breaking them, or my leg or my wrist...

Steamthrower
05-11-2007, 03:26 PM
Completely vacuous, puerile nonsense doled out for the zombies to entertain their pickled brains for a few hours.

Well, you got a point there, but man you sure put it in the hardest way possible.

Verlon
05-11-2007, 07:53 PM
My original post was mainly about CG heavy films. I have heard that Spiderman 3's CG looks less than realistic, and being the most expensive movie ever, it got me to wondering where did all that money go?



See my post about Superman Returns. Sometimes there are expenses that do not directly impact the movie.

riki
05-11-2007, 08:40 PM
The bigger the budget the more it stinks, simply because the Directors have less creative freedom to experiment and take risks.

There's also more pressure to return a profit on that big investment. Which means playing it safe, sticking to the formula and appealing to the broadest possible audience.

oDDity
05-12-2007, 08:00 AM
Yes, amoeba in most cases.

toonafish
05-12-2007, 08:02 AM
Of course, I'm biased, seeing as how I totally despise american culture, and how it has dragged the entire world down with it to the current nadir. Completely vacuous, puerile nonsense doled out for the zombies to entertain their pickled brains for a few hours.
That's not just movies, but TV, music, computer games, and even large swaths of literature.


man, you really have a pickled in acid view on the world. You start to sound like grouchy smurf http://www.ffos.hr/~mklaric1/grouchy.gif

:D

oDDity
05-12-2007, 08:37 AM
That's what movies like Spiderman and the undue attention it gets does to me.
I don't know a single forum where there isn't a thread about it.
I mean, a man pretending to be a man pretending to be a reporter who's secretly a spider/man hybrid? WTF? Is that supposed t be entertainment? What's the average age of this forum anyway?
What next, indepth discussions about the latest episode of Teletubbies.

toonafish
05-12-2007, 11:37 AM
hey man, when you walk down the street in springtime Do you enjoy the pretty girls in summer dresses, or miss all the fun because you're busy complaining about the ugly chicks all the time :-)

who cares about bad movies, or the ugly side of any culture. There's been pulp out there in every age and there will be as long as there's humans.
But a guy I knew had this great Japaneses saying tattooed on his back that went something like " from the dirt grows the most beautiful flower". That really stuck to my mind and it sums it up nicely I think.

jasonwestmas
05-12-2007, 11:47 AM
lol, I don't think he knows who grouchy smurf is. Pulp, hype, ignorance fuled by silly nostolgic referances through comics, it's like quack grass and dandylions. They're ok sometimes but it's EVERYWHERE!

Steamthrower
05-12-2007, 12:45 PM
I don't know about anyone else, but I like to enjoy life. Sure, the world isn't perfect. Sure there's puerile nonsense. Sure some people have the brain capacity of an amoeba.

But there ain't much I can do about it, is there? I'm pretty creative, I'm pretty smart, but that doesn't make me have to disrespect people who aren't.

oDDity
05-12-2007, 02:08 PM
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy life, I just don't enjoy the parts of it that so many others seem to enjoy.
I suppose it just annoys me at the constant popularity and exposure of what I consider to be trash, and trying to reconcile how so many people can have such bad or puerile tastes, or where it's all going to end up.
Is it going to keep spiralling downward, or is this just the bottom of a particularly deep trough.

shrox
05-12-2007, 02:29 PM
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy life, I just don't enjoy the parts of it that so many others seem to enjoy.
I suppose it just annoys me at the constant popularity and exposure of what I consider to be trash, and trying to reconcile how so many people can have such bad or puerile tastes, or where it's all going to end up.
Is it going to keep spiralling downward, or is this just the bottom of a particularly deep trough.

Do you hate "American Idol" as much as I do? Or as I call it, "America's Golden Calf". Too bad Moses isn't here to break a tablet over their heads...

Andyjaggy
05-12-2007, 02:46 PM
So I'm curious what do you enjoy Oddity?

Wolvy_UK
05-12-2007, 03:22 PM
People are all different, you' ll never change that. There' s variety in life so you' ll just have to live with it.

I know what you mean Oddity about people liking something you don' t. I' ll never understand how people can like the music played in nightclubs. House music or trance or whatever it' s called. But then it' s their money, and if they get enjoyment out of it , so what ? It' s not affecting my life. I listen to what I like, they listen to what they like. But I never think about it and think the world' s going to end and all music is going to end up like that.

Why did that " WHAAsuuup! " catchphrase from the lager advert catch on ? Why did so many people like Crazy Frog ? Again, all mysteries to me, but I never lose sleep over it.

Getting back to films, we are in a visual age right now. Ever since the first film people have wanted more and more movies to be entertained. Books still sell, but theres something about seeing epic movie scenes. If I read a book describing the Private Ryan beach landing, or space battles from Star Wars, I would never get a sense of what they actually LOOKED like. Ok, we have photos and paintings of the beach landings and photos of Star Wars, but then I' d need to imagine what things moved like, and what everything sounded like. Why should I need to imagine when a film shows me everything I want ? If you hav' nt seen a film since you were 10, there' s so many types of films that there MUST be something you' d like.

I think what makes a movie bad is definitely the story. Having a boring or uninteresting story makes a film unwatchable for me. Being overlong can drag a good film down, dodgy special effects or a poor actor can also knock a few points off, but story IS the film.

So I think some bad movies cost a lot because thay have a weak story and try to cover it up by having a highly paid well known actor or high price special effects.

A big budget film I was disappointed by was War of the world' s starring the man of the moment Tom Cruise. It' s a war on the whole of the Earth, right ? So why concentrate so much on one family in one part of America ? $132 million budget, plenty enough for some epic globe spanning battles. A few tanks and jeeps going over a hill and running back burning is not an epic battle to me. private ryan had $70 million and did a lot more with it ( Surprisingly the same director too). The only time I was reminded it was a global conflict was when the aliens are dying and we see the typical landmarks of the world shots.

So a film I was really looking forward to, spoiled by a story concentrating on one family in one small part of the world. Story, story, story as John Lassiter said.

shrox
05-12-2007, 04:16 PM
Mad Max and The Road Warrior. Two great films that told a story and did it with style.

Andyjaggy
05-12-2007, 04:59 PM
Well if you read War Of the Worlds I seem to remember it being the same way. It focuses on just a couple people and never really shows what is happening across the world. It's been a while since I read it though I could be wrong.

Steamthrower
05-12-2007, 05:21 PM
I just saw Night at the Museum. What a waste of time. It was all effects and absolutely the lamest story ever. I wouldn't watch it again if you paid me. I don't blame oDDity for being a ''professional cynic'' after being exposed to that.

Same with the last three Star Wars movies.

jasonwestmas
05-12-2007, 05:36 PM
Star Wares, heh, a dog and pony show to sell more McDonalds Happy Meals.

Andyjaggy
05-12-2007, 05:54 PM
Night at the museum was mildly entertaining. Definately not something I would ever even consider buying though.

Steamthrower
05-12-2007, 09:46 PM
mildly entertaining

Yep, that's it. I laughed when the cowboys put the Roman in the stocks but besides that, it was another of those movies that the studio accepted just to fill in the gap between blockbusters.

Do you know I am so sick of plots that involve a young kid with divorced parents? It's becoming a horrendous cliche. It's to make you feel sorry for the kid because he's not a good enough actor to convey it without the aid of a script.

Tom Wood
05-12-2007, 09:57 PM
Of course, I'm biased, seeing as how I totally despise american culture, and how it has dragged the entire world down with it to the current nadir. Completely vacuous, puerile nonsense doled out for the zombies to entertain their pickled brains for a few hours.
That's not just movies, but TV, music, computer games, and even large swaths of literature.

Culture? We got culture?? Dammitalltohell, how did THAT get in here???

I think 'culture' is way over-rated. Who gives a **** if you've been doing some stupid ritual for hundreds of years for no other reason than its been done for hundreds of years? Destroy it all, reinvent it, make it louder and bigger!

Yeah, we're lewd, rude, and crude. But where's -your- space program? Computer science advancements? Genetic engineering? Laser death rays from outer space?

Oops, sorry about that last one. :D

jasonwestmas
05-12-2007, 10:19 PM
I wish someone would tell me what a culture was. Of course I guess I have my own culture. Damn if I let anyone tell me how to run my life ritualisticly or whatever. I guess that's the American attitude.

bluerider
05-13-2007, 03:34 AM
jasonwestmas,

Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning "to cultivate,") generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. In general, the term culture denotes the whole product of an individual, group or society of intelligent beings. It includes technology, art, science, as well as moral systems and the characteristic behaviors and habits of the selected intelligent entities. In particular, it has specific more detailed meanings in different domains of human activities.

Wikipedia is my friend. :)

oDDity
05-13-2007, 03:37 AM
Culture? We got culture?? Dammitalltohell, how did THAT get in here???

I think 'culture' is way over-rated. Who gives a **** if you've been doing some stupid ritual for hundreds of years for no other reason than its been done for hundreds of years? Destroy it all, reinvent it, make it louder and bigger!

Yeah, we're lewd, rude, and crude. But where's -your- space program? Computer science advancements? Genetic engineering? Laser death rays from outer space?

Oops, sorry about that last one. :D

That all comes from the european immigrants you've had over the last 100 years.
For example, the pioneers of "your" space program were German/Austrians, the pioneers of physics and "your" atom bomb, likewise.

Cageman
05-13-2007, 05:23 AM
That's what movies like Spiderman and the undue attention it gets does to me.
I don't know a single forum where there isn't a thread about it.
I mean, a man pretending to be a man pretending to be a reporter who's secretly a spider/man hybrid? WTF? Is that supposed t be entertainment? What's the average age of this forum anyway?

I grew up reading the comics. Spiderman and X-Men were my favourites. I guess I never really left my childhood and probably never will. :) I enjoy watching the action, and I couldn't care less about the story. I do not view ALL films this way, but movies about Superheros requiers you to put science away for a while.

I'm 29 by the way.... :)

eagleeyed
05-13-2007, 05:37 AM
I just saw Night at the Museum. What a waste of time. It was all effects and absolutely the lamest story ever. I wouldn't watch it again if you paid me. I don't blame oDDity for being a ''professional cynic'' after being exposed to that.

Same with the last three Star Wars movies.

I made the logical decision of not going to see that. With me so far at the age of 18 my first intuitions on a movie have always been correct for me. The second I saw the trailers of Night at the Museum I though, wow that is going to be boring, wow was I correct when I saw it. I even knew I would hate the new James Bond, correct about that. Happy Feet I loved from the second I saw the trailers and knew it was going to be good.

Oh, and the point of oDDity. I don't think I have seen him before on the forums, but wow, their is a eerie tenseness to them now, I do agree with him on SOME points though.

Tom Wood
05-13-2007, 07:02 AM
That all comes from the european immigrants you've had over the last 100 years.
For example, the pioneers of "your" space program were German/Austrians, the pioneers of physics and "your" atom bomb, likewise.

Everything is derivative, but they still had to come -here- to do their thing.

Steamthrower
05-13-2007, 07:21 AM
Though I will never understand European life as well as a native, I have been there and have had the benefit of observing their paradigm from a different perspective. Bottom line: I like Europe. I like Europeans. Except for French ;-). But that doesn't mean that they don't have their own problems. They think inside a box, whereas Americans are thinking WAY too far outside of the box. Americans are very creative, generally smart, and very free.

In Europe you have to take the labels off glass jars and put them in seperate recycling containers, or suffer a fine.

serge
05-13-2007, 07:36 AM
... Americans are very creative, generally smart, and very free...
Aren't people 'generally' as smart as the person they chose to be their leader?

Cageman
05-13-2007, 08:28 AM
In Europe you have to take the labels off glass jars and put them in seperate recycling containers, or suffer a fine.

Not in Sweden, I can assure you! :)

Tom Wood
05-13-2007, 08:48 AM
They think inside a box, whereas Americans are thinking WAY too far outside of the box.

There is no box. It is not the box that contains, but you.

Or something like that, with apologies to the Wachowski brothers. (And with a name like that, they gotta be immigrants! :D )

djlithium
05-13-2007, 08:53 AM
When it comes to TV, BSG's vfx budget is around 130,000 US per episode. A lot of that gets shuffled around through the course of the season to bigger episodes but at times you have to wonder if it was a $1.98 spent on VFX on that show now. The compositing is hit and miss (don't get me started), and I left mid season III this january and things only got worse. There is some clear linkage as to why the VFX went down hill. The more they sent the work back to LA, the more the show sucked and the VFX sucked, and the more the vancouver office was expected to save the day in compositing creating an overload which compounded the problem further. At the end of it all however it still comes down to the art direction done by the VFX supervisor. That and bitting off more than they could chew while never being held accountable for crappy management of the process and the problems at hand.

shrox
05-13-2007, 11:30 AM
On thing America has a hard time admitting, we are not the best and greatest anymore. The fastest trains are not in the USA, they are in France and Japan. The best cel phone service is not in the USA, that is in Europe and Japan. The highest quality television broadcast signal is not in the USA, it is in Japan. The most ambitious space program is not in the USA, it is in China. The best beer is in, well, that is in Eureka, California USA at the Lost Coast Brewery, their 8-Ball Stout.

oDDity
05-13-2007, 12:38 PM
It's not like you were 'the best' for very long anyway, you only took over by default, by filling the gap that was left when Europe self destructed in the first half of the 20th century.
America, due to its profiteering in the war, ended up richer that it began, while everyone else was bankrupt.
As I said most of "your" big achievements were actually by Europeans who happened to be living in the US, for obvious reasons at that time.
And what did you do with your short spell in the limelight anyway, apart from attack anyone who didn't agree with your democratic, ultra-capitalist or religious way of life, drag culture to its lowest ebb, and become obese on your ill-gotten gains.

Verlon
05-13-2007, 01:25 PM
Oddity: America was WELL on track to be the richest before that. We were very strong heading into WWI and growing. At the BEGINNING of WWII we represented 47% of the world's manufacturing capability (which doesn't leave a lot of room for the other ~190 countries to be ahead, now does it?), and that was near the end of a horrible depression. By the end of WWII we were over 50% and NOT so much because other countries had lost capability but because we were stepping up.

Defining the 'best' is not easy. It is subjective. The fastest trains are in Europe or Japan because that is and has been a more practical solution to them. Many American cities are MUCH more spread out. The Houston area for example, covers over 600 square miles. A train that drops you off inside the 610 loop and expects you to walk to work didn't do you any favors (I'd LOVE a rail system that was more practical, but I do not know how to make one).
Alexander Bell was born in the US. Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Eli Whitney, Jonas Salk, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Charles Townes and Arthur Schawlow, Lee De Forest, John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Schockley were ALL born in the US.

If you do not know these names, do not criticize MY culture. These people changed your life (and for the better I would guess since you wouldn't have Lightwave without some of them).

What did we do with out time in the limelight? Make automobiles affordable, invent airplanes (and ones that could turn), cure the biggest plague of the 20th century (No, it wasn't AIDS) to the point that people have FORGOTTEN it, transistors, lasers, computers, AND walked on the moon.
Yes, we've made some mistakes, too. And I am not saying the triumphs justify the mistakes....
But its a lot easier ot sit on the couch and point out flaws in a movie than it is to actually make the movie. Like I said before. We make LOTS and that means LOTS more mistakes too. If you do more, you risk more. What have you done, lately?

Oh, and most comic book characters are metaphors for use of power. Spider-man's deal is about an average guy trying to live an average life....well its not THAT deep, its a comic book. Figure it out. Is it really further out there than 'Gulliver's Travels' when you think about it?

shrox
05-13-2007, 01:49 PM
My point is that we are resting on our laurels. While America is the only nation to have put men on the moon, the last mission was 35 years ago. We have been sitting around and admiring our gold medals for too long, and the rest of the world is off winning new races.

The BART train system in the San Francisco Bay area is great, and it covers a wide area. Fast trains between cities would be great thing in America. Right now there are stretches of AmTrak that run at less than 30mph because the tracks are in such bad shape.

And most of our movies suck!

Lightwolf
05-13-2007, 01:52 PM
What did we do with out time in the limelight? Make automobiles affordable, invent airplanes (and ones that could turn), cure the biggest plague of the 20th century (No, it wasn't AIDS) to the point that people have FORGOTTEN it, transistors, lasers, computers, AND walked on the moon.

Not that I want to nitpick... well, actually I want to:
First assembly line (not Ford): Bahlsen (cookie manufacturer nonetheless).
Computers is hard, depending on what you focus on you may as well add Babbage, Leibnize or Konrad Zuse.
The first flight is disputeable as well as are few other topics.

Whatever, since this shouldn't be a pissing contest, you gave us Hollywood (erm, actually, that was a German as well ;) ). Darn, it's all our fault again :D

It seems that American culture is degraded down to Coca-Cola, McD, Disney and Hollywood - which surely are the biggest cultural exports.
I suppose due to having fewer years of history, there is just less "good stuff" to cherry pick.

Then again, you surely produce some of the best TV shows in the US (well, and some of the worst as well ;) ).

Cheers,
Mike - who forgot his point...

shrox
05-13-2007, 01:54 PM
...Alexander Bell was born in the US. Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Eli Whitney, Jonas Salk, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Charles Townes and Arthur Schawlow, Lee De Forest, John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Schockley were ALL born in the US.

If you do not know these names, do not criticize MY culture. These people changed your life (and for the better I would guess since you wouldn't have Lightwave without some of them)...

It is almost funny how Communism and Islam decry America, yet most all the technologies and building techniques they use came from America, or were developed by people who fled to America.

Lightwolf
05-13-2007, 01:54 PM
And most of our movies suck!
Nah.. leave out the "our".
Most movies suck ;)

Cheers,
Mike

bluerider
05-13-2007, 02:12 PM
The title of the thread was "Why do so many bad movies cost so much".

As it is interesting listening to peoples broad political and economic insights showering me like pearls of wisdom, could we stick to the subject of the thread.

bluerider
05-13-2007, 02:23 PM
Heres an interesting link about bad movies. Well I thought it was interesting.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Valley+of+the+duds%3B+inside+Hollywood's+bad+movie +machine-a03959885

jasonwestmas
05-13-2007, 04:18 PM
jasonwestmas,

Culture (from the Latin cultura stemming from colere, meaning "to cultivate,") generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. In general, the term culture denotes the whole product of an individual, group or society of intelligent beings. It includes technology, art, science, as well as moral systems and the characteristic behaviors and habits of the selected intelligent entities. In particular, it has specific more detailed meanings in different domains of human activities.

Wikipedia is my friend. :)

I know the definition, I meant to say what "Should" a Culture be. I don't think anyone really knows.

iconoclasty
05-13-2007, 05:10 PM
Holly hijacked thread Batman!

shrox
05-13-2007, 06:34 PM
Can I hijack my own thread?

jasonwestmas
05-13-2007, 06:47 PM
Culture, $, movies, it's all the same over here.

Stooch
05-13-2007, 07:18 PM
The title of the thread was "Why do so many bad movies cost so much".

As it is interesting listening to peoples broad political and economic insights showering me like pearls of wisdom, could we stick to the subject of the thread.

because good movies that cost alot are hard to make. usually an expense of a movie is closely tied to its complexity, so to try to pull off something new untried or unequalled in complexity is a burden as big as the story itself. There is far more to a production then special effects, talent acquisition and plot. there are many many factors that must be ballanced and accounted for which go unappreciated by most people. even in this thread.

until you direct a movie or produce a movie you will never appreciate the amount of responsibility, finesse and compromise that goes on behind the scenes. I have a very small perspective on this side of movie making but from what little i have seen myself have shown to me that its a task just as hard if not harder then the most complex animation you can imagine. there are just too many ways to fail in this industry. even technical perfection is no guarantee. so, as things get more expensive, they get more hectic, more stressed, more complex, more difficult and harder to justify. Its a question thats most of us (including myself) cant even begin to answer.

everyone wants to be a director, but too few realize just how hard that job is and how badly THEY would do if they actually got that opportunity. Its so easy to sit here and talk ****, the real question is, could YOU do better?

RedCorner
05-13-2007, 07:52 PM
It costs the same to make a bad movie as it does a good movie.

All the ingredients are the same except some come out great others not so great and the rest plain awful.

HanJobSoSlow
05-13-2007, 08:15 PM
For there to be GREAT movies there needs to be Transporter 2.

The crap sets the bar.

The bad movies make me enjoy the great ones more.

Stooch
05-13-2007, 08:29 PM
It costs the same to make a bad movie as it does a good movie.

All the ingredients are the same except some come out great others not so great and the rest plain awful.

obviously. the point of this thread is about expensive movies though. Your statement is right out of a fortune cookie, it answers everything and nothing at the same time.

Steamthrower
05-13-2007, 09:59 PM
I'm surprised that The Lord of the Rings hasn't been brought up yet. It is perhaps one of the most expensive and most technically groundbreaking movies of the decade, and still actually has a plot.

Was Lightwave used at all?

Cageman
05-13-2007, 10:47 PM
I'm surprised that The Lord of the Rings hasn't been brought up yet. It is perhaps one of the most expensive and most technically groundbreaking movies of the decade, and still actually has a plot.

Was Lightwave used at all?

According to this list (http://www.newtek-europe.com/uk/products/lightwave/projects.html) it was (look under 2003), but for what, I have no clue! :)

Verlon
05-14-2007, 12:03 AM
Lightwolf: COUNTER-NITPICK
I didn't say Henry Ford made the first assembly line. I said he made automobiles affordable. He did this by setting the wages of his employees higher (I think it was double wages) and the price of his product lower so that he reached a point that the makers of the cars could afford them. This was considered flat crazy at the time (like a circular economy, so to speak), but it worked.

By computers, I meant the more modern version by way of the semiconductors invented at Bell Labs by three of the names on my list. Since the Vacuum tube was invented in the US (another name on that list), even a vacuum tube computer would be dependent on US, and since the Quantum and photon 'transistors' have already been made here, it looks like we have the corner on the next generation, too. I think we did the first one with bacteria also.

bluerider
05-14-2007, 02:44 AM
I know the definition, I meant to say what "Should" a Culture be. I don't think anyone really knows.

Ah OK.....then you can work towards changing the definition of that word then. One way that can happen is through revolution. Then that revolutionary government gets to change definitions.

The problem is the Prolatariate "usually" gets fed up with their revolutionaries and they end up dumping their heros for new heros and changing definitions again.

Left to my own meaning regarding Culture and its definition, its sounds almost like a class thing for clever people who go to theatre and stuff like that. Seeing myself as having no or little class I am free from its ravages. Off course this is a very limited view of its actual definition but sometines I just enjoy being beligerant :D .

oDDity
05-14-2007, 02:56 AM
Oddity: America was WELL on track to be the richest before that. We were very strong heading into WWI and growing. At the BEGINNING of WWII we represented 47% of the world's manufacturing capability (which doesn't leave a lot of room for the other ~190 countries to be ahead, now does it?), and that was near the end of a horrible depression. By the end of WWII we were over 50% and NOT so much because other countries had lost capability but because we were stepping up.
Not so much because Europe had lost capability? WW2 was just the culmination of events that started before WW1, and that whole period from 1910 to 45 left Europe completely and totally bankrupt. It was a easy gap to slide into, especially after your profiteering, which meant that everyone owed you money after the war.
Oh yes, America did very well out of the war, not least the immigrants that came over and produced things like your atom bomb and your space program, which are perhaps the two most defining achievements of "yours" in the last century.



Alexander Bell was born in the US.
Not surprising, a fraud like that, he didn't invent anything, but stole the credit.

Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Eli Whitney, Jonas Salk, Wilbur and Orville Wright, Charles Townes and Arthur Schawlow, Lee De Forest, John Bardeen, Walter Brattain, and William Schockley
A paltry list of smalltime inventors, who couldn't have done anything without the major, fundamental scientific breakthroughs being achieved endlessly in Europe, or the techniques and principals of the industrial revolution.
I mean, the Wright brothers? Like there was no one in Europe working on flight. They just managed to scrape in first and therefore they get the credit and famous names. Flight would have happened just the same without them, as with the telephone, there were half a dozen people working on that. The same goes for the rest of your embarrassingly small list, they just managed to scape in first with inventions that many others were working on.



But its a lot easier ot sit on the couch and point out flaws in a movie than it is to actually make the movie.

Well don't make them at all then, it's not as if they're necessary. I could happliy live out the rest of my days without ever seeing a movie. America can make all the crap it likes, I just wish you'd stop tyring to sell it to me.

jasonwestmas
05-14-2007, 08:57 AM
Left to my own meaning regarding Culture and its definition, its sounds almost like a class thing for clever people who go to theatre and stuff like that. Seeing myself as having no or little class I am free from its ravages. Off course this is a very limited view of its actual definition but sometines I just enjoy being beligerant :D .

There is nothing wrong with refining one's taste but it should be based on knowledge and humility and not a desire just to fit in and look condescending. I'm beligerant too, I disapprove of those who think too much or too little of themselves concerning creative thought and other values.

bluerider
05-14-2007, 09:19 AM
There is nothing wrong with refining one's taste but it should be based on knowledge and humility and not a desire just to fit in and look condescending. I'm beligerant too, I disapprove of those who think too much or too little of themselves concerning creative thought and other values.

Thats well put. Yes I quite agree about the condenscending bit as well.

Verlon
05-14-2007, 02:32 PM
Small time inventors? Yeah, right. Name a big time inventor in the last 150 years.

I'll say it again... hating our culture doesn't make you anything but hateful.

BazC
05-14-2007, 02:45 PM
Small time inventors? Yeah, right. Name a big time inventor in the last 150 years.

Christopher Cockeril (Hovercraft), Frank Whittle (Jet engine), John Logie Baird (Television) Clive Sinclair (Sinclair C5) :D

Verlon
05-14-2007, 03:06 PM
Hovercraft? Sorry, cant spot you that one as a major inventor... not compared to the others on either of our lists. Its just not that big a difference. :)

posting like mad to get to 1000. I hear I get a free VT5 when I get to 1000

Sting
05-14-2007, 06:46 PM
I think you can compare the cost of bad movies with that of other things we buy. Look at the cost of cars and politicians. There is so much put into the marketing of these products that it's just ridiculous. The general public wants something better in both, but we're stuck with what they want to give us. It's next to impossible to go against the establishment. Unless you have the resources to make and distribute something better, we are going to have to live with mediocure products most of the time. They don't want us to be customers, but consumers. I think that is the way of any large institution. They want us to concerned about the superficial aspects of their products instead of the relavent aspects. It is easier for them to make money on a lot of mediocure products than on a few great products. It would be harder for them to make a lot of money, if we expected a great product everytime. I haven't studied economics in a long time, but Iím sure it has to do with the concepts of a monopoly. They want to maintain their profits.

As to the other comments about the greatness of the USA or any other country and their inventions, I just don't get it. That's like rooting for a sports team. You're taking pride in someone else's accomplishments like you have something to do with it. I might have the wrong take on this, but I've become less concerned with the group concept than with my own concerns. I think your pride should be about your own accomplishments rather than those of people you don't even personally know. Iím sure that I glossed over some of the finer points of others, but I just wanted to post something to get rid of the note at the top of the forum that says that I havenít posted anything for several weeks. :)

voriax
05-14-2007, 07:11 PM
Hehe, it's funny. America taking credit for inventing an idea, but think about which countries have developed those ideas above and beyond the original?
Phones, aeroplanes, cars, electronics.. If you ask someone who does each of these things best, I can pretty much garauntee none of them will say "the USA". How long are you going to hang onto an invention?
I guess some european could come along and say, "Ogg McBogg back in 2million BC invented fire and patented the idea of cooking meat .. you owe us!"
I'll be the first to say, Australia aint done much :D Oh wait, we gave you Mel Gibson.. we're really sorry about that.. really..

About movies, though, money going to VFX houses instead of to the actors isn't the solution, either. Perfect example was given before - the latest Star Wars movies. So much money would have been spent on VFX (cos it certainly wasnt spent on acting lessons), and a lot of money would have gone to the stars. However, how much better would the movie have been if they'd spent a tenth of the money on refining the storyline?
Pixar, Disney, Dreamworks, etc, have made some awesome movies that are entirely computer generated (albeit some that arent so great), but the reason they are so good is because they focus so much more on the story. They may not even budget more to the writing staff, but they focus on it. I guess having four years to do a project helps, but it's no excuse. Lucas had 20 years to add some finesse to his star wars story and still failed.
I think I could deal with some less-than-perfect visual effects if the story was better.
Speaking of Lord of the Rings .. I've been watching it in the last few weeks and looking at it now, the effects are quite good, but they're not all mind-bogglingly amazing. Compositing of the shrunken footage of the hobbits isn't so great most of the time. Gollum is really quite unrealistic and computery most of the time. Maybe that goes to show just how much CG realism has advanced in just 5 years. Watching Superman Returns and not realising that the superman in space sequence was entirely CG blew me away.

surfingmarmot
05-14-2007, 08:51 PM
What makes bad movies cost so much is the same thing that makes bad restaurant food cost so much: the raw materials cost the same regardless of the talent of the chefand staff (or the director, fx folks, actors, screen writers, etc). Not jsut to single out Thai foof by as an example, here in the SF Bay Area, all Thai food is close in price, but quality varies widely. that's because the raw materials, lease space, staff wages, etc. are relatively equivalent for a general area--only the talent varies. I am speaking generally of course, certainly market forces push up prices at the high end due to popularity. But in general it is the same with films: the costs can be about the same for a great film and a B movie (factoring out location costs, fx work, promotional budget, etc.)

CMT
05-14-2007, 10:20 PM
I know some will disagree, but Blair Witch was an awesome movie and was somewhere in the realm of $30 - $50 thousand to make. Plus look at some of the old classic movies like 12 Angry Men. To me that proves that great movies don't need huge budgets or big name actors. If the movie is good, word will get out.


Of course, I'm biased, seeing as how I totally despise american culture, and how it has dragged the entire world down with it to the current nadir.


That all comes from the european immigrants you've had over the last 100 years.
For example, the pioneers of "your" space program were German/Austrians, the pioneers of physics and "your" atom bomb, likewise.

Sooooo, let me get this straight. You hate American culture, but then point out how American culture isn't really American, but European. But even more accurate is that it's a mix of many different cultures (Asian, Mexican, African, Indian, etc) but the primary influence is European. The US is still young country and doesn't have a distinct culture of it's own yet. It's been borrowing it's culture from the immigrants you mentioned. It's slowly becoming more distinct, but really isn't anything special.

So then, what makes American culture special enough to deserve the precious time you have to hate it? You wouldn't bother to cross the street to piss on a poster of Tom Cruise, but you'd write a lengthy post about hating Amercan culture. I'd just like to know why. Surely, bad movies, music, or whatever isn't limited to the just America....

I was over in London about 10 years ago and loved it over there. The culture wasn't that much different. (Except for the traffic!) There were some crappy movies I saw as well. Of course I only had 6 weeks to live there then made the trek back home. And made plenty of friends and had a good time overall. But I saw nothing that made me think that the culture was superior or inferior to America's. So I'm not sure where your criticism is coming from.

As for who invented what first pissing contest, come on everybody, let's grow up.

Stooch
05-14-2007, 10:32 PM
As to the other comments about the greatness of the USA or any other country and their inventions, I just don't get it. That's like rooting for a sports team. You're taking pride in someone else's accomplishments like you have something to do with it. I might have the wrong take on this, but I've become less concerned with the group concept than with my own concerns. I think your pride should be about your own accomplishments rather than those of people you don't even personally know. Iím sure that I glossed over some of the finer points of others, but I just wanted to post something to get rid of the note at the top of the forum that says that I havenít posted anything for several weeks. :)
hah ive actually heard a fan discussion of baseball and their use of WE and YOU actually replaced the names of their respective teams. im sure they all pitched in by the intensity of their gaze upon the screen and collective focus of their force in order to influence the game..

RedCorner
05-14-2007, 11:11 PM
Australia aint done much Oh wait, we gave you Mel Gibson..

That was the Kiwis really.

voriax
05-14-2007, 11:25 PM
That was the Kiwis really.

Oh, thank the lord..
Wait, isn't Russel Crowe the sheepshagger? Or are they both from there?
Do Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman make up for these two?
:D

Lightwolf
05-15-2007, 01:31 AM
I hear I get a free VT5 when I get to 1000
I don't want to burst your bubble.... but you only get a VT1 (obviously) ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
05-15-2007, 01:33 AM
I know some will disagree, but Blair Witch was an awesome movie and was somewhere in the realm of $30 - $50 thousand to make.
What about BW II then? I suppose it prooves that sequels usually suck, so we're back to stereotypes ;)

Cheers,
Mike

CMT
05-15-2007, 08:00 AM
What about BW II then? I suppose it prooves that sequels usually suck, so we're back to stereotypes ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Blair Witch 2 sucked because the producers tried to ride the coatails of the original with a lousy idea to make it more like every other average thriller out there. Except with less than average actors and even a lesser quality script. The only thing it had going for it was the title which suggested something special like the first movie. But in reality it was only the name that was similar to the first. They even threw about 10 million at it the second time around and it still sucked.

spec24
05-15-2007, 09:41 AM
If Tom Cruise was brutally murdered tomorrow, I'd laugh out loud about it, and I mean that.

Wow, what an *******. Wishing the same for you oDDity.

cresshead
05-15-2007, 09:54 AM
nice avatar!....z brush or mudbox?

mouse_art
05-15-2007, 03:16 PM
Wow, what an *******. Wishing the same for you oDDity.


And then you are better than him?

I can't bear him either, but i can't stand telletubbies either...what a world...

Verlon
05-15-2007, 03:22 PM
I don't want to burst your bubble.... but you only get a VT1 (obviously) ;)

Cheers,
Mike


Sheesh....they are asking for it now. As if I couldn't start a 4500 post argument (does anyone really want to read through a couple thousand "are not" / "Are too" posts?? )

mouse_art
05-15-2007, 03:23 PM
Damn edit blockade, i meant T.C.! he has at least enough money to secure himself....but i woul'd never say i wanted to see someone get killed, he is so smudgy, ok the telletubbies can someone kill, not the actors, just the suits...

bluerider
05-15-2007, 04:23 PM
mouse_art,
your www link for artwork doesn't. I was curious to see, but alas, no success for me.

mouse_art
05-15-2007, 04:43 PM
Thats because i didn't paid the bills last year so the domain(and WS host)(let's just say, little problems with job...) was taken down, maybe this year i will get a new one with a more appropriate name(real name ect.)


A bit more ONT.

maybe i'm a bit nostalgic, but for me the movies among 70-late 80 where better, but i'm to young to know it better. *ahem* (to much personal taste influence)

bluerider
05-15-2007, 04:48 PM
mouse_art=Thats because i didn't paid the bills last year so the domain
----------------

Ah....I know how that goes. I've had some aweful years

Lightwolf
05-15-2007, 04:49 PM
As if I couldn't start a 4500 post argument (does anyone really want to read through a couple thousand "are not" / "Are too" posts?? )
It's not as easy as it sounds... I'm still working on it ;)

Maybe I should arguing with myself... ;D

Cheers,
Mike

mouse_art
05-15-2007, 05:00 PM
It's not as easy as it sounds... I'm still working on it ;)

Maybe I should arguing with myself... ;D

Cheers,
Mike


But i think also then your posts will be interesting to read, even with self arquing. :P (techie stuff)

Lightwolf
05-15-2007, 05:24 PM
But i think also then your posts will be interesting to read, even with self arquing. :P (techie stuff)
First I should work on reading my posts before sending them off.
Oh yeah, I can see the PC guy within argue with the OSX guy within... while the Amiga guy just shakes his head and goes off to have a beer (after all, the platform is dead ;) ).
I'm afraid they'll find a consensus pretty quickly though (except for the Amiga guy who'll have passed out by then).

Cheers
Mike

Verlon
05-16-2007, 07:26 AM
It's not as easy as it sounds... I'm still working on it ;)

Maybe I should arguing with myself... ;D

Cheers,
Mike


Well you can have the "are nots" and I can take the "Are toos" if you like. THen we could both run up high totals fast :)

Lightwolf
05-16-2007, 07:36 AM
Well you can have the "are nots" and I can take the "Are toos" if you like. THen we could both run up high totals fast :)
...


...



... not! (Borat style).

Cheers,
Mike

Verlon
05-16-2007, 01:23 PM
...


...



... not! (Borat style).

Cheers,
Mike

Are too!!!!

RudySchneider
05-16-2007, 01:31 PM
...


...



... not! (Borat style).

Cheers,
Mike


You forgot to say "pause..."

tektonik
05-16-2007, 01:45 PM
seinfeld was good

and no vfx at all :)

Mr Rid
07-19-2007, 01:27 AM
Imagine casting a bunch of stars in one movie, like Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba, Clive Owen, Josh Hartnett, Benicio Del Toro, Elijah Wood, Mickey Rourke... and consider what all their normal asking salaries are combined. Dizzying. And then lets say it is an all 'digital backlot' movie with wall to wall CG... total budget would be, what, $300 million? Then attach an A list director like maybe Robert Rodriguez. Oh wait, they did this already. It was called Sin City. And it came in for $40 mil. 'How could anyone have allowed this to happen!' 'Something's got to be done!' 'Get Mucas, Shpielberg and Shlameckis on the phone right away!' Just how are we going to continue justifying our exhorbitant budgets?'

And just how the hell do you explain this mind-blowing, little FX blitzkrieg made for only $4 million?!
http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=879&item=0

Most American studio movies have unnecessarily big, fat, bloated, over-inflated budgets, and everyone who works on it likes it that way. Its called GREED.

Cageman
07-19-2007, 01:47 AM
And just how the hell do you explain this mind-blowing, little FX blitzkrieg made for only $4 million?!
http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=879&item=0


Wow! Is that the budget for only the fx or is it for the complete movie?

Mr Rid
07-19-2007, 02:21 AM
Wow! Is that the budget for only the fx or is it for the complete movie?

$4.2 mil for each Russian made film.

Lightwolf
07-19-2007, 03:34 AM
$4.2 mil for each Russian made film.
Well, if you look at the cost of studios and manpower over there... than this is quite a hefty sum.
There is a reason why a lot of movies are shot in ex-eastern bloc countries - and vfx work is moving into that direction as well.

Cheers,
Mike

archijam
07-19-2007, 03:55 AM
the HD clip for the first Nightwatch film is here ... click 1080

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox_searchlight/night_watch/

j.

archijam
07-19-2007, 04:40 AM
Can I hijack my own thread?

This was no longer your thread after about the 4th post ;)

j.

archijam
07-19-2007, 04:47 AM
I'll be the first to say, Australia aint done much :D Oh wait, we gave you Mel Gibson.. we're really sorry about that.. really..

Not entirely how it happened.

They gave us Mel Gibson, we 'trained him to be an actor', then we gave him back ...

j.

Verlon
07-19-2007, 04:59 AM
Imagine casting a bunch of stars in one movie, like Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba, Clive Owen, Josh Hartnett, Benicio Del Toro, Elijah Wood, Mickey Rourke... and consider what all their normal asking salaries are combined. Dizzying. And then lets say it is an all 'digital backlot' movie with wall to wall CG... total budget would be, what, $300 million? Then attach an A list director like maybe Robert Rodriguez. Oh wait, they did this already. It was called Sin City. And it came in for $40 mil. 'How could anyone have allowed this to happen!' 'Something's got to be done!' 'Get Mucas, Shpielberg and Shlameckis on the phone right away!' Just how are we going to continue justifying our exhorbitant budgets?'

And just how the hell do you explain this mind-blowing, little FX blitzkrieg made for only $4 million?!
http://www.worstpreviews.com/trailer.php?id=879&item=0

Most American studio movies have unnecessarily big, fat, bloated, over-inflated budgets, and everyone who works on it likes it that way. Its called GREED.

Because Americans are the only greedy people on the planet...yeah, right.

Mr Rid
07-19-2007, 05:21 AM
Because Americans are the only greedy people on the planet...yeah, right.

Who said that?

Point missed.

Mr Rid
07-19-2007, 05:27 AM
Not entirely how it happened.

They gave us Mel Gibson, ...

j.

BTW, in my opinion still the best action movie ever made and without a single digital effect *gasp*- Road Warrior, $2 million budget. Mad Max changed how all movie car chases would be shot and edited for a mere $300,000.

oDDity
07-19-2007, 05:29 AM
Because Americans are the only greedy people on the planet...yeah, right.

No, they're the greediest people on the planet.

archijam
07-19-2007, 05:48 AM
... not! (Borat style).

I was wondering if those jokes actually worked on German audiences ... don't most negative sentences end in .... nicht?

Ich glaube

...nicht.

j.

Mr Rid
07-19-2007, 06:39 AM
Well, if you look at the cost of studios and manpower over there... than this is quite a hefty sum.
There is a reason why a lot of movies are shot in ex-eastern bloc countries - and vfx work is moving into that direction as well.


Precisely because studio budgets are ridiculous. Spiderman 3 cost over $300,000,000 with ad costs. More than the GNP of the entire Dominican Republic. Judging from per capita income levels, Day Watch would cost about $40 mil in U.S.

Also consider profit margin comparison with some top grossing studio films-

The first Pirates of the Carribean world profit was approximately four times over it's production cost (but then minus $40+ million in prints and advertising costs standard for big studio films).

Spiderman 2 made three times over it's prod cost back.

Harry Potter - Azkaban made five times.

Matrix, six times

Lord of the Rings Fellowship made eight times (BTW, made less money in Russia than Night Watch).

Day Watch, made over seven times it's production cost back in theatrical profit in Russia alone. I cant find the profit after U.S. release, but add a few more million and it's matching Lord of the Rings profit margin.

Have read that only about 32% of movies make a theatrical profit after ad and print costs.

Lightwolf
07-20-2007, 01:22 AM
I was wondering if those jokes actually worked on German audiences ... don't most negative sentences end in .... nicht?

Ich glaube

...nicht.

j.
Hehe, well.... since Borat was subtitled (which is rare), they worked quite well ;)

Cheers,
Mike

Lightwolf
07-20-2007, 01:26 AM
Have read that only about 32% of movies make a theatrical profit after ad and print costs.
Yup, currently most of the profit comes form DVD sales... and most of the money goes into advertising ;)

Not really surprising, is it?

We did price a Swiss/German Sci-Fi flick a few years ago (that was never produced unfortunately). One huge set, loads of VFX etc. and it would have been around 4 million € (very low budget considering the pricing structure here). Oh well... *sigh*
If you do VFX, you make a lot more money in advertising over here.

Cheers,
Mike

Mr Rid
07-20-2007, 03:09 PM
Have been following the feature film growth in Bulgaria for years now. There has been a big push to bring more production into the area which has the needed range of locations and the talent pool is getting up to par. An L.A. production company I used to do FX for has slowly moved all production to Bulgaria where it is about 1/4 the cost of shooting in L.A., and I hear they are now building another studio there. NuImage was doing really crappy direct-to-video movies like Shark Attack 3 a few years ago, and now they own the largest studio facility in the Balkans and are producing on 50 million dollar movies like DePalma's Black Dahlia, and a new Pacino and DeNiro flick.


Yup, currently most of the profit comes form DVD sales... and most of the money goes into advertising ;)

Not really surprising, is it?

We did price a Swiss/German Sci-Fi flick a few years ago (that was never produced unfortunately). One huge set, loads of VFX etc. and it would have been around 4 million Ä (very low budget considering the pricing structure here). Oh well... *sigh*
If you do VFX, you make a lot more money in advertising over here.

Cheers,
Mike

Mr Rid
07-20-2007, 03:12 PM
P.S.

"Sophia is of course the Hollywood of Bulgaria"

http://www.studiodaily.com/main/work/7698.html

tfrank
07-20-2007, 04:01 PM
For a moment steering back to the cost of movie production...I've had an opportunity to be a crew member on a couple...even getting a credit or two. There are a whole bunch of "little" costs that seem to add up from my observation. One of my favorites is the craft services department. Those are the folks that supply the food. From the supermarket on wheels that was full of candy, drink, hot/cold food, all free and in any quantities (my wife loved the oreo cookies that I took home) to the full meals with multiple entres' supplied from another truck. It was simply amazing. Then you add up the private jets to take the principle actors back and forth (they were appearing in multiple movies at once, many in those low cost countrys), throw in some weather delays (we sit around being paid), some additional delays due to camera problems or a principle actor not getting back from their other movie commitment (we sit around getting paid), and some stupid decisions being made because "that's how we do it". Whether it's a good movie or bad, there are a lot of opportinties to burn through cash before you even get into post.

Mr Rid
07-20-2007, 04:40 PM
For a moment steering back to the cost of movie production...I've had an opportunity to be a crew member on a couple...even getting a credit or two. There are a whole bunch of "little" costs that seem to add up from my observation. One of my favorites is the craft services department. Those are the folks that supply the food. From the supermarket on wheels that was full of candy, drink, hot/cold food, all free and in any quantities (my wife loved the oreo cookies that I took home) to the full meals with multiple entres' supplied from another truck. It was simply amazing. Then you add up the private jets to take the principle actors back and forth (they were appearing in multiple movies at once, many in those low cost countrys), throw in some weather delays (we sit around being paid), some additional delays due to camera problems or a principle actor not getting back from their other movie commitment (we sit around getting paid), and some stupid decisions being made because "that's how we do it". Whether it's a good movie or bad, there are a lot of opportinties to burn through cash before you even get into post.


I didnt know we ever veered from discussing the cost of movies, but feeding the crew is quite standard.

Am reminded of another reality aspect of filmmaking- sex and drugs. No one talks about it, but they really drive a substantial part of the industry. Cocaine quite literally propelled your favorite movies of the 80s. Its always around the set (yes, Ive worked on several). Wherever you are shooting, you better be able to supply both when dealing with a typical Hollywood production.

My wife worked on set in Bulgaria with several very well known stars (no names) who step off the plane immediately wanting to know where to get drugs and girls. Its a reason why I think Dallas, where I grew up, has never been able to attract film production as they keep trying to. The Las Colinas studios sit empty most of the year and Texas offers tax incentives to production, but Dallas just isnt sexy enough.

As weve mentioned, movies are mostly losing investments. Not all, but plenty of people work in the industry so they can say, 'I work in movies' 'I'm a producer' 'look at me, Im a famous actor' 'so jump in my car, baby.'

Bill Carey
07-20-2007, 04:48 PM
No, they're the greediest people on the planet.

Pretty amazing, the Irish stop bombing, shooting, maiming, torturing and killing each other, those around them and innocents for a couple of years and suddenly he's going to tell us 'the way'. They did all this because they think the 'different' Christians might be making a buck more an hour, and now he calls US greedy. You're a great modeler, I'll give you that, but only that.

What amazes me is how much the marketing costs and how effective it is. Remember the Blair Witch Project? Spent under $100,000 to make it, millions to market it and it made millions in profit. It was complete garbage, but the ad men sold us snake oil and everyone paid to see it. Very few films are willing to a chance on word of mouth, better to get a known star who plays well in the ads, get that first weekend in and then coast. On the bright side, the tide is turning, there are some pretty good fan films and shorts out there, just have to go looking if you're interested.

sean hargreaves
07-20-2007, 06:56 PM
We should bomb Northern ireland into complete and utter misery..............

Oh wait...........its already been done, aaaand................Oddity is the result........damn!

archijam
07-22-2007, 05:58 AM
We should bomb Northern ireland into complete and utter misery.............. Oh wait...........its already been done, aaaand................Oddity is the result........damn!

Is this forum having some kind of Lame-comment-challange I'm not aware of? If so we should keep them in the WIP thread till they have improved a little ..

j.

sean hargreaves
07-24-2007, 12:03 PM
I apologise for that, he just annoyed me!

archijam
07-24-2007, 02:47 PM
No worries, he's gone anyway ...

The weird thing is that recently people didn't just get offended, they tried to out-do oDD. Maybe that inspired him to go out with a bang, all guns blazing ...

I wasn't talking about your comment in particular, it was just the closest one ;)

j.

cresshead
07-24-2007, 02:51 PM
oddity has left the building!...

IgnusFast
07-24-2007, 04:09 PM
What amazes me is how much the marketing costs and how effective it is. Remember the Blair Witch Project? Spent under $100,000 to make it, millions to market it and it made millions in profit. It was complete garbage, but the ad men sold us snake oil and everyone paid to see it. Very few films are willing to a chance on word of mouth, better to get a known star who plays well in the ads, get that first weekend in and then coast. On the bright side, the tide is turning, there are some pretty good fan films and shorts out there, just have to go looking if you're interested.

Actually, I was quite entertained by Blair Witch. Of course, my wife says I'm a complete movie whore, so take that as you will.

Mr Rid
07-24-2007, 04:23 PM
Actually, I was quite entertained by Blair Witch. Of course, my wife says I'm a complete movie whore, so take that as you will.

Yeah, I dont get the criticisms of Blair Witch. Many of moviegoers thought it was all real. Cant get more effective than that.

jasonwestmas
07-24-2007, 04:31 PM
I suspended my disbelief so I could actually appreciate blair witch. I don't think everybody can do that.

Bill Carey
07-24-2007, 05:18 PM
I suspended my disbelief so I could actually appreciate blair witch. I don't think everybody can do that.

I don't know, I can sit through Star Wars and think the force is real, but at the end of Blair Witch my wife and I just stared at each other and decided to tell no one we spent the money to go see it. I walked in wanting to like it, loved the idea of someone being able to do something with nothing.

They said it cost $60,000 to make, which I believe, but they spent many millions advertising it. I notice no one has been able to copy it's success, but many shows (BSG comes to mind) use the Blair Witch camera ummm..... technique... on a regular basis. Works well in short doses for effect, 90 minutes of it is a headache.

jasonwestmas
07-25-2007, 01:10 PM
Hmm, I guess it's a psychological identity thing. I've been in weird situations I suppose, and have been around strange belief systems enough to maginfy the creep factor. Wisconsin can be creepy too in itself which adds to the effect.

Mr Rid
07-25-2007, 08:47 PM
Sunshine- only $40 million.
http://www.reuters.com/article/filmNews/idUSN2037801920070721

Sil3
07-26-2007, 03:24 AM
Yeah, I dont get the criticisms of Blair Witch. Many of moviegoers thought it was all real. Cant get more effective than that.


So all those 13-16 EMO/Goth kids that though it was real makes it effective?

Matt
07-26-2007, 07:32 AM
Sorry to backtrack, but this just made me laugh!

Found the perfect book for Oddity, here's the accompanying website!

http://www.iseverythingshit.co.uk/

:D

cresshead
07-26-2007, 11:04 AM
''bad films don't cost too much''..it's more like ''films'' cost a lot of money....be they good or bad...

i don't think many studios set out to make bad films...just that some/lots do get made inspite of cash...a pile of money is no garrantee of a good film.

Jim_C
07-26-2007, 12:00 PM
"Why do bad movies cost so much?"



One big reason....
Because of the RIDICULOUS amount of money they pay the 'cattle' to star in them.


Sunshine- only $40 million.
http://www.reuters.com/article/filmN...37801920070721

Nice... thanks....

bluerider
07-26-2007, 12:11 PM
One big reason....
Because of the RIDICULOUS amount of money they pay the 'cattle' to star in them.



Nice... thanks....

Lol...A Hitchcock quote regarding actors.
:D

Bill Carey
07-26-2007, 03:40 PM
''bad films don't cost too much''..it's more like ''films'' cost a lot of money....be they good or bad...

i don't think many studios set out to make bad films...just that some/lots do get made inspite of cash...a pile of money is no garrantee of a good film.

True, it even seems like to big a pile of money almost guarantees a mediocre film, to much money at stake to take chances.

sean hargreaves
07-26-2007, 04:13 PM
1) Write mediocre script that masses like.
2) Make film.
3) Market film to masses like crazy.
4) Release film to the masses.
5) Make back the cost of the film plus marketing the first week or two.

This is the formula for making blockbuster films.

The MAJOR PROBLEM is the masses go to the film to CHECK IT OUT, even if they don't really want to see it, and they BUY INTO THE HYPE! Therefore MAKING THE STUDIOS MONEY and CONVINCING THEM THAT THAT IS THE WAY TO MAKE MONEY IN FILMS.

This is how movies get their money back and how they are able to do versions 2,3,4, etc. And they cost a lot because of the actors and an INCREDIBLE amount goes into the marketing!!!!

Mr Rid
07-26-2007, 06:17 PM
So all those 13-16 EMO/Goth kids that though it was real makes it effective?

The goth kids I knew didnt think it was real, but regular folk did. As with any successful movie, some people will think it sucked, which is perfectly valid for them. But I sat in a preview screening and a regular screening where many people in the audience were gasping, squealing, hiding their eyes thruout the movie. There are plenty of comments on IMDB by people who were freaked out by it. And 84% on Rotten Tomatoes means something must have been working right.

It earned $248.3 million theatrically (dont know how many more millions on video) with a record profit to cost of 36 times the total cost for production, ads and prints (Lord of the Rings made about 7 times after all costs). Production cost- $35,000, Prints and ads- $6,500,00 (very modest promo costs), World gross- $248,300,000... that is an insane 7093 times profit over production costs! Of course some didnt like it, but obviously a lot more people did.

sean hargreaves
07-26-2007, 06:42 PM
I think films like Blair Witch are an anomaly that come out once in a while, and its throwing the dice. Will it or won't it make money, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
The filmmakers were astounded by its success, and it made money because it was a unique way of making a film and was scary to tons of people. If this had gone through the regular studio system of committee filtering, it would have hit a wall.
There needs to be more films that tell a story in a different way and are interesting.
When the studios hear blockbuster they think 1) Big star 2) Effects 3)Explosions 4) Gunfire 5) Death 6) Stunts 7) Total action madness 100)Story?

I dont understand the obsession with these films that have all this. Maybe its my age (41) and the fact I've seen it for 30 years now, it just seems to go on and on. I've seen my fair share of shooting, blowing up, hacking and slashing. And I don't mind it if it works, but most of the time its just too long. The scenes go on and on....rolling cars, planes exploding, bombs, bullets, screaming, fire, death, total chaos and madness..........

Mr Rid
07-26-2007, 07:08 PM
The scenes go on and on....rolling cars, planes exploding, bombs, bullets, screaming, fire, death, total chaos and madness..........
Awesome! You should be a producer!;D

Yes, age-wise, you and I are no longer in the biggest target demographic for Hollywood formula movies. Sitting thru videogame movies like Transformers is like being hit in the face with a board for a couple hours. Flash and noise blitzkrieg. :2guns: :hammer: :compbeati :twak: :2guns:

'And now, the award for Most Editing goes to... once again, Tony Scott!' 'YEEEAAYY'