Only the Budgets Are Small

From the NYTimes:

The BAMcinemaFest features films made with modest means but big ambitions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/movies/bamcinemafest-with-jonathan-caouette-and-others.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha28_20120620

i haven't read the article, but we all know this is true. budget does not determine storytelling quality. budget just enhances the visual quality.

however, the $11 million budget for THE HURT LOCKER was excellent in both storytelling and the visuals. and i just love that it beat AVATAR for best picture. and i love that it was Cameron vs Ex-wife Bigelow. cameron's head is so swollen i'll bet he was telling everyone at the after-parties that, "i taught her everything she knows." HA!!!

There's a contest now in Canada for $1,000 feature films. In other words, they'll provide $1,000 to the winners to make feature films with $1,000 budgets. I find it extremely insulting.

Budget does determine the storytelling quality. In any kind of audiovisual project if you hire incompetent directors, actors, cinematographers, editors, the storytelling is going to be crap. Even when the material is already shot, a competent editor will create a good story while an incompetent one will create a fluffy mess.

I know Roger Corman once said low budgets can help the film-makers be more creative. But that could be like setting out to make FORBIDDEN PLANET and ending up with THE CREEPING TERROR (the alien is a bunch of carpets stuck together).

@Sean


I wonder if carpet aliens is part of what Corman meant by low budget make film-makers more creative.

Not only do you have to to come up with interesting stories and not just relaying on special effects, you also have to be creative when using the resources you have.

Don't have enough money for good costumes? get a rug and make one out of that.

James Cameron said he felt an obligation to support "Avatar" because of all the people he hired, who worked hard and did an excellent job...

but he was always clear that personally he wanted his ex-wife to get Best Director.

Without his arm-twisting, she might not have won.

Without his arm-twisting, she might not have won. -- SEXIST!!!

if you believe that crap then you're exactly what i think of you. lol!

You should all put $11 million in context. Outside of U.S. productions, only a handful of movies every year from the rest of the world cost more than that. It is not really a small budget. And even in the USA, if you manage the budget correctly, it's quite a nice sum.

For instance in Canada, one of the top 8 economies in the world, the average budget for feature films is less than $4 million. Any Canadian film of $10 million or more is considered a mega-production and usually looks like a U.S. $100 million movie.

"Any Canadian film of $10 million or more is considered a mega-production and usually looks like a U.S. $100 million movie."

Maybe to you snow-blind hockey fans.

I can only say that most $100 million movies wasted $80 to $90 million. And $200 million movies should not even exist. It's outrageous.

Of the films appearing at Bam/fest that Lauri posted, this one looks to me far and away most intriguing. In fact I predict Oscar noms.

The Beast of the Southern Wild. It looks breathtakingly beautiful/poetic/moving/relevant

And what's incredible is how it was made - with a film collective..non profit model (any money made going back to other film projects) -a budget of only between 1-2 million with grassroots artists doing all production design etc. The director estimates if this had been made following the standard model it would have cost around 11 million.

The greatest thing about the production route of this project - that 100 people came together and did extraordinary things outside of an expectation of 'money', simply to make something beautiful they believed in. Not surprising its being called the most astonishing and unique film to be seen at Sundance in twenty years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/movies/the-making-of-beasts-of-the-southern-wild.html?pagewanted=all

Iron Sky was made for under $5m and looks as good as many $50m films.

Monsters from a couple of years ago cost less than $1m.

Cut out the star names and salaries and you can make stunning looking films AND have a decent story. That's why I think ZvG can still profit if they go for the R rating.

Antony,

Just looked up the Iron Sky site. Watched vids/read some information.

It looks amazing. Clever concept. Great production value for the budget. And funny/satirical humor. I'm sure they'll profit if it roll out with good hype and wide distribution.

I also think ZvsG has potential to profit. Write a strong draft (needs a bit more punch up)/ keep budget low - its a strong niche concept.

That said - I think your re-write was great Lauri! The original was good too.

I just have my own take I'd do on it of course:) Probably wouldn't even look like the same film.

But..they've got Clive dammit. LOL

Thanks, B! I'm hoping there's at least one line I can point to as mine when Clive is done with it... Looks like they're keeping "my" shaman (bokor) in any case...

DF -- you're an idiot. and i usually don't call people names, but you're all about what a crap project this is on another thread (that you started) and now you say you were going to do a test film for it. lol! i mean, LOL!!!

"this" is in a subjective place. i was referring to the 3 posts prior to your statement about ZvG. i now realize you were referring to the initial post, a subject that had been forgotten.

this is a lesson in storytelling: set-up and pay-off -- you failed!

For someone who spends almost all his time here begging for support for his clown film, DF has an oddly antagonistic streak.