Bob, I hardly think you are suggesting that your Doc is an epic (though I
certainly appreciate the epic nature of all filmmaking and the problems
therein). Still, what is YOUR opinion on the issue? Do you believe a
Spielberg or another A-Lister could make an 'epic' on a low budget?
No, of course it's no epic (the 82 minute film was shot in less than 5
days). It wasn't even supposed to be a movie (we shot it as a free internet
video). It's actually a mockumentary (so I guess that's a pretty good sign
if it fooled you into thinking it was real). I wasn't talking about epics
per se, just what constitutes a low-budget!
If I had between one and five million dollars, I could probably shoot an
'epic' that was at least close to Oscar-worthy (and I know lots of other
directors that could do that too, but will never be given the chance to
try). But, I guess it all depends on what you mean by 'epic?' If you're
talking epic, as in Lawrence of Arabia or Ben-Hur, you couldn't even shoot
those for $500 million nowadays. Anything on that grand a scale would be
far too expensive now. Just try finding 15,000 racing camels and the
jockeys to ride them - heck, just try finding the insurance to cover the
production! They'll shoot those scenes in CGI instead, and it won't look
quite right or feel like a true 'epic,' since you can't really move the
camera in a CGI shot without it looking horrible. We'll never be able to
return to the epics of old (not for a couple decades anyways, until either
the world's economy collapses or computer graphics technology gets much
better)...
But, then, if you're talking 'major director' as well, most of them are too
used to the Hollywood way of doing things (the ridiculously expensive way)
that they'd never be able to shoot a true epic on a low budget (what, no
private trailer complete with personal chef, automatic cocaine-dispenser and
crew of assistants???). You're probably more likely to get that epic out of
a new or younger director... But, then again, it's hard to compare. If
Spielberg shoots a $1 million movie, he'll still have his choice of the best
actors and crew-members in the business (willing to work for nearly free) -
any other director with the same amount of money, won't have nearly the same
amount of resources, so it's hard to really compare...
Night,
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Michael Tupy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert D. Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low budget?
Good Lord, this is so far afoot from the original question!
Craig makes the point that 'Low Budget' is a relative term and arguing it
is absurd because it is relative to the original proposition of the post.
Can a MAJOR DIRECTOR shoot an 'epic' on a low budget? Bob, I hardly
think you are suggesting that your Doc is an epic (though I certainly
appreciate the epic nature of all filmmaking and the problems therein).
Still, what is YOUR opinion on the issue? Do you believe a Spielberg or
another A-Lister could make an 'epic' on a low budget? Enough with the
'devil in the details' of who knows what, etc. Docs are generally
cheaper to make, which is no sin, but to compare an 'epic' type drama to
a doc or the 10 zillion films made in the last quadrillion years doesn't
answer the question.
I suppose what's inherent in the original question is have these titans
become too fat and are incapable of filming on a diet? I think it would
be fantastic to get three or four A-List Directors, give them each
$500,000 and have them make separate films then compare the outcomes.
What you have to understand is that Tom Hanks will show up for free just
like your pals will show up and do something gratis. Those are the perks
of being in their positions. Okay, Hanks would show up for nothing
'up-front'...lol
It might be called TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE
Patrick
On Jul 22, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Robert D. Brooks wrote:
So, if $20 million is a 'low budget,' this is what I did with about
1/8th of 1% of that amount (meaning I would have to make this movie
almost 1,000 times - just to have a budget high enough to be considered
'low')... Although, I'll warn anyone that dares click: NSFW (it is a
Troma-film after all, so don't come crying to me if...)! ;o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTMoKB9Zk0E
Cheers,
Bob
PS. Note to Craig: You may just notice a couple names in the credits
there: one is currently the chairman of the Independent Film and TV
Alliance and the other is the head of the oldest independent film studio
in existence, so while I may not have your 30 years in the business
(only about 20 here), understand that I do know what I'm talking about!
And, just to prove I'm right:
http://www.imdb.com/List?year=2008
You'll notice that there are about 12,000 movies listed there - just
from the last 6 months (and they only list a fraction of all the movies
made - very few student films, foreign films, ultra-low- budget films,
etc...). I guess I should be expecting an apology?...
----- Original Message ----- From: Craig Miller
To: Robert D. Brooks
Cc: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an "epic" on a low
budget?
You're missing the point. You're wrong about the number of movies made.
Your numbers all seem to be wild guesses and you haven't specified if
you're talking about feature length films or including all lengths and
formats.
I can only believe you're doing the latter because your numbers are just
way, way off for the former. (And what makes you think each film
festival
gets applications for a completely different group of films? Sundance
requires it hasn't been shown anywhere else before them but most
festivals have no such rule. And they don't say films can't play other
festivals after them.)
Please don't insult us by suggesting that only you are so smart as to
know
about films not made by the Hollywood studios or that we don't know
about
low budget films. I assure you, that isn't the case.
And if you think the super low budget filmmakers all make wonderful
movies, you clearly haven't seen a significant enough percentage of
them.
A large percentage of the indies are godawful. As are the majority of
studio pictures. But they don't suddenly become good because they're
made with low low budgets.
I've been in this business over 30 years now and I've worked with and
seen
pictures at all different budget levels. The budget -- high or low --
isn't what
makes them good.
Craig.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is
solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.