Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
I'm sorry, but while I concede Jeff's point, re: Bob Brooks recent posts don't exhibit the wit that I reference -- I will have to just -- (somewhat rudely, I admit) -- presume that Jeff's posting, reading history and possibly his length of membership at MoPo -- is far too limited (just for now) -- to know what I'm talking about. Bob's background, profession and video satires have been known to some of us at MoPo since the 1990s. I'm confident that Jeff's ignorance -- due to his lack of history -- (and not because of any limited capacity by him to store knowledge) -- will recede. And so will my ignorance about Jeff, for whom I only know about through his theories that rocks -- unlike movie paper -- never change over millions of years. -kuz. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:39:32 -0700From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wit? if those few posts are what you consider razor wit i think you need a sharpening. On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:51 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** I know enough about Bob Brooks to not wanna tangle with him, especially his razor wit, which comes out when he's not even trying. 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.
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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Dave, I can only point out one very significant issue with your post. Verna Fields was the Oscar Winning Editor on Jaws. Spielberg would be the first to tell you that she saved his ass on that one. She was a great lady and may she rest in peace. Patrick On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:51 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** I know enough about Bob Brooks to not wanna tangle with him, especially his razor wit, which comes out when he's not even trying. I will say though, that while more films are being made than ever before -- the truth is -- more films were RELEASED by major studios and distributors from the 1920s to 1946 than they are today. They had a monopoly and even owned the theaters to show their OWN films. Movie attendance since 1946 has never been eclipsed, thanks to TV. Foreign films -- more prevalent today -- were near unavailable to U.S. audiences outside NY and LA before 1960. Most small towns never saw ANY films with subtitles. ** Meanwhile, switching gears back to Jaws and it's so-called cheap rubber shark -- good and classy response by Rich in the U.K.; I'm glad you clarified your earlier remarks. That 1975 picture introduced the blockbuster mentality to Hollywood, opening in more theaters on opening day than typical for most studios at the time. The disaster genre wave preceded it and some say Jaws just blew down the doors faster. ** Jaws was a big-budgeted film for the 1970s -- with everything riding on the skills of a 26-year old novice -- who hadn't yet demonstrated a track record of success in the U.S. Jaws began production before the 1974 release of his theatrical debut, The Sugarland Express. Most famously, Spielberg ditched the domestic melodrama of the ultra-popular Peter Benchley novel and turned his film into a high-seas adventure, with a triangle character structure involving Shaw, Dreyfuss and Scheider. ** Most memorable were comments by actor Richard Dreyfuss, who dissed the film (and Spielberg) throughout its production. Following historic sneak previews in Dallas and Long Beach, and an exhibitor's preview in New York, Dreyfuss was mobbed. (Like many people, he had underestimated Spielberg's skills as an editor and storyteller -- and had no idea what the assembled film would look like with John Williams' legendary score). Dreyfuss went bonkers, telling everyone he was dead wrong, that he was embarrassed by his remarks, that Spielberg was a genius, that the picture would be big for everyone. For many people, Jaws remains Spielberg's best film -- and for collectors, probably his best film poster, next to the bicycle and moon image in E.T. ** After Jaws, Spielberg would always have final cut. He made enemies quickly. Many critics (except the late Pauline Kael) disdained Spielberg's reputation as a populist director (akin to how they treated Hitchcock, another commercial director whose legend grew anyway, esp. after his death in 1980). After the disaster of 1941, Spielberg's rep for sentimental big-budget entertainment was sealed when he returned with the first Raiders picture in '81. I know my appreciation for Spielberg's craftsmanship is a minority view at MoPo. He's not highly regarded nor beloved as Scorcese or Ridley Scott or Eastwood among living directors -- yet it's not difficult for anyone to predict that Spielberg will indeed be considered legendary -- for good and for ill -- by future generations (just not mine) -kuz. Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:32:24 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Stand corrected, must read up on my history. Point I meant to make, but failed badly with this example, I'd rather have a tale well told, with tension due to what you don't see, but are scared you will, rather than a film choc full of the most mind blowing effects. (Which I don't equate with a rarely seen, obviously rubber, albeit expensive, shark.) Regardless of the setting, I'll do without the water, just settle for a shower. Cheers, Rich Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
What an amazing editor she was. I like Spielberg's films especially Jaws, ET, Close Encounters, Indiana Jones, and Munich. I still think the opening to War of the Worlds was amazing. Let's see what he does if he gets to buy Dreamworks. Toochis - Original Message From: Patrick Michael Tupy [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:10:18 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? Dave, I can only point out one very significant issue with your post. Verna Fields was the Oscar Winning Editor on Jaws. Spielberg would be the first to tell you that she saved his ass on that one. She was a great lady and may she rest in peace. Patrick On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:51 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** I know enough about Bob Brooks to not wanna tangle with him, especially his razor wit, which comes out when he's not even trying. I will say though, that while more films are being made than ever before -- the truth is -- more films were RELEASED by major studios and distributors from the 1920s to 1946 than they are today. They had a monopoly and even owned the theaters to show their OWN films. Movie attendance since 1946 has never been eclipsed, thanks to TV. Foreign films -- more prevalent today -- were near unavailable to U.S. audiences outside NY and LA before 1960. Most small towns never saw ANY films with subtitles. ** Meanwhile, switching gears back to Jaws and it's so-called cheap rubber shark -- good and classy response by Rich in the U.K.; I'm glad you clarified your earlier remarks. That 1975 picture introduced the blockbuster mentality to Hollywood, opening in more theaters on opening day than typical for most studios at the time. The disaster genre wave preceded it and some say Jaws just blew down the doors faster. ** Jaws was a big-budgeted film for the 1970s -- with everything riding on the skills of a 26-year old novice -- who hadn't yet demonstrated a track record of success in the U.S. Jaws began production before the 1974 release of his theatrical debut, The Sugarland Express. Most famously, Spielberg ditched the domestic melodrama of the ultra-popular Peter Benchley novel and turned his film into a high-seas adventure, with a triangle character structure involving Shaw, Dreyfuss and Scheider. ** Most memorable were comments by actor Richard Dreyfuss, who dissed the film (and Spielberg) throughout its production. Following historic sneak previews in Dallas and Long Beach, and an exhibitor's preview in New York, Dreyfuss was mobbed. (Like many people, he had underestimated Spielberg's skills as an editor and storyteller -- and had no idea what the assembled film would look like with John Williams' legendary score). Dreyfuss went bonkers, telling everyone he was dead wrong, that he was embarrassed by his remarks, that Spielberg was a genius, that the picture would be big for everyone. For many people, Jaws remains Spielberg's best film -- and for collectors, probably his best film poster, next to the bicycle and moon image in E.T. ** After Jaws, Spielberg would always have final cut. He made enemies quickly. Many critics (except the late Pauline Kael) disdained Spielberg's reputation as a populist director (akin to how they treated Hitchcock, another commercial director whose legend grew anyway, esp. after his death in 1980). After the disaster of 1941, Spielberg's rep for sentimental big-budget entertainment was sealed when he returned with the first Raiders picture in '81. I know my appreciation for Spielberg's craftsmanship is a minority view at MoPo. He's not highly regarded nor beloved as Scorcese or Ridley Scott or Eastwood among living directors -- yet it's not difficult for anyone to predict that Spielberg will indeed be considered legendary -- for good and for ill -- by future generations (just not mine) -kuz. Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:32:24 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Stand corrected, must read up on my history. Point I meant to make, but failed badly with this example, I'd rather have a tale well told, with tension due to what you don't see, but are scared you will, rather than a film choc full of the most mind blowing effects. (Which I don't equate with a rarely seen, obviously rubber, albeit expensive, shark.) Regardless of the setting, I'll do without the water, just settle for a shower. Cheers, Rich 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
Re: [MOPO] 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? 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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
At 10:41 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. I'll pass your critique along: he only shot movies like X-Men II, Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants, The Fantastic Four, Elf, Paycheck, etc... oh, and the Canadian classic Hookers on Davie! I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear your thoughts... And, what kind of quality do you expect for an 80+ minute film shot in less than 5 days??? I'm confused. X-Men II's DP was Newton Thomas Sigel. Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants' was done by John Bailey. For Fantastic Four it was Oliver Reed. Etc. Etc. Why does your DP use all those aliases when he works? Craig. - Original Message - From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert D. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? IMDB is a wonderful website. It's invaluable. But they don't only list feature films. They list TV episodes (actually series, but with listings for each episode). And they list short films. One minute. Two minutes. Ten minutes. Twenty minutes in length. I'm discussing feature films. If you include everything, of all lengths, designed for any and all mediums, than yes, your number isn't some wild ass guess with no basis in fact. It's still a guess but it's closer to reality. If you're talking about actual feature length films made with at least the hope of a theatrical release, then your number is way way way off. Even if we accept the IMDB number as being accurate, and double it for the rest of the year, it's only half the number you first gave and only an eighth of the number you later increased it to. But, of course, we can't really accept the IMDB number because it isn't only feature films. And while this film you give as an example might be feature length -- I'll take your word for it, since what's on YouTube is just 10 minutes long -- it's also apparently soft-core porn, which can be made very very cheaply. The acting, from the couple minutes I watched, is hardly top quality; the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. For a Troma direct-to-DVD, it's fine, but it isn't theatrical quality. And I'm guessing I must have missed the parts that qualify it as being much better than what comes out of the studios. Oh, and if you want to throw credits back and forth, I've worked on major studio films and independent films. I've been a guest speaker at film festivals and distribution markets in the US, the UK, France, Italy, and the Screen Producers Association of Australia (an organization of independent film producers) just asked me to come speak at their conference in November. (I've even been on panels with Lloyd Kaufman.) I've worked with George Lucas, Stephen Spielberg, Jim Henson, Tom Hanks, John Boorman, Christopher Lee, Edward Woodward, Ken Russell, Anthony Shaffer, Robin Hardy, Richard Lester, Richard Donner, Howard Gottfried, Danny Melnick, Frank Oz, Frank Marshall, Luigi Cingolani, John Carpenter, Oliver Stone, Ed Pressman, etc. etc. etc. So I do know what I'm talking about. Craig. At 08:42 PM 7/22/2008, 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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Where did I say he was DP??? I said he 'shot' those movies, meaning he was the one holding the camera (fyi, the DP hardly ever touches the camera). Although I'm sure he was probably DP on at least one of those as well... - Original Message - From: Craig Miller To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? At 10:41 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. I'll pass your critique along: he only shot movies like X-Men II, Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants, The Fantastic Four, Elf, Paycheck, etc... oh, and the Canadian classic Hookers on Davie! I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear your thoughts... And, what kind of quality do you expect for an 80+ minute film shot in less than 5 days??? I'm confused. X-Men II's DP was Newton Thomas Sigel. Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants' was done by John Bailey. For Fantastic Four it was Oliver Reed. Etc. Etc. Why does your DP use all those aliases when he works? Craig. - Original Message - From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert D. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? IMDB is a wonderful website. It's invaluable. But they don't only list feature films. They list TV episodes (actually series, but with listings for each episode). And they list short films. One minute. Two minutes. Ten minutes. Twenty minutes in length. I'm discussing feature films. If you include everything, of all lengths, designed for any and all mediums, than yes, your number isn't some wild ass guess with no basis in fact. It's still a guess but it's closer to reality. If you're talking about actual feature length films made with at least the hope of a theatrical release, then your number is way way way off. Even if we accept the IMDB number as being accurate, and double it for the rest of the year, it's only half the number you first gave and only an eighth of the number you later increased it to. But, of course, we can't really accept the IMDB number because it isn't only feature films. And while this film you give as an example might be feature length -- I'll take your word for it, since what's on YouTube is just 10 minutes long -- it's also apparently soft-core porn, which can be made very very cheaply. The acting, from the couple minutes I watched, is hardly top quality; the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. For a Troma direct-to-DVD, it's fine, but it isn't theatrical quality. And I'm guessing I must have missed the parts that qualify it as being much better than what comes out of the studios. Oh, and if you want to throw credits back and forth, I've worked on major studio films and independent films. I've been a guest speaker at film festivals and distribution markets in the US, the UK, France, Italy, and the Screen Producers Association of Australia (an organization of independent film producers) just asked me to come speak at their conference in November. (I've even been on panels with Lloyd Kaufman.) I've worked with George Lucas, Stephen Spielberg, Jim Henson, Tom Hanks, John Boorman, Christopher Lee, Edward Woodward, Ken Russell, Anthony Shaffer, Robin Hardy, Richard Lester, Richard Donner, Howard Gottfried, Danny Melnick, Frank Oz, Frank Marshall, Luigi Cingolani, John Carpenter, Oliver Stone, Ed Pressman, etc. etc. etc. So I do know what I'm talking about. Craig. At 08:42 PM 7/22/2008, 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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
bob, i was looking on imdb.. with all your commentary here. are you the same Robert D. Brooks who did something called THE DILDO SONG in 1999? jeff On Jul 22, 2008, at 11:44 PM, Robert D. Brooks wrote: Where did I say he was DP??? I said he 'shot' those movies, meaning he was the one holding the camera (fyi, the DP hardly ever touches the camera). Although I'm sure he was probably DP on at least one of those as well... - Original Message - From: Craig Miller To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? At 10:41 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. I'll pass your critique along: he only shot movies like X-Men II, Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants, The Fantastic Four, Elf, Paycheck, etc... oh, and the Canadian classic Hookers on Davie! I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear your thoughts... And, what kind of quality do you expect for an 80+ minute film shot in less than 5 days??? I'm confused. X-Men II's DP was Newton Thomas Sigel. Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants' was done by John Bailey. For Fantastic Four it was Oliver Reed. Etc. Etc. Why does your DP use all those aliases when he works? Craig. - Original Message - From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert D. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? IMDB is a wonderful website. It's invaluable. But they don't only list feature films. They list TV episodes (actually series, but with listings for each episode). And they list short films. One minute. Two minutes. Ten minutes. Twenty minutes in length. I'm discussing feature films. If you include everything, of all lengths, designed for any and all mediums, than yes, your number isn't some wild ass guess with no basis in fact. It's still a guess but it's closer to reality. If you're talking about actual feature length films made with at least the hope of a theatrical release, then your number is way way way off. Even if we accept the IMDB number as being accurate, and double it for the rest of the year, it's only half the number you first gave and only an eighth of the number you later increased it to. But, of course, we can't really accept the IMDB number because it isn't only feature films. And while this film you give as an example might be feature length -- I'll take your word for it, since what's on YouTube is just 10 minutes long -- it's also apparently soft-core porn, which can be made very very cheaply. The acting, from the couple minutes I watched, is hardly top quality; the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. For a Troma direct-to-DVD, it's fine, but it isn't theatrical quality. And I'm guessing I must have missed the parts that qualify it as being much better than what comes out of the studios. Oh, and if you want to throw credits back and forth, I've worked on major studio films and independent films. I've been a guest speaker at film festivals and distribution markets in the US, the UK, France, Italy, and the Screen Producers Association of Australia (an organization of independent film producers) just asked me to come speak at their conference in November. (I've even been on panels with Lloyd Kaufman.) I've worked with George Lucas, Stephen Spielberg, Jim Henson, Tom Hanks, John Boorman, Christopher Lee, Edward Woodward, Ken Russell, Anthony Shaffer, Robin Hardy, Richard Lester, Richard Donner, Howard Gottfried, Danny Melnick, Frank Oz, Frank Marshall, Luigi Cingolani, John Carpenter, Oliver Stone, Ed Pressman, etc. etc. etc. So I do know what I'm talking about. Craig. At 08:42 PM 7/22/2008, 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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
You're right Patrick, that IS significant. One could arguably say Verna even MADE Spielberg's career. Spielberg, like other directors, mostly hover over their editors, especially early in their careers until they gain confidence. And in 1975, Spielberg was indeed a baby. I often wonder, for example, what Scorcese would be like if he didn't always have Schoonmaker in his back pocket. -kuz. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:49:42 -0700To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], I can only point out one very significant issue with your post. Verna Fields was the Oscar Winning Editor on Jaws. Spielberg would be the first to tell you that she saved his ass on that one. She was a great lady and may she rest in peace. Patrick On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:51 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** I know enough about Bob Brooks to not wanna tangle with him, especially his razor wit, which comes out when he's not even trying. I will say though, that while more films are being made than ever before -- the truth is -- more films were RELEASED by major studios and distributors from the 1920s to 1946 than they are today. They had a monopoly and even owned the theaters to show their OWN films. Movie attendance since 1946 has never been eclipsed, thanks to TV. Foreign films -- more prevalent today -- were near unavailable to U.S. audiences outside NY and LA before 1960. Most small towns never saw ANY films with subtitles. ** Meanwhile, switching gears back to Jaws and it's so-called cheap rubber shark -- good and classy response by Rich in the U.K.; I'm glad you clarified your earlier remarks. That 1975 picture introduced the blockbuster mentality to Hollywood, opening in more theaters on opening day than typical for most studios at the time. The disaster genre wave preceded it and some say Jaws just blew down the doors faster. ** Jaws was a big-budgeted film for the 1970s -- with everything riding on the skills of a 26-year old novice -- who hadn't yet demonstrated a track record of success in the U.S. Jaws began production before the 1974 release of his theatrical debut, The Sugarland Express. Most famously, Spielberg ditched the domestic melodrama of the ultra-popular Peter Benchley novel and turned his film into a high-seas adventure, with a triangle character structure involving Shaw, Dreyfuss and Scheider. ** Most memorable were comments by actor Richard Dreyfuss, who dissed the film (and Spielberg) throughout its production. Following historic sneak previews in Dallas and Long Beach, and an exhibitor's preview in New York, Dreyfuss was mobbed. (Like many people, he had underestimated Spielberg's skills as an editor and storyteller -- and had no idea what the assembled film would look like with John Williams' legendary score). Dreyfuss went bonkers, telling everyone he was dead wrong, that he was embarrassed by his remarks, that Spielberg was a genius, that the picture would be big for everyone. For many people, Jaws remains Spielberg's best film -- and for collectors, probably his best film poster, next to the bicycle and moon image in E.T. ** After Jaws, Spielberg would always have final cut. He made enemies quickly. Many critics (except the late Pauline Kael) disdained Spielberg's reputation as a populist director (akin to how they treated Hitchcock, another commercial director whose legend grew anyway, esp. after his death in 1980). After the disaster of 1941, Spielberg's rep for sentimental big-budget entertainment was sealed when he returned with the first Raiders picture in '81. I know my appreciation for Spielberg's craftsmanship is a minority view at MoPo. He's not highly regarded nor beloved as Scorcese or Ridley Scott or Eastwood among living directors -- yet it's not difficult for anyone to predict that Spielberg will indeed be considered legendary -- for good and for ill -- by future generations (just not mine) -kuz. Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:32:24 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Stand corrected, must read up on my history. Point I meant to make, but failed badly with this example, I'd rather have a tale well told, with tension due to what you don't see, but are scared you will, rather than a film choc full of the most mind blowing effects. (Which I don't equate with a rarely seen, obviously rubber, albeit expensive, shark.) Regardless of the setting, I'll do without the water, just settle for a shower. Cheers, Rich 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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Hi all, If you want to see a wonderful low budget film, put your money where your mouth is. The Wackness just opened in NYC, LA and is scheduled for a wider release. It was a crowd favorite at Sundance and has been playing the festival circuit (SF). See Ben Kingsley channel Ringo Starr as a psychiatrist who learns a thing or two from his depressed high school drug dealer patient. You have to see the wackness in life, to see the dopeness, Michael, Cinecityposters P.S. As I've already seen, I'll be at X Files 2. /HTML 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
I have a question about all these numbers being thrown around about movie budgets (e.g. $5 million, $10 million, etc). Do those figures include the *buyers premium*, and should that amount be included when talking about the *cost* of the movie? Bruce On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:51 AM, Michael Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, If you want to see a wonderful low budget film, put your money where your mouth is. The Wackness just opened in NYC, LA and is scheduled for a wider release. It was a crowd favorite at Sundance and has been playing the festival circuit (SF). See Ben Kingsley channel Ringo Starr as a psychiatrist who learns a thing or two from his depressed high school drug dealer patient. You have to see the wackness in life, to see the dopeness, Michael, Cinecityposters P.S. As I've already seen, I'll be at X Files 2. /HTML 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
I thought the BP was the outrageous ticket prices for some of these dreadful films being foistered upon us! Phil - Original Message - From: Bruce Hershenson To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:30 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? I have a question about all these numbers being thrown around about movie budgets (e.g. $5 million, $10 million, etc). Do those figures include the buyers premium, and should that amount be included when talking about the cost of the movie? Bruce On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:51 AM, Michael Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, If you want to see a wonderful low budget film, put your money where your mouth is. The Wackness just opened in NYC, LA and is scheduled for a wider release. It was a crowd favorite at Sundance and has been playing the festival circuit (SF). See Ben Kingsley channel Ringo Starr as a psychiatrist who learns a thing or two from his depressed high school drug dealer patient. You have to see the wackness in life, to see the dopeness, Michael, Cinecityposters P.S. As I've already seen, I'll be at X Files 2. /HTML 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. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
I have a question about all these numbers being thrown around about movie budgets (e.g. $5 million, $10 million, etc). Do those figures include the buyers premium, and should that amount be included when talking about the cost of the movie? That's called the sales-agent, the completion-guarantor and EO insurance (interestingly around the same percentage as most buyers premiums when combined), and yes, you include those in the budget (except for the sales agent, who goes more on the income statement)... It doesn't matter what industry, there's always someone with their fingers in the pot... 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Alas, what Phil says here is absolutely true. Film enthusiasts have some idea about some of these things - writers, directors etc - and there are many film lovers. But most people HAVE NO IDEA and DON'T CARE. It's like myself and SPORT - I know about fifty guys and a few gals in sports - and that's it! After that I'm in the wilderness. I HAVE NO IDEA and I DON'T CARE (very much.) K. On Jul 23, 2008, at 12:27 AM, Phil Edwards wrote: Gee, I dunno. I think Spielberg is one of the best and smartest directors the medium has ever given us. I'm hard pressed to think of another director who ranges across genres with the panache he does, and has so appreciably matured with his craft so effortlessly that the art simply emerges. Of course some films are better than others, some have wider appeal than others but as a real movie director and extremely smart producer of other directors' works, he's hard to beat. His biggest problem is that there are so many people who think it's not cool to like a Spielberg movie, or Tarantino movie, or whatever. Couple of weeks back, someone I know watched the first 10 minutes of PLANET TERROR and said I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE CRAP. ANYTHING DIRECTED BY TARANTINO IS CRAP! A... BUT HE DIDN'T DIRECT IT. ROBERT RODRIGUEZ DID. And there followed a YES HE DID/NO, HE DIDN'T. ROBERT RODRIGUEZ DIRECTED SIN CITY AND THAT WAS A MASTERPIECE HE'S A GREAT DIRECTOR. TARANTINO IS CRAP Yes, yes... I know. They saw the credits... again OH, MAYBE I BETTER TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE WHOLE MOVIE THIS TIME, THIS LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE GREAT! RODRIGUEZ IS VERY COOL! A survey was done a few years ago about people coming out of various movies, or lining up for various movies. Some staggering % had NO IDEA who the director of the film was they had just seen or were going to see and yes, in this straw poll, one of the films was a Spielberg movie. Most people could not give a monkey's toss about who directed a film. Most people don't even think about it. Quick, and without looking at the IMDB, name 5 films directed by Robert Aldrich. Too easy? Name 10 films directed by Robert Altman. Okay - really easy ones - name 5 films directed by Raoul Walsh, or Michael Curtiz, or William Wellman. How about 10 films directed by John Ford? And as for writers, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I know who might look at a film title and be excited by the name of a writer credit. Phil - Original Message - From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? ** I know enough about Bob Brooks to not wanna tangle with him, especially his razor wit, which comes out when he's not even trying. I will say though, that while more films are being made than ever before -- the truth is -- more films were RELEASED by major studios and distributors from the 1920s to 1946 than they are today. They had a monopoly and even owned the theaters to show their OWN films. Movie attendance since 1946 has never been eclipsed, thanks to TV. Foreign films -- more prevalent today -- were near unavailable to U.S. audiences outside NY and LA before 1960. Most small towns never saw ANY films with subtitles. ** Meanwhile, switching gears back to Jaws and it's so-called cheap rubber shark -- good and classy response by Rich in the U.K.; I'm glad you clarified your earlier remarks. That 1975 picture introduced the blockbuster mentality to Hollywood, opening in more theaters on opening day than typical for most studios at the time. The disaster genre wave preceded it and some say Jaws just blew down the doors faster. ** Jaws was a big-budgeted film for the 1970s -- with everything riding on the skills of a 26-year old novice -- who hadn't yet demonstrated a track record of success in the U.S. Jaws began production before the 1974 release of his theatrical debut, The Sugarland Express. Most famously, Spielberg ditched the domestic melodrama of the ultra-popular Peter Benchley novel and turned his film into a high-seas adventure, with a triangle character structure involving Shaw, Dreyfuss and Scheider. ** Most memorable were comments by actor Richard Dreyfuss, who dissed the film (and Spielberg) throughout its production. Following historic sneak previews in Dallas and Long Beach, and an exhibitor's preview in New York, Dreyfuss was mobbed. (Like many people, he had underestimated Spielberg's skills as an editor and storyteller -- and had no idea what the assembled film would look like with John Williams' legendary score). Dreyfuss went bonkers, telling everyone he was dead wrong, that he was embarrassed by his remarks, that Spielberg was a genius, that the picture would be big for everyone. For many people, Jaws remains
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
This debate is now officially silly. Yes, DPs aren't their own camera operators (especially when there's more than one camera at a time going). But some do still operate the camera. We were about to do a preliminary shoot for a project with Andrew Lesnie (DP on Lord of the Rings trilogy, etc.) in Australia last month when Night Shyamalan stole him away from us with a bigger contract. He was going to operate his own camera. And when someone brags about the guy who shot a list of pictures, they mean the person in charge, who designed the shots, who came up with the plan, and who's responsible for the way the picture looks. Not the guy who held the camera. His job is important, too, but he isn't considered the person who shot the movie. It's the DP who shot the picture, not the (or one of the) camera operators. One of the biggest problems with low budget independent films is they are just that: low budget. The producers frequently don't spend enough on important elements like lighting and sound. You can make a movie seem 10 times more expensive by spending just a little more to get those elements right. Craig. At 11:44 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: Where did I say he was DP??? I said he 'shot' those movies, meaning he was the one holding the camera (fyi, the DP hardly ever touches the camera). Although I'm sure he was probably DP on at least one of those as well... - Original Message - From: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Craig Miller To: mailto:MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDUMoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:31 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? At 10:41 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. I'll pass your critique along: he only shot movies like X-Men II, Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants, The Fantastic Four, Elf, Paycheck, etc... oh, and the Canadian classic Hookers on Davie! I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear your thoughts... And, what kind of quality do you expect for an 80+ minute film shot in less than 5 days??? I'm confused. X-Men II's DP was Newton Thomas Sigel. Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants' was done by John Bailey. For Fantastic Four it was Oliver Reed. Etc. Etc. Why does your DP use all those aliases when he works? Craig. - Original Message - From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert D. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? IMDB is a wonderful website. It's invaluable. But they don't only list feature films. They list TV episodes (actually series, but with listings for each episode). And they list short films. One minute. Two minutes. Ten minutes. Twenty minutes in length. I'm discussing feature films. If you include everything, of all lengths, designed for any and all mediums, than yes, your number isn't some wild ass guess with no basis in fact. It's still a guess but it's closer to reality. If you're talking about actual feature length films made with at least the hope of a theatrical release, then your number is way way way off. Even if we accept the IMDB number as being accurate, and double it for the rest of the year, it's only half the number you first gave and only an eighth of the number you later increased it to. But, of course, we can't really accept the IMDB number because it isn't only feature films. And while this film you give as an example might be feature length -- I'll take your word for it, since what's on YouTube is just 10 minutes long -- it's also apparently soft-core porn, which can be made very very cheaply. The acting, from the couple minutes I watched, is hardly top quality; the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. For a Troma direct-to-DVD, it's fine, but it isn't theatrical quality. And I'm guessing I must have missed the parts that qualify it as being much better than what comes out of the studios. Oh, and if you want to throw credits back and forth, I've worked on major studio films and independent films. I've been a guest speaker at film festivals and distribution markets in the US, the UK, France, Italy, and the Screen Producers Association of Australia (an organization of independent film producers) just asked me to come speak at their conference in November. (I've even been on panels with Lloyd Kaufman.) I've worked with George Lucas, Stephen Spielberg, Jim Henson, Tom Hanks, John Boorman, Christopher Lee, Edward Woodward, Ken Russell, Anthony Shaffer, Robin Hardy, Richard Lester, Richard Donner, Howard Gottfried, Danny Melnick, Frank Oz, Frank Marshall, Luigi Cingolani, John Carpenter, Oliver Stone, Ed Pressman, etc. etc. etc. So I do know what I'm talking about. Craig. At 08:42 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: So, if $20 million is a 'low budget,' this is
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
At 03:49 AM 7/23/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: I have a question about all these numbers being thrown around about movie budgets (e.g. $5 million, $10 million, etc). Do those figures include the buyers premium, and should that amount be included when talking about the cost of the movie? That's called the sales-agent, the completion-guarantor and EO insurance (interestingly around the same percentage as most buyers premiums when combined), and yes, you include those in the budget (except for the sales agent, who goes more on the income statement)... It doesn't matter what industry, there's always someone with their fingers in the pot... Of those, only EO insurance applies to major studio films. Craig. ~ Craig MillerWolfmill Entertainment [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
I never saw the Masters of Horror TV show, but it had episodes directed by Stuart Gordon, Tobe Hooper, Joe Dante, Jon Landis, John Carpenter, etc. -rk On Jul 22, 2008, at 11:03 PM, Patrick Michael Tupy wrote: 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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Hey, Bob, I thought it significant that you note that with 1 to 5 million you and others could shoot an 'epic' that was at least close to Oscar-worthy. But doesn't that support the argument that $$ is central to a great film? Granted, you are still speaking of very low budgets by Hollywood standards, but the emphasis of your post was sort of an if only I had the money... which is just the opposite of the original question posted, which could be summed up as If these great Director's DIDN'T have the money they're used to, could they... I hope some of that made sense. Bottom line, in MY OPINION, most every great director could make a film on a small budget as they likely have had to in the past which is what made them notable and commercially viable as a film storyteller in Hollywood (true, many came out of commercials and Music Vids as well). Now, it wouldn't be their first choice but they certainly didn't start out with massive budgets. But, with all due respect, it's insane to say that the reverse is always accurate: that a low-budget filmmaker, who has not caught the eye of commercial Hollywood through the years could instantly make a hit or possibly win Oscars due to a budget of 5 or 100 million +. It could happen, but it's not automatically a two-way street. If they're truly great filmmakers, it shows at all budget levels. However, if they're not great filmmakers, money won't automatically make them so. And as you SO rightly pointed out, it's not all about the money...it's the quality of the story, and it's the quality of the Writer. Patrick On Jul 22, 2008, at 11:28 PM, Robert D. Brooks wrote: 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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Hey Everyone, Guess I should clarify... I always assume everyone in the movie poster business works in the film industry (perhaps it's only 90% of us). Yes, you do need money to make a movie! A LOT of money. As I mentioned, there are tens upon tens of thousands of movies made every year (just because someone here is still living in the 1980's, doesn't make it any less true). So, Hollywood has a vast selection in front of them, so they get to pick and choose. It basically comes down to this. They don't want movies, unless they have the following: 1. The proper, Hollywood cookie-cutter story (I won't go into it here, as I'd literally ruin every movie for you from this point forward - let me just say that Hollywood is far, far, far less original than anyone thinks, every movie follows a very exacting pattern from start to finish that 99.99% of viewers don't even realize). 2. Stars. Doesn't matter if they can act, they just have to be somewhat famous. You can do number 1 on a low budget, somewhat. But, only a few hundred people in the world know the exact pattern and how to use it properly (about 50% of Hollywood writers don't seem to know it). Number 2, however, is impossible on a low budget. I was at AFM last year. I wasn't selling a movie, so I just got to observe - and everyone was freaking out how nobody was buying anything. All the buyers were doing was going from room to room, asking what stars were in each movie, then turning around and leaving. And, to give you an idea of how many films are made each year... AFM takes over two hotel towers on the beach in LA. Every room in the entire hotel is reserved for a different distributor (we're talking hundreds if not thousands of different movie distributors). Buyers walk room to room and make deals for the movies that are in each room (each distributor has from around half a dozen movies - up to hundreds or thousands - and remember, multiply that buy hundreds of rooms). None of the movies are big budget and none of them are really low budget. They're all mid-level, straight to DVD type fare (the only memorable title being 301 a spoof of 300 - typical of the kind of film at AFM) - not one of the movies being one you will ever hear of again! Just the worst movies ever made (yet, oddly, a lot of them have big stars). Virtually every single one is a movie that you would never watch in a million years. Only a few hundred movies get major releases each year - so the competition is utterly staggering. To give you an idea of just how ridiculous the competition is for lower-budget films - this whole thread should give you an idea! Craig claims to have worked with the best directors in the business for decades - and he can't even comprehend how many movies are truly out there! The numbers are so huge, that he can't even believe it - and that's someone who's in the business! Now, I should point out that AFM is mostly US movies, so they are by no way representative of ALL the movies that are made on Earth (and, as I mentioned, the movies there mostly fall into one thin category of direct to video). And, there are different shows like that all over the world, all year long (so, for instance, if you miss AFM, you go to Cannes instead), so AFM will only have a tiny fraction of all the movies that are available. So, back to the question at hand... To make a movie, you have to have a crew of at least 20 (preferably closer to 100). You need to rent equipment that costs at least $10 or 20 thousand a day (bare minimum, unless you're shooting on cheap video). You need at least 30 days of shooting. And, if you want a chance at ever selling it, you need stars. But, when you hire stars, all of a sudden your entire production becomes unionized (with the lowest position on set above PA getting $350+ a day) So, yes, you do need money. You don't need as much as Hollywood spends (unless you're shooting a sci-fi or action movie - there's absolutely no reason why Hollywood dramas should cost $65 million nowadays), but you still need some (preferably $1 mil and up). And, that's what makes me so frustrated with the system. A $30,000 movie sells for $20 - the exact same price as a $100 million movie. So, people compare your $30K film to Hollywood movies - when there's no way you can compete. Just producing something that's close is quite the coup in itself. How could you ever compete - when they get to spend $5,000 for every $1 you get to spend? Of course your movie's not going to look anywhere as good. It's not a level playing field... I have absolutely no desire to ever work for Hollywood (I've had chances and turned them down). I'd much rather make crappy little indie films for the rest of my life. But, of course, Hollywood has so thoroughly (and illegally) removed all their competition from the marketplace, and the competition is so fierce to begin with, that it's
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Dave, clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~~~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion where a certain Director did exactly what you propose: In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he could produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He not only came in on time but was under budget: What was the film's title? And who was the Director? Those who know me have a built-in advantage. Patrick ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket' tennis tournament! On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was thought to be an unbankable Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after Psycho. He ended up with a three hour, mostly black-and-white picture with no zooms, steadicams, cranes or Spielberg camera tricks, near zero post-production time. E.T was the only other Spielberg release considered made on the cheap for $10 million, but that was in 1982. The budget for The Dark Knight is said to be $180 million plus. I doubt Spielberg himself could shoot a modest epic in many locations for under $30 million today, unless it was a documentary w/less expensive foreign production crews. ** What would be intriguing, though, which gets to your point -- is whether Spielberg could do a Sundance-type film in the U.S. -- with no stars or sets, armed only with a talky script. Oscar- winning director Peter Jackson shoots his action films down under because of cost. Imagine how much they'd cost if shot in the U.S.? This is why I'm extremely curious with what Jackson will do with his next film, The Lovely Bones (now in post production), which is based on the 2002 mega-bestselling book by Alice Sebold -- a modest talky story about a small American town -- narrated throughout by a 14-year old girl who's murdered on page one. -kuz. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:45:38 +1000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I saw THE DARK KNIGHT tonight. . . To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I just returned from seeing The Dark Knight this afternoon and although it was reasonably entertaining I have to wonder if a really successful movie can be made today without throwing truckloads of money into the project and relying almost totally on whiz bang special effects and mass destruction of cars, buildings etc etc. I also thought that it was a little remiss of the director that in a number of scenes it was very hard to hear what Gary Oldman was saying. I actually have no idea what he said in the fairly key final scenes, bearing in mind that his were the last words of the movie, and the people I saw the movie with made the same comment. In 1960 Hitchcock made a movie with his TV crew for a budget of under a million dollars and shot the film in a matter of weeks. If it hadnt been for the shower scene, he would have completed the project even quicker. I would like to see one of the major directors like Spielberg, or Christopher Nolan, make a film with a low budget and see what they could come up with. Regards John Sign up for my regular newsletter on movie memorabilia: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?mod=accountgo=register Visit my Website: www.moviemem.com All About Australian posters: http://search.reviews.ebay.com/members/johnwr_W0QQuqtZg My eBay Store and Lisitngs: http://myworld.ebay.com/johnwr/ Exhibitions: http://www.moviemem.com/pages/page.php?page=15 JOHN REID VINTAGE MOVIE MEMORABILIA PO Box 92 Palm Beach Qld 4221 Australia Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com___ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing ListSend a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most successful film directors today -- are capable of going back to making films on the cheap as most at one time did. But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to Duel (a TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and Memento, an indie film throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact go back in 1993 -- after a string of classic blockbusters (and some duds in between). And I believe he was indulged by Universal because he always intended to deliver the $65 million Jurassic Park -- which was briefly the #1 box office hit of all time -- the same year as his $22 million Schindler's. In interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record enabled him to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he himself intended Schindler's to be a non-fiction novel, an artifact -- told in a style akin to Truman Capote's, In Cold Blood and author Thomas Kenneally's own source material, Schindler's Ark. Good points, though, Patrick. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~~~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion where a certain Director did exactly what you propose: In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he could produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He not only came in on time but was under budget: What was the film's title? And who was the Director? Those who know me have a built-in advantage. Patrick ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket' tennis tournament! On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was thought to be an unbankable Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after Psycho. He ended up with a three hour, mostly black-and-white picture with no zooms, steadicams, cranes or Spielberg camera tricks, near zero post-production time. E.T was the only other Spielberg release considered made on the cheap for $10 million, but that was in 1982. The budget for The Dark Knight is said to be $180 million plus. I doubt Spielberg himself could shoot a modest epic in many locations for under $30 million today, unless it was a documentary w/less expensive foreign production crews. ** What would be intriguing, though, which gets to your point -- is whether Spielberg could do a Sundance-type film in the U.S. -- with no stars or sets, armed only with a talky script. Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson shoots his action films down under because of cost. Imagine how much they'd cost if shot in the U.S.? This is why I'm extremely curious with what Jackson will do with his next film, The Lovely Bones (now in post production), which is based on the 2002 mega-bestselling book by Alice Sebold -- a modest talky story about a small American town -- narrated throughout by a 14-year old girl who's murdered on page one. -kuz. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:45:38 +1000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I saw THE DARK KNIGHT tonight. . . To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I just returned from seeing The Dark Knight this afternoon and although it was reasonably entertaining I have to wonder if a really successful movie can be made today without throwing truckloads of money into the project and relying almost totally on whiz bang special effects and mass destruction of cars, buildings etc etc. I also thought that it was a little remiss of the director that in a number of scenes it was very hard to hear what Gary Oldman was saying. I actually have no idea what he said in the fairly key final scenes, bearing in mind that his were the last words of the movie, and the people I saw the movie with made the same comment. In 1960 Hitchcock made a movie with his TV crew for a budget of under a million dollars and shot the film in a matter of weeks. If it hadnt
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
The problem I see with modern films is that the plot is often secondary to many other factors, like who will be starring in the movie, the budget, or the concept - eg let's make a new Batman movie - we'll think about the plot later. If you take away the visual aspects of The Dark Knight and just talk about the story it all seems pretty thin to me. Gotham City versus a bunch of criminals led by The Joker with Batman as the only saviour - good vs. evil, etc etc. There really isn't much more to it than that. I really would like to see someone challenge one of the great modern directors to come up with a box office success on a low budget. If they took something like this on then the script would suddenly be far more important. As to Patrick's question, I can't remember the name of the director that Patrick is referring to in the 40s but I'm sure someone on this list will have the answer. I do recall that in the 60s or 70s Sydney Pollack had a reputation for always going way over budget. From memory, he made a deal with a studio to make a picture on a set budget but he ended up having to mortgage his home to complete the project. David's point about Peter Jackson is also interesting. I wonder what he could achieve now on a very low budget. Re Patrick's other comment, the wooden rackets would be interesting to see but I think technology has had even more impact with golf. I'd like to see Phil Mickelson play a round of golf with a set of clubs from the 60s with only one wedge. He might not be able to break 80 on a lot of courses. Regards John JOHN REID VINTAGE MOVIE MEMORABILIA PO Box 92 Palm Beach Qld 4221 Australia www.moviemem.com I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most successful film directors today -- are capable of going back to making films on the cheap as most at one time did. But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to Duel (a TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and Memento, an indie film throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact go back in 1993 -- after a string of classic blockbusters (and some duds in between). And I believe he was indulged by Universal because he always intended to deliver the $65 million Jurassic Park -- which was briefly the #1 box office hit of all time -- the same year as his $22 million Schindler's. In interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record enabled him to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he himself intended Schindler's to be a non-fiction novel, an artifact -- told in a style akin to Truman Capote's, In Cold Blood and author Thomas Kenneally's own source material, Schindler's Ark. Good points, though, Patrick. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~~~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion where a certain Director did exactly what you propose: In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he could produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He not only came in on time but was under budget: What was the film's title? And who was the Director? Those who know me have a built-in advantage. Patrick ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket' tennis tournament! On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was thought to be an unbankable Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after Psycho. He ended up with a three hour, mostly black-and-white picture with no zooms, steadicams, cranes or Spielberg camera tricks, near zero post-production time. E.T was the only other Spielberg release considered made on the cheap for $10 million, but that was in 1982. The budget for The Dark Knight is said to be $180 million plus. I doubt Spielberg himself could shoot a modest epic in many locations for under $30 million today, unless it was a documentary
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
I think Clint Eastwood managed to do it with Letters from Iwo Jima. Toochis - Original Message From: David Kusumoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:02:34 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most successful film directors today -- are capable of going back to making films on the cheap as most at one time did. But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to Duel (a TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and Memento, an indie film throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact go back in 1993 -- after a string of classic blockbusters (and some duds in between). And I believe he was indulged by Universal because he always intended to deliver the $65 million Jurassic Park -- which was briefly the #1 box office hit of all time -- the same year as his $22 million Schindler's. In interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record enabled him to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he himself intended Schindler's to be a non-fiction novel, an artifact -- told in a style akin to Truman Capote's, In Cold Blood and author Thomas Kenneally's own source material, Schindler's Ark. Good points, though, Patrick. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Dave, clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~~~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion where a certain Director did exactly what you propose: In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he could produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He not only came in on time but was under budget: What was the film's title? And who was the Director? Those who know me have a built-in advantage. Patrick ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket' tennis tournament! On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was thought to be an unbankable Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after Psycho. He ended up with a three hour, mostly black-and-white picture with no zooms, steadicams, cranes or Spielberg camera tricks, near zero post-production time. E.T was the only other Spielberg release considered made on the cheap for $10 million, but that was in 1982. The budget for The Dark Knight is said to be $180 million plus. I doubt Spielberg himself could shoot a modest epic in many locations for under $30 million today, unless it was a documentary w/less expensive foreign production crews. ** What would be intriguing, though, which gets to your point -- is whether Spielberg could do a Sundance-type film in the U.S. -- with no stars or sets, armed only with a talky script. Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson shoots his action films down under because of cost. Imagine how much they'd cost if shot in the U.S.? This is why I'm extremely curious with what Jackson will do with his next film, The Lovely Bones (now in post production), which is based on the 2002 mega-bestselling book by Alice Sebold -- a modest talky story about a small American town -- narrated throughout by a 14-year old girl who's murdered on page one. -kuz. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:45:38 +1000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I saw THE DARK KNIGHT tonight. . . To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I just returned from seeing The Dark Knight this afternoon and although it was reasonably entertaining I have to wonder if a really successful movie can be made today without throwing truckloads of money into the project and relying almost totally on whiz bang special effects and mass destruction of cars, buildings etc etc. I also thought that it was a little remiss of the director that in a number of scenes it was very hard to hear what
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Not a director, but producer Val Lewton was given (from RKO) a budget, a time frame, and a title: Cat People. The production was completed on time and under budget, and earned a lot of money for the studio. I'm sure there are likely to be other examples, though. -Steve - Original Message As to Patrick's question, I can't remember the name of the director that Patrick is referring to in the 40s but I'm sure someone on this list will have the answer. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
And it's one of his best, if not the best, of his films. Less is more. K. On Jul 22, 2008, at 4:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was thought to be an unbankable Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after Psycho. He ended up with a three hour, mostly black-and-white picture with no zooms, steadicams, cranes or Spielberg camera tricks, near zero post-production time. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Yeah, Dave, I definitely agree with you about John's post as a 'challenge' for today's A-List Directors. But times have clearly changed so I think that without sufficient motivation for one of these A-Listers to take on a smaller project, it's all speculative on our parts. Could they do it? I think they could but only if they HAD to. That's why I mentioned the certain 'Director' in the 40's who sought and possibly had to prove to the studios that he could direct a studio film on time and under budget. Ultimately, we'd all have to agree that it's not in any of their interests to do so. The studios would possibly expect them to cut their future budgets and there's no guarantee that studios would sufficiently support their shoestring project with advertising or wide distribution for their smaller films so there's no guarantee that anyone would flock to the lower budget film made by one of these highly successful Directors. Not that it couldn't happen, but put yourselves in their shoes, it's virtually a 'lose/lose' for them. Making a small film has all the same headaches (and possibly more) than making a film with a fat budget. Trust me, I'm working on one now and production has been pushed back a month already due to scheduling and budget issues and everyone's scrambling to pay their bills everywhere. I was supposed to be working from July 4th forward and now it looks like I'm not going to be there until mid-August. I'm losing thousands of dollars in preproduction income I was counting on. That rarely happens on a full-fledged Studio film. So I'll ask you, which situation would you rather find yourself in? If you're younger and hungry, I get it. You're still trying to prove yourself. If you've 'arrived' and have 'earned' and been used to the perks, why would you throw them back? I mean, if you could fly first class all the time would you suddenly decide to fly economy if you don't have to? Especially when you're not paying for it but you're still getting all the frequent flyer miles! Bottom line, these Director's could always choose to fly economy, but why? I can tell you this, from own experience as a writer having been employed at Warner Brothers, I would NEVER drop my quote if my films were continually successful unless I had a 'vanity' project that I was going to be allowed to direct or receive some ownership of the film, etc. in order to make it worth my risk. Times have changed from the '60's. Too few films are made anymore, the business is too fickle, the risks MUCH higher than they were when PSYCHO was made, and the window for a career is just too damned small. Patrick On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:02 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most successful film directors today -- are capable of going back to making films on the cheap as most at one time did. But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to Duel (a TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and Memento, an indie film throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact go back in 1993 -- after a string of classic blockbusters (and some duds in between). And I believe he was indulged by Universal because he always intended to deliver the $65 million Jurassic Park -- which was briefly the #1 box office hit of all time -- the same year as his $22 million Schindler's. In interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record enabled him to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he himself intended Schindler's to be a non-fiction novel, an artifact -- told in a style akin to Truman Capote's, In Cold Blood and author Thomas Kenneally's own source material, Schindler's Ark. Good points, though, Patrick. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Dave, clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~~ ~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion where a certain Director did exactly what you propose: In the
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Toochis is right. (Good catch!, Iwo Jima budget $15-19 million in 2006!) Though in fairness, Eastwood shot Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers at the same time, covering the same subject with different points of view. And the production cost for Flags, according to Boxofficemojo.com or imdb.com -- was anywhere from $55-90 million. The irony is -- more proof of Eastwood's artistry -- is I consider Iwo Jima a better film than Flags and stands alone without my awareness of Flags (though I think Iwo would've cost more without Flags's budget propping everything up). It's unfortunate neither film was a box office hit. -kuz. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:23:22 -0700From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I think Clint Eastwood managed to do it with Letters from Iwo Jima.Toochis - Original Message From: David Kusumoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:02:34 PMSubject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most successful film directors today -- are capable of going back to making films on the cheap as most at one time did. But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to Duel (a TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and Memento, an indie film throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact go back in 1993 -- after a string of classic blockbusters (and some duds in between). And I believe he was indulged by Universal because he always intended to deliver the $65 million Jurassic Park -- which was briefly the #1 box office hit of all time -- the same year as his $22 million Schindler's. In interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record enabled him to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he himself intended Schindler's to be a non-fiction novel, an artifact -- told in a style akin to Truman Capote's, In Cold Blood and author Thomas Kenneally's own source material, Schindler's Ark. Good points, though, Patrick. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~~~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion where a certain Director did exactly what you propose: In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he could produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He not only came in on time but was under budget: What was the film's title? And who was the Director? Those who know me have a built-in advantage. Patrick ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket' tennis tournament! On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was thought to be an unbankable Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after Psycho. He ended up with a three hour, mostly black-and-white picture with no zooms, steadicams, cranes or Spielberg camera tricks, near zero post-production time. E.T was the only other Spielberg release considered made on the cheap for $10 million, but that was in 1982. The budget for The Dark Knight is said to be $180 million plus. I doubt Spielberg himself could shoot a modest epic in many locations for under $30 million today, unless it was a documentary w/less expensive foreign production crews. ** What would be intriguing, though, which gets to your point -- is whether Spielberg could do a Sundance-type film in the U.S. -- with no stars or sets, armed only with a talky script. Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson shoots his action films down under because of cost. Imagine how much they'd cost if shot in the U.S.? This is why I'm extremely curious with what Jackson will do with his next film, The Lovely Bones (now in post production), which is based on the 2002 mega-bestselling book by Alice Sebold -- a
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
For me, he did his best work with a cheap rubber shark. Cheers, Rich 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
I thought perhaps THE MALTESE FALCON directed by John Huston, who had been writing for Warners for some time, and FALCON was the shut him up about directing project fro Jack Warner. They thought so little of it they didn't even bother creating a one sheet that featured the stars as they appeared in the film, riding the cota-tails of the success of HIGH SIERRA. The use of PSYCHO as a comparitive to today's film makers is a little unfair. Hitchcock wanted to make a film utilising his TV crew and TV shooting techniques such as multi-camera set-ups and to enter the burgeoning horror market - as cheaply as possible. A meticulous planner, it was well known that the actual shooting of the film was simply the mechanical carrying out of all the work that was done in pre-production by Hitch, Alma and his crew. Spielberg is also (now, and for many years past) similarly expedient. He has used the same key crews on something like his last 12-14 films. When you work with the same people and you know they are good at their jobs and let them get on with it, then a whole lot of time is saved dealing with the day-to-day ego BS of a film crew and set. Eastwood has similarly used the same key crew on many of his last several films and is equally proficient. Phil - Original Message - From: Patrick Michael Tupy To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? Dave, clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~~~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion where a certain Director did exactly what you propose: In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he could produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He not only came in on time but was under budget: What was the film's title? And who was the Director? Those who know me have a built-in advantage. Patrick ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket' tennis tournament! On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was thought to be an unbankable Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after Psycho. He ended up with a three hour, mostly black-and-white picture with no zooms, steadicams, cranes or Spielberg camera tricks, near zero post-production time. E.T was the only other Spielberg release considered made on the cheap for $10 million, but that was in 1982. The budget for The Dark Knight is said to be $180 million plus. I doubt Spielberg himself could shoot a modest epic in many locations for under $30 million today, unless it was a documentary w/less expensive foreign production crews. ** What would be intriguing, though, which gets to your point -- is whether Spielberg could do a Sundance-type film in the U.S. -- with no stars or sets, armed only with a talky script. Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson shoots his action films down under because of cost. Imagine how much they'd cost if shot in the U.S.? This is why I'm extremely curious with what Jackson will do with his next film, The Lovely Bones (now in post production), which is based on the 2002 mega-bestselling book by Alice Sebold -- a modest talky story about a small American town -- narrated throughout by a 14-year old girl who's murdered on page one. -kuz. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:45:38 +1000 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I saw THE DARK KNIGHT tonight. . . To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I just returned from seeing The Dark Knight this afternoon and although it was reasonably entertaining I have to wonder if a really successful movie can be made today without throwing truckloads of money into the project and relying almost totally on whiz bang special effects and mass destruction of cars, buildings etc etc. I also thought that it was a little remiss of the director that in
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Maybe if the Cannes Film Fest had a new category - films under such and such a budget - some of them would try? I think it would be a great effort. Or if there was an award for best film under X amount... Andrea On Jul 22, 2008, at 6:36 PM, Patrick Michael Tupy wrote: Yeah, Dave, I definitely agree with you about John's post as a 'challenge' for today's A-List Directors. But times have clearly changed so I think that without sufficient motivation for one of these A-Listers to take on a smaller project, it's all speculative on our parts. Could they do it? I think they could but only if they HAD to. That's why I mentioned the certain 'Director' in the 40's who sought and possibly had to prove to the studios that he could direct a studio film on time and under budget. Ultimately, we'd all have to agree that it's not in any of their interests to do so. The studios would possibly expect them to cut their future budgets and there's no guarantee that studios would sufficiently support their shoestring project with advertising or wide distribution for their smaller films so there's no guarantee that anyone would flock to the lower budget film made by one of these highly successful Directors. Not that it couldn't happen, but put yourselves in their shoes, it's virtually a 'lose/lose' for them. Making a small film has all the same headaches (and possibly more) than making a film with a fat budget. Trust me, I'm working on one now and production has been pushed back a month already due to scheduling and budget issues and everyone's scrambling to pay their bills everywhere. I was supposed to be working from July 4th forward and now it looks like I'm not going to be there until mid- August. I'm losing thousands of dollars in preproduction income I was counting on. That rarely happens on a full-fledged Studio film. So I'll ask you, which situation would you rather find yourself in? If you're younger and hungry, I get it. You're still trying to prove yourself. If you've 'arrived' and have 'earned' and been used to the perks, why would you throw them back? I mean, if you could fly first class all the time would you suddenly decide to fly economy if you don't have to? Especially when you're not paying for it but you're still getting all the frequent flyer miles! Bottom line, these Director's could always choose to fly economy, but why? I can tell you this, from own experience as a writer having been employed at Warner Brothers, I would NEVER drop my quote if my films were continually successful unless I had a 'vanity' project that I was going to be allowed to direct or receive some ownership of the film, etc. in order to make it worth my risk. Times have changed from the '60's. Too few films are made anymore, the business is too fickle, the risks MUCH higher than they were when PSYCHO was made, and the window for a career is just too damned small. Patrick On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:02 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most successful film directors today -- are capable of going back to making films on the cheap as most at one time did. But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to Duel (a TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and Memento, an indie film throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact go back in 1993 -- after a string of classic blockbusters (and some duds in between). And I believe he was indulged by Universal because he always intended to deliver the $65 million Jurassic Park -- which was briefly the #1 box office hit of all time -- the same year as his $22 million Schindler's. In interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record enabled him to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he himself intended Schindler's to be a non-fiction novel, an artifact -- told in a style akin to Truman Capote's, In Cold Blood and author Thomas Kenneally's own source material, Schindler's Ark. Good points, though, Patrick. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Dave, clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
IWO JIMA had a production budget of $13M FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS - $53M jeff On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:41 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: (Good catch!, Iwo Jima budget $15-19 million in 2006!) 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Yeah, Dave, you're right. I think the producers of LOTR were brilliant to have made all three of them at once. Those films are a bargain compared to how WB has been making the Harry Potter films, though clearly you'd want to see Harry growing up. But being creative with a budget is definitely all part of making a film cheaply, especially of the high-concept movies that Eastwood made. I also agree with you about IWO JIMA being 'better' than 'FLAGS.' Also, Eastwood is notorious for 1 or 2 takes and saying 'moving on.' He has a discipline that most filmmaker's don't possess. Patrick On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:41 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: Toochis is right. (Good catch!, Iwo Jima budget $15-19 million in 2006!) Though in fairness, Eastwood shot Iwo Jima and Flags of Our Fathers at the same time, covering the same subject with different points of view. And the production cost for Flags, according to Boxofficemojo.com or imdb.com -- was anywhere from $55-90 million. The irony is -- more proof of Eastwood's artistry -- is I consider Iwo Jima a better film than Flags and stands alone without my awareness of Flags (though I think Iwo would've cost more without Flags's budget propping everything up). It's unfortunate neither film was a box office hit. -kuz. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:23:22 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU I think Clint Eastwood managed to do it with Letters from Iwo Jima. Toochis - Original Message From: David Kusumoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:02:34 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most successful film directors today -- are capable of going back to making films on the cheap as most at one time did. But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to Duel (a TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and Memento, an indie film throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact go back in 1993 -- after a string of classic blockbusters (and some duds in between). And I believe he was indulged by Universal because he always intended to deliver the $65 million Jurassic Park -- which was briefly the #1 box office hit of all time -- the same year as his $22 million Schindler's. In interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record enabled him to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he himself intended Schindler's to be a non-fiction novel, an artifact -- told in a style akin to Truman Capote's, In Cold Blood and author Thomas Kenneally's own source material, Schindler's Ark. Good points, though, Patrick. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Dave, clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~~ ~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion where a certain Director did exactly what you propose: In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he could produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He not only came in on time but was under budget: What was the film's title? And who was the Director? Those who know me have a built-in advantage. Patrick ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket' tennis tournament! On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was thought to be an unbankable Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after Psycho. He ended up with a three hour, mostly black-and-white picture with no zooms, steadicams, cranes or Spielberg camera tricks, near zero post-production time. E.T was the only other Spielberg release considered made on the cheap for $10 million, but that was in 1982.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Oh, dear God! Working with water...give me children and dogs! Patrick On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:44 PM, Richard Evans wrote: For me, he did his best work with a cheap rubber shark. Cheers, Rich 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Read the history... it was not a cheap rubber shark. The film was horrendously over budget and schedule, mostly to do with that cheap rubber shark and the horrors of shooting on water (ask Kevin Reynolds or Kevin Costner or Phil Noyce or Dean Semler about shooting a film on water) Spielberg was nearly fired off the film due to production and budget woes. And while everyone is talking budgets don't forget to figure in the studio chargebacks that give the final production cost of a film. It's what allows films to take forever to reach profit participation figures for those with not-smart agents. Phil - Original Message - From: Richard Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? For me, he did his best work with a cheap rubber shark. Cheers, Rich 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Well, Gus Van Sant took up the Psycho challenge rather too literally and flopped ( : But perhaps not whom we'd class as a major director anyway. Interesting that Hitchcock reverted to a bigger budget and state-of-the-art special effects (for the time) with The Birds, despite the huge success of Psycho. Would have been nice to know what would have happened if Hitch had completed his low-budget Kaleidoscope Frenzy arthouse/sexploitation project in the mid-late 60s, but it's perhaps revealing that even then the studios had the final say and weren't prepared to take the risk. Instead we got Topaz - oh dear! Paul _www.movieposterstudio.com_ (http://www.movieposterstudio.com) 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Stand corrected, must read up on my history. Point I meant to make, but failed badly with this example, I'd rather have a tale well told, with tension due to what you don't see, but are scared you will, rather than a film choc full of the most mind blowing effects. (Which I don't equate with a rarely seen, obviously rubber, albeit expensive, shark.) Regardless of the setting, I'll do without the water, just settle for a shower. Cheers, Rich 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
OMG, I would LOVE to see today's golfers have to use the old equipment! We always hear about how great and superior these current athletes are to past greats. I'm with you, John...let's see. Patrick ps: I think Tiger would likely welcome it and probably challenge everyone on the tour to use a miniature golf putter. On Jul 22, 2008, at 3:19 PM, John Reid wrote: The problem I see with modern films is that the plot is often secondary to many other factors, like who will be starring in the movie, the budget, or the concept - eg let's make a new Batman movie - we'll think about the plot later. If you take away the visual aspects of The Dark Knight and just talk about the story it all seems pretty thin to me. Gotham City versus a bunch of criminals led by The Joker with Batman as the only saviour - good vs. evil, etc etc. There really isn't much more to it than that. I really would like to see someone challenge one of the great modern directors to come up with a box office success on a low budget. If they took something like this on then the script would suddenly be far more important. As to Patrick's question, I can't remember the name of the director that Patrick is referring to in the 40s but I'm sure someone on this list will have the answer. I do recall that in the 60s or 70s Sydney Pollack had a reputation for always going way over budget. From memory, he made a deal with a studio to make a picture on a set budget but he ended up having to mortgage his home to complete the project. David's point about Peter Jackson is also interesting. I wonder what he could achieve now on a very low budget. Re Patrick's other comment, the wooden rackets would be interesting to see but I think technology has had even more impact with golf. I'd like to see Phil Mickelson play a round of golf with a set of clubs from the 60s with only one wedge. He might not be able to break 80 on a lot of courses. Regards John JOHN REID VINTAGE MOVIE MEMORABILIA PO Box 92 Palm Beach Qld 4221 Australia www.moviemem.com I believe John's post was designed to challenge whether our most successful film directors today -- are capable of going back to making films on the cheap as most at one time did. But I your reply was on the mark -- esp. your comparisons to Duel (a TV-movie released theatrically overseas) and Memento, an indie film throughout. Spielberg demonstrated he could in fact go back in 1993 -- after a string of classic blockbusters (and some duds in between). And I believe he was indulged by Universal because he always intended to deliver the $65 million Jurassic Park -- which was briefly the #1 box office hit of all time -- the same year as his $22 million Schindler's. In interviews, Spielberg later acknowledged his track record enabled him to make a Holocaust picture few would finance, and that he himself intended Schindler's to be a non-fiction novel, an artifact -- told in a style akin to Truman Capote's, In Cold Blood and author Thomas Kenneally's own source material, Schindler's Ark. Good points, though, Patrick. Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:42:57 -0700From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], clearly you did not read my response to John's original post. Here is what I posted in reply: ~ ~~ John: And I'd like to see Federer, Nadal, the Williams Sisters, etc. play a tournament with wooden rackets. The problem is that there is no incentive for highly successful filmmakers to go 'guerilla' on us to prove your point. They could most likely do it. Spielberg made DUEL for $450,000 in 1971 which was likely about $200,000 in 1960 dollars and Christopher Nolan made MEMENTO for $5,000,000 40 years after PSYCHO which was likely close to $1,000,000 in 1960 dollars. Point being, we expand to our budgets personally and professionally. These guys are filmmakers no less than Hitchcock was. All nostalgia aside, John, I think your question is still interesting but I'd like to extend it to the group in this fashion where a certain Director did exactly what you propose: In the 1940's, a director sought to prove to the studios that he could produce a film within the system on budget and on time. He not only came in on time but was under budget: What was the film's title? And who was the Director? Those who know me have a built-in advantage. Patrick ps: I'm completely serious about wanting to see a 'wooden racket' tennis tournament! On Jul 22, 2008, at 2:35 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** Spielberg did this 15 years ago. He began shooting what was thought to be an unbankable Holocaust picture in March 1993 -- that made it to theaters by December. It took him 10 weeks, cost $22 million, a pittance by Spielbergian standards, 33-years after Psycho. He ended up with a three hour, mostly
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
What on Earth are you guys talking about?!? You're talking about 'low budget' as if $10 or 20 million was LOW! That's not a low budget, that's a ridiculously high, Hollywood budget! A million or less is a low budget. A hundred thousand or less is a shoe-string budget. Here's a clue: if there are major stars in it and a full union cast and crew, it's not 'low budget!' Probably 50,000+ English language movies are made every year, and far less than 1% of those have a budget over 5 or 10 million... Cheers, Bob 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
here here. Ari --- On Wed, 23/7/08, Robert D. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Robert D. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Received: Wednesday, 23 July, 2008, 10:09 AM What on Earth are you guys talking about?!? You're talking about 'low budget' as if $10 or 20 million was LOW! That's not a low budget, that's a ridiculously high, Hollywood budget! A million or less is a low budget. A hundred thousand or less is a shoe-string budget. Here's a clue: if there are major stars in it and a full union cast and crew, it's not 'low budget!' Probably 50,000+ English language movies are made every year, and far less than 1% of those have a budget over 5 or 10 million... Cheers, Bob 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. Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
What is low budget depends on who you talk to. $10-20 million is moderately low. For a studio level film, it's positively tiny. Even for a lot of small companies, it's considered low budget. I've dealt with companies that if a film isn't over $10 million, they won't consider distributing it because it's way too low. (An average studio film is over $65 million, for comparison. So, no, $10-20 is not ridiculously high. Except in the absolute sense of why should they cost so much. But the fact is that they do.) But for people not at the studio level, $10 million is toward the high end. $2-3 million is about the range for most independent low budget films. Ones that actually have a likelihood of making a deal for distribution. Absolutely there are films made for less. $400,000-$1,000,000 is the range for low budget TV movies, such as those that air on Sci Fi Channel (and then get sold on DVD or get some theatrical distribution in Europe). And there are films made for a lot less. But those rarely are of a quality -- in terms of acting, lighting, sound, etc. -- to get any sort of distribution. Also, I doubt very strongly that there are 50,000+ English language movies are made every year. I doubt there are that many in all languages made in a given year. Unless you're including shorts and internet videos and student films, etc. Craig. At 05:09 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: What on Earth are you guys talking about?!? You're talking about 'low budget' as if $10 or 20 million was LOW! That's not a low budget, that's a ridiculously high, Hollywood budget! A million or less is a low budget. A hundred thousand or less is a shoe-string budget. Here's a clue: if there are major stars in it and a full union cast and crew, it's not 'low budget!' Probably 50,000+ English language movies are made every year, and far less than 1% of those have a budget over 5 or 10 million... Cheers, Bob 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. ~ Craig MillerWolfmill Entertainment [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
You guys don't seem to be getting my point: If 99.9% of all the films that get made in any given year have a budget less than $5 or 10 million - you can't go calling $20 million 'low budget' -even if it is low by Hollywood standards (and do you really think that I don't know what the average Hollywood budget is nowadays or how many films they put out in a year???). Hollywood isn't the only game in town! You guys (like seemingly everyone else on Earth) only consider big-budget Hollywood films 'films' - every other film doesn't even exist in your world. Your world only consists of those 2-400 films a year that Hollywood puts out, not ALL of the movies put out in total... That's doing a great disservice to the film-makers, writers, actors and crews out there around the world (who do a far, far better job, dollar-for-dollar, than Hollywood does)! And, to clarify for you, they make somewhere between 2 and 5 thousand films a year - in Canada alone! The Toronto Film Festival gets something like 5-800 applications each year from just Canadian indie films (and only a tiny fraction of films will get submitted). Vancouver gets another 4 or 500. Consider that the US is ten times the size (as well as Europe, Australia and Asia - we'll even exclude Bollywood just to even things out), and my numbers are probably quite conservative actually. There's likely well over 1 or 200,000 English language films made each year. But, as I said, those other 199,800 don't matter to you, so they might as well not exist... Cheers, Bob - Original Message - From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? What is low budget depends on who you talk to. $10-20 million is moderately low. For a studio level film, it's positively tiny. Even for a lot of small companies, it's considered low budget. I've dealt with companies that if a film isn't over $10 million, they won't consider distributing it because it's way too low. (An average studio film is over $65 million, for comparison. So, no, $10-20 is not ridiculously high. Except in the absolute sense of why should they cost so much. But the fact is that they do.) But for people not at the studio level, $10 million is toward the high end. $2-3 million is about the range for most independent low budget films. Ones that actually have a likelihood of making a deal for distribution. Absolutely there are films made for less. $400,000-$1,000,000 is the range for low budget TV movies, such as those that air on Sci Fi Channel (and then get sold on DVD or get some theatrical distribution in Europe). And there are films made for a lot less. But those rarely are of a quality -- in terms of acting, lighting, sound, etc. -- to get any sort of distribution. Also, I doubt very strongly that there are 50,000+ English language movies are made every year. I doubt there are that many in all languages made in a given year. Unless you're including shorts and internet videos and student films, etc. Craig. At 05:09 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: What on Earth are you guys talking about?!? You're talking about 'low budget' as if $10 or 20 million was LOW! That's not a low budget, that's a ridiculously high, Hollywood budget! A million or less is a low budget. A hundred thousand or less is a shoe-string budget. Here's a clue: if there are major stars in it and a full union cast and crew, it's not 'low budget!' Probably 50,000+ English language movies are made every year, and far less than 1% of those have a budget over 5 or 10 million... Cheers, Bob 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. ~ Craig MillerWolfmill Entertainment [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 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
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. At 07:44 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: You guys don't seem to be getting my point: If 99.9% of all the films that get made in any given year have a budget less than $5 or 10 million - you can't go calling $20 million 'low budget' -even if it is low by Hollywood standards (and do you really think that I don't know what the average Hollywood budget is nowadays or how many films they put out in a year???). Hollywood isn't the only game in town! You guys (like seemingly everyone else on Earth) only consider big-budget Hollywood films 'films' - every other film doesn't even exist in your world. Your world only consists of those 2-400 films a year that Hollywood puts out, not ALL of the movies put out in total... That's doing a great disservice to the film-makers, writers, actors and crews out there around the world (who do a far, far better job, dollar-for-dollar, than Hollywood does)! And, to clarify for you, they make somewhere between 2 and 5 thousand films a year - in Canada alone! The Toronto Film Festival gets something like 5-800 applications each year from just Canadian indie films (and only a tiny fraction of films will get submitted). Vancouver gets another 4 or 500. Consider that the US is ten times the size (as well as Europe, Australia and Asia - we'll even exclude Bollywood just to even things out), and my numbers are probably quite conservative actually. There's likely well over 1 or 200,000 English language films made each year. But, as I said, those other 199,800 don't matter to you, so they might as well not exist... Cheers, Bob - Original Message - From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? What is low budget depends on who you talk to. $10-20 million is moderately low. For a studio level film, it's positively tiny. Even for a lot of small companies, it's considered low budget. I've dealt with companies that if a film isn't over $10 million, they won't consider distributing it because it's way too low. (An average studio film is over $65 million, for comparison. So, no, $10-20 is not ridiculously high. Except in the absolute sense of why should they cost so much. But the fact is that they do.) But for people not at the studio level, $10 million is toward the high end. $2-3 million is about the range for most independent low budget films. Ones that actually have a likelihood of making a deal for distribution. Absolutely there are films made for less. $400,000-$1,000,000 is the range for low budget TV movies, such as those that air on Sci Fi Channel (and then get sold on DVD or get some theatrical distribution in Europe). And there are films made for a lot less. But those rarely are of a quality -- in terms of acting, lighting, sound, etc. -- to get any sort of distribution. Also, I doubt very strongly that there are 50,000+ English language movies are made every year. I doubt there are that many in all languages made in a given year. Unless you're including shorts and internet videos and student films, etc. Craig. At 05:09 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: What on Earth are you guys talking about?!? You're talking about 'low budget' as if $10 or 20 million was LOW! That's not a low budget, that's a ridiculously high, Hollywood budget! A million or less is a low budget. A hundred thousand or less is a shoe-string budget. Here's a clue: if there are major stars in it and a full union cast and crew, it's not 'low budget!' Probably 50,000+ English language movies are made every year, and far
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
That's production PLUS marketing. I was speaking of just production costs (as were the previous messages). Craig. At 06:25 PM 7/22/2008, Patrick Michael Tupy wrote: Avg. Major Studio Film Budget increases by 6.3% in 2007 to $106.6 Million. http://www.romow.com/entertainment-blog/average-hollywood-movie-now- costs-over-106-million/ Patrick On Jul 22, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Craig Miller wrote: What is low budget depends on who you talk to. $10-20 million is moderately low. For a studio level film, it's positively tiny. Even for a lot of small companies, it's considered low budget. I've dealt with companies that if a film isn't over $10 million, they won't consider distributing it because it's way too low. (An average studio film is over $65 million, for comparison. So, no, $10-20 is not ridiculously high. Except in the absolute sense of why should they cost so much. But the fact is that they do.) But for people not at the studio level, $10 million is toward the high end. $2-3 million is about the range for most independent low budget films. Ones that actually have a likelihood of making a deal for distribution. Absolutely there are films made for less. $400,000-$1,000,000 is the range for low budget TV movies, such as those that air on Sci Fi Channel (and then get sold on DVD or get some theatrical distribution in Europe). And there are films made for a lot less. But those rarely are of a quality -- in terms of acting, lighting, sound, etc. -- to get any sort of distribution. Also, I doubt very strongly that there are 50,000+ English language movies are made every year. I doubt there are that many in all languages made in a given year. Unless you're including shorts and internet videos and student films, etc. Craig. At 05:09 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: What on Earth are you guys talking about?!? You're talking about 'low budget' as if $10 or 20 million was LOW! That's not a low budget, that's a ridiculously high, Hollywood budget! A million or less is a low budget. A hundred thousand or less is a shoe- string budget. Here's a clue: if there are major stars in it and a full union cast and crew, it's not 'low budget!' Probably 50,000 + English language movies are made every year, and far less than 1% of those have a budget over 5 or 10 million... Cheers, Bob 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. ~ Craig MillerWolfmill Entertainment [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 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. ~ Craig MillerWolfmill Entertainment [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
personally I just like (no LOVE) movies. Dont care where they come from, what the budget, if I like it or LOVE it thats it. Ive only worked on ONE feature, many shorts, the feature was so far below whats considered low budget, or even shoestring apparently. Nobody was paid, costs were physical, as a producer of the pic I was told $30K, but i suspect a lot less in hindsight. A friend of mine made a feature for $1K Aussie, and they managed to make a good profit from it in DVD sales (released world wide) Again, everyone worked free. Now both above are NOT masterpieces, I enjoy them for what they are. Like I enjoy reading both GREAT NOVELS and TRASHY PULP, so too I enjoy a GREAT FILM and a FUN PIECE OF TRASH. Its mediocre that I get bored with. Aloha from OZ, Ari --- On Wed, 23/7/08, Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Received: Wednesday, 23 July, 2008, 1:20 PM 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. At 07:44 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: You guys don't seem to be getting my point: If 99.9% of all the films that get made in any given year have a budget less than $5 or 10 million - you can't go calling $20 million 'low budget' -even if it is low by Hollywood standards (and do you really think that I don't know what the average Hollywood budget is nowadays or how many films they put out in a year???). Hollywood isn't the only game in town! You guys (like seemingly everyone else on Earth) only consider big-budget Hollywood films 'films' - every other film doesn't even exist in your world. Your world only consists of those 2-400 films a year that Hollywood puts out, not ALL of the movies put out in total... That's doing a great disservice to the film-makers, writers, actors and crews out there around the world (who do a far, far better job, dollar-for-dollar, than Hollywood does)! And, to clarify for you, they make somewhere between 2 and 5 thousand films a year - in Canada alone! The Toronto Film Festival gets something like 5-800 applications each year from just Canadian indie films (and only a tiny fraction of films will get submitted). Vancouver gets another 4 or 500. Consider that the US is ten times the size (as well as Europe, Australia and Asia - we'll even exclude Bollywood just to even things out), and my numbers are probably quite conservative actually. There's likely well over 1 or 200,000 English language films made each year. But, as I said, those other 199,800 don't matter to you, so they might as well not exist... Cheers, Bob - Original Message - From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? What is low budget depends on who you talk to. $10-20 million is moderately low. For a studio level film, it's positively tiny. Even for a lot of small companies, it's considered low budget. I've dealt with companies that if a film isn't over $10 million, they won't consider distributing it because it's way too low. (An average studio film is over $65 million, for comparison. So, no, $10-20 is not ridiculously high. Except in the absolute sense of why should they cost so much. But the fact is that they do.) But for people not at the studio level, $10 million is toward the high end. $2-3 million is about the range for most independent low budget films. Ones that actually have a likelihood of
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Just want to add this note from another perspective. All this director talk... It's the writer that sets the budget - You write big, you write small - The director interprets, but he sure ain't the be all and end of making a picture what it is! Alan 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. LINK TO AMAZON – JUST PUBLISHED FIRST NOVEL: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595458203 MUSEUM WEBSITE: www.museumofmomandpopculture.com 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
So true Alan... I had that exact same conversation the other day. I'm all for 'auteur-theory' and everything, but the WRITER is the key creative person on a movie (not the director or stars, who typically get far, far more money and recognition) - and that's coming from a director!... I wish I was a better writer, but it would be so frustrating doing that job in Hollywood with how they're treated... OK, that's enough posts for me in one day (heck, one month)... Night all, Bob - Original Message - From: Alan Adler [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert D. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:21 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? Just want to add this note from another perspective. All this director talk... It's the writer that sets the budget - You write big, you write small - The director interprets, but he sure ain't the be all and end of making a picture what it is! Alan 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. LINK TO AMAZON – JUST PUBLISHED FIRST NOVEL: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595458203 MUSEUM WEBSITE: www.museumofmomandpopculture.com 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
** I know enough about Bob Brooks to not wanna tangle with him, especially his razor wit, which comes out when he's not even trying. I will say though, that while more films are being made than ever before -- the truth is -- more films were RELEASED by major studios and distributors from the 1920s to 1946 than they are today. They had a monopoly and even owned the theaters to show their OWN films. Movie attendance since 1946 has never been eclipsed, thanks to TV. Foreign films -- more prevalent today -- were near unavailable to U.S. audiences outside NY and LA before 1960. Most small towns never saw ANY films with subtitles. ** Meanwhile, switching gears back to Jaws and it's so-called cheap rubber shark -- good and classy response by Rich in the U.K.; I'm glad you clarified your earlier remarks. That 1975 picture introduced the blockbuster mentality to Hollywood, opening in more theaters on opening day than typical for most studios at the time. The disaster genre wave preceded it and some say Jaws just blew down the doors faster. ** Jaws was a big-budgeted film for the 1970s -- with everything riding on the skills of a 26-year old novice -- who hadn't yet demonstrated a track record of success in the U.S. Jaws began production before the 1974 release of his theatrical debut, The Sugarland Express. Most famously, Spielberg ditched the domestic melodrama of the ultra-popular Peter Benchley novel and turned his film into a high-seas adventure, with a triangle character structure involving Shaw, Dreyfuss and Scheider. ** Most memorable were comments by actor Richard Dreyfuss, who dissed the film (and Spielberg) throughout its production. Following historic sneak previews in Dallas and Long Beach, and an exhibitor's preview in New York, Dreyfuss was mobbed. (Like many people, he had underestimated Spielberg's skills as an editor and storyteller -- and had no idea what the assembled film would look like with John Williams' legendary score). Dreyfuss went bonkers, telling everyone he was dead wrong, that he was embarrassed by his remarks, that Spielberg was a genius, that the picture would be big for everyone. For many people, Jaws remains Spielberg's best film -- and for collectors, probably his best film poster, next to the bicycle and moon image in E.T. ** After Jaws, Spielberg would always have final cut. He made enemies quickly. Many critics (except the late Pauline Kael) disdained Spielberg's reputation as a populist director (akin to how they treated Hitchcock, another commercial director whose legend grew anyway, esp. after his death in 1980). After the disaster of 1941, Spielberg's rep for sentimental big-budget entertainment was sealed when he returned with the first Raiders picture in '81. I know my appreciation for Spielberg's craftsmanship is a minority view at MoPo. He's not highly regarded nor beloved as Scorcese or Ridley Scott or Eastwood among living directors -- yet it's not difficult for anyone to predict that Spielberg will indeed be considered legendary -- for good and for ill -- by future generations (just not mine) -kuz. Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:32:24 +0100 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Stand corrected, must read up on my history. Point I meant to make, but failed badly with this example, I'd rather have a tale well told, with tension due to what you don't see, but are scared you will, rather than a film choc full of the most mind blowing effects. (Which I don't equate with a rarely seen, obviously rubber, albeit expensive, shark.) Regardless of the setting, I'll do without the water, just settle for a shower. Cheers, Rich 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
IMDB is a wonderful website. It's invaluable. But they don't only list feature films. They list TV episodes (actually series, but with listings for each episode). And they list short films. One minute. Two minutes. Ten minutes. Twenty minutes in length. I'm discussing feature films. If you include everything, of all lengths, designed for any and all mediums, than yes, your number isn't some wild ass guess with no basis in fact. It's still a guess but it's closer to reality. If you're talking about actual feature length films made with at least the hope of a theatrical release, then your number is way way way off. Even if we accept the IMDB number as being accurate, and double it for the rest of the year, it's only half the number you first gave and only an eighth of the number you later increased it to. But, of course, we can't really accept the IMDB number because it isn't only feature films. And while this film you give as an example might be feature length -- I'll take your word for it, since what's on YouTube is just 10 minutes long -- it's also apparently soft-core porn, which can be made very very cheaply. The acting, from the couple minutes I watched, is hardly top quality; the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. For a Troma direct-to-DVD, it's fine, but it isn't theatrical quality. And I'm guessing I must have missed the parts that qualify it as being much better than what comes out of the studios. Oh, and if you want to throw credits back and forth, I've worked on major studio films and independent films. I've been a guest speaker at film festivals and distribution markets in the US, the UK, France, Italy, and the Screen Producers Association of Australia (an organization of independent film producers) just asked me to come speak at their conference in November. (I've even been on panels with Lloyd Kaufman.) I've worked with George Lucas, Stephen Spielberg, Jim Henson, Tom Hanks, John Boorman, Christopher Lee, Edward Woodward, Ken Russell, Anthony Shaffer, Robin Hardy, Richard Lester, Richard Donner, Howard Gottfried, Danny Melnick, Frank Oz, Frank Marshall, Luigi Cingolani, John Carpenter, Oliver Stone, Ed Pressman, etc. etc. etc. So I do know what I'm talking about. Craig. At 08:42 PM 7/22/2008, 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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
As someone who's primarily a writer these days, you won't get me to diminish the role of writers in making films. But, alas, it is a director's medium -- if in only that the studios tend to defer to the director. The budgets are set by the companies and the director -- no matter how big or small or independent the company. They say how much they'll spend, the director argues for how much he needs. And they'll tell the writer to make changes if what he's written doesn't work with the budget. (Of course, to a great extent, you can shoot most anything on most any budget. How good the locations will look -- does it look like Hawaii or Descanso Gardens? -- or how good the effects are or how good the actors are (not that you can't find good actors who don't charge a lot) will vary, but you can shoot the script for the budget you have. I've been told on very low budget projects that the company can't take a picture that's under $10 million. I tell them we can make it for $10 million. No problem. It was designed for $5 million but we can spend more, hire bigger name actors, pay ourselves more, do fancier effects, go on location rather than the backlot, etc. But they want you to come in with their budget range already on paper. They don't like the idea that you can change the film expenses to match the budget... Craig. At 09:21 PM 7/22/2008, Alan Adler wrote: Just want to add this note from another perspective. All this director talk... It's the writer that sets the budget - You write big, you write small - The director interprets, but he sure ain't the be all and end of making a picture what it is! Alan 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. LINK TO AMAZON JUST PUBLISHED FIRST NOVEL: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0595458203 MUSEUM WEBSITE: www.museumofmomandpopculture.com Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Another way to look at film budgets: MoviePosterBid is the Indie Film Industry eMoviePoster is the Hollywood Standard Heritage is the Huge Blockbuster 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
Gee, I dunno. I think Spielberg is one of the best and smartest directors the medium has ever given us. I'm hard pressed to think of another director who ranges across genres with the panache he does, and has so appreciably matured with his craft so effortlessly that the art simply emerges. Of course some films are better than others, some have wider appeal than others but as a real movie director and extremely smart producer of other directors' works, he's hard to beat. His biggest problem is that there are so many people who think it's not cool to like a Spielberg movie, or Tarantino movie, or whatever. Couple of weeks back, someone I know watched the first 10 minutes of PLANET TERROR and said I KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE CRAP. ANYTHING DIRECTED BY TARANTINO IS CRAP! A... BUT HE DIDN'T DIRECT IT. ROBERT RODRIGUEZ DID. And there followed a YES HE DID/NO, HE DIDN'T. ROBERT RODRIGUEZ DIRECTED SIN CITY AND THAT WAS A MASTERPIECE HE'S A GREAT DIRECTOR. TARANTINO IS CRAP Yes, yes... I know. They saw the credits... again OH, MAYBE I BETTER TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE WHOLE MOVIE THIS TIME, THIS LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT BE GREAT! RODRIGUEZ IS VERY COOL! A survey was done a few years ago about people coming out of various movies, or lining up for various movies. Some staggering % had NO IDEA who the director of the film was they had just seen or were going to see and yes, in this straw poll, one of the films was a Spielberg movie. Most people could not give a monkey's toss about who directed a film. Most people don't even think about it. Quick, and without looking at the IMDB, name 5 films directed by Robert Aldrich. Too easy? Name 10 films directed by Robert Altman. Okay - really easy ones - name 5 films directed by Raoul Walsh, or Michael Curtiz, or William Wellman. How about 10 films directed by John Ford? And as for writers, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I know who might look at a film title and be excited by the name of a writer credit. Phil - Original Message - From: David Kusumoto To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:51 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? ** I know enough about Bob Brooks to not wanna tangle with him, especially his razor wit, which comes out when he's not even trying. I will say though, that while more films are being made than ever before -- the truth is -- more films were RELEASED by major studios and distributors from the 1920s to 1946 than they are today. They had a monopoly and even owned the theaters to show their OWN films. Movie attendance since 1946 has never been eclipsed, thanks to TV. Foreign films -- more prevalent today -- were near unavailable to U.S. audiences outside NY and LA before 1960. Most small towns never saw ANY films with subtitles. ** Meanwhile, switching gears back to Jaws and it's so-called cheap rubber shark -- good and classy response by Rich in the U.K.; I'm glad you clarified your earlier remarks. That 1975 picture introduced the blockbuster mentality to Hollywood, opening in more theaters on opening day than typical for most studios at the time. The disaster genre wave preceded it and some say Jaws just blew down the doors faster. ** Jaws was a big-budgeted film for the 1970s -- with everything riding on the skills of a 26-year old novice -- who hadn't yet demonstrated a track record of success in the U.S. Jaws began production before the 1974 release of his theatrical debut, The Sugarland Express. Most famously, Spielberg ditched the domestic melodrama of the ultra-popular Peter Benchley novel and turned his film into a high-seas adventure, with a triangle character structure involving Shaw, Dreyfuss and Scheider. ** Most memorable were comments by actor Richard Dreyfuss, who dissed the film (and Spielberg) throughout its production. Following historic sneak previews in Dallas and Long Beach, and an exhibitor's preview in New York, Dreyfuss was mobbed. (Like many people, he had underestimated Spielberg's skills as an editor and storyteller -- and had no idea what the assembled film would look like with John Williams' legendary score). Dreyfuss went bonkers, telling everyone he was dead wrong, that he was embarrassed by his remarks, that Spielberg was a genius, that the picture would be big for everyone. For many people, Jaws remains Spielberg's best film -- and for collectors, probably his best film poster, next to the bicycle and moon image in E.T. ** After Jaws, Spielberg would always have final cut. He made enemies quickly. Many critics (except the late Pauline Kael) disdained Spielberg's reputation as a populist director (akin to how they treated Hitchcock, another commercial director whose legend grew anyway, esp. after his death in 1980). After the disaster of 1941, Spielberg's rep for sentimental
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
someone, obviously not in the know, certainly is having a bit of a hissy fit-- even going so far as to rip into Hollywood films. seems to be the way of a number of people in mopo--but it makes things interesting...lol jeff On Jul 22, 2008, at 7:44 PM, Robert D. Brooks wrote: You guys don't seem to be getting my point: If 99.9% of all the films that get made in any given year have a budget less than $5 or 10 million - you can't go calling $20 million 'low budget' -even if it is low by Hollywood standards (and do you really think that I don't know what the average Hollywood budget is nowadays or how many films they put out in a year???). Hollywood isn't the only game in town! You guys (like seemingly everyone else on Earth) only consider big-budget Hollywood films 'films' - every other film doesn't even exist in your world. Your world only consists of those 2-400 films a year that Hollywood puts out, not ALL of the movies put out in total... That's doing a great disservice to the film-makers, writers, actors and crews out there around the world (who do a far, far better job, dollar-for-dollar, than Hollywood does)! And, to clarify for you, they make somewhere between 2 and 5 thousand films a year - in Canada alone! The Toronto Film Festival gets something like 5-800 applications each year from just Canadian indie films (and only a tiny fraction of films will get submitted). Vancouver gets another 4 or 500. Consider that the US is ten times the size (as well as Europe, Australia and Asia - we'll even exclude Bollywood just to even things out), and my numbers are probably quite conservative actually. There's likely well over 1 or 200,000 English language films made each year. But, as I said, those other 199,800 don't matter to you, so they might as well not exist... Cheers, Bob - Original Message - From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? What is low budget depends on who you talk to. $10-20 million is moderately low. For a studio level film, it's positively tiny. Even for a lot of small companies, it's considered low budget. I've dealt with companies that if a film isn't over $10 million, they won't consider distributing it because it's way too low. (An average studio film is over $65 million, for comparison. So, no, $10-20 is not ridiculously high. Except in the absolute sense of why should they cost so much. But the fact is that they do.) But for people not at the studio level, $10 million is toward the high end. $2-3 million is about the range for most independent low budget films. Ones that actually have a likelihood of making a deal for distribution. Absolutely there are films made for less. $400,000-$1,000,000 is the range for low budget TV movies, such as those that air on Sci Fi Channel (and then get sold on DVD or get some theatrical distribution in Europe). And there are films made for a lot less. But those rarely are of a quality -- in terms of acting, lighting, sound, etc. -- to get any sort of distribution. Also, I doubt very strongly that there are 50,000+ English language movies are made every year. I doubt there are that many in all languages made in a given year. Unless you're including shorts and internet videos and student films, etc. Craig. At 05:09 PM 7/22/2008, Robert D. Brooks wrote: What on Earth are you guys talking about?!? You're talking about 'low budget' as if $10 or 20 million was LOW! That's not a low budget, that's a ridiculously high, Hollywood budget! A million or less is a low budget. A hundred thousand or less is a shoe- string budget. Here's a clue: if there are major stars in it and a full union cast and crew, it's not 'low budget!' Probably 50,000+ English language movies are made every year, and far less than 1% of those have a budget over 5 or 10 million... Cheers, Bob 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. ~ Craig MillerWolfmill Entertainment [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ 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
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
razor wit? if those few posts are what you consider razor wit i think you need a sharpening. On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:51 PM, David Kusumoto wrote: ** I know enough about Bob Brooks to not wanna tangle with him, especially his razor wit, which comes out when he's not even trying. 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.
Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget?
the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. I'll pass your critique along: he only shot movies like X-Men II, Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants, The Fantastic Four, Elf, Paycheck, etc... oh, and the Canadian classic Hookers on Davie! I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear your thoughts... And, what kind of quality do you expect for an 80+ minute film shot in less than 5 days??? - Original Message - From: Craig Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Robert D. Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: MoPo-L@LISTSERV.AMERICAN.EDU Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:54 PM Subject: Re: [MOPO] Can a major director shoot an epic on a low budget? IMDB is a wonderful website. It's invaluable. But they don't only list feature films. They list TV episodes (actually series, but with listings for each episode). And they list short films. One minute. Two minutes. Ten minutes. Twenty minutes in length. I'm discussing feature films. If you include everything, of all lengths, designed for any and all mediums, than yes, your number isn't some wild ass guess with no basis in fact. It's still a guess but it's closer to reality. If you're talking about actual feature length films made with at least the hope of a theatrical release, then your number is way way way off. Even if we accept the IMDB number as being accurate, and double it for the rest of the year, it's only half the number you first gave and only an eighth of the number you later increased it to. But, of course, we can't really accept the IMDB number because it isn't only feature films. And while this film you give as an example might be feature length -- I'll take your word for it, since what's on YouTube is just 10 minutes long -- it's also apparently soft-core porn, which can be made very very cheaply. The acting, from the couple minutes I watched, is hardly top quality; the lighting and camera work also leaves a good deal to be desired. For a Troma direct-to-DVD, it's fine, but it isn't theatrical quality. And I'm guessing I must have missed the parts that qualify it as being much better than what comes out of the studios. Oh, and if you want to throw credits back and forth, I've worked on major studio films and independent films. I've been a guest speaker at film festivals and distribution markets in the US, the UK, France, Italy, and the Screen Producers Association of Australia (an organization of independent film producers) just asked me to come speak at their conference in November. (I've even been on panels with Lloyd Kaufman.) I've worked with George Lucas, Stephen Spielberg, Jim Henson, Tom Hanks, John Boorman, Christopher Lee, Edward Woodward, Ken Russell, Anthony Shaffer, Robin Hardy, Richard Lester, Richard Donner, Howard Gottfried, Danny Melnick, Frank Oz, Frank Marshall, Luigi Cingolani, John Carpenter, Oliver Stone, Ed Pressman, etc. etc. etc. So I do know what I'm talking about. Craig. At 08:42 PM 7/22/2008, 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
