Author Topic: Movie Questions For You to Answer  (Read 50126 times)

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #220 on: July 02, 2012, 01:49:01 PM »
NEW QUESTION:

With at least a couple of films every year costing over $200 million, shouldn't moviegoers be protesting these gargantuan budgets?


I'm with Ebert. Why?

I don't understand what their position would be.

sdedalus

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 16585
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #221 on: July 02, 2012, 02:26:51 PM »
Don't care one little bit.
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

keefey45

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 580
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #222 on: July 02, 2012, 06:23:18 PM »
Some movies just have a feel to it that makes me brainstorm about filmmaking while I watch it. It's for those movies that I may look up the budget out of curiousity. Other than that, I couldn't care less how much studios will spend on a film. Doesn't affect me one bit.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #223 on: July 09, 2012, 10:19:51 AM »
A follow-up to last week's discussion.

NEW QUESTION:

Can you resist have special affection for or giving extra concessions to films made on an extremely low budget?


Ebert talks about how Clerks, The Brothers McMullen and El Mariachi were given a boost of goodwill by their extremely low budgets. Then he adds, "the spiritual Godfather of all these films is John Cassavetes, who made his films with little money and a lot of help from his friends."

I'm certainly guilty of this, much more so when the technical qualities shame big-budget blockbusters. Many people pointed out how much District 9 accomplished with $30 million, and I've been saying all year how impressive Chronicle looks on a budget of $12 million. Of course I don't know what kind of deals were struck with effects houses. Certainly Peter Jackson producing District 9 got them a big discount at WETA.

Then there's a film like Bellflower, made on a shoestring and boasting a very distinctive look. Any points for resourcefulness are lost in the morally repugnant whirlpool that pulls the movie down.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2012, 10:51:09 AM by 1SO »

oldkid

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 19044
  • Hi there! Feed me worlds!
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #224 on: July 09, 2012, 10:27:35 AM »
I don't often know about the budget of a film before I watch it and I don't really care.  I've seen low budget films I've hated and high budget films I loved.  I might give a little more boost to an independently crafted film, rather than one guided by a production company, but other than that, I want to see what they've done with the film, not how much money they put into it.
"It's not art unless it has the potential to be a disaster." Bansky

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 23082
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #225 on: July 09, 2012, 10:30:39 AM »
I don't think I really put my finger on the scale when it comes to low-budget films. I'm someone generally willing to forgive technical or even acting deficits if the ideas of a film grab me, but this is without regard to budget. The one area where I'll give a low-budget (and likely more obscure) film extra attention is just in pushing it out there. The world doesn't really need me trumpeting the latest blockbuster but championing a good indie can actually make a difference on the margins.

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #226 on: July 09, 2012, 10:32:16 AM »
You didn't mention Monsters in your examples, which goes a step further by being produced by one man. Primer is another. In both cases the question to ask is whether such distinct...quirky films would have been made at all, otherwise.

So my positive inclination towards films like these is mainly due to their existence being predicated by the dedication of one or two people to go beyond existing film-making paradigms, and doing it themselves, instead of waiting for a corporation to help em out.

In that sense your question isn't the opposite alternative of the earlier question. It isn't an appreciation of budget filmmaking it is an appreciation of singular visions.
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #227 on: July 09, 2012, 10:54:25 AM »
In that sense your question isn't the opposite alternative of the earlier question. It isn't an appreciation of budget filmmaking it is an appreciation of singular visions.

This is why I mentioned Bellflower A singular vision that would have benefitted from some questioning of those ideas.

MartinTeller

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17864
  • martinteller.wordpress.com
    • my movie blog
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #228 on: July 09, 2012, 11:48:05 AM »
I will not automatically give a film more "credit" if it has a low budget, if that's what you're asking.  However, a low budget can often lend a film a certain scrappy charm (like Detour) or be a limitation that serves as the mother of invention (like Eraserhead).

spoko

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2062
  • Hero of the Great Taco Syndicate
    • Bullet in the Brain
Re: Movie Questions For You to Answer
« Reply #229 on: July 09, 2012, 11:49:03 AM »
I'm another person that doesn't really know about a film's budget before I go see it. I mean obviously I'm aware when something's a blockbuster, and sometimes it's pretty obvious when a film was made for less than my annual salary. But unless the budget is really apparent in the film (in the aesthetic, usually), I don't give it a lot of thought. When it is apparent in the film, I judge it fairly neutrally--it can help, and it can hurt.

I will say that I think I'm more likely to notice the budget as a factor when it works, than when it doesn't. When a small budget hurts a film, I'm probably likely to call it ineptitude (rightly or wrongly) rather than strictly pinning it on the budget. And when a large budget hurts a film, I'm likely to call it over-indulgence (rightly, probably). When a small budget lends a fitting simplicity to a film, though, I may notice that. And when there's some appropriately breathtaking scene in a film that could only have happened with a lot of money, I'll probably notice that as well.

 

love