Film Budgets?

[Malus 12:9]

Does a movie have to have a million dollar budget to be good? Do movies need Famous actors "Cruise, Kidman, Segal" etc to be good? Involve a storyline that is hard to follow and stuff? Does a movie have to be "hyped" or talked about to be good? What makes a good movie?

Personally I see newer movies and I get bored cos it's all about "So and so won a logie for this movie"..but then the movie is boring. I see movies with a trillion dollar budget but they are still boring. When the Blair witch came out they hyped it with some true story bull. (Well it was a good comedy :biglaugh Me? Just put Jason Voorhees and a camp of teen camp councillors..good stuff...and the bad acting bikini females actually give colour to the scene..

So yah in your opinion what makes a good movie?

 

[Darkdale]

It's hard to tell what makes a truly great film. It's usually the quality of the story, in my opinion; but only time will tell. If a film can last the test of time, it's a great film.

 

[Malus 12:9]

I saw one horry potter film and I thought "what the hell is this sh*t?" I can't see why everyone rambles about it like it's a big thing..it's just some dodgy kid's movie..I left half way through and got refunded money. I cannot see what all the rave is.

For You know who: ramble

 

[Darkdale]

I saw one horry potter film and I thought "what the hell is this sh*t?" I can't see why everyone rambles about it like it's a big thing..it's just some dodgy kid's movie..I left half way through and got refunded money. I cannot see what all the rave is.

For You know who: ramble

I like the Harry Potter movies. They are imaginative. I can't wait for the Chronicles of Narnia to come out.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Lady Laz or Bastet have you seen the Houseboat Horror movie ROFLLLLL made by some Australian movie college...it is a ripoff of Jason, and Freddy together

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I like the Harry Potter movies. They are imaginative. I can't wait for the Chronicles of Narnia to come out.

Oh yeah...I'm desperate for CoN to be released.:jam:

Malus, 2 words for you...Mad Max. The original movie had a budget of about 60c and it was spectacular...it put the Australian movie industry on the map.The more money they spent on the sequels, the worse they got. Sometimes when you have no money, you use your imagination more and produce a better result for your efforts.
Raiders of the Lost Ark was turned down by every major studio in Hollywood. Paramount only agreed to do it after much persausion. Biggest grossing film in 1981 and still a classic.
I'm not sure it isn't just guess work that gets a potentially decent movie made over a potentially crap one.
Other than that, if something is a lemon, you can't make it an apple, no matter how much money and Tom Cruises you throw at it.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Well, that and they got Tina Turner in one of them, LL

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Lady Laz or Bastet have you seen the Houseboat Horror movie ROFLLLLL made by some Australian movie college...it is a ripoff of Jason, and Freddy together

Nup, haven't seen that one, but I have seen one Australian zombie movie in the last 12 months that was an absolute pisser. Undead, it's called.

 

[cardero]

Malus01 writes: Does a movie have to have a million dollar budget to be good?

No, as a matter of fact, money has nothing to do with whether a movie is good or bad. I have seen both sides of the coin and how much a producer has spent on a movie does not interfere with my enjoyment of a film nor does it impress me. I have watched many independent films that were made on a shoe string budgets that rise above the standards of big budget films.

Malus01 writes: Do movies need Famous actors "Cruise, Kidman, Segal" etc to be good?

Some of the best movies I have seen have involved actors that I have noticed for the first time. A person should beware of a movie that is hyped because of its casting. Movies that promote it’s actors over story are usually movies that are just offering an actor an opportunity to work rather than selling a great film.

Malus01 writes: What makes a good movie?

I usually use the 4 star program to rate my movies.

*-For Acting

*-For Direction

*-For Soundtrack (never underestimate the importance of a good soundtrack)

*-For visuals or photography
You wlll notice that I do not give any stars to who is in it or how much money was spent. First time directors who do not have the money, experience or production values to compete with Hollywood usually display something more important that Hollywood-soul.

 

[Malus 12:9]

I reckon movies, like the midday ones with no budget, can be interesting.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Mr C do you think all Steven Segal movies are the same? They appear to be to me..

 

[cardero]

Mr C do you think all Steven Segal movies are the same? They appear to be to me..

You mean as far as formulaic? Yes, they can be. I give a certain allowance for action stars. Though action is indeed the name of the game there have been many action stars who could not act (or in the case of Arnold Schwartzenegger or Jackie Chan, speak) but that is okay, there are still 3 other stars to fall back on (visuals-photraphy, direction, soundtrack).

 

[The Black Whirlwind]

the more you spend, the worse it usually gets. star wars had a very small budget, and it won 9 oscars. then, 20 years later, they make new ones with probably a $30 million budget, and they sucked (except for episode three, that was pretty good).

 

[michel]

In reply to the OP, I would say a resounding 'NO'. The British film industry had it's vig day, and was crushed by the mighty Dollar (no hard fellings, guys). Lately, however, there have been mutterings, and one or two good low budget films have come out of that.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Would you agree that a film that throws dozens of nudity and sex scenes is often a desperate attempt at ratings?

 

[Aqualung]

Does a movie have to have a million dollar budget to be good? Do movies need Famous actors "Cruise, Kidman, Segal" etc to be good? Involve a storyline that is hard to follow and stuff? Does a movie have to be "hyped" or talked about to be good? What makes a good movie?

Personally I see newer movies and I get bored cos it's all about "So and so won a logie for this movie"..but then the movie is boring. I see movies with a trillion dollar budget but they are still boring. When the Blair witch came out they hyped it with some true story bull. (Well it was a good comedy :biglaugh Me? Just put Jason Voorhees and a camp of teen camp councillors..good stuff...and the bad acting bikini females actually give colour to the scene..

So yah in your opinion what makes a good movie?

Saw had a pretty small budget, and that movie was so good I couldn't sleep that night, or the night after, or the night after . . .

 

[cardero]

Saw had a pretty small budget, and that movie was so good I couldn't sleep that night, or the night after, or the night after . . .

Kevin Smith's first film cost 25,000 and he had to sell his comic book collection (that's devotion) to finish what eventually became CLERKS.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

the more you spend, the worse it usually gets. star wars had a very small budget, and it won 9 oscars. then, 20 years later, they make new ones with probably a $30 million budget, and they sucked (except for episode three, that was pretty good).

Hmm... Very true, and an insightful statement. This raises an interesting question. Do movies where the writers, directors and cast and crew put more of 'themselves' into the film tend to be better, universally? Cardero mentioned Kevin Smith, whose crew usually puts a lot of blood and sweat into his work, and makes very popular, critically-acclaimed movies on a very low budget. (Or at least he started out doing so.) On the other end of the scale, a very high budget film, like "Lord of the Rings", can also be quite good. I was just remembering something one of the crew called it "the world's highest budgeted-low-budget film." The cast and crew did things like carry camera equipment and what-not. I imagine it was probably similar on the set of the first "Star Wars". Does putting more physical and emotional effort into a movie contribute to how much others enjoy it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

When my dad had the Blockbuster rental pass thing, I watched more low budget films than I can count. Out of many of them, only a few wear worth watching. This one vampire movie was just retarded. It claimed vampirism is caused by some virus, and that the virus is real. And it had the worst actor I have ever seen. Whenever he would yell, he would shake his body up and down while he was saying every single word. He was trying to act macho, but ended up looking like a fool. Another movie had a good story, and decent acting, but the special effects made me laugh. Someone would get shot, and the blood, which was obviously added in with a cheap editing program, would splash out, and only onto what would be the foreground. And it was obvious the blood was CGI and added in. Another movie was Way of the Vampire. It had a great story, but mediocre acting and terrible camera shots.
Blair Witch was, IMO, boring. Sumed up, a few college students go on a quest to get information about the Blair Witch, they get it the woods, and suddenly "**** ***** **** *** OH ***** WHAT THE ***** **** **** **** **** **** *****!" until the end of it.
But some small budget and low advertised movies can be good. Dracule: The Dark Prince is a great example of how a small budget can be a good movie.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Luke Blair Witch was a good comedy..cos you can see just how bad it is set up.

Don't you think, if a girl is running away from something (which suprisingly we could not see)
why would she run..pause to turn and film the guy in the corner (who looks like he is taking a leak)..THEN drop the camera..

Yes, most of it was boring, but so badly set up it was funny..even funnier, some people actually fell for it!