Underworld 2 Squeezed Budget

[NowIWillDestroyAbydos]

http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index...ory=0&id=34247

Len Wiseman, director of the upcoming vampire sequel film Underworld: Evolution, told SCI FI Wire he's shocked and confused when hears about the budgets of films essentially competing for the same box-office dollars as his relatively low-budget vampire pictures. More ...

[darman]

Yeah, I've read this and I tend to agree with him about it in most cases. I've always assumed that part of filmaking is to have ingenuity to create FX at low cost. A lot of people I think just don't worry about it and just ask for more money when they're running low.

I've just seen Underworld 2 and I thought it was great and didn't feel that FX had some shortcomings. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one.

[Elwe Singollo]

Yah, this movie was pretty well done, i didnt even know anything about low budget.

[Battousai the Manslayer]

You don't need a high budget if you can get Kate Beckinsale to do a sex scene. Wow. Oh, and the rest of the movie is pretty amazing too. My favorite character from part one and part two is the same, Amelia...

[Battousai the Manslayer]

Yah, this movie was pretty well done, i didnt even know anything about low budget.

You could tell there were limits when you only see one fight scene done super well.

Spoiler:

The scene where Selena darts around the "Russian" (I don't know) cops and makes short work of them. Great use of CG.

[Elwe Singollo]

You don't need a high budget if you can get Kate Beckinsale to do a sex scene. Wow. Oh, and the rest of the movie is pretty amazing too. My favorite character from part one and part two is the same, Amelia...

Yah that sex scene... Wow, although there wasn't really any real nudity, that scene was pretty graphic compared to anything the first movie showed. Ahh! More of Amelia, pre-death! It was great, but i still have to love my special duo (Selene and Michael).

[Jarnin]

The major reason why this guy can make movies for under 50 million dollars is pretty easy to figure out: less expensive CGI and no superstars to pay. I mean, the star of the movie is the directors wife! And to compare Underworld: Evolution to Kong and Superman Returns is silly.

Kong might not have had a bunch of superstars in the film, but it definately had alot of stars, including a completely CGI MAIN CHARACTER.
Superman Returns is what is known as a production nightmare; it's been in development for over 10 years, and has more cast and crew changes than probably any movie in the history. Each time a new director would sign a contract to make the movie, they'd have a clause that they get paid even if the movie is never seen. That means that the budget of Superman Returns is paying people like Tim Burton and Kevin Smith, even though they have almost nothing to do with how the project ended up.

And then there's advertising. Probably a third of the cost of those big movies were advertising and merchandising. Underworld ran alot of trailers, but they only had one or two, not the 5 or 10 different trailers that Hollywood blockbusters have. You probably won't see any Selene action figures in Toys R Us either.
I saw a Underworld trailer and it had a Nine Inch Nails song I like playing, so I bought the soundtrack; turns out they only paid for that song for the trailer, it's not on the soundtrack, and the songs that are on the soundtrack are artists and songs I've never heard of, and don't particularly like.
Had UE had a blockbuster budget, the entire soundtrack would be popular, top 40 hits from artists everyone knows about.

So this guy can shout about how cheaply he made his movie, but comparing it to a blockbuster is like comparing a Volkswagen to a Ferrari: Both are cars, that's the only similarity.