I've heard it cost only 7 millions. Does this include actors paycheck because if it does I think it cost too cheap. MGM should have ponied up more money and make a good 3 hour long movie and then probably people wouldn't have complained about the length of the Replicator arc, they might have been able to get RDA too... What do you think?
-
-
Damnit I read the title of this post and charged in here with my "and your mum!" at the ready...but then I realised this wasn't someone saying that it looked cheap.
Yeah they probably could have spent more on it. I don't know how RDA would have fitted into the storyline though. I wish it had been 3 hours long but it wasn't. Anyways it was still a good...no make that an awesome movie to finish the Ori arc. -
It's all about economics. If MGM had to cough up a larger budget, they'd need to sell even more DVDs in order to break even, letalone turn a profit, and right now, we know that if AoT and Continuum prove profitable enough for MGM, then they'll almost certainly be interested in greenlighting more direct-to-DVD SG-1 features.
Let's put it this way, would you rather have a movie with much higher production values and some extended scenes, but which ultimately fails to break even thus eliminating the possibility of more SG-1 down the line, or a movie with a lower budget which for the most part still manages to get the job done well enough and get its point across, and which has a better chance of turning a profit thus ensuring more SG-1 adventures being approved by the corporate bigwigs?
Oh yeah, and for the record, a few people I chatted with online estimated that based on its production budget of $7 million alone (not including other expenses such as distribution and taxes), Ark of Truth would need to sell at least 1.2 -1.5 million copies in order to just break even, although this doesn't factor in fees that they'll earn from rentals and allowing networks to broadcast the movie.Comment
-
I'm sure if they sell well enough MGM will spend a bit more on future ones.Comment
-
Originally posted by jenks View Post
yes, and we will finally get longer National Geographic and more ridiculous fights between one human and super robot
Stolen Kosovo
sigpicComment
-
As opposed to what? OMFG space Expl0sionz0r!!!!11one1Originally posted by g.o.d View Postyes, and we will finally get longer National Geographic and more ridiculous fights between one human and super robotComment
-
cool CGI doesn't make a good movie, including space battles. And space battles are the last thing I care aboutOriginally posted by jenks View PostStolen Kosovo
sigpicComment
-
It didn't look like a $7M movie. It looked great, but I think more time editing would have been great. There were some bits that didn't make much sense. Let's hope a third movie gets to go to the theaters.
I loved the movie, and had a hard time finding a copy. Day after it came out I hit 2 Best Buys, a Circuit City, and finally nabbed the last copy at a Target.
A vendor at one of the stores told me they sold out the previous day. Either the stores didn't stock up enough or they'll exceed the sales they need to get into the black with easy.
I'll preorder for Continuum.Comment
-
Actually I thought the opening firefight looked rather cheap. The sets had a "made for TV" look while the bullet impacts all scream "amateur CGI".
Look at the P90 bullet impacts, they all produce a funny looking spark. And later on the firefight aboard the (Odyssey?) didn't produce nearly enough carnage. It's a giant show down in the corridors and yet the only thing broken is a piece of safety glass?!
Ironically, I thought the fly-by and the robot fight was pretty good... Though a bit pointless.
It just seems that the writer didn't come up with "grander" ideas for the movie but instead just extended the series elements a tiny bit, while adding flames to Adria.
I was hoping for the kind of difference shown between say, Star Trek the tv show and Star Trek the Motion Picture...
But here's a "your mom" comment: Your mom says, "Aarrgh!" and wears an eyepatch.Last edited by Zamboni; 18 March 2008, 03:47 PM.Comment
-
The Motion Picture had a bigger budget, and then exceeded the available budget. AoT stayed on budget.
The sets were made for TV. They looked like reused sets that already existed, maybe with a few changes. There isn't alot that can be done with $7M.Comment
-
$7m, cheap? On what planet? Great films made for $7m or less (non-adjusted):
(1972 / $7m) The Godfather
(1976 / $7m) Logan's Run
(1984 / $6.4m) The Terminator
(1986 / $6m) Platoon
(1988 / $7m) The Last Temptation of Christ
(1992 / $1.2m) Reservoir Dogs
(1994 / $27,000) Clerks
(1995 / $6.1m) Mallrats
(1995 / $6m) The Usual Suspects
(1996 / $3.1m) Trainspotting
(1996 / $7m) Fargo
(1999 / $1.35m) Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels
(2000 / $7m) The Boondock Saints
(2001 / $5m) Memento
(2003 / $4m) Lost in Translation
(2005 / $7m) Capote
(2005 / $6.5m) Layer Cake
(2005 / $6.5m) Crash
(2006 / $6m) The Last King of Scotland
(2007 / $7m) Juno
It's not how big the budget is guys, it's how you use it.
(Source for all above numbers)"A society grows great when old men plant trees, the shade of which they know they will never sit in. Good people do things for other people. That's it, the end." -- Penelope Wilton in Ricky Gervais's After LifeComment
-
Didn't they spend 12 million US on the "LOST" pilot?
Personally, I didn't really see where they spent the 7 million. I assumed it went mostly on salaries. I didn't see it up on the screen. The CGI-what little there really was- was servicable, nothing more.
For Continuum, expect more National Geographic shots of ice-lots of ice. You have to remember that AOT showed us TPTB define 'film' as throwing in a couple of widescreen scenic vistas amoungst the talking heads. Hey presto-you can now call it a film!
And the resurrection of old re-used G'ould sets will surely find there way into the make.
With the use of some cheesy old sets, all we have to do now is think of what chessy old plot they might re-use as with AOT's replicators.Comment
-
The only SciFi films are Logan's Run and Terminator, the rest are all non-scifi films and thus obviously won't cost as much. You don't need much money shooting in some random neighbourhood or house set.Originally posted by DigiFluid View Post
Are those numbers even adjusted for inflation?Comment
-
Goes to show how ignorant you are about filming.Originally posted by PG15 View Post
One of the biggest costs in any film is the crew. On location shots require a lot of money unless you don't care about lighting, sound, or anything else and shoot with a handheld where the actors are running around in real crowds.
All the effects in AoT are done in-house by the same company who handled the series. Frankly speaking they're not all that mind blowing. They probably did fork over a good chuck of the budget to the actors.Comment
-
Well, excuse me for not majoring in it.Originally posted by Zamboni View Post
There were quite a few on-location shots in AOT too, like Teal'c's walk, the search around that mountain, and then that fight and so on and so on. The CGI certainly does cost a tidy sum one way or another.One of the biggest costs in any film is the crew. On location shots require a lot of money unless you don't care about lighting, sound, or anything else and shoot with a handheld where the actors are running around in real crowds.
All the effects in AoT are done in-house by the same company who handled the series. Frankly speaking they're not all that mind blowing. They probably did fork over a good chuck of the budget to the actors.
But I suppose you know what you're talking about. Still, there's a difference between "normal" movie looking like a movie, and a scifi movie looking like a movie. You'd expect a lot more flash in a SciFi movie, I'd think, while a normal movie can just be...well, normal. No?Comment
Comment