Do big budgets spoil films

K

KK3vin

New member
It seems to me that films nowadays, especially American one's pump loaRAB of money into special effects, probably vast star payments.

History shows that some of the films which have strict budget constraints, which allow genuine creativity are the best.

But of course, in America, money is everything.

Your thoughts.
 
I'm inclined to agree with you, I personally would always choose a low to medium budget film (usually British) over a Hollywood blockbuster. I sometimes think they put the special effects in just to use the money up. ( Because if you don't spend it first time you won't get it next time)
 
Seeing the last Star Wars or James Bond films showed just how much special effects are there to distract the viewer from a second rate script

Dialogue and good acting have no real substitute, just take a look at Dark Star, or The Holy Grail
 
;722967']I suppose it comes down to money, a big special effects blockbuster gets bums on seats (at least for now) so that is what the studios are producing.

Low budget films appeal to a smaller audience, so a lot of cinema's wont show them, take Cube for instance, I never got a chance to see it at the cinema, I eventually had to buy it on video, so that I could see it. OK, so it's not everybody's cup of tea, but that's my point, there are a lot of people out there that wouldn't even consider going to the cinema to see a film like this.

Also, I recently watched Leaving Las Vagas, its an excelent film, shot on a low budget. I'm not sure, but didn't Nickolas Cage get an Oscar for his part?
 
I think you have to judge each film on its own merit and your own tastes.

I do tend to go to see action packed films at the cinema more than low budget types but this is purely because the whole family like this type of film.

At the end of the day no matter how large the budget the film is, the story/acting has to be good to draw the people in.
 
Big budgets should not spoil films.
However with all big budget films, the stars of the show are the computer graphics. So, in order to spend on big actors and big graphics, you compensate by dumbing the scripts down for the majority audience, which means you cheapen the quality of the writing, which means the directors and actors do not have something to work with which they can use, which makes the whole film suffer as a whole.

So, big budgers spoil films, but they shouldn't.
 
I've seen three really great films in the last 10 days, and none of them have been Hollywood blockbusters.

Tube Tales was nine stories based around the London Underground. They weren't related and they were very weird and shocking.

Up 'n under was a film about a pub rugby team who's manager, a builder played by Gary Olson, had bet his life savings that his team of older pub players could beat the local team that had young fit players in it. It was Brian Glover's last film, and of course Gary Olson has since died. :(

The Parole Officer with Steve Coogan. We weren't expecting much of this, but it was really good. The end credits when the cast were dancing to the closing music in the Town Hall, was really funny. When the credits began rolling they started looking at each other, then they started dancing, even the villains. And the dancing got more and more weird. Really funny.

I suppose the lesson there is that big budgets don't make a good story. It's stories we really like, and effects and big actors don't really count for much in the end.
 
In my humble opinion great films are made by great stories. Special effects should be used to depict dramatic events in the narratives, so that you feel for the characters involved, not so you feel OMG big bang pyrotechnics, or wow special effects.

I believe that The Lord of the Rings, is a masterpiece as a book. But in the Two Towers the battle of Helms Deep was spoiled by the exagerated quantity , ie, 10,000 of the Uruk Hai, especially when you see them amassed stretching into the distance. It just looks too fake:mad: However the Massive program used to create battle sequences, looks and works almost flawlessly.

Films like xXx, which are promoted by muscle and big bangs do sell tickets, but they'll never be remembered or credited as works of art.
 
Dear Azreil,

You maybe making the point that when you read a book, you create your own picture in your mind. Therefore a film version is almost bound to be a disappointment especially, if they have changed the storyline,

Ian
 
I'll give xXx its credit, where it is due. Very few of the stunts were computer generated. Its a shame simple but expensive stunts are done this way now. You lose realism. Terminator didn't have computer effects for set destroying like scenes.
 
if you really want you can create a fantastic film with little or no money

look at bowling for coloubine (had my advanced dvd order in for ages at amazon) that movie is basically michael moor wanderign round with a camera guy, cheap to make but it really really makes you think

The parole officer, i dotn think that had a big budget but they got really really good comic timign in it from the different charicters

monty python & hole holy grail do i really need to say anythying other than nnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :)

there are others i cant quite remember at the moment but a lto of the big budget films arent really worth watching as they are basically all bang kaboom big explosion (anyone mentions fast & the furiosu i will strangle you with my keyboard cable, that movie has inspired so many kevins in there borderlien mot pass nova 1.1's to act like idiots round here)
 
it all depenRAB really.

a good example would be *terminator* - low budget, great story, great film.

*t2* - big budget, great story, great effects, great film.

Iain
 
Back
Top