Bigsnatch beat me to it.

D9 was ok. I thought it had the potential to be great but whatever.

His reasoning is why I decided that if I ever got into the movie business, I'd have to go the independent route. Hollywood is too busy putting out dogshiat like White Chicks 2 and making piles of cash off of garbage movies to give two shiats about artistic merit.

It's very good

I'm not shocked he said
Pretty much 85% of movies last year were shiat and pretty much all had at some special effects and they still suck

/Prime Example Transfomers 2, I HATE that film

propasaurus: Anyone who believes the hyped bullshiat that "District 9" was 'low budget' deserves a cockpunch.

$30 million is a relatively tiny budget.

Certainly helps to have the Exec Producer own the CGI house that does the work on your film though.

Considering how loosely it's often applied on Fark I would have gone with the Hero tag.

I seriously hope he can keep it up.

As someone whose 30 all-time favorite films were each made for what was expended on catering on the set of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", I wholeheartedly applaud this measure.

eddievercetti: It's very good

I'm not shocked he said
Pretty much 85% of movies last year were shiat and pretty much all had at some special effects and they still suck

/Prime Example Transfomers 2, I HATE that film

Transformers 2 is a movie that literally couldn't count to 5.

5 robots go down into the ocean. One is killed for spare parts for Megatron. Megatron is revived, returns to the surface with the others. Radar now shows 6 robots.

5-1+1=6, apparently.

WhyteRaven74: propasaurus: Anyone who believes the hyped bullshiat that "District 9" was 'low budget' deserves a cockpunch.

Production budget was a bit under $40 million, for what it is, that's low budget these days.

And considering that rom-coms have an average budget of 60 million...

/what the hell do they spend the money on?

BigSnatch: Japancakes: As someone whose 30 all-time favorite films were each made for what was expended on catering on the set of "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen", I wholeheartedly applaud this measure.


That makes sense, porn doesn't cost that much to produce.

I indeed snortled.


Jedi_Templar: WhyteRaven74: propasaurus: Anyone who believes the hyped bullshiat that "District 9" was 'low budget' deserves a cockpunch.

Production budget was a bit under $40 million, for what it is, that's low budget these days.

And considering that rom-coms have an average budget of 60 million...

/what the hell do they spend the money on?

Getting the over-priced, undertalented "stars" to agree to appear in front of the cameras chomps the largest part of the budget.

propasaurus: Anyone who believes the hyped bullshiat that "District 9" was 'low budget' deserves a cockpunch.

When you have Avatar at a budget of 500 million and Transformers and their ilk at 250 million, yeah, 30 million is pretty cheap.

FTA: "Not everybody loved it. Nigerians weren't happy. They were pissed."

Gee, I can't imagine why...

Dr.Zom: Considering how loosely it's often applied on Fark I would have gone with the Hero tag.

I seriously hope he can keep it up.

THIS

His Halo live action shorts were amazing. I hope he ends up working on a Halo feature.

Arkanaut: Dr.Zom: Considering how loosely it's often applied on Fark I would have gone with the Hero tag.

I seriously hope he can keep it up.

THIS

Thirded. Focus Features did this really well for a while, and often still do. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Coraline, etc. While normally I hesitate to biatch about "the big corporations ruining everything" there really is a stark contrast between executive meddling (a la the Weinsteins, many other big studio execs causing horrific plot abortions to be thrown in at the last minute) and studio support and funding for a less... lowest-common-denominator sort of film. Unless he takes Weta Digital to Lucasfilm/ILM levels (and I've seen no sign he intends to) of whoring to the highest ticket-buying demographic (i.e. the hurr durr audiences) then Peter Jackson could really bring about a lot of smaller-budget, but still very snazzy, well-written movies that still manage to be fun and entertaining.

/soapbox down

Smart big budget movies DO exist, too.

kennedy311: His Halo live action shorts were amazing. I hope he ends up working on a Halo feature.


Indeed, what might have been if Blomkamp was allowed to do that movie would have been awesome.

Sadly, the whole clusterfark that culminated in the movie being shelved crushed Neill on a personal level, which is precisely why he says now he doesn't want to do big budget movies.

In a perfect world, Microsoft would bankroll it themselves and throw huge bags of money at him to insist that he direct it, but it isn't going to happen.

The best we can hope for is that Hollywood is unsuccessful in convincing Microsoft/343 Industries to relinquish creative control. So long as Frank O'Connor maintains creative control, the movie won't completely suck.

Regarding Neill Blomkamp, I'm (bittersweetly) glad Halo fell through for him, because District 9 was a fantastic film, and I'm hoping he decides to show us what happens in three years when Christopher Johnson comes back from the Prawn homeworld.

Two things:
1. I wonder if him getting screwed out of the Halo movie could have anything to do with this sentiment.
2. So instead of linking to the LA times interview, we're instead given a link to a summary of the interview? lame!

t3knomanser: tdpatriots12: Smart big budget movies DO exist, too.

Yes, but most of those are 50-ish years old.

mekki: propasaurus: Anyone who believes the hyped bullshiat that "District 9" was 'low budget' deserves a cockpunch.

When you have Avatar at a budget of 500 million and Transformers and their ilk at 250 million, yeah, 30 million is pretty cheap.

Avatar's production budget has been pegged at about 230 million dollars by the studio. No idea what Transformers 2 cost to make.

Anyway, to paraphrase Roger Ebert, "Every cent of that 230 million made it on screen."

Also, I think Blomkamp is just setting expectations. He probably (correctly) assumes that he won't be able to touch the success of District 9 again any time soon - so why set himself up to compete with that movie in his next attempt. I don't personally think it's going to work, but it's a smart move.

And finally... blumpkin.

I'd like to see District 10.

3 years later, they return and try and turn Wikus back into a human. But he doesn't want to, he likes being an alien so he fights against the humans and hey....wait a second....

propasaurus: Anyone who believes the hyped bullshiat that "District 9" was 'low budget' deserves a cockpunch.

District 9 may have been big budget (though at 30 million, it wasn't exactly massive), Alive in Joburg, which is the short film Blokamp shot and what D9 was based on, barely had any budget.

Blomkampf: "We seem to be in a place now where filmmakers make films based on other films because that's where the stimuli and influence comes from."

True enough; looking back on 2009, D9, Moon, and Avatar were the only wide-release sci-fi films that weren't part of a franchise.

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with big-budget franchise films - Dark Knight ruled, as did Iron Man, and I'm working my way to liking the new Trek - but we only get good ones every few years it seems. Before these, it was what, the LoTR trilogy?

I don't mind low-budget if it doesn't look low-budget and has a clever story, attention to detail, and no gaping plot holes in it. Some of the people writing sci-fi movies these days have only a foggy clue about basic plot and character motivation; dressing it up in an interesting, but totally wasted, sci-fi premise doesn't make up for those deficiencies, nor does a quarter-billion dollars in fancy visual effects.

I forced my dad to watch District 9 the other day, and the only thing he took from the film was "You watch some gross movies." I asked him whether or not he saw the critique of apartheid and how human selfishness overrides societal good, and he responded "He just tried to cut his finger off. That is disgusting."

mamoru: Lernaeus: True enough; looking back on 2009, D9, Moon, and Avatar were the only wide-release sci-fi films that weren't part of a franchise.

Surrogates? Gamer?

Yes, they were crap, but they were wide release and not part of a franchise.

/surrogates had such potential, too. :(

I enjoyed Surrogates; it didn't feel too preachy, but was interesting and fluffy. One too many action sequences and a ridiculous premise, but still fun.

Kierkegaard's Pseudonym: I forced my dad to watch District 9 the other day, and the only thing he took from the film was "You watch some gross movies." I asked him whether or not he saw the critique of apartheid and how human selfishness overrides societal good, and he responded "He just tried to cut his finger off. That is disgusting."

Your dad probably fails to notice nuance in a lot of things. Just sayin'.

AMurderOfCrows: Your dad probably fails to notice nuance in a lot of things. Just sayin'.

He's a guy who fundamentally doesn't understand the basics behind evolution and thinks the species of the planet just showed up here magically a few thousand years ago. So I have to agree with Blomkamp on this one. A big budget will help you bring in more eyeballs on opening weekend to see some Romulans blowing up some Twi'leks, but a huge budget won't make your sci-fi critique of modern society any easier to swallow by the suits and the idiots.

Gordon Bennett:
A lot of things. Script development costs. Film stock. Film development. Equipment rental. Location fees. Legal fees. Health and safety costs. Transportation. Accommodation and food. Costume and makeup. Wages. Music rights. Editing costs. ADR. Distribution. Promotion.

That's just the beginning. Filmmaking is very, very expensive. There is never enough money and never enough time.

Of course the major studios will happily splash out millions to get a few big names attached to their films, though I suppose that counts more as advertising costs. How else would (insert name of no-talent celebrity of your choice) ever find work when there are better actors out there struggling to get auditions?

As someone who's finishing out preproduction of a feature-length independent film, "This". Film is extraordinarily expensive every step of the way. The only thing more expensive than film is an A-Lister in your cast. Another reason D9 was able to do it on the cheap was by shooting with digital Red One cameras. Digital Workflow can save absolutely millions (depending on what you're shooting). Digital's still riddled with problems, especially since it doesnt *quite* look the same as the medium we've been familiar with for so long, but it'll get there.

We independent directors look up a bit to District 9 and Paranormal Activity and Blair Witch a bit because they struck movie lottery. Theres so many amazing films being made each year, but, like the music scene, mainstream will always trump quality, and money will almost always go to those with money. That's why these "rare gems" that make it are treasured so.

Gordon Bennett: A lot of things. Script development costs. Film stock. Film development. Equipment rental. Location fees. Legal fees. Health and safety costs. Transportation. Accommodation and food. Costume and makeup. Wages. Music rights. Editing costs. ADR. Distribution. Promotion.

That's just the beginning. Filmmaking is very, very expensive.

I think he meant "/what the hell do they spend the money on that these other movies don't?"

Sir Vanderhoot: Transformers 2 is a movie that literally couldn't count to 5.

5 robots go down into the ocean. One is killed for spare parts for Megatron. Megatron is revived, returns to the surface with the others. Radar now shows 6 robots.

5-1+1=6, apparently.

Oh, it's worse than that.

They walk into the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC. While inside the displays, they make a hole in a wall and come out in The Boneyard, Nevada.