jrod
Ghost writer
Posts: 970
|
Post by jrod on Feb 11, 2009 21:11:38 GMT
I'll be back...
|
|
|
Post by arkadyrenko on Feb 11, 2009 23:37:22 GMT
"The studio or some genius would demand that we see John Connor somewhere in the flesh, instead of an idea or myth.
Which the latter works better, if you ask me."
That's when low budget constrictions forced the filmmakers to be creative.
Now, i'm not one of those that thinks that low budget movies are better because it forces filmamkers to be creative in trying to overcomethe limitations of the low budget and limited resources. Yes, sometimes it works, but most of the times it doesn't and works against the movies. So, a big fat budget always helps.
However, i do seem to notice that there is an increasing lack of discipline from big budget productions lately, where this mega-budget movies thrown money at the problems instead of brains. and too many times, i see big fat budgets disguiding the incredible ineptitude of many hacks of today, hacks like Michael "Shit" Bay, Rob Cohen, Brett Ratner, John Moore, Paul WC Anderson, the whole lot of the HACK PACK.
Ok, allow me to offer the example of one certain young John Carpenter. Capenter and his filmmaker buddies showed a lot of inventiveness in their low budget movie ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK. What they mananged to pull off with a meager budget by being smart and using oportunities is a lesson in small budget filmmaking. By the same token, THE THING couldn't had been done if it had a small budget. That movie needed the fat budget it got, and the movie wouldn't had been 1/4th as good had it had to do with a budget half as big. and this two movies made by the same director and with similair crews.
So, i think that it worked for THE TERMINATOR that John Connor was never seen in the flesh, but it worked for T2 that we did.
I have a second motto about movies: There are thousands way to fuck up a movie, hundreds of ways to make it mundane and banal, and one dozen ways to make it pretty pretty good.
|
|