Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek
I'm sure either one of us could make a better movie than Lucas or Abrams for a half million or less.
A bold claim, that. It's easy to
say one can make a better film than Lucas or Abrams, harder to do it. As valid as fan criticisms could be of either producer, they do have considerable experience and practical know-how and the odd hit title to their names. That fans armed with enthusiasm could best them at their own game strikes me as a pretty long shot.
I hardly think it's a bold claim at all; seems rather like stating the obvious to me. Many independent films are shot on a budget much smaller than a half million; so are fan films, even if you figure in the potential cost of what they get for free. Wonderful local theater productions are put together for a few thousand dollars and video equipment is cheap and plentiful. As for talent, I happen to be a wonderful writer, if I do say so myself, with skills in other areas, and
Gep is a great CGI artist, possibly with other skills, and we both know how to find people who can do things that we can't. We're talking about a
half million dollars here.
Someone making SFX from home isn't going to be able to get a movie into production. How are they going to get the honchos at any of the studios to take your calls? Just having a home computer setup to churn out SFX is not going to be enough. What about the little issues of writing a script, and hiring actors who not only have talent, but marketable name recognition? Maybe if you're making movies direct to YouTube, you'll do okay.
I never said anything about marketing; I'm just talking about making the movie. And many people do exactly what you say they can't: They produce movies without the blessing of a head honcho at a large corporation. They show these movies at local drive-ins and theaters, at conventions, at contests and festivals, they distribute them direct-to-DVD and sometimes, if lucky, find a mom & pop distributor.
Our very own Dennis and DS9Sega have been working on Polaris for something like four years now and they're still filming the thing.
I imagine that has to do with their specific circumstances. Many independent films are done very quickly, in a matter of weeks; in fact, I would add to my criticism of overinflated budgets, that Big Studio Product takes way too long to produce. In any case, by bringing up
Polaris, you've pretty much made my point for me. I'm pretty sure their budget is less than a half mil, and I'll be very surprised if it's not better than much of the generic dreck that the establishment cranks out.
Methinks you're ignorant of just how ignorant you are.
Methinks more likely you are holding a grudge over some sacred cow I've punctured. Which is a shame. You're a pretty nice guy, but you've developed this knee-jerk reaction to every criticism or observation I make.
I bet you really are sure of that too, which frankly is a failing on your part, both in underestimating the skills and talents of those whose work you don't like and vastly overestimating your own. There's plenty to criticize in both Lucas' and Abrams' works, but I'd never be so naive and arrogant to assume that what they do is so easy to just take on and surpass without experience and on a shoestring budget.
Well, I certainly prefer arrogance to complacency and laziness. And if I'm acutely aware of my talent, I'm also acutely aware of where I lack it-- but I also know where to find people who can fill those gaps. And it boggles my mind that a half million dollars can be considered a shoestring budget. Do you also think that prescription drugs are cheap and profession football players are underpaid?
It's like you don't even try to have a serious conversation anymore, RJ.
Well, this is a bizarre non sequitur. I try to have serious conversations all the time, without much success. Unfortunately, my (quite obvious and valid) criticisms of the current state of culture are not popular-- it seems one must be a dedicated follower of fashion to be taken seriously.
