GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek?

[Gepard]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

CGI rendered in Poser or Bryce

Ugh, that sounds awful.

Yeah. Holy cow.

 

[ReadyAndWilling]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

Because AOTC cost twice as much as Nemesis, and Lucas owns ILM. That's it. Paramount simply didn't pony up enough money to make Nemesis look better than it did.

there's really no comparison in terms of effects. what great effects did nemesis have?

 

[Itisnotlogical]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

CGI rendered in Poser or Bryce

Ugh, that sounds awful.

Yeah. Holy cow.

Try Blender. 2.5x has even been massively simplified for new users.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

A hundred or two hundred million dollars for a movie is crazy; I'm sure either one of us could make a better movie than Lucas or Abrams for a half million or less.

Ha...well only if you want to do something like X-Files set in the "real world." Because you're sure not building any spaceship sets for that.

We spent a half-million dollars at my job on a series of videos that take place in a single condominium. Less than a 2 week shoot and a total finished product of less than a half hour. No way you'd get a whole movie done in that amount of time.

But that's working in Hollywood. Can you just shoot a movie in Idaho and finish it for under a half million? Of course you can!

But there's no way you're doing that AND paying for lots of special effects for that amount of money. Even Memento cost $9 million and there's no aliens or laser battles in that.

Even $9 million is a small fraction of $200 million. I have any number of DVDs on my shelf (or floor) that include stop-motion or CGI effects that were made for less than $200 grand. I'm fully prepared to be proven wrong about this, but it seems to me that I would have to work hard to spend a half mil on an adaptation of Foundation shot down on the Company Theater stage or a local warehouse with establishing CGI rendered in Poser or Bryce on my laptop-- or even if I splurged and used a local professional SFX house (not counting money spent on the option, of course). The producers of Exeter could have done it, even if they paid for everything. I'm curious to learn the specifics of why a series of videos shot in a condominium cost more than any number of full-length independent features, though-- and I don't mean that sarcastically at all; I have no idea why that would be.

For an idea of what you can make on $500m take a look at Monsters. That was done by one man using his own money and a couple of actors and a single DSLR camera. He says he doesn't know how much it cost him but somewhere between $50,000 and $500.000.

 

[sojourner]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

He doesn't know if he spent $50,000 or $500,000? damn. that guy sucks at math.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

He doesn't know if he spent $50,000 or $500,000? damn. that guy sucks at math.

Basically he did the effects himself on his home computer. He bought the camera and the the flights to Mexico and stuff, so I guess he's figuring he may have cost more but in actuality the real cost would have been much more.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

For an idea of what you can make on $500m take a look at Monsters. That was done by one man using his own money and a couple of actors and a single DSLR camera. He says he doesn't know how much it cost him but somewhere between $50,000 and $500.000.

Is that this? I seem to remember reading a complimentary review of this in Analog a few months ago.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

For an idea of what you can make on $500m take a look at Monsters. That was done by one man using his own money and a couple of actors and a single DSLR camera. He says he doesn't know how much it cost him but somewhere between $50,000 and $500.000.

Is that this? I seem to remember reading a complimentary review of this in Analog a few months ago.

That's it, and it is a pretty good film. I'd say is excellent given the budget.

 

[Technobuilder]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

In regards to Lucas being able to produce things "cheaply", it's really all about owning the means of production.

ILM, Skywalker Sound, Lucas Arts, etc etc.

Just as Andrew Carnegie did before him, once you own the means of production, you'll end up making more money than the other guy (on average) because the other guy has to pay you as the price of doing business.

$160 million in ILM effects work for Paramount or Universal costs more per effect than say $160 million in ILM effects work for any George Lucas production.

Both projects might cost the same, but I'll guarantee that the Lucas production is getting more bang for the buck.

 

[DarthPipes]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

Eh?

According to Box Office Mojo, the Battle of the Shitty Sci Fi Franchise Movies works out accordingly:

Star Trek: Nemesis
Production Budget: $60 million
Wordlwide Gross: $67,312,826

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones
Production Budget: $115 million
Worldwide: $649,398,328

Lucas doesn't make movies more cheaply than Star Trek, but he sure knows how to make shitty movies that make money regardless.

i saw somewhere that quoted lucas as saying "we make this for one tenth of the cost anybody else does."

Who the fuck is making movies for ONE BILLION DOLLARS?

He might have been talking about the SW TV show. He keeps talking about wanting to do it to look like a movie but at a fraction of the cast. I remember reading he set the budget for AOTC at $120 million and it came in $5 million cheaper. When you own the various companies and production, that does keep the cost down.

He's CEO of Lucasfilm Ltd. so he's not making a small salary as head of the company and making money off everything else.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

For an idea of what you can make on $500m take a look at Monsters. That was done by one man using his own money and a couple of actors and a single DSLR camera. He says he doesn't know how much it cost him but somewhere between $50,000 and $500.000.

Is that this? I seem to remember reading a complimentary review of this in Analog a few months ago.

That's it, and it is a pretty good film. I'd say is excellent given the budget.

Cool. It's in my Shopping Cart at Amazon.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

Just as Andrew Carnegie did before him, once you own the means of production, you'll end up making more money than the other guy (on average) because the other guy has to pay you as the price of doing business.

But apparently that advantage is neutralized by Lucas being unwilling to create a Star Wars series that is able to depend on writing and acting for its appeal without needing a lot of eye-candy space battles. Others have accomplished it without having his advantages, so I don't see what his excuse is, other than failure of imagination.

 

[DWF]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

Just as Andrew Carnegie did before him, once you own the means of production, you'll end up making more money than the other guy (on average) because the other guy has to pay you as the price of doing business.

But apparently that advantage is neutralized by Lucas being unwilling to create a Star Wars series that is able to depend on writing and acting for its appeal without needing a lot of eye-candy space battles. Others have accomplished it without having his advantages, so I don't see what his excuse is, other than failure of imagination.

The Star Wars movies might have one space battle per movie, they aren't really filled with space battles.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

The prequels are filled with static scenes of people having boring conversations and shots of ships taking off and landing, and yet still managed to be expensive, so maybe I shouldn't blame the space battles.

More info on that don't-hold-your-breath live action show:

McCallum told The Czech Position that Lucasfilm wouldn't be ready to start production for three to four years. And even then, he's not sure if the television show could be made:

"Network television and cable television as we know it are completely imploding, so we're not really sure that in five years' time we can release a dramatic one-hour episode because it is all reality TV now," he added.

Okay, there's too much reality crap on TV now, but it's hardly "all reality," and the success of Game of Thrones and The Walking Dead show there's a market out there hungry for good sf/f.

The article author is right that if Lucas wants to do political and social "stuff," he needs to keep going with what they've established in The Clone Wars, which is the first time they've found a way to do stuff like that in Star Wars successfully (not counting novels, which I'm unfamiliar with). It's not exactly The Godfather or even DS9, but maybe that's not ever going to synch up with Star Wars' breezier, more kid-friendly style. Go with what works. Keep doing the cartoons as long as they keep working.

 

[Small White Car]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

I'm curious to learn the specifics of why a series of videos shot in a condominium cost more than any number of full-length independent features, though

I didn't say it was actually shot in a condo. It took place in one but it was all shot on a custom built set on a Paramount sound stage. That takes up a fair bit of budget right there.

Then you fill it with union extras...I don't remember the exact amount but let's say it's $300 a day x 20 people times 10 days and you're up to $60,000 before you even get to the actual stars. All I've bought you so far is a room with a bunch of people standing in it. (And I think some of those folks had lines, so that's actually a very low estimate.)

I could go on, but you see how it quickly adds up. (Don't forget you have to feed them all too! And we haven't even started spending money on "movie-making" stuff yet!)

Interestingly enough...this is the same stage that 'Happy Days' was shot on. Possibly the oddest factoid about my job, but there you have it!

 

[DarthPipes]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

"Network television and cable television as we know it are completely imploding, so we're not really sure that in five years' time we can release a dramatic one-hour episode because it is all reality TV now," he added.

Huh? Cable television, particularly basic cable, is thriving at the moment. Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Justified, Boardwalk Empire, and True Blood are critical and commercial hits. There's definitely a place for good television out there. LFL would be better off saying they just don't know when they'll be able to do the live-action show.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

Or maybe that they don't know how to do a successful live-action sci fi show. Just because there are folks that can pull it off doesn't mean Lucas has the first clue.

 

[Set Harth]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

Network television and cable television as we know it are completely imploding, so we're not really sure that in five years' time we can release a dramatic one-hour episode because it is all reality TV now

So, given that the scenario described above is not actually consistent with reality, what does the above "diplodialect" ( or more properly "dipshitdialect" ) really mean?

The same thing it meant when they insisted the DVD market was "imploding" in 2004: we are shameless greedheads.

Maybe the release of the live-action series will become an always-in-the-future "generational thing" like the release of the JFK files ( or those non-SW-related independent arty films that Lucas insisted he was going to do as soon as he was done with SW, in the words of Palpatine, when this crisis has abated ). Just tell 'em what you think they want to hear, George. Your real god is Mammon.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

^^ He should call it Star Wars: Dangerous Visions.

I'm curious to learn the specifics of why a series of videos shot in a condominium cost more than any number of full-length independent features, though

I didn't say it was actually shot in a condo. It took place in one but it was all shot on a custom built set on a Paramount sound stage. That takes up a fair bit of budget right there.

Then you fill it with union extras...I don't remember the exact amount but let's say it's $300 a day x 20 people times 10 days and you're up to $60,000 before you even get to the actual stars. All I've bought you so far is a room with a bunch of people standing in it. (And I think some of those folks had lines, so that's actually a very low estimate.)

I could go on, but you see how it quickly adds up. (Don't forget you have to feed them all too! And we haven't even started spending money on "movie-making" stuff yet!)

Okay, that explains it, all right.

 

[Whofan]

Re: GEORGE LUCAS: How does he make SW so cheaply in comparison to Trek

Regarding the arty films, apparentally "Red Tails" is coming out in 2012-oddly, around the same time Phantom Menace 3D does.