• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Low Budget Sci-Fi Films That You Enjoyed!

$15 million wasn't low budget in the mid-1980s. $14-16 million was the standard budget range for a studio film at the time. $20-30 million was big budget, and higher than $30 million was crazy money. Top Gun was released in 1986, the same year as The Fly, and had about the same production budget.

Top Gun could be made so 'cheaply' (only Hollywood could call 15 million dollars, in any year, 'low budget') because of extensive cooperation from the U.S. Military. Their lack of cooperation is also why plans to make Top Gun 2 were scrapped. Make no mistake. If the studio had to pay for all the costs of military equipment, airplanes, and other resources that were provided to the production, it would not have cost $15 million.

For a truly low budget science fiction picture, Primer is a great example. It's also a very well-made film. I was less happy with The Man From Earth, which was so theatrical I found it hard to justify a film version, but the story it told was still fascinating. And it was certainly made for a low budget.
 
I was running to the end of the thread to mention Primer, but Rii got there first.

Does anybody know what the budget of Silent Running was?

I assume that the first Mad Max was made for about ten cents.

The Blood of Heroes is a secret favorite of mine, I can't understand why more people don't think it's great.

I think for its era The 13th Warrior can probably be called low-budget. And it, of course, is UNBELIEVABLY AWESOME.
 
I was less happy with The Man From Earth, which was so theatrical I found it hard to justify a film version, but the story it told was still fascinating. And it was certainly made for a low budget.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Man From Earth and even have it on DVD and it still didn't occur to me. Weird. :wtf:
 
I assume that the first Mad Max was made for about ten cents.

"Mad Max" held a Guinness Record for thirty years as the highest profit-to-cost ratio of a motion picture. Its budget was 400 000 AUD and it grossed $100m. worldwide (according to Wikipedia). That's what I call a good investment. ;)
 
Terminator

Inalienable

Ascension

The Specials

Fanboys

Free Enterprise

Mystery Science Theater 3k the Movie
 
The original Village of the Damned, which was made for $200,000 at the time. I also enjoy a number of that era's B movies, which were all low budget by nature. Also, there's the 90's Gamera trilogy, each costing between 4 and 6 million and looking remarkably good for it.
 
Top Gun could be made so 'cheaply' (only Hollywood could call 15 million dollars, in any year, 'low budget') because of extensive cooperation from the U.S. Military. Their lack of cooperation is also why plans to make Top Gun 2 were scrapped. Make no mistake. If the studio had to pay for all the costs of military equipment, airplanes, and other resources that were provided to the production, it would not have cost $15 million.
I wasn't saying that Top Gun was cheaply made. My point was exactly the opposite - that a $15 million budget was sizable in 1986 and within the standard budget range of big studio films. Without military cooperation it might have cost as much as, say, $20-25 million - a budget that would have made it one the most expensive films of the year.

With the budget inflation Hollywood films have experienced over the last 20 years, even films that get a lot of production values from military cooperation can end up being very expensive these days, costing far more than the $30 million that the budget of Top Gun adjusts to today.

To give another example from 1986: Aliens had a budget of $18.5 million, which adjusts to $35.86 million in 2008 dollars. The yardstick of what constitutes an expensive studio film used to be a hell of a lot lower than it is today.
 
Not truly low budget, but sort of kind of...

The Last Starfighter--15mil
Equilibrium--20mil
Star Trek II--11mil
 
Star Wars, which wasn't by any means low budget by the standards of 1977 (although it got great production values from its budget - more so than some big budget films of the time), adjusts to a budget of just $38.65 million in 2008 dollars (that's using the most-often cited budget figure of $11 million as a starting point).
Curses, I knew someone was gonna bring up inflation sooner or later! :lol:

IIRC, Star Wars' original budget was $8 million, but some delays in its production extended the budget to around $11 million, so that's why I included both numbers.
 
District 9 is good and doesn't look low budget, at all, and would have more of an excuse to be.

I consider it low budget because if you include 10 million dollar movies from 30 years ago they are the same price. The reason District 9 looks so great and is so cheap is because the prawn's shacks are real human shacks.
 
Top Gun could be made so 'cheaply' (only Hollywood could call 15 million dollars, in any year, 'low budget') because of extensive cooperation from the U.S. Military. Their lack of cooperation is also why plans to make Top Gun 2 were scrapped. Make no mistake. If the studio had to pay for all the costs of military equipment, airplanes, and other resources that were provided to the production, it would not have cost $15 million.
I wasn't saying that Top Gun was cheaply made. My point was exactly the opposite - that a $15 million budget was sizable in 1986 and within the standard budget range of big studio films. Without military cooperation it might have cost as much as, say, $20-25 million - a budget that would have made it one the most expensive films of the year.

With the budget inflation Hollywood films have experienced over the last 20 years, even films that get a lot of production values from military cooperation can end up being very expensive these days, costing far more than the $30 million that the budget of Top Gun adjusts to today.

To give another example from 1986: Aliens had a budget of $18.5 million, which adjusts to $35.86 million in 2008 dollars. The yardstick of what constitutes an expensive studio film used to be a hell of a lot lower than it is today.

Not a point that I'd argue against. I just didn't think it was quite fair to compare The Fly and Top Gun. But I stand corrected.
 
Moon 44 (not to be confused with the current Moon)

An early film made by Roland Emmerich (ID4, Godzilla, 2012 etc) about a guy who is placed undercover in a mining base as a fighter pilot who is tasked to uncover why vital shipments of ore are disappearing.

Pretty good movie with decent action.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top