"Love keeps her up when she ought to fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens, makes her home."
September 03
2009
Is sci-fi better when it's low budget?
Serenity is mentioned as an example of a low-ish budget sci-fi film which might be all the better for not costing big bucks.
Jon
| Firefly&Serenity
| 12:56 CET
|
24 comments total
| tags:
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to
log in to be able to post comments.
About
membership.
« Older
Exclusive clip from Dollhouse 'Epi...
|
Top 10 Games That Need Movie Treat...
Newer »
© 2002 - 2017 - WHEDONesque.com
(
e-mail)
Individual posts are copyright their respective authors
This is a non-profit, unofficial website, not affiliated with Mutant Enemy, Inc., 20th Century Fox, Warner Brothers or UPN.
Even as a tiny tot, I loved The Land of the Lost as a very low budget sci-fi-ish sort of show...watch out for the slesstack!!
alexreager | September 03, 13:15 CET
hacksaway | September 03, 13:24 CET
klfair | September 03, 13:27 CET
For an actual low budget sci-fi film, I'd have to mention Franklyn -- an ambitious £6m British film from a first-time director. I haven't seen got around to seeing it yet, but it's meant to be brilliant for a low budget/first time film, if a little confused (and frankly, I'd rather somebody tries to do something new and exciting and fails rather than create a perfect carbon copy of everything else out there).
Edited to add: here's a wiki link about Primer for anyone interested. I can't help but smile at the credits list on the right, I'm amazed he managed to pull it off.
[ edited by MattK on 2009-09-03 22:46 ]
MattK | September 03, 13:37 CET
Pointy | September 03, 14:02 CET
jclemens | September 03, 14:50 CET
shesmyeverything | September 03, 14:53 CET
Tin Ear Tom | September 03, 16:19 CET
Loose Deckplate | September 03, 17:00 CET
RaisedByMongrels | September 03, 17:54 CET
MattK | September 03, 18:04 CET
impalergeneral | September 03, 18:39 CET
That being said, I don't think budget has too much to do with quality. I would say the only thing is, the more expensive films get, the more money is on the line, so the more executives will push the films to be more "commercial."
However, Serenity is pretty commercial in a lot of ways (I know it wasn't successful, but I mean commercial in that it's a fast-paced space opera, with lots of thrills, action, and laughs... we're not talking about Solaris here). I think if Serenity was made on a hundred million dollar budget, it would be just as good, just with better production values.
And on the flip side, there are plenty of lame, cheap sci-fi films (especially if you go really cheap, like the made for SyFy stuff). It really just comes down to "stop making bad movies."
bonzob | September 03, 18:46 CET
wouldestous | September 03, 19:16 CET
A low budget is not a prescription for good science fiction, but it is a good way to keep a good director honest.
azzers | September 03, 19:44 CET
lol, ain't it the truth?!
JossIzBoss | September 03, 22:01 CET
Yeah, exactly bonzob. Sometimes "commercial" means "entertaining fun" (e.g. 'Independence Day') and sometimes it means "cynical lowest common denominator shite" (e.g. 'Transformers 2'). So I don't think low budget necessarily means better (whatever that even means) but it almost always means more daring (i.e. original) and usually more cerebral just because less money at risk means less interference and less pressure to make $50 million on your opening weekend by appealing to absolutely everyone and their dog. If you prefer original, cerebral sci-fi exclusively then I guess that's better to you (personally I like both the spectaculars and the smaller "idea movies" and always have).
...I haven't seen got around to seeing it yet, but it's meant to be brilliant for a low budget/first time film, if a little confused
Saw 'Franklyn' at the cinema and it's not bad at all. I don't think it's quite as clever as it thinks it is (or maybe i've just seen/read a lot more science-fiction than the intended audience) because I saw the ending coming a mile off but it's well acted, nicely written, looks absolutely great for a low budget film and has some interestingly diverse characters ('Moon' is another great little indie by a first time British director BTW, well worth a look).
I also liked 'Primer', really nice little sci-fi film that doesn't entirely succeed as entertainment IMO but has some great ideas as well as a pretty mind-bending plot (it's definitely science-fiction though which may not be everyone's cup of tea). Got it on DVD and the commentary is a great extra (at one point the writer/director/star talks about how he couldn't spare film for overrunning after a take so that you can sometimes actually see him mouth "Cut" at the end of scenes he's in ;).
And not mentioned in the article but also a great film is 'Sunshine', made for about £20 million which, at the time, was about $40 million so about the same as 'Serenity'. Not convinced that $40 million actually is low budget but it's not the crazy money 'The Island' or 'Transformers' cost.
And is Will Smith a diva-ish actor BTW ? I hadn't heard that and always think he brings a lot of character stuff to even the most blockbuster-ish sci-fi.
Saje | September 04, 03:10 CET
As for Sunshine, I heard that went off the rails a bit at the end not that that should mean it's not a worthwhile film. And as far as Will Smith goes, I believe he's a scientologist now, which is unfortunately the first thing that comes to mind whenever he's mentioned.
MattK | September 04, 08:35 CET
hacksaway | September 04, 08:37 CET
They both provide us with the same characters, many of the same introductions, but the scope and pacing of the two is so different and opposing, and I'm sure every person here prefers one method over the other.
I think I tend to gravitate towards a lower budget approach, because it makes creators slow down a little and spend time (I like azzer's phrase, "keeps them honest"), but like everyone here has pretty much said, it seems like lots of money or any lack of it can't help a bad movie.
ef | September 04, 10:24 CET
Yeah the last third briefly descends into a different (lesser IMO) sort of picture MattK (it's almost like the creators lost faith in the film they'd been making up to then) BUT it brings it back at the very end IMO and on balance it's a good film, quite traditional sci-fi in many ways since it has the "scientist as hero" you used to see a lot in the 50s.
Well worth a look anyway, you can probably even buy it for about 3 quid now (and largely thanks to Moore's law, it's got some truly beautiful CGI - 10 years ago I doubt it could've been done at that price).
Saje | September 04, 12:11 CET
azzers | September 05, 12:11 CET
Saje | September 05, 13:08 CET
I don't think budget has much to do with it. A good story is a good story, regardless of the budget.
And a mega-pic that relies on expensive special effects, but doesn't have a good story. Well, there you have it.
PaulfromSunnydale | September 08, 12:29 CET