Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
tiffuts

Last Movie you watched...

Recommended Posts

Olivia Thirlby is indeed pretty hot. Dredd was one of my favorite movies last year. It's like Die Hard directed by John Carpenter.

I watched MacGruber again yesterday. It's one of the most underrated comedies ever made. It's so stupid in all the right ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I finally saw Monsters University and thought it was outstanding! I was starting to get nervous after I only saw so-so reviews about it. But I personally loved it and highly recommend everyone to see it. Definitely my favorite movie of 2013 so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, right? Sure, it wasn't as deep or epic as some other Pixar films, but you know what? It was cute, and funny, and told a good story about finding your calling in life and true friendship. Plus marching band music. That always makes things better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharknado. It was a fine piece of Cinema mastery. Surely the Citizen Cane of our time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I finally saw Wreck it Ralph, I'm a bit late to the party, but I felt it was a little wasted potential especially when Ralph stopped being the protagonist in his own movie. If it was called "sugar rush" I think it would have worked better. I went into the movie on the premise that was about villain game hopping through an arcade in order to prove himself to be more than that. after about 20 minutes, that wasn't applicable anymore.

Edit: I bet this has already been brought up before, so feel free to ignore this whole post if you are tired of the same conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had time for my passion for the movie to cool a bit and I can agree that the movie does get stuck too long in Sugar Rush. I think a better finale act would have been strewn throughout the entire Arcade.

I disagree that it stopped being Ralph's story though. It wasn't until Sugar Rush that Ralph found a purpose and actually became a legitimate hero. I also enjoy the constrasts and similiarities between him and Vanellope. Specifically how their respective games treat them and how they deal with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, no Underverse then. Probably budget related going back to where the first film started. Well, it still could be good, looking forward to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly doubt this when looking at the movies (intimate play vs. space opera), the financial side (production costs vs. box-office takings) and interviews about what they wanted to do after Riddick 2. It's not about what will be the better movie (obviously creating a strange new world in a convincing way would have been quite expensive, contrary to staying on a planet like in the first movie). It's a money thing, less costs, less risk, more bang for the buck. But better this than no Riddick at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm saying it was driven by finances. The reason people didn't see the second movie was, because they heard bad things about it. Therefore they decided to make this more like the original to appeal the that same audience which also had the effect of being cheaper. It's a win win. You please the majority of the fans and save on production costs. Both lead to bigger possible profits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leroy Octopus

I don't know where you got your informations from but a lot more people watched Riddick2 than Riddick1. It's just the roi are better and the production costs for a planet only movie are a lot cheaper. Quality wise both movies had their ups and downs but if you watch them in a row Riddick2 is clearly the more entertaining and expensive film. But trying out something new and taking risks isn't exactly what Hollywood is most interested in. Riddick3 being more like Riddick1 is the safer bet, especially if you're living in a world of sequels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Riddick 2" was a campy watered-down PG-13, action sci-fi snoozefest. More people watched it because more people watch Campy Watered-Down PG-13 Action Sci-Fi Snoozefests (Transformers, Battleship, etc) than they do movies like Pitch Black. More people watch Riddick 2 because Riddick 2 had a marketing budget.

Also a budget is not a guarantee of quality. Compare the awesomeness of The Matrix with it's measly $10 mil compared to the utter shit that were the sequels, each of which cost over ten times that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep but a higher budget also can build the basis to try out something new in a certain direction at all. Riddick is kind of stupid because it's Riddick and Riddick isn't 2001. Just watch the characters and listen to the dialogues. If you can life with that then Riddick2 is the better movie (watch the director's cut) and due to the budget it has more mass market appeal whilst Riddick1 is a b-movie low budget intimate play (especially with the darkness). And films like Transformers and Battleship are on a lower level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More people seeing a movie does not mean it made a profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Riddick

Considering its production budget was reported to have been between $105 million[1] and $120 million[2] (which does not include marketing and distribution), the film was a box office disappointment. It grossed $57 million domestically, and its total worldwide gross stands between $107 million[2] and $115 million[1] depending upon sources. However, it was significantly successful on DVD, where it gained a cult following.

So yeah. Going with a smaller budget not only means they don't have to worry about a big movie studio telling them what they can and can't do (i.e. making it PG-13 in a vain attempt to appeal to a wider audience), but it also allows for higher profit margins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@taumel:

I disagree completely. I actually argue that the opposite is true. More often creativity comes out of constraint. Be that self-imposed by the artist themselves or by what's available to them (With budget being the latter). The Matrix, Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, The Thing. All made on small budgets. All which were better than their later installments/remakes despite bigger budgets. Because they didn't need bigger budgets because they had already made incredible movies with the smaller ones. In fact the larger budget only encourages wasteful spending and justifying adding things to the script that only risk diminishing in order to spend as much as that budget as possible.And as leroy pointed out the bigger the budget the tighter the grip on the project investors have and the higher the pressure there is for the movie to appeal to as many people as possible which IS ALWAYS A BAD MOVE!

It's also stupid because then the studios are out more money than they ought to have been even when the movie succeeds because they've made it harder to profit. So both from a creative point of view and financial one a big budget can be a bigger hindrance to a project's success than not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bookdust

And i disagree with your opinion. Creativity can be involved in big and low budget productions. There exist great movies which were made with a relatively small budget as well as there exist awesome movies which need a high budget in order to be convincing. Some stories/films just need a high budget whilst others don't. Every day of shooting costs money, every location you need to visit, the size of your film crew, ...

It's just the same with video games. You can create a great Tetris game from A-Z within a few days but you can't create The Last of Us for the same budget/resources/timespan, that's just impossible. Both are great games but the second wouldn't be possible without a significantly higher budget. Can a higher budget also be misused? Yes, just take a look at all the more recent comic films. Dunno, do we really need to discuss such common sense things? That's kind of boring.

Maybe you are disappointed that the DFA got way more funding too and you'll be getting a worse game than just for 400k?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL! That's some bad logic. No I don't think I'm getting a bad game with Broken Age because of it's high funding. And my argument isn't that all big budget movies are bad.

My argument is that a smaller budget forces you to prioritize. The fewer resources you have to work with, the more focused your project becomes out of necessity and hopefully the more polished you make what you decided to include. In essence a small budget forces the wise creator to consider their project at it's most pure, essential form. Sure some movies just can't be made on a shoestring budget. James Cameron could never have made Avatar without the hundreds of millions of dollars that were poured into it simply because at it's most essential form it was that ambitious. But there's nothing in Chronicles of Riddick that says that to me. In fact, besides the bland CGI there's not much about it that really justifies it having as high a budget as it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, i agree that it's quite a bad logic to conclude from a lower budget to focus and so to a better product.

The problem is that your "argument" depends so much on the specific case that's just not a reasonable argument in a general way.

The production values of Riddick2 are a lot higher than those from Riddick1 and so the movie is more expensive. As i suggested already before, watch them in a row and if you still think that you don't see anything which puts Riddick2 (DC) apart from Riddick1 then, well, let's just agree to disagree because the differences should be more than obvious.

Many projects are working within certain constraints, sometimes necessity is the mother of invention, sometimes these constraints aren't good for the project's final quality at all, sometimes the constraints are reasonable and all rolls just fine, sometimes you aren't even touching them or aware of certain constraints, ... it's all so specific due to the project, the people who are involved, ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not bad logic it's perfectly sound. It's based on KISS design. Keep It Stupid Simple, in other words the design philosophy that a design is perfect when you cannot take away nor add any element without making the design worse. I believe bloated budgets can lead to bloated design. Creatives adding on simply because the money is there and it has to be spent, with an ambitious enough project there's a lot of room to maneuver but of your idea is fundamentally small in scope than it's to your advantage to keep it focused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bookdust

Yep, and sometimes they're entertaining and sometimes they aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...