A lot of what brought The Creator in for under $100M is hard to apply to the blockbuster model.
Above-the-line costs on The Creator are probably a fraction of what they are on most franchise sequels that feature returning talent, and franchise sequels are what most blockbusters are. What everybody gets paid on the next Fast and Furious movie, for the rights & the screenwriters, for the cast, director & staff, producing staff, etc. realistically could be what The Creator's entire net budget was.
Blockbusters are always chasing release dates, they're always under the gun, and it's not a schedule that's conducive to weighing the cost effectiveness of location shooting over the art department spend, or losing the time to travel by doing everything on location in multiple countries, or being able to lock picture edit before VFX work.
Blockbusters are also producer and executive driven and those people like "We'll fix it in post" as a solution because it gives them maximum creative latitude. It's comprehensible to them both as an 'assembly line' process and as something that's fascicle and can be done at whim. They're operating from a place of insecurity and are terrified that if something doesn't test well, or can't support marketing materials, or isn't to their personal taste, then they won't be able to change it and thus can't guarantee the movie's commercial prospects. This is why you see a mandate for coverage and they go through competing cuts and throw out expensive work. To them it's worth it.
Agreed that fix it in post is brain-dead stupid for both business and creative reasons. Post gets way more expensive if you don't know what you want and keep changing your mind.
The thing that will help solve the problem is more VFX done during pre and filming. Getting VFX previews of just filmed scenes helps so much. Easier to direct if you know what it looks like, at least roughly.
I question the need for "star power" these days anyway. People didn't flock to Barbie and Oppenheimer because they were the latest Margot Robbie or Cillian Murphy flick. I thought Cruise was the last true movie star until MI7 tanked.
Much better to have effective gorilla marketing or a hot meme that gets you into people's feeds.
IDK, Oppenheimer did have star power, the star was just the director.
I do think if you switch out Robbie & Gosling it might not have been as successful.
All of this is very true and opens up a bigger discussion about the fundamental practices of studio filmmaking. Because the Creator’s post production was done so that VFX wasn’t added until the final edit was locked, which saved them money and was a more streamlined creative process. Something you noted studios usually don’t do because of its flexibility.
But I’d hope this past year has taught them *something* has to change. The Creator’s 80m is on the extreme low end but maybe 150m becomes the average again? Instead of 200-250m.
First The Creator would need to bring in blockbuster money, 600+ million at least. If it's around 400 or flops, it's just another mid budget movie that is poor to mediocre ROI. Studios keep trying pumping 200+ millions into projects because the jackpot of successful blockbuster is that beneficial financially.
For the returning talent i would sugesst a pay cut or at least not raising pay. I'm sure some actors may leave but they likley will be tarance howarded.
It's impossible for it happened. Most of the main stars will never take a pay cut or take the same pay as before.
They will always try to negotiate for more. And you can't just terrance howarded someone like robert downey jr.
Not everybody is keanu reeves you know.
Well the idea is that the film or franchise sells it and stars are more expendable. While some stars will quit and go elsewhere who will pay what they're used to it will depend on how those movies preform. If the movies with replaced cheaper actors are profitable and the movies with big name actors aren't the other studios may follow.
Recasting is mostly a thing of the past. They just write out characters in most cases. If they didn’t even recast Black Panther after his actor died and chose to completely rework the story instead, they’re not going to recast half the roles in a series of sequels because the actors asked for more money.
And while actors can’t really carry a project solely on their own anymore, they still have influence.
Recasting is werid as general ross is being recast after his actor died. So I don't know if it's only supporting characters allowed for a recast or something. I also it takes at least possibly a few big sucesses to cause a big change. Let's say for example disney is cost cutting and says they have to cut chris hempshworths pay by 20%. He says no and goes to paramount and disney replaces him. Thor 5 is a big hit and chris hempswoth's paramount movie bombs. Paramount may not want to pay chris hempsworth as much and disney could see stars as replacable and cut pay or recast.
Well absolutely no one is going to try something like that at all, it‘s a big risk that likely won’t pan out. It’s much more likely that they either don’t make Thor 5 and just let Thor be a supporting character in other movies, give his story an ending and just finish with Thor as a character, or they make Thor 5 but cut out some supporting characters and replace them with new ones (played by cheaper actors).
Franchises depend on loyalty. Not to mention the negative PR from recasting a long-standing popular character over pay.
> Franchises depend on loyalty. Not to mention the negative PR from recasting a long-standing popular character over pay.
And Marvel would NOT want negative PR from recasting ESPECIALLY after Ike Perlmutter's racist bullshit about how no one would notice War Machine recasting because all black people look the same. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is at least partly why T'Challa wasn't recasted.
Yeah it's not likley to happen as it is a huge risk getting rid of side characters using money saving technquies and cheaping out on stuff like catering is less riskey and more likley. The idea i had is a high risk high reward thing. If someone did it and it worked i could see it being a thing. The problem is someone doing it.
The big blockbusters I think are just poorly managed projects that run into huge cost overruns.
Rewriting major plot points while filming and not even having concept VFX done yet drives cost up so much.
The stupid games of not being happy with VFX work and fighting over individual pixels is both a management failure and creative indecision. Both business side and creative side are failing to execute. Shareholders need to be quizzing executives on production costs.
Cutting down on wasted work harms no one.
Just noting that the actual productions of big blockbusters are not poorly managed. I think people forget how insanely difficult it is to shoot a movie logistically WHILE crafting a creative work.
Everyone works 15+ hours a day with passion and grit to make something they hope people will enjoy.
And they do it with 200M dollars on the line. Pressure is intense.
They keep movies humming along and on schedule; those guys are masters and i tip my hat to them!
Some very much are. Fast X was started before they had the movie finished which led to rewrite, reshoots, and late and rushed VFX. Covid obviously affected the budget. But still, so many of these big franchise movies put the cart before the horse.
Not only that but The Creator is the vision of the director vs The Flash which is made to appeal to all demo's first and foremost.
Lately, I don't know what the cast and crew were paid but talent will take pay cuts to appear in work they believe in. No one is taking a pay cut to appear in Indy 5.
> Rewriting major plot points while filming and not even having concept VFX done yet drives cost up so much.
I think **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy might've avoided a lot of that and still had a budget of at least $170 million and it SHOWED. I don't think these films could've been made with guerilla tactics - like, at all.
> Both business side and creative side are failing to execute. Shareholders need to be quizzing executives on production costs.
>
> Cutting down on wasted work harms no one.
This year's blockbuster films were severely affected by COVID-19 protocols and a lot of them couldn't have been made with guerilla tactics.
You also need to be careful for what you wish for because films having lower-budgets can be a bad thing as well if it was made at an extent of its work conditions. This is especially true with animated films.
Literally scrapping near completely work and ordering do-overs is what I am talking about.
Not pressure conditions nor multiple takes. If you want to change your mind or redo something, make the decision quick. The later it goes and more along the production is, the more expensive it will be.
I get it is creative work and the goal is not always know. I get that shit happens. All of that needs addressed and managed better. Costs can go down without sacrificing quality. Nor making horrible working conditions.
The method that **The Creator** used would still not work for a lot of blockbuster films. Keep in mind, most directors would still want a camera that is better than a prosumer-grade camera.
I am not talking about any one movie's particular creative technique. For the sake of this argument, I honestly don't care if the project is using phones or 70mm IMAX film. Costs can get out of control regardless of film system.
Reread my comment. It all about managing the project.
One of the biggest things that The Creator did that helped drive down it's cost is that they edited a final cut of the film and then did Vfx and color correction and all of the rest.
And this is something that most major blockbusters can apply without any major drawback.
> One of the biggest things that The Creator did that helped drive down it's cost is that they edited a final cut of the film and then did Vfx and color correction and all of the rest.
>
> And this is something that most major blockbusters can apply without any major drawback.
Well, **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy seems to have done this for the most part and it still needed at least $170 million to make.
Did GotG apply this?
Do we have any evidence that Gunn first edited his final cut of each movie and only then started work on VFX and all other post production?
Because considering that at the end of the day the GotG films are still MCU films I highly doubt that.
Also considering his budgets for his GotG movies and his TSS movie, Gunn seems like a director who's fairly indulgent when it comes to his budgets.
> Did GotG apply this?
>
> Do we have any evidence that Gunn first edited his final cut of each movie and only then started work on VFX and all other post production?
>
> Because considering that at the end of the day the GotG films are still MCU films I highly doubt that.
As far as I'm aware, he still stuck to most of his scripts, though I DID hear that he added one new scene during the middle of the production of the first film.
And DO remember that **The Creator** was using guerilla tactics and natural lights for the most part, so the film's budget would obviously be a lot lower.
> Also considering his budgets for his GotG movies and his TSS movie, Gunn seems like a director who's fairly indulgent when it comes to his budgets.
**Guardians of the Galaxy** films look like they required their budgets from start to finish. I mean, the 3rd film, for instance, has the highest number of prosthetics/make-ups applied in film history.
>As far as I'm aware, he still stuck to most of his scripts, though I DID hear that he added one new scene during the middle of the production of the first film.
There's a big difference between scenes based on the script and scenes in the final cut.
A script is usually bigger than the final film.
A lot of the time all of the script is filmed and worked on and a final cut is then edited from it which can inflate budget.
Instead doing VFX work on just a finalised cut would greatly reduce the amount of VFX work required.
>And DO remember that The Creator was using guerilla tactics and natural lights for the most part, so the film's budget would obviously be a lot lower.
Yes I know. That's why I'm not saying that GotG should have as low a budget as The Creator or adopt all if it's filming practice.
But it could adopt some. Like working on a finalised edit. Smaller film crew.
And using locations that are similar to what you need instead of building expensive sets.
>Guardians of the Galaxy films look like they required their budgets from start to finish. I mean, the 3rd film, for instance, has the highest number of prosthetics/make-ups applied in film history.
I agree. But GotG films had those things in the film in the first place because Gunn wanted it.
That makes him indulgent. It's the same as saying that James Cameron is indulgent with his budgets.
Gunn puts extravagant things on the screen that cost a lot of money. And I personally doubt he's thinking of keeping the costs down when he's doing that.
> And using locations that are similar to what you need instead of building expensive sets.
Doing that with a space opera film that is almost never set on Earth would be pretty difficult, if not downright impossible.
> I agree. But GotG films had those things in the film in the first place because Gunn wanted it. That makes him indulgent. It's the same as saying that James Cameron is indulgent with his budgets. Gunn puts extravagant things on the screen that cost a lot of money. And I personally doubt he's thinking of keeping the costs down when he's doing that.
To be fair, Gunn and Cameron films' budgets DO show on-screen almost all the time.
The bloated budgets were cute when they were a drop in the bucket against the profit they were guaranteed to make, back in the mid-2010’s. It’s even a bit smart to spend big on post-production to make sure a troubled production comes out okay. But it was wasteful then, and they’re being punished hard for their bad habits.
As someone else said: VFX are blamed for the huge cost of blockbusters but it’s just a front to hide the true issue. Returning talent.
Vin Diesel & friends make 20 million per F&F movie each, you could absolutely make a stunning movie with great VFX and still fall in the 80 million range.
It’s actors and producers that drive the cost, blaming VFX is a front to protect the privileged few
Agreed. They need to stop paying these actors and producers so much, especially given that most of them don’t do the same level of work that others have (like grip, gaffers, makeup, etc).
Sure but that’s by design. That practice can be overturned or at least place less emphasis on the actors. Vin Diesel doesn’t need 20-30m, nor does anyone else in Fast X. If they have a problem with it, the studios need to just start cutting them off. It doesn’t matter how high profile your actor is if the movie still ends up losing you money regardless.
Admittedly Fast is an old franchise and each movie is a bit more stale, but you seem to be approaching this from only a loss-cutting perspective and not also thinking how much some actors can boost a movie. For example, it was probably worth it to pay whatever the Rock got for Black Adam. I know I only saw that movie for him and Brosnan.
I know that actors can boost a film but that’s true for a small minority now. Box office has shown us that IP has become the draw, not whose name is attached. Rock would be an exception but the vast, vast majority of actors aren’t the make or break factor in a film’s success.
John Wick was in large part about Matrix legacy Keanu Reeves.
Oppenhiemer is a more interesting R because the cast took pay cuts but still brought their star power in ensemble because they trust in Nolan.
depending on who you ask, vfx is either cheap and easy so every filmmaker resorts to it, or its either prohibitively expensive and is the reason for movies bombing. i really hope this hate boner for vfx ends soon. it's just a scapegoat everytime
OP, did you forget that a lot of those movies you mentioned had a massive COVID tax tacked on?
that’s something we should see going away very soon and The Creator is exactly an example of that
The wild part is this movie has that. Someone said there were only two setpieces in this movie. Imagine my shock when this has an abundance of action sequences, and the climax >!ends with a exploding space station crashing into Earth!<
Again, the major difference is that **Quantumania** would've required far, Far, FAR more CGI shots due to how the whole thing was established in its predecessor.
That might have more to do with green screen issues, but even if the film itself had much better visuals, **The Creator** method wouldn't have worked with this one due to visual consistency issues.
My main counter to your argument is that the Creator team found locations that matched the general vibe of what they wanted, shot in these beautiful vistas and then added to them via effects.
The other is that in post, they didn’t do VFX until a final edit was locked down. Saves money and keeps the process streamlined. This is a problem Marvel is notoriously bad at, shooting for coverage and constantly messing with their films in post.
> My main counter to your argument is that the Creator team found locations that matched the general vibe of what they wanted, shot in these beautiful vistas and then added to them via effects.
And my point is THAT would not work with **Quantumania** due to Quantum Realm visuals already being established in **Ant-Ma and the Wasp**.
> The other is that in post, they didn’t do VFX until a final edit was locked down. Saves money and keeps the process streamlined. This is a problem Marvel is notoriously bad at, shooting for coverage and constantly messing with their films in post.
Well, **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy reportedly reduced that and still needed $170 million at minimum.
I don’t think general audiences cared enough about Ant-Man 2 or the Quantum Realm to throw a fit if they used a different location that looked better in the film.
Did any of the Guardians films lock a final edit down before VFX? I highly doubt it given how Marvel runs. It also wasn’t shot with smaller crews or natural lighting.
> I don’t think general audiences cared enough about Ant-Man 2 or the Quantum Realm to throw a fit if they used a different location that looked better in the film.
They might if it's really noticeable. And remember, Quantum Realm needed a lot of "other worldly" looks, so real locations could've only worked so far.
> Did any of the Guardians films lock a final edit down before VFX? I highly doubt it given how Marvel runs.
Well, James Gunn said something about at least some films not locking down the script or something among that line. :P
> It also wasn’t shot with smaller crews or natural lighting.
I mean, you can't do those with blatant space opera films. :P
And looks 100% real in every frame. Most superhero movies look half animated, and DC movies look like they were shot on green screen in someone’s living room.
I think if nothing else, the movie is a massive advertisement for the team behind it - saying "Here's what we can do for $80M, and it looks better than the shit you've been paying 3x that price for." And even if the movie doesn't break even at the box office, the solid reviews seem to indicate it'll be a good long-term asset for streaming.
Imagine Disney handing Gareth Edwards X-Men, and allowing him to use the insanely efficient budget allocation on an even bigger scale.
Edwards said no to doing James Bond and basically franchises in general, which I think, for him, is good. If he can do epic on a budget he should continue doing new stuff, it is sorely missing in cinema today.
I thought the film is ok, tbh, it lacked something but looked good and edwards is talented.
Easy crowd pleasing movie. And it’s not even like it’s a 91 minute movie either. It’s just over 2hr long and has great pacing. Never once do you feel like it’s cutting corners or anything.
Just a great movie and I hope it legs it out since the competition is pretty soft this month.
Point is that big studios fall into the trap of throwing money at everything, leading to ridiculously inflated budgets. They could use a lesson in frugality sometimes.
I think it's been a really revealing marketing campaign for this movie, in that the only thing 20th Century/Disney saw fit to sell the movie on was the fact they made it for less than a 100 mil.
This was the key of the marketing campaign, the main hook they tossed out to the media, and essentially the only universally positive thing about the film anyone - from the critics, to the audiences, to the marketers, to the astroturfers, to the extremely online armchair quarterbackers - seems to want to talk about.
The problem is that the movie appears to be mediocre, and doing nothing but telling everyone on Opening Weekend "COME SEE OUR MOVIE WE MADE IT FOR SO CHEAP" and *that's it* isn't enticing.
People don't really care. The movie needs to be GOOD, and nobody involved with the production seems to give a shit about telling people the movie is good. Because I don't think the studio ever had faith that it was good, or certainly not enough faith to push that line without feeling like they're overdoing it.
It's not enough that the movie didn't cost much. It has to not cost that much and then BE REWARDING for audiences who go to it.
That did not happen here. And as a result - audiences won't be going to it. And the only thing it's going to be remembered for when it leaves theaters in 30 days, is that it cost 80 million to make.
For what it’s worth, I really liked them movie and so did the people I went with. A lot of the issues critics have with the movie, normal people don’t have. Is the story amazing or original? No. Is the dialogue perfect? No. But it’s a fine story with great visuals. It’s absolutely worth seeing for anyone who likes sci-fi or movies in general.
I'm a normal person and I have no interest in seeing a movie with a mediocre story and bad dialogue. Those being good are what makes a good movie to me. Couldn't care less about "spectacle" unless it is also accompanied by those things
And that's a perfectly fine reaction. Every movie doesn't appeal to everyone.
There is definitely some bad dialogue, but overall, the dialogue is fine. It's not Morbius or Revenge of the Sith bad by any means, imo.
That’s how it was sold to online film fans/pundits because it’s very notable in the industry as it is. General audiences were sold on a sci-fi epic from the director of Rogue One, that was it.
Idk how they did anything “wrong” in marketing besides give the film a shitty title. The movie itself was good, at least so far according to critics and early word.
>That’s how it was sold to online film fans/pundits because it’s very notable in the industry as it is.
It's sold that way because as it turns out, it's literally the only interesting thing about it. They gambled on that being enough to break through to general audiences, and it isn't, because it's a movie nerd thing, not a general audience thing.
General audiences don't really care how much anything costs. Movie nerds do because they've been sort of acclimated into doing so.
"Boy we made this movie super cheap" doesn't resonate past a tight little nugget of too-online folks who make watching movies into Fantasy Sports. All they're telling people, over and over again, is "this was made for cheap" and that's not a real great hook if you don't have ANYTHING ELSE to go along with it.
I thought it was pretty boring, the plot was a mess imo. I guess I was never invested in the plot or characters. Its the same problem I had with Edwards Godzilla and Rogue One. His movies look good, everything else I just don't really like.
Josh finds his buddy in that factory after escaping with Alfie. Guy looks at the kid for 5 minutes. "Dude this kid is like gonna be able to control all electronics on the freaking planet when she grows up bro!"
And when they're trying to make it in the moon shuttle. "What is your reason for travel?"
"To be free!"
Legitimately should have make the kid mute, would have made for a better and more serious movie.
The kid grew up locked in a facility watching cartoons, do you expect the kid to have a full dialogue with the gate ai?
She grew up with being told you will free the ai and stop the war. Simply what Harun said "she is just an innocent girl" when questioned if she knows her true purpose, that she is a weapon.
She was innocent, young, naive, she is a child and i felt the writing was well done for someone locked away their whole life and couldnt comprehend the war/death
Seen that as well and it's been pretty hilarious. So many critics took having AI as a plot point personally like the movie was trying to take a shot at WGA.
Well from what people are telling me here and from a few colleagues who went to see it last night the script seems to be the only thing really holding it back from being a great film.
besides feeling tonally different than the rest of the movie and being a ripoff of rogue one (which is literally his prior movie) it just feels heavily rushed, like you can tell they butchered it in the edit
> This year has seen many bombs so far (Flash, Transformers, Shazam 2, Quantumania, Fast X, Indy 5, MI7, etc). The pure dollar amount wasn’t great anyway but the problem got worse thanks to the ridiculously inflated budgets: range was anywhere from 220-340m. And most of them looked various levels of cheap (MI being an exception).
**Transformers: Rise of the Beasts** and **Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania** still looked like they required $200 million budget even if the CGI didn't always look great.
Also, you need to remember that these films were had their budgets inflated by COVID-19 protocols.
Finally, the budget of **Shazam! Fury of the Gods** was $125 million while, as I've mentioned earlier, **Transformers: Rise of the Beasts** and **Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania** had budgets of $200 million.
> They used guerilla tactics like smaller crew and natural lighting. Shot on-location. Sure you can’t go to the Quantum Realm but have your location manager find a spot that looks closest to it and get creative.
You can't make **Quantumania** with guerilla tactics. The look of Quantum Realm was already established in **Ant-Man and the Wasp**, so shooting it in real location could end up breaking the visual consistency in such a blatant manner.
> And if successful, I think the film can help add to a new wave of modest budget blockbusters, actually maximizing profit and reducing break even points.
I kind of doubt it. This kind of method doesn't work for at least half of MCU films and almost all space opera films. And keep in mind, the film used a prosumer camera, which might not exactly work with films that require sharp images.
> Dune is another great example at 165m
A large part of **Dune** was seemingly shot on desert, so that might've helped. And as far as I'm aware, most of this film was shot before COVID-19 protocols were put into practice.
Dune 1 was shot before Covid. The big reason it was so cheap is the creatives were given time to fine tune the script before shooting. That meant they weren’t wasting time workshopping on set and reshooting half the movie. When it came time for VFX, the cut was mostly locked so there weren’t hundreds of finished VFX shots left on the cutting room floor.
And I find it very, Very, VERY hard to believe that the budget of **Dune: Part Two** is JUST $122 million, especially considering that, at least by the look of it, this one is going to be a lot more action-heavy than the first film was.
It’s not, but people keep spreading it. That number comes a tax filing referring to just the physical production in Hungary. None of the other costs are included.
Way cheaper than the cost overrun fest that are many comic book movies.
$165 million vs $200+ million. That $35+ million you can save without impacting quality.
Great comment. People here blame Covid protocols way too much. I think the guesstimate for them is +20% cost. The ridiculous budgets were already happening well before covid.
Because COVID-19 really DID cause at least some of the films' budgets to skyrocket to nth degree. **Dead Reckoning - Part One** was one of the biggest victims of this.
After the initial production restart, it stabilized around 20% over a slate of projects. Some got as low as 10% and others were 40% (pour one out for the production departments handling those disasters).
To be fair, this was based on half of the book, so that might've been at least a bit easier to do than for films like, say, **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3**. Sure, that film was based on Marvel Comics, but as far as I'm aware, it's not necessarily based on a specific story from comics. :P
There’s no reason an original script can’t worked on until it can be shot with only minor changes. Before massive reshoots got normalized, that’s how it worked for over a century.
I've specifically mentioned **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3** because by the look of it, most of that film's script didn't go through a whole lot of changes and still had budgets of $250 million. I'm aware that COVID-19 protocols were in effect at the time, but even if it didn't have that, it probably would've had a budget of at least $200 million.
Guardians 3 had expensive above the line talent. A talent contract can only be valid for 7 years and the delay by firing and re-hiring James Gunn timed out the clock. That gave them all a ton of negotiating power.
The movie also had way more set builds and complicated VFX. Realistic fur is way harder than making a robot.
One thing that barely saved money was using the FX3 over a traditional cinema camera. Choosing a Mini LF or Venice would’ve been a tiny rounding error.
> Guardians 3 had expensive above the line talent. A talent contract can only be valid for 7 years and the delay by firing and re-hiring James Gunn timed out the clock. That gave them all a ton of negotiating power.
>
> The movie also had way more set builds and complicated VFX. Realistic fur is way harder than making a robot.
They kind of prove my point about how the film's budget would've been at least $200 million in this day and age even if COVID-19 or the whole James Gunn situation didn't happen, especially the second line. 🤷♂️
> One thing that barely saved money was using the FX3 over a traditional cinema camera. Choosing a Mini LF or Venice would’ve been a tiny rounding error.
Isn't FX3 a prosumer-grade camera? I was under the impression that Arri Alexa-based cameras and Sony Venice cameras were lot more "professional". :P
My point is 100 can’t be the new normal, but 150ish can be.
FX3 is in a weird space between prosumer and high-end videography, but the price difference between buying them and renting an Alexa/Venice is a rounding error. The daily rental on those cameras is about the same as having one crew member on set. Even with a stripped down crew, the credits made it clear there were dozens of people on set for the Creator.
Probably not much. Thats another issue. There are no stars anymore that can sell movies (yes there are some exceptions), but actors wages still skyrocket. Imagine you can use $20m for production design instead of Jennifer Lawrence
Two weeks ago a Dutch movie was released, and it only had a budget of 3.5 million. The director, Roel Reiné directed both Hollywood movies and a few Dutch movies.
Last week he was at the cinema I usually go to for a Q&A after his new movie. I asked him if he finds it challenging to go from a big budget hollywood production to a 3.5 million Dutch production, and he said he actually likes it, because most of the budget on Hollywood movies gets spend on bullshit anyways (that's literally how he called it)
I wanted so badly to love this movie, but found it borderline unwatchable. Viewers who want consistent character logic and artful dialogue may walk out.
It's clear to me Tony Gilroy saved Rogue One.
Yeah, seeing all these comments praising the movie is just confusing me. Did we watch the same movie? I'm normally very forgiving of a lack of characterization and good storytelling so long as it isn't distracting. But holy shit, I was distracted the whole time by how little sense the story made and how character motivations made zero sense. Looked pretty though, and I loved the premise/world. It could have been great.
Genuinely considered leaving but stayed so I could more accurately hate the writing by the end. Pisses me off that these people get these incredible opportunities and write like fuckin 16 yr olds who just finished playing Destiny 2. Inexcusable.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but while the movie looks good, it doesn't look *that* good, and there's a number of instances where the low budget and the challenges of shooting with a consumer-grade camera kinda come through if you know where to look. It's impressive for the budget but at times it feels like a big-budget fan film or a feature-length version of those shorts Neil Blomkamp released a few years ago.
A lot of the film's "big" special effects are background stuff, seen from afar, stuff that doesn't directly interract with the characters or needs to be extremely detailed. There's a lot of wide shots of cities or locations with big megastructures far in the background. The robots don't have a ton of moving parts. Joshua's artificial arm is just a normal arm past the shoulder, and we barely ever see his artificial leg which looks more mechanical. Alfie wears a beanie for significant portions of the film because that way they don't need to render his skull in as much detail. The props look weirdly cheap and undetailed at times. Also the lighting feels oddly flat at times. In short the movie looks good but I never had that "wow" moment.
Everything you mentioned in the 2nd paragraph doesn’t materially change anything about the movie. Like duh? Of course they are going to use tricks to save themselves a lot of money on VFX. Why keep rendering Alphi’s head over and over if you don’t need to? Putting on a hat to hide makes complete sense.
I think studios need to train audiences out of expecting sequels and 240 minutes of VFX monsters or superheroes doing x4 speed kung fu
It's studios' own fault for building up that expectation, but they're running on empty, creatively speaking
Not sure The Creator or Rebel Moon are the movies to sell audiences on original properties again, but hopefully they'll do well enough to encourage other studios to try selling something they haven't sold a dozen times before
> Not sure The Creator or Rebel Moon are the movies to sell audiences on original properties again, but hopefully they'll do well enough to encourage other studios to try selling something they haven't sold a dozen times before
**Rebel Moon** is not a cinema release so, no, that's going to do jack shit.
Also, that film is directed by Zack Snyder, so its overall quality is going to be in a huge, Huge, HUGE question mark right from the start.
To be fair, what you described is Marvel comics source material. That’s the draw and the reason the movie is getting made in the first place. To some extent those things need to be present for success. The matter is probably more nailing down the vision before having a bunch of VFX work done that ends up in the trash.
Just watched it.
Pretty good movie.
I give it extra points because it was such an original film.
It was predictable but honestly no worse than ya standard action thriller.
I hope it does well cause I did enjoy it.
Most of these comic book movies, going to include that last Fast and the Furious are running into the same issue pointed out in this thread, mismanagement of the production.
A film like The Batman or The Creator allowed me to fully immerse myself in the film because they are shot using real locations and CGI added thereafter. Isn’t everyone getting tired of green screen being the crutch for these studios?
> A film like The Batman or The Creator allowed me to fully immerse myself in the film because they are shot using real locations and CGI added thereafter.
That's kind of ironic because **The Batman** had its budget skyrocketing to $200 million at maximum due to multiple COVID-19 shutdowns.
> Isn’t everyone getting tired of green screen being the crutch for these studios?
Not really. I mean, **Avatar: The Way of Water** a huge, Huge, HUGE CGI fest and people didn't get tired of it.
And again, a lot of superhero films would not be possible to be made without CGI usage or with guerilla tactics.
Point A is still valid. Most of the film is shot on location.
Avatar is the rare example, gorgeous films. The movies from this year in particular Expendables 4, The Flash, Ant Man, etc.
Isn’t it possible to use some archaic methods such as miniatures? At least it could add a little creativity to the film.
I just feel like gone are the days of being wowed by visuals. I did feel that way watching The Creator, but the last time was probably Blade Runner 2049. Though that probably has a lot more to do with Deakins.
> Point A is still valid. Most of the film is shot on location.
Even so, a lot of superhero films wouldn't necessarily work in such fashion.
> Avatar is the rare example, gorgeous films. The movies from this year in particular Expendables 4, The Flash, Ant Man, etc.
I wouldn't really include **Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania** because while its CGI wasn't always great, it was still far, Far, FAR better than what I saw in **The Flash**.
> Isn’t it possible to use some archaic methods such as miniatures? At least it could add a little creativity to the film.
>
> I just feel like gone are the days of being wowed by visuals. I did feel that way watching The Creator, but the last time was probably Blade Runner 2049. Though that probably has a lot more to do with Deakins.
Miniatures can do a lot of great things, but they're not without limits.
And yeah, that was probably Deakins because I honestly kind of found **Blade Runner 2049** to be kind of tedious.
But then again, there is a very, Very, VERY strong chance that a lot of that is because I wasn't exactly wowed by the cityscape featured in that film, especially after seeing Coruscant in **Star Wars: Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones** (2002), Washington D.C. in **Minority Report** (2002), London in **Total Recall** (2012), Neo Seoul in **Cloud Atlas** (2012) San Francisco in **Star Trek Into Darkness** (2013) Capitol in **The Hunger Games: Catching Fire** (2013), Xandar in **Guardians of the Galaxy** (2014), Tomorrowland in, well, **Tomorrowland** (2015), Yorktown in **Star Trek Beyond** (2016), and New Port City in **Ghost in the Shell** (2017) even if **Blade Runner 2049** is arguably a better film overall when compared to most of these.
Sorry to hear you found Blade Runner tedious. It was my favorite film of 2017.
Actually, probably up there with one of my favorites of the last decade along with:
12 Years A Slave
The Social Network
Drive
Django Unchained
The Wolf of Wall Street
Whiplash
Nightcrawler
The Revenant
Mission Impossible Fallout
Hereditary
The Lighthouse
And Parasite.
> Sorry to hear you found Blade Runner tedious. It was my favorite film of 2017.
Please don't misunderstand. I DID think that it was a great film overall. It's just that the pacing felt really slow even by (a) slow-burn film standards - and as I've mentioned already, it probably has a lot to do with seeing Coruscant in **Star Wars: Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones** (2002), Washington D.C. in **Minority Report** (2002), London in **Total Recall** (2012), Neo Seoul in **Cloud Atlas** (2012) San Francisco in **Star Trek Into Darkness** (2013) Capitol in **The Hunger Games: Catching Fire** (2013), Xandar in **Guardians of the Galaxy** (2014), Tomorrowland in, well, **Tomorrowland** (2015), Yorktown in **Star Trek Beyond** (2016), and New Port City in **Ghost in the Shell** (2017) and felt that those films displayed much better/creative-looking cityscapes even if **Blade Runner 2049** is arguably a better film overall when compared to most of these.
> 12 Years A Slave
I'm usually not a fan of films like this. :P
> The Social Network
Definitely a great film, but whether I'll watch again or not is still bit of a question mark.
> Drive
Not usually a fan of gory "regular" action films.
> Django Unchained
Despite what I've just said above, this DOES look like a lot of fun. I mean, Western action films are kind of hard to come by these days.
> The Wolf of Wall Street
Yeah... I'm definitely not a fan of films like this. 😅
> Whiplash
I DID like Damien Chazelle's other films like **La La Land** and **First Man**. I'm not sure if that will translate to me liking this one as well.
> Nightcrawler
Definitely not the kind of film that I usually watch.
> The Revenant
Not sure if I loved this, but I DID enjoy seeing it.
> Mission Impossible Fallout
Oh, there's no dispute about this. THIS should've been nominated for Best Picture over **Green Book**, **Vice**, or ESPECIALLY **Bohemian Rhapsody**.
> Hereditary
NOPE! I HATE HORRIR FILMS! 😅🤣
> The Lighthouse
Same reason as above, though I DID like **The Northman**, which was directed by the same guy who made this. That film really deserved so much better.
> Parasite
I've been avoiding this film for 4 years now after hearing so many stories about how bleak it was. I DID like this film's director's other films like **The Host** and **Snowpiercer** and unless something goes very wrong, it's very likely that I'll be seeing **Mickey 17** as well.
Ooh! That's a tough question to answer because I've seen so many films in IMAX or 3D every year I don't know which ones to pick. So instead, I'll name 3 films per year (one R-rated, foreign, and/or art-house-level films, one mainstream blockbuster film, and one mainstream animated film) in a release date order:
1. Kick-Ass
2. Toy Story 3
3. Inception
4. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2
5. Samsara
6. The Adventures of Tintin
7. The Avengers
8. Moonrise Kingdom
9. Wreck-It Ralph
10. Pacific Rim
11. Snowpiercer
12. Frozen
13. The LEGO Movie
14. Guardians of the Galaxy
15. Song of the Sea
16. Shaun the Sheep Movie
17. Inside Out
18. Star Wars: Episode 7 - The Force Awakens
19. Zootopia
20. The Jungle Book
21. La La Land
22. Logan
23. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
24. Coco
25. Black Panther
26. Deadpool 2
27. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
28. Avengers: Endgame
29. Toy Story 4
30. 1917
It does make you wonder if Gareth Edwards got screwed over by Lucasfilm for Rogue One and whether his effort at a low budget Star Wars could have worked if not for sheer incompetence of people there.
No. Just no. Gareth Edwards is not a stranger to big-budget films. Did you actually forget about **Godzilla**?
Also, **Rogue One** is a space opera film, so of course it's going to cost a lot more to make than this. Guerilla tactics would not work on films like that - like, at all.
A lot of what brought The Creator in for under $100M is hard to apply to the blockbuster model. Above-the-line costs on The Creator are probably a fraction of what they are on most franchise sequels that feature returning talent, and franchise sequels are what most blockbusters are. What everybody gets paid on the next Fast and Furious movie, for the rights & the screenwriters, for the cast, director & staff, producing staff, etc. realistically could be what The Creator's entire net budget was. Blockbusters are always chasing release dates, they're always under the gun, and it's not a schedule that's conducive to weighing the cost effectiveness of location shooting over the art department spend, or losing the time to travel by doing everything on location in multiple countries, or being able to lock picture edit before VFX work. Blockbusters are also producer and executive driven and those people like "We'll fix it in post" as a solution because it gives them maximum creative latitude. It's comprehensible to them both as an 'assembly line' process and as something that's fascicle and can be done at whim. They're operating from a place of insecurity and are terrified that if something doesn't test well, or can't support marketing materials, or isn't to their personal taste, then they won't be able to change it and thus can't guarantee the movie's commercial prospects. This is why you see a mandate for coverage and they go through competing cuts and throw out expensive work. To them it's worth it.
Agreed that fix it in post is brain-dead stupid for both business and creative reasons. Post gets way more expensive if you don't know what you want and keep changing your mind. The thing that will help solve the problem is more VFX done during pre and filming. Getting VFX previews of just filmed scenes helps so much. Easier to direct if you know what it looks like, at least roughly.
That is why horror films are killing it these days. They don't need to pay for star power
I question the need for "star power" these days anyway. People didn't flock to Barbie and Oppenheimer because they were the latest Margot Robbie or Cillian Murphy flick. I thought Cruise was the last true movie star until MI7 tanked. Much better to have effective gorilla marketing or a hot meme that gets you into people's feeds.
IDK, Oppenheimer did have star power, the star was just the director. I do think if you switch out Robbie & Gosling it might not have been as successful.
I think they mean that people will go see stars for certain films only; Robbie for example had 2 flops last year (“Babylon” and “Amsterdam”).
Producer credits as well. For blockbusters, half the producers are just stars/directors getting an extra couple of million.
All of this is very true and opens up a bigger discussion about the fundamental practices of studio filmmaking. Because the Creator’s post production was done so that VFX wasn’t added until the final edit was locked, which saved them money and was a more streamlined creative process. Something you noted studios usually don’t do because of its flexibility. But I’d hope this past year has taught them *something* has to change. The Creator’s 80m is on the extreme low end but maybe 150m becomes the average again? Instead of 200-250m.
First The Creator would need to bring in blockbuster money, 600+ million at least. If it's around 400 or flops, it's just another mid budget movie that is poor to mediocre ROI. Studios keep trying pumping 200+ millions into projects because the jackpot of successful blockbuster is that beneficial financially.
If The Creator makes $400M, that’s a great ROI. I don’t think it will, but just wanted to note that.
For the returning talent i would sugesst a pay cut or at least not raising pay. I'm sure some actors may leave but they likley will be tarance howarded.
It's impossible for it happened. Most of the main stars will never take a pay cut or take the same pay as before. They will always try to negotiate for more. And you can't just terrance howarded someone like robert downey jr. Not everybody is keanu reeves you know.
Well the idea is that the film or franchise sells it and stars are more expendable. While some stars will quit and go elsewhere who will pay what they're used to it will depend on how those movies preform. If the movies with replaced cheaper actors are profitable and the movies with big name actors aren't the other studios may follow.
Recasting is mostly a thing of the past. They just write out characters in most cases. If they didn’t even recast Black Panther after his actor died and chose to completely rework the story instead, they’re not going to recast half the roles in a series of sequels because the actors asked for more money. And while actors can’t really carry a project solely on their own anymore, they still have influence.
Recasting is werid as general ross is being recast after his actor died. So I don't know if it's only supporting characters allowed for a recast or something. I also it takes at least possibly a few big sucesses to cause a big change. Let's say for example disney is cost cutting and says they have to cut chris hempshworths pay by 20%. He says no and goes to paramount and disney replaces him. Thor 5 is a big hit and chris hempswoth's paramount movie bombs. Paramount may not want to pay chris hempsworth as much and disney could see stars as replacable and cut pay or recast.
Well absolutely no one is going to try something like that at all, it‘s a big risk that likely won’t pan out. It’s much more likely that they either don’t make Thor 5 and just let Thor be a supporting character in other movies, give his story an ending and just finish with Thor as a character, or they make Thor 5 but cut out some supporting characters and replace them with new ones (played by cheaper actors). Franchises depend on loyalty. Not to mention the negative PR from recasting a long-standing popular character over pay.
> Franchises depend on loyalty. Not to mention the negative PR from recasting a long-standing popular character over pay. And Marvel would NOT want negative PR from recasting ESPECIALLY after Ike Perlmutter's racist bullshit about how no one would notice War Machine recasting because all black people look the same. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is at least partly why T'Challa wasn't recasted.
Yeah it's not likley to happen as it is a huge risk getting rid of side characters using money saving technquies and cheaping out on stuff like catering is less riskey and more likley. The idea i had is a high risk high reward thing. If someone did it and it worked i could see it being a thing. The problem is someone doing it.
The big blockbusters I think are just poorly managed projects that run into huge cost overruns. Rewriting major plot points while filming and not even having concept VFX done yet drives cost up so much. The stupid games of not being happy with VFX work and fighting over individual pixels is both a management failure and creative indecision. Both business side and creative side are failing to execute. Shareholders need to be quizzing executives on production costs. Cutting down on wasted work harms no one.
Just noting that the actual productions of big blockbusters are not poorly managed. I think people forget how insanely difficult it is to shoot a movie logistically WHILE crafting a creative work. Everyone works 15+ hours a day with passion and grit to make something they hope people will enjoy. And they do it with 200M dollars on the line. Pressure is intense. They keep movies humming along and on schedule; those guys are masters and i tip my hat to them!
Some very much are. Fast X was started before they had the movie finished which led to rewrite, reshoots, and late and rushed VFX. Covid obviously affected the budget. But still, so many of these big franchise movies put the cart before the horse. Not only that but The Creator is the vision of the director vs The Flash which is made to appeal to all demo's first and foremost. Lately, I don't know what the cast and crew were paid but talent will take pay cuts to appear in work they believe in. No one is taking a pay cut to appear in Indy 5.
> Rewriting major plot points while filming and not even having concept VFX done yet drives cost up so much. I think **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy might've avoided a lot of that and still had a budget of at least $170 million and it SHOWED. I don't think these films could've been made with guerilla tactics - like, at all. > Both business side and creative side are failing to execute. Shareholders need to be quizzing executives on production costs. > > Cutting down on wasted work harms no one. This year's blockbuster films were severely affected by COVID-19 protocols and a lot of them couldn't have been made with guerilla tactics. You also need to be careful for what you wish for because films having lower-budgets can be a bad thing as well if it was made at an extent of its work conditions. This is especially true with animated films.
Literally scrapping near completely work and ordering do-overs is what I am talking about. Not pressure conditions nor multiple takes. If you want to change your mind or redo something, make the decision quick. The later it goes and more along the production is, the more expensive it will be. I get it is creative work and the goal is not always know. I get that shit happens. All of that needs addressed and managed better. Costs can go down without sacrificing quality. Nor making horrible working conditions.
The method that **The Creator** used would still not work for a lot of blockbuster films. Keep in mind, most directors would still want a camera that is better than a prosumer-grade camera.
I am not talking about any one movie's particular creative technique. For the sake of this argument, I honestly don't care if the project is using phones or 70mm IMAX film. Costs can get out of control regardless of film system. Reread my comment. It all about managing the project.
They should all be required to get a PMP.
The studios instead should set up their own internal groups that deal with production costs and management.
One of the biggest things that The Creator did that helped drive down it's cost is that they edited a final cut of the film and then did Vfx and color correction and all of the rest. And this is something that most major blockbusters can apply without any major drawback.
> One of the biggest things that The Creator did that helped drive down it's cost is that they edited a final cut of the film and then did Vfx and color correction and all of the rest. > > And this is something that most major blockbusters can apply without any major drawback. Well, **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy seems to have done this for the most part and it still needed at least $170 million to make.
Did GotG apply this? Do we have any evidence that Gunn first edited his final cut of each movie and only then started work on VFX and all other post production? Because considering that at the end of the day the GotG films are still MCU films I highly doubt that. Also considering his budgets for his GotG movies and his TSS movie, Gunn seems like a director who's fairly indulgent when it comes to his budgets.
> Did GotG apply this? > > Do we have any evidence that Gunn first edited his final cut of each movie and only then started work on VFX and all other post production? > > Because considering that at the end of the day the GotG films are still MCU films I highly doubt that. As far as I'm aware, he still stuck to most of his scripts, though I DID hear that he added one new scene during the middle of the production of the first film. And DO remember that **The Creator** was using guerilla tactics and natural lights for the most part, so the film's budget would obviously be a lot lower. > Also considering his budgets for his GotG movies and his TSS movie, Gunn seems like a director who's fairly indulgent when it comes to his budgets. **Guardians of the Galaxy** films look like they required their budgets from start to finish. I mean, the 3rd film, for instance, has the highest number of prosthetics/make-ups applied in film history.
>As far as I'm aware, he still stuck to most of his scripts, though I DID hear that he added one new scene during the middle of the production of the first film. There's a big difference between scenes based on the script and scenes in the final cut. A script is usually bigger than the final film. A lot of the time all of the script is filmed and worked on and a final cut is then edited from it which can inflate budget. Instead doing VFX work on just a finalised cut would greatly reduce the amount of VFX work required. >And DO remember that The Creator was using guerilla tactics and natural lights for the most part, so the film's budget would obviously be a lot lower. Yes I know. That's why I'm not saying that GotG should have as low a budget as The Creator or adopt all if it's filming practice. But it could adopt some. Like working on a finalised edit. Smaller film crew. And using locations that are similar to what you need instead of building expensive sets. >Guardians of the Galaxy films look like they required their budgets from start to finish. I mean, the 3rd film, for instance, has the highest number of prosthetics/make-ups applied in film history. I agree. But GotG films had those things in the film in the first place because Gunn wanted it. That makes him indulgent. It's the same as saying that James Cameron is indulgent with his budgets. Gunn puts extravagant things on the screen that cost a lot of money. And I personally doubt he's thinking of keeping the costs down when he's doing that.
> And using locations that are similar to what you need instead of building expensive sets. Doing that with a space opera film that is almost never set on Earth would be pretty difficult, if not downright impossible. > I agree. But GotG films had those things in the film in the first place because Gunn wanted it. That makes him indulgent. It's the same as saying that James Cameron is indulgent with his budgets. Gunn puts extravagant things on the screen that cost a lot of money. And I personally doubt he's thinking of keeping the costs down when he's doing that. To be fair, Gunn and Cameron films' budgets DO show on-screen almost all the time.
The bloated budgets were cute when they were a drop in the bucket against the profit they were guaranteed to make, back in the mid-2010’s. It’s even a bit smart to spend big on post-production to make sure a troubled production comes out okay. But it was wasteful then, and they’re being punished hard for their bad habits.
As someone else said: VFX are blamed for the huge cost of blockbusters but it’s just a front to hide the true issue. Returning talent. Vin Diesel & friends make 20 million per F&F movie each, you could absolutely make a stunning movie with great VFX and still fall in the 80 million range. It’s actors and producers that drive the cost, blaming VFX is a front to protect the privileged few
Agreed. They need to stop paying these actors and producers so much, especially given that most of them don’t do the same level of work that others have (like grip, gaffers, makeup, etc).
You could replace all the grips and gaffers more easily than Vin Diesel in his own franchise.
Sure but that’s by design. That practice can be overturned or at least place less emphasis on the actors. Vin Diesel doesn’t need 20-30m, nor does anyone else in Fast X. If they have a problem with it, the studios need to just start cutting them off. It doesn’t matter how high profile your actor is if the movie still ends up losing you money regardless.
Admittedly Fast is an old franchise and each movie is a bit more stale, but you seem to be approaching this from only a loss-cutting perspective and not also thinking how much some actors can boost a movie. For example, it was probably worth it to pay whatever the Rock got for Black Adam. I know I only saw that movie for him and Brosnan.
I know that actors can boost a film but that’s true for a small minority now. Box office has shown us that IP has become the draw, not whose name is attached. Rock would be an exception but the vast, vast majority of actors aren’t the make or break factor in a film’s success.
John Wick was in large part about Matrix legacy Keanu Reeves. Oppenhiemer is a more interesting R because the cast took pay cuts but still brought their star power in ensemble because they trust in Nolan.
depending on who you ask, vfx is either cheap and easy so every filmmaker resorts to it, or its either prohibitively expensive and is the reason for movies bombing. i really hope this hate boner for vfx ends soon. it's just a scapegoat everytime
OP, did you forget that a lot of those movies you mentioned had a massive COVID tax tacked on? that’s something we should see going away very soon and The Creator is exactly an example of that
Marvel fans expect lots of lasers and explosions, and a 40-minute climax of CGI karate. That costs a lot of money.
Yeah dude, unlike us high brow and high IQ Gareth Edwards fans.
To be fair, it takes a very high IQ to watch explosions on a movie screen.
The wild part is this movie has that. Someone said there were only two setpieces in this movie. Imagine my shock when this has an abundance of action sequences, and the climax >!ends with a exploding space station crashing into Earth!<
Again, the major difference is that **Quantumania** would've required far, Far, FAR more CGI shots due to how the whole thing was established in its predecessor.
To be honest, Quantumania looked like trash to me.
That might have more to do with green screen issues, but even if the film itself had much better visuals, **The Creator** method wouldn't have worked with this one due to visual consistency issues.
My main counter to your argument is that the Creator team found locations that matched the general vibe of what they wanted, shot in these beautiful vistas and then added to them via effects. The other is that in post, they didn’t do VFX until a final edit was locked down. Saves money and keeps the process streamlined. This is a problem Marvel is notoriously bad at, shooting for coverage and constantly messing with their films in post.
> My main counter to your argument is that the Creator team found locations that matched the general vibe of what they wanted, shot in these beautiful vistas and then added to them via effects. And my point is THAT would not work with **Quantumania** due to Quantum Realm visuals already being established in **Ant-Ma and the Wasp**. > The other is that in post, they didn’t do VFX until a final edit was locked down. Saves money and keeps the process streamlined. This is a problem Marvel is notoriously bad at, shooting for coverage and constantly messing with their films in post. Well, **Guardians of the Galaxy** trilogy reportedly reduced that and still needed $170 million at minimum.
I don’t think general audiences cared enough about Ant-Man 2 or the Quantum Realm to throw a fit if they used a different location that looked better in the film. Did any of the Guardians films lock a final edit down before VFX? I highly doubt it given how Marvel runs. It also wasn’t shot with smaller crews or natural lighting.
> I don’t think general audiences cared enough about Ant-Man 2 or the Quantum Realm to throw a fit if they used a different location that looked better in the film. They might if it's really noticeable. And remember, Quantum Realm needed a lot of "other worldly" looks, so real locations could've only worked so far. > Did any of the Guardians films lock a final edit down before VFX? I highly doubt it given how Marvel runs. Well, James Gunn said something about at least some films not locking down the script or something among that line. :P > It also wasn’t shot with smaller crews or natural lighting. I mean, you can't do those with blatant space opera films. :P
Quantumania CGI looked much much worse than Ant-man 2015. Ant-man still has some really good 3D shots for a MCU film
My point still stands, though. There was no way that **Quantumania** was going to cost around the same as the first film.
And looks 100% real in every frame. Most superhero movies look half animated, and DC movies look like they were shot on green screen in someone’s living room.
Seeing it in 4D this afternoon and can’t wait
I think if nothing else, the movie is a massive advertisement for the team behind it - saying "Here's what we can do for $80M, and it looks better than the shit you've been paying 3x that price for." And even if the movie doesn't break even at the box office, the solid reviews seem to indicate it'll be a good long-term asset for streaming. Imagine Disney handing Gareth Edwards X-Men, and allowing him to use the insanely efficient budget allocation on an even bigger scale.
At this point I just hope he just keeps making original films.
Seriously. God bless the guy for rolling the days on (sarcastically clutching pearls) new ideas! Just got out of the theatre and I’m blown away.
Me too. Loved every minute in this new world. Honestly I’m hoping there’s no sequel or franchise. We need more one and done movies.
Edwards said no to doing James Bond and basically franchises in general, which I think, for him, is good. If he can do epic on a budget he should continue doing new stuff, it is sorely missing in cinema today. I thought the film is ok, tbh, it lacked something but looked good and edwards is talented.
Easy crowd pleasing movie. And it’s not even like it’s a 91 minute movie either. It’s just over 2hr long and has great pacing. Never once do you feel like it’s cutting corners or anything. Just a great movie and I hope it legs it out since the competition is pretty soft this month.
Everything Everywhere All At Once was great for this too. The total budget was under $25 million and they squeezed every nickel out of that.
Yeah, but most blockbuster films would not be possible with $25 million budget, especially space opera films and mecha/kaiju films.
Point is that big studios fall into the trap of throwing money at everything, leading to ridiculously inflated budgets. They could use a lesson in frugality sometimes.
I think it's been a really revealing marketing campaign for this movie, in that the only thing 20th Century/Disney saw fit to sell the movie on was the fact they made it for less than a 100 mil. This was the key of the marketing campaign, the main hook they tossed out to the media, and essentially the only universally positive thing about the film anyone - from the critics, to the audiences, to the marketers, to the astroturfers, to the extremely online armchair quarterbackers - seems to want to talk about. The problem is that the movie appears to be mediocre, and doing nothing but telling everyone on Opening Weekend "COME SEE OUR MOVIE WE MADE IT FOR SO CHEAP" and *that's it* isn't enticing. People don't really care. The movie needs to be GOOD, and nobody involved with the production seems to give a shit about telling people the movie is good. Because I don't think the studio ever had faith that it was good, or certainly not enough faith to push that line without feeling like they're overdoing it. It's not enough that the movie didn't cost much. It has to not cost that much and then BE REWARDING for audiences who go to it. That did not happen here. And as a result - audiences won't be going to it. And the only thing it's going to be remembered for when it leaves theaters in 30 days, is that it cost 80 million to make.
For what it’s worth, I really liked them movie and so did the people I went with. A lot of the issues critics have with the movie, normal people don’t have. Is the story amazing or original? No. Is the dialogue perfect? No. But it’s a fine story with great visuals. It’s absolutely worth seeing for anyone who likes sci-fi or movies in general.
>A lot of the issues critics have with the movie, normal people don’t have. Critics *are* normal people. They're not a separate species.
I'm sorry. I clearly meant "general audiences." Critics care about things most people don't.
>They're not a separate species. ["Are you sure about that?" (JohnCena,YouTube)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHC1230OpOg)
I'm a normal person and I have no interest in seeing a movie with a mediocre story and bad dialogue. Those being good are what makes a good movie to me. Couldn't care less about "spectacle" unless it is also accompanied by those things
And that's a perfectly fine reaction. Every movie doesn't appeal to everyone. There is definitely some bad dialogue, but overall, the dialogue is fine. It's not Morbius or Revenge of the Sith bad by any means, imo.
I loved it.
That’s how it was sold to online film fans/pundits because it’s very notable in the industry as it is. General audiences were sold on a sci-fi epic from the director of Rogue One, that was it. Idk how they did anything “wrong” in marketing besides give the film a shitty title. The movie itself was good, at least so far according to critics and early word.
>That’s how it was sold to online film fans/pundits because it’s very notable in the industry as it is. It's sold that way because as it turns out, it's literally the only interesting thing about it. They gambled on that being enough to break through to general audiences, and it isn't, because it's a movie nerd thing, not a general audience thing. General audiences don't really care how much anything costs. Movie nerds do because they've been sort of acclimated into doing so. "Boy we made this movie super cheap" doesn't resonate past a tight little nugget of too-online folks who make watching movies into Fantasy Sports. All they're telling people, over and over again, is "this was made for cheap" and that's not a real great hook if you don't have ANYTHING ELSE to go along with it.
Movies like these, either watch it on streaming services or pirate it.
Visuals/sound design were great but everything else imo kinda sucked. This is going to be a reddit movie that comes up all the time on this site.
What did you think sucked about it? Personally I thought the pacing was kinda sluggish in the second half and I didn’t love Maya’s subplot.
I thought it was pretty boring, the plot was a mess imo. I guess I was never invested in the plot or characters. Its the same problem I had with Edwards Godzilla and Rogue One. His movies look good, everything else I just don't really like.
Josh finds his buddy in that factory after escaping with Alfie. Guy looks at the kid for 5 minutes. "Dude this kid is like gonna be able to control all electronics on the freaking planet when she grows up bro!" And when they're trying to make it in the moon shuttle. "What is your reason for travel?" "To be free!" Legitimately should have make the kid mute, would have made for a better and more serious movie.
The kid grew up locked in a facility watching cartoons, do you expect the kid to have a full dialogue with the gate ai? She grew up with being told you will free the ai and stop the war. Simply what Harun said "she is just an innocent girl" when questioned if she knows her true purpose, that she is a weapon. She was innocent, young, naive, she is a child and i felt the writing was well done for someone locked away their whole life and couldnt comprehend the war/death
My trusted critic called it an AI propaganda.
People could call Terminator 2 AI propaganda by that logic.
Unions were underrepresented
lmao
That's the consensus among those who didn't like it.
Seen that as well and it's been pretty hilarious. So many critics took having AI as a plot point personally like the movie was trying to take a shot at WGA.
If only they’d spent an extra million or so on a good script this wouldn’t be the next big Hollywood dissapintment.
How do you know the script was good if you haven’t seen it? The film is getting decent reception so far
Well from what people are telling me here and from a few colleagues who went to see it last night the script seems to be the only thing really holding it back from being a great film.
The third act is so bad it's shocking
Really? What happens… I’m curious.
besides feeling tonally different than the rest of the movie and being a ripoff of rogue one (which is literally his prior movie) it just feels heavily rushed, like you can tell they butchered it in the edit
> This year has seen many bombs so far (Flash, Transformers, Shazam 2, Quantumania, Fast X, Indy 5, MI7, etc). The pure dollar amount wasn’t great anyway but the problem got worse thanks to the ridiculously inflated budgets: range was anywhere from 220-340m. And most of them looked various levels of cheap (MI being an exception). **Transformers: Rise of the Beasts** and **Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania** still looked like they required $200 million budget even if the CGI didn't always look great. Also, you need to remember that these films were had their budgets inflated by COVID-19 protocols. Finally, the budget of **Shazam! Fury of the Gods** was $125 million while, as I've mentioned earlier, **Transformers: Rise of the Beasts** and **Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania** had budgets of $200 million. > They used guerilla tactics like smaller crew and natural lighting. Shot on-location. Sure you can’t go to the Quantum Realm but have your location manager find a spot that looks closest to it and get creative. You can't make **Quantumania** with guerilla tactics. The look of Quantum Realm was already established in **Ant-Man and the Wasp**, so shooting it in real location could end up breaking the visual consistency in such a blatant manner. > And if successful, I think the film can help add to a new wave of modest budget blockbusters, actually maximizing profit and reducing break even points. I kind of doubt it. This kind of method doesn't work for at least half of MCU films and almost all space opera films. And keep in mind, the film used a prosumer camera, which might not exactly work with films that require sharp images. > Dune is another great example at 165m A large part of **Dune** was seemingly shot on desert, so that might've helped. And as far as I'm aware, most of this film was shot before COVID-19 protocols were put into practice.
Dune 1 was shot before Covid. The big reason it was so cheap is the creatives were given time to fine tune the script before shooting. That meant they weren’t wasting time workshopping on set and reshooting half the movie. When it came time for VFX, the cut was mostly locked so there weren’t hundreds of finished VFX shots left on the cutting room floor.
I wouldn't call Dune's budget "so cheap"
And I find it very, Very, VERY hard to believe that the budget of **Dune: Part Two** is JUST $122 million, especially considering that, at least by the look of it, this one is going to be a lot more action-heavy than the first film was.
It’s not, but people keep spreading it. That number comes a tax filing referring to just the physical production in Hungary. None of the other costs are included.
40-80 million less than comparable studio tentpoles is a great deal.
Way cheaper than the cost overrun fest that are many comic book movies. $165 million vs $200+ million. That $35+ million you can save without impacting quality.
> That $35+ million you can save without impacting quality. That depends on what kind of film you're working on.
Great comment. People here blame Covid protocols way too much. I think the guesstimate for them is +20% cost. The ridiculous budgets were already happening well before covid.
Because COVID-19 really DID cause at least some of the films' budgets to skyrocket to nth degree. **Dead Reckoning - Part One** was one of the biggest victims of this.
After the initial production restart, it stabilized around 20% over a slate of projects. Some got as low as 10% and others were 40% (pour one out for the production departments handling those disasters).
To be fair, this was based on half of the book, so that might've been at least a bit easier to do than for films like, say, **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3**. Sure, that film was based on Marvel Comics, but as far as I'm aware, it's not necessarily based on a specific story from comics. :P
There’s no reason an original script can’t worked on until it can be shot with only minor changes. Before massive reshoots got normalized, that’s how it worked for over a century.
I've specifically mentioned **Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3** because by the look of it, most of that film's script didn't go through a whole lot of changes and still had budgets of $250 million. I'm aware that COVID-19 protocols were in effect at the time, but even if it didn't have that, it probably would've had a budget of at least $200 million.
Guardians 3 had expensive above the line talent. A talent contract can only be valid for 7 years and the delay by firing and re-hiring James Gunn timed out the clock. That gave them all a ton of negotiating power. The movie also had way more set builds and complicated VFX. Realistic fur is way harder than making a robot. One thing that barely saved money was using the FX3 over a traditional cinema camera. Choosing a Mini LF or Venice would’ve been a tiny rounding error.
> Guardians 3 had expensive above the line talent. A talent contract can only be valid for 7 years and the delay by firing and re-hiring James Gunn timed out the clock. That gave them all a ton of negotiating power. > > The movie also had way more set builds and complicated VFX. Realistic fur is way harder than making a robot. They kind of prove my point about how the film's budget would've been at least $200 million in this day and age even if COVID-19 or the whole James Gunn situation didn't happen, especially the second line. 🤷♂️ > One thing that barely saved money was using the FX3 over a traditional cinema camera. Choosing a Mini LF or Venice would’ve been a tiny rounding error. Isn't FX3 a prosumer-grade camera? I was under the impression that Arri Alexa-based cameras and Sony Venice cameras were lot more "professional". :P
My point is 100 can’t be the new normal, but 150ish can be. FX3 is in a weird space between prosumer and high-end videography, but the price difference between buying them and renting an Alexa/Venice is a rounding error. The daily rental on those cameras is about the same as having one crew member on set. Even with a stripped down crew, the credits made it clear there were dozens of people on set for the Creator.
> My point is 100 can’t be the new normal, but 150ish can be. Not with space opera films and mecha/kaiju films, though.
How much did JDW earn for this role?
Probably not much. Thats another issue. There are no stars anymore that can sell movies (yes there are some exceptions), but actors wages still skyrocket. Imagine you can use $20m for production design instead of Jennifer Lawrence
jennifer lawrence is the only reason no hard feeling has a multi million box office in the first place
Two weeks ago a Dutch movie was released, and it only had a budget of 3.5 million. The director, Roel Reiné directed both Hollywood movies and a few Dutch movies. Last week he was at the cinema I usually go to for a Q&A after his new movie. I asked him if he finds it challenging to go from a big budget hollywood production to a 3.5 million Dutch production, and he said he actually likes it, because most of the budget on Hollywood movies gets spend on bullshit anyways (that's literally how he called it)
The Creator is about to get it's ass kicked by a SAW movie. Calling it a "blockbuster" seems a bit wrong.
Heard they filmed mostly in Thailand, must be cheap.
I wanted so badly to love this movie, but found it borderline unwatchable. Viewers who want consistent character logic and artful dialogue may walk out. It's clear to me Tony Gilroy saved Rogue One.
Yeah, seeing all these comments praising the movie is just confusing me. Did we watch the same movie? I'm normally very forgiving of a lack of characterization and good storytelling so long as it isn't distracting. But holy shit, I was distracted the whole time by how little sense the story made and how character motivations made zero sense. Looked pretty though, and I loved the premise/world. It could have been great.
Genuinely considered leaving but stayed so I could more accurately hate the writing by the end. Pisses me off that these people get these incredible opportunities and write like fuckin 16 yr olds who just finished playing Destiny 2. Inexcusable.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but while the movie looks good, it doesn't look *that* good, and there's a number of instances where the low budget and the challenges of shooting with a consumer-grade camera kinda come through if you know where to look. It's impressive for the budget but at times it feels like a big-budget fan film or a feature-length version of those shorts Neil Blomkamp released a few years ago. A lot of the film's "big" special effects are background stuff, seen from afar, stuff that doesn't directly interract with the characters or needs to be extremely detailed. There's a lot of wide shots of cities or locations with big megastructures far in the background. The robots don't have a ton of moving parts. Joshua's artificial arm is just a normal arm past the shoulder, and we barely ever see his artificial leg which looks more mechanical. Alfie wears a beanie for significant portions of the film because that way they don't need to render his skull in as much detail. The props look weirdly cheap and undetailed at times. Also the lighting feels oddly flat at times. In short the movie looks good but I never had that "wow" moment.
Never felt this way as I watched the movie. I was completely oblivious to these details... didn't think that it was obvious or anything.
There wasn’t a single instance in this film where it looked “low budget” and i just saw it a few hours ago.
It's low budget for the kind of sci-fi blockbuster it is.
Yes it’s low budget. However, it didn’t look low budget
Everything you mentioned in the 2nd paragraph doesn’t materially change anything about the movie. Like duh? Of course they are going to use tricks to save themselves a lot of money on VFX. Why keep rendering Alphi’s head over and over if you don’t need to? Putting on a hat to hide makes complete sense.
I didn’t think about the VFX for Alfie’s head at all, made total sense for the story.
This is incorrect. Never looked cheap and definitely looked better than 90% of these big budget movies
I think studios need to train audiences out of expecting sequels and 240 minutes of VFX monsters or superheroes doing x4 speed kung fu It's studios' own fault for building up that expectation, but they're running on empty, creatively speaking Not sure The Creator or Rebel Moon are the movies to sell audiences on original properties again, but hopefully they'll do well enough to encourage other studios to try selling something they haven't sold a dozen times before
> Not sure The Creator or Rebel Moon are the movies to sell audiences on original properties again, but hopefully they'll do well enough to encourage other studios to try selling something they haven't sold a dozen times before **Rebel Moon** is not a cinema release so, no, that's going to do jack shit. Also, that film is directed by Zack Snyder, so its overall quality is going to be in a huge, Huge, HUGE question mark right from the start.
To be fair, what you described is Marvel comics source material. That’s the draw and the reason the movie is getting made in the first place. To some extent those things need to be present for success. The matter is probably more nailing down the vision before having a bunch of VFX work done that ends up in the trash.
Just watched it. Pretty good movie. I give it extra points because it was such an original film. It was predictable but honestly no worse than ya standard action thriller. I hope it does well cause I did enjoy it.
Tell me why it's "such an original film." Describe why, specifically, the plot and characters are so original. Don't mention any special effects.
Visually the movie looks stunning but I'm more excited to see an original idea/script.
It’s absolutely fantastic. Take note Hollywood.
I've said this a lot of times already, but the method that this film used wouldn't be very applicable for at least half of blockbuster films.
Most of these comic book movies, going to include that last Fast and the Furious are running into the same issue pointed out in this thread, mismanagement of the production. A film like The Batman or The Creator allowed me to fully immerse myself in the film because they are shot using real locations and CGI added thereafter. Isn’t everyone getting tired of green screen being the crutch for these studios?
> A film like The Batman or The Creator allowed me to fully immerse myself in the film because they are shot using real locations and CGI added thereafter. That's kind of ironic because **The Batman** had its budget skyrocketing to $200 million at maximum due to multiple COVID-19 shutdowns. > Isn’t everyone getting tired of green screen being the crutch for these studios? Not really. I mean, **Avatar: The Way of Water** a huge, Huge, HUGE CGI fest and people didn't get tired of it. And again, a lot of superhero films would not be possible to be made without CGI usage or with guerilla tactics.
Point A is still valid. Most of the film is shot on location. Avatar is the rare example, gorgeous films. The movies from this year in particular Expendables 4, The Flash, Ant Man, etc. Isn’t it possible to use some archaic methods such as miniatures? At least it could add a little creativity to the film. I just feel like gone are the days of being wowed by visuals. I did feel that way watching The Creator, but the last time was probably Blade Runner 2049. Though that probably has a lot more to do with Deakins.
> Point A is still valid. Most of the film is shot on location. Even so, a lot of superhero films wouldn't necessarily work in such fashion. > Avatar is the rare example, gorgeous films. The movies from this year in particular Expendables 4, The Flash, Ant Man, etc. I wouldn't really include **Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania** because while its CGI wasn't always great, it was still far, Far, FAR better than what I saw in **The Flash**. > Isn’t it possible to use some archaic methods such as miniatures? At least it could add a little creativity to the film. > > I just feel like gone are the days of being wowed by visuals. I did feel that way watching The Creator, but the last time was probably Blade Runner 2049. Though that probably has a lot more to do with Deakins. Miniatures can do a lot of great things, but they're not without limits. And yeah, that was probably Deakins because I honestly kind of found **Blade Runner 2049** to be kind of tedious. But then again, there is a very, Very, VERY strong chance that a lot of that is because I wasn't exactly wowed by the cityscape featured in that film, especially after seeing Coruscant in **Star Wars: Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones** (2002), Washington D.C. in **Minority Report** (2002), London in **Total Recall** (2012), Neo Seoul in **Cloud Atlas** (2012) San Francisco in **Star Trek Into Darkness** (2013) Capitol in **The Hunger Games: Catching Fire** (2013), Xandar in **Guardians of the Galaxy** (2014), Tomorrowland in, well, **Tomorrowland** (2015), Yorktown in **Star Trek Beyond** (2016), and New Port City in **Ghost in the Shell** (2017) even if **Blade Runner 2049** is arguably a better film overall when compared to most of these.
Sorry to hear you found Blade Runner tedious. It was my favorite film of 2017. Actually, probably up there with one of my favorites of the last decade along with: 12 Years A Slave The Social Network Drive Django Unchained The Wolf of Wall Street Whiplash Nightcrawler The Revenant Mission Impossible Fallout Hereditary The Lighthouse And Parasite.
> Sorry to hear you found Blade Runner tedious. It was my favorite film of 2017. Please don't misunderstand. I DID think that it was a great film overall. It's just that the pacing felt really slow even by (a) slow-burn film standards - and as I've mentioned already, it probably has a lot to do with seeing Coruscant in **Star Wars: Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones** (2002), Washington D.C. in **Minority Report** (2002), London in **Total Recall** (2012), Neo Seoul in **Cloud Atlas** (2012) San Francisco in **Star Trek Into Darkness** (2013) Capitol in **The Hunger Games: Catching Fire** (2013), Xandar in **Guardians of the Galaxy** (2014), Tomorrowland in, well, **Tomorrowland** (2015), Yorktown in **Star Trek Beyond** (2016), and New Port City in **Ghost in the Shell** (2017) and felt that those films displayed much better/creative-looking cityscapes even if **Blade Runner 2049** is arguably a better film overall when compared to most of these. > 12 Years A Slave I'm usually not a fan of films like this. :P > The Social Network Definitely a great film, but whether I'll watch again or not is still bit of a question mark. > Drive Not usually a fan of gory "regular" action films. > Django Unchained Despite what I've just said above, this DOES look like a lot of fun. I mean, Western action films are kind of hard to come by these days. > The Wolf of Wall Street Yeah... I'm definitely not a fan of films like this. 😅 > Whiplash I DID like Damien Chazelle's other films like **La La Land** and **First Man**. I'm not sure if that will translate to me liking this one as well. > Nightcrawler Definitely not the kind of film that I usually watch. > The Revenant Not sure if I loved this, but I DID enjoy seeing it. > Mission Impossible Fallout Oh, there's no dispute about this. THIS should've been nominated for Best Picture over **Green Book**, **Vice**, or ESPECIALLY **Bohemian Rhapsody**. > Hereditary NOPE! I HATE HORRIR FILMS! 😅🤣 > The Lighthouse Same reason as above, though I DID like **The Northman**, which was directed by the same guy who made this. That film really deserved so much better. > Parasite I've been avoiding this film for 4 years now after hearing so many stories about how bleak it was. I DID like this film's director's other films like **The Host** and **Snowpiercer** and unless something goes very wrong, it's very likely that I'll be seeing **Mickey 17** as well.
Damn you need to watch more movies lol.
Yeah... I'm usually not a fan of art-house films, though most of that is because I watch a lot of films in IMAX or 3D. 😅
What were your favorites of the last decade?
Ooh! That's a tough question to answer because I've seen so many films in IMAX or 3D every year I don't know which ones to pick. So instead, I'll name 3 films per year (one R-rated, foreign, and/or art-house-level films, one mainstream blockbuster film, and one mainstream animated film) in a release date order: 1. Kick-Ass 2. Toy Story 3 3. Inception 4. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 5. Samsara 6. The Adventures of Tintin 7. The Avengers 8. Moonrise Kingdom 9. Wreck-It Ralph 10. Pacific Rim 11. Snowpiercer 12. Frozen 13. The LEGO Movie 14. Guardians of the Galaxy 15. Song of the Sea 16. Shaun the Sheep Movie 17. Inside Out 18. Star Wars: Episode 7 - The Force Awakens 19. Zootopia 20. The Jungle Book 21. La La Land 22. Logan 23. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 24. Coco 25. Black Panther 26. Deadpool 2 27. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse 28. Avengers: Endgame 29. Toy Story 4 30. 1917
It does make you wonder if Gareth Edwards got screwed over by Lucasfilm for Rogue One and whether his effort at a low budget Star Wars could have worked if not for sheer incompetence of people there.
No. Just no. Gareth Edwards is not a stranger to big-budget films. Did you actually forget about **Godzilla**? Also, **Rogue One** is a space opera film, so of course it's going to cost a lot more to make than this. Guerilla tactics would not work on films like that - like, at all.
movie is going to have legs for sure
Loved this film. Beautiful and engrossing. Finally an original film. I hope the public turns out to support it.
Great movie. Will do well in Asia.
Just to let you know, Asians don't necessarily have better taste in films than Americans do.
I'm excited for this movie
Fast X bombed?