#4415010 - 04/06/18 12:37 PM
Big budget but still terrible
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
Miami, FL USA
|
I've seen many sci-fi movies over the years that had tiny production budgets and I can completely understand why the acting, production values and script were not very good. This is not to say that there haven't been good sci-fi movies that were made on a small budget but they are relatively rare.
Having said that, I find it really absurd and sad that 70 million or more can be spent on a sci-fi movie and it STILL turns out to be a turd. Here are a few examples:
Battlefield Earth (2000) budget: 73 million Valerian (2017) budget: 177 million Jupiter Ascending (2015) budget: 176 million Babylon AD (2008) budget: 70 million Geostorm (2017) budget: 120 million Battleship (2012) budget: 209 million Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) budget: 165 million
Last edited by PanzerMeyer; 04/06/18 12:38 PM.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4415030 - 04/06/18 02:19 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: Ssnake]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
Miami, FL USA
|
The one objection that I have with that list is Valerian. The original comic books were of a sprawling, colorful popcorn universe, and I guess one could make the case that the film delivered exactly that. So this may have also something to do with what the audience's expectations may have been, given that this film actually ran against some of the established Hollowood sci-fi blockbuster tropes (which, when you happen to like it, is often called "genius" - but if it doesn't work for you it's a turd, and people wonder why Hollywood producers have become so risk-averse and movies so stereotypical... ). You make some valid points. Really my major complaint with "Valerian" is that the two lead actors were just so horrible and dull. They cannot act.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4415033 - 04/06/18 02:40 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,114
Chucky
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,114
UK
|
I've only watched 2 on that list. Jupiter Ascending (what a turd that was) and Valerian (watch-able but won't make my repeat list).
EV's are the Devils matchbox.
|
|
#4415168 - 04/07/18 01:16 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,619
KRT_Bong
It's KRT not Kurt
|
It's KRT not Kurt
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,619
Sarasota, Florida
|
For the same reason that every Super Hero movie reboot has to explain to us how Clark got here and why Bruce is angry.
Windows 10 Pro Gigabyte 970A DS3P FX AMD FX6300 Vishera 3.5 Ghz ASUS STRIX GeForce GTX 970 Overclocked 4 GB DDR5 16Gb Patriot Viper 3 RAM DDR3 1866Mhz Onikuma Gaming Headset (has annoying blue lights I don't use)
|
|
#4417483 - 04/23/18 03:04 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 11,752
Vertigo1
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 11,752
Zeta Aquilae System
|
I'm still confused how Avatar made that much money. It's really nothing special. Was the novelty of 3d that compelling?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx
“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” -Milton Friedman
Quem Deus vult perdere, prius dementat
|
|
#4417484 - 04/23/18 03:07 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: Vertigo1]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
Miami, FL USA
|
Was the novelty of 3d that compelling? I really think that was it. Avatar came out at precisely the right time to capitalize on the height of the 3D craze. It was ALL about the 3D visuals. There was nothing special about the story, the characters, the script, etc.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4417487 - 04/23/18 03:23 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,581
Raw Kryptonite
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
|
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,581
MS
|
Enough to justify Avatar 2, 3, 4! The funny thing about really good 3D is that it loses the "wow" after a few minutes because it looks natural. Then it's no big deal. Now, I think it's a turn off due to the added cost. Early on, we could reuse our glasses and save a few bucks, but now they charge you anyway and want you to hand them back to "recycle".
·Steam: Raw Kryptonite ·MWO & Elite Dangerous: Defcon Won ·Meager youtube channel·Intel i5-9600K ·EVGA GTX1070 FTW 8GB ·EVGA CLC 120 Cooler ·16 GB Patriot Memory VIPER 4 3000MHz ·GIGABYTE Z390 AORUS PRO WiFi Mobo · CORSAIR CARBIDE AIR 540 case ·BenQ BL3200PT monitor
|
|
#4417529 - 04/23/18 10:07 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Ssnake
Virtual Shiva Beast
|
Virtual Shiva Beast
Hotshot
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 7,747
Germoney
|
Avatar was the first movie to get 3D right. No film before, and most films since, failed at that. Sure, pretty much every movie is now shot in 3D, but I'm having a hard time seeing the benefit for the audience, really. But of course, if you want a major film on a big screen, you're not given much of a choice. Either you don the 3D glasses, or you don't get to see it (at least not on the big screen). I wish Hollywood would finally stop using "3D" as a justification for higher prices. Raise the prices generally already if you must, and rid us of this gimmick that rarely contributes more than a cheap thrill.
Avatar was the best 3D film so far, and by a wide margin. Tron 2 was the sceond best - I rarely noticed that it was 3D, so at least they avoided the cheap rollercoaster shot. But then again, if it's so subtle that I'm "not seeing it", why should I pay for it, and wear silly glasses on top of my other pair of glasses? The rest vaccillates between passable, cheap, and super-cheap. Bleargh.
|
|
#4417606 - 04/24/18 11:01 AM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,505
DM
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,505
Prague
|
Was the novelty of 3d that compelling? I really think that was it. Avatar came out at precisely the right time to capitalize on the height of the 3D craze. It was ALL about the 3D visuals. There was nothing special about the story, the characters, the script, etc. You know what you will get with a James Cameron movie: 1 dimensional characters Simplistic story Simplistic motivations Bleeding edge special effects Loooooong movie - you get your money's worth. That said, IMO Avatar remains the gold standard for 3D movies (whether you like them or not). Cameron knows how to shoot 3D, I never saw any 3D mountains or planets (anything further away than say 200m is essentially flat 2D). I will say that for him. *edit* Didn't see Ssnake's post other worthy mentions are Life Of Pi and Gravity IMO.
Last edited by DM; 04/24/18 11:04 AM.
"They might look the same, but they don't taste the same."
|
|
#4417610 - 04/24/18 11:19 AM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: DM]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
Miami, FL USA
|
You know what you will get with a James Cameron movie: 1 dimensional characters Simplistic story Simplistic motivations Bleeding edge special effects Loooooong movie - you get your money's worth.
IMHO "Aliens" and both Terminator films don't suffer from those aspects in your list.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4418132 - 04/27/18 05:09 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,610
Mr_Blastman
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,610
Atlanta, GA
|
Aliens: ~$18,500,000 budget
Still badass, still perfect, still flawless and amazing to watch. James Cameron reached his peak with Aliens, surpassing even Terminator 2, both in effects, directing, and especially writing. Somehow, some way, he made you actually care about almost every single character in the film, including an android! And he did it with a pittance of money...
|
|
#4418165 - 04/27/18 09:29 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,572
Arthonon
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,572
California
|
My absolute top 3 Cameron films: Aliens, Terminator 2, Terminator.
Avatar, The Abyss and Titanic were ok.
True Lies was just stupid. It's all in the eye of the beholder. I thought Aliens, Terminator 2 and Terminator were good, the Abyss was OK, Titanic wasn't a disaster (no pun intended) and Avatar was just stupid. I thought True Lies was pretty entertaining, kind of like a Bond movie, but with more comedy.
|
|
#4418183 - 04/28/18 12:52 AM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,841
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,841
SC
|
I LOVE "True Lies". It's not supposed to be taken seriously PM!
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4418189 - 04/28/18 01:11 AM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,581
Raw Kryptonite
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
|
Beat the Kobayashi Maru
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,581
MS
|
The Abyss was cool, but it felt like playing a grand RPG but just playing out a side mission and ignoring the main questline. Good movie, but the most interesting event was the ending. It demanded a sequel it never got. Like if LOTR had ended after Fellowship.
·Steam: Raw Kryptonite ·MWO & Elite Dangerous: Defcon Won ·Meager youtube channel·Intel i5-9600K ·EVGA GTX1070 FTW 8GB ·EVGA CLC 120 Cooler ·16 GB Patriot Memory VIPER 4 3000MHz ·GIGABYTE Z390 AORUS PRO WiFi Mobo · CORSAIR CARBIDE AIR 540 case ·BenQ BL3200PT monitor
|
|
#4418198 - 04/28/18 02:16 AM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,564
wheelsup_cavu
Lifer
|
Lifer
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 26,564
Corona, California
|
My absolute top 3 Cameron films: Aliens, Terminator 2, Terminator.
Avatar, The Abyss and Titanic were ok.
True Lies was just stupid. I thought Tom Arnold was great in True Lies. Bill Paxton as the sleazy car salesman putting the moves on his clients was great too. Wheels
|
|
#4432914 - 08/04/18 05:16 AM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,705
Blade_RJ
Simhq Weather man, dropping rain in your parade
|
Simhq Weather man, dropping rain in your parade
Hotshot
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 9,705
brasil
|
I've seen many sci-fi movies over the years that had tiny production budgets and I can completely understand why the acting, production values and script were not very good. This is not to say that there haven't been good sci-fi movies that were made on a small budget but they are relatively rare.
Having said that, I find it really absurd and sad that 70 million or more can be spent on a sci-fi movie and it STILL turns out to be a turd. Here are a few examples:
Battlefield Earth (2000) budget: 73 million Valerian (2017) budget: 177 million Jupiter Ascending (2015) budget: 176 million Babylon AD (2008) budget: 70 million Geostorm (2017) budget: 120 million Battleship (2012) budget: 209 million Independence Day: Resurgence (2016) budget: 165 million
Valarian IS GOOD, the problem with the film is that it created so much about the genre that when you actually adapted it, it became cliche of itself, also the main actors are dull and uncharismatic,that hurts a lot, i personally would had changed the ending to non cliche. the worst offender is IDR, like what the #%&*$# ! not even going to put the 22 years of waiting, who aproved that script ? a giant alien queen ? man some executive really had a beef and wanted to outdo cameron.
|
|
#4432977 - 08/04/18 03:26 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,572
Arthonon
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,572
California
|
I'll add Star Trek Into Darkness here - that movie was offensively bad in my opinion. It was like the makers said, "Hey Star Trek fans, we're going to make a movie that lacks creativity and makes no sense, but in the process, we're going to crap all over the movie you like best. "
|
|
#4433024 - 08/04/18 08:27 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,841
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,841
SC
|
I'll add Star Trek Into Darkness here - that movie was offensively bad in my opinion. It was like the makers said, "Hey Star Trek fans, we're going to make a movie that lacks creativity and makes no sense, but in the process, we're going to crap all over the movie you like best. " +1
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4433513 - 08/08/18 01:42 AM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: Arthonon]
|
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,985
wormfood
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,985
Texas
|
I'll add Star Trek Into Darkness here - that movie was offensively bad in my opinion. It was like the makers said, "Hey Star Trek fans, we're going to make a movie that lacks creativity and makes no sense, but in the process, we're going to crap all over the movie you like best. " Worst of the three new movies by a country mile.
|
|
#4433519 - 08/08/18 02:32 AM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: wormfood]
|
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,841
F4UDash4
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2015
Posts: 13,841
SC
|
I'll add Star Trek Into Darkness here - that movie was offensively bad in my opinion. It was like the makers said, "Hey Star Trek fans, we're going to make a movie that lacks creativity and makes no sense, but in the process, we're going to crap all over the movie you like best. " Worst of the three new movies by a country mile. I wouldn't say "by a country mile" as I found "Star Trek Beyond" to be pretty ridiculous as well. All of Abrams movies were to me just SciFi action flicks in ST uniforms on ST ships, but "Beyond" was the worst in that regard.
"In the vast library of socialist books, there’s not a single volume on how to create wealth, only how to take and “redistribute” it.” - David Horowitz
|
|
#4433743 - 08/09/18 06:02 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: FlyingToaster]
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
PanzerMeyer
Pro-Consul of Florida
|
Pro-Consul of Florida
King Crimson - SimHQ's Top Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 121,468
Miami, FL USA
|
I haven't watched True Lies in years, but remember it being a very fun no-brainer action film. You go in expecting explosions and stunts and one-liners and some sort of plot hanging it together.
Agreed. What made the film work is that the film made no pretenses about what it was. It was Cameron's farcical take on the popcorn action movie genre that became so popular in the 80's.
Last edited by PanzerMeyer; 08/09/18 06:03 PM.
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”
|
|
#4435472 - 08/23/18 05:20 PM
Re: Big budget but still terrible
[Re: PanzerMeyer]
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart
Measured in Llamathrusts
|
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
|
Battlefield Earth (2000) budget: 73 million The first movie I ever sat all the way through saying "Da Fuq" and letting it just roll over me like a huge series of car wrecks. But not the good kind where they blow up real good. More like parking lot fender benders. Where the drivers are Polish and Armenian and yell at each other in their native languages with the subtitles in French. It really is an artistic accomplishment when one thinks about it: It's terrible from top to bottom. But no so terrible that it's funny and enjoyable. Keeping that perfect balance is a rare and wonderous thing.
The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events. More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.comFrom Laser: "The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
|
|
|
|