[ SECRET POST #3366 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3366 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #481.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: What movie franchise do you think would benefit from a smaller budget

[(Anonymous)]

Actually I think it's the minor premise maybe? One of them anyway.

I don't agree that there's a causal connection between Daredevil having a low budget and a good script, or STID having a high budget and a bad script. star Trek was bad because of the script and direction. I don't think the budget had a major effect

Re: What movie franchise do you think would benefit from a smaller budget

[(Anonymous)]

A high budget means there is the temptation to put it all on the screen. You have to not just use it all, but show its use, so character scenes get cut to have special effect pieces instead. Story becomes less tight because you are looking now at just bridging from one effect to the next. That was noticeable in the Trek 2009 movie, all the meaty Nero character stuff got dumped on the cutting room floor so we could see the big explosions, and the race from Earth to Vulcan was hypercompressed in order to get from the big Moving Out scene to the big wreckage and battle scene as quickly as possible before people started to notice there wasn't a lot of story.

Re: What movie franchise do you think would benefit from a smaller budget

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that it's a modality of bad scriptwriting that's only available to big budget movies, but I would still say the reason the movie was bad was the script. They could have just as easily written a shitty script with a small budget. Because script quality is orthogonal to budget.

Actually I thought ST09 was okay but that's besides the point.

Re: What movie franchise do you think would benefit from a smaller budget

[(Anonymous)]

Is there any proof of this? Star Wars: Force Awakens had a bigger budget but seems to have done fine.

Re: What movie franchise do you think would benefit from a smaller budget

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think we're talking about a direct cause-and-effect. Just cases where having less budget can force the production team to be more creative and make the movie good without relying on fancy, expensive shit. Or eliminate expensive, flashy sequences that are mostly intended to show off how expensive and flashy they are without actually adding anything to the film. Conversely, you could have some movies full of probably expensive CGI shit, long, flashy battles that are utterly pointless, spending too much money on big-name actors that maybe aren't actually best for the role but the team is relying on star-power to get butts in seats...

I am pretty sure we're just talking about examples where either something benefited from having a low budget, or failed for reasons that seemed related to having a big budget.