Signed Copy of Shane Rimmer Book
We have the "From Thunderbirds to Pterodactyls" In stock now. The first 15 people to order will get one that is signed by Shane himself. We only have 15 signed copies http://www.fabgearusa.com/from_thunderbirds_to_pterodactyls_my_autobiography_hardcover_.html Thanks as always Rob Fabgearusa.com 770-860-1412 |
Hmm ..that is quite interesting.. I thought that the blue cover that Fabgearusa are showing was only going to be used for the release at the Convention!
I did however, get Shane to sign a copy of his book for me, and also one of my sketches of Scott Tracy... But mine is not for sale! --- In [hidden email], "Fabgearusa.com" <fabgearusa@...> wrote: > > Signed Copy of Shane Rimmer Book > > We have the "From Thunderbirds to Pterodactyls" In stock now. > > The first 15 people to order will get one that is signed by Shane himself. > > We only have 15 signed copies > > http://www.fabgearusa.com/from_thunderbirds_to_pterodactyls_my_autobiography_hardcover_.html > > Thanks as always > Rob > Fabgearusa.com > 770-860-1412 > |
In reply to this post by www.Fabgearusa.com
Hi All,
I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I notice that IMDB are listing the movie as 2012 release and I am sure this had been listed as 2011 previously Regards Howard |
Administrator
|
> I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I notice that IMDB are
> listing the movie as 2012 release and I am sure this had been listed as > 2011 previously I don't know if that's been mentioned here, but someone pointed out that change to me months ago. Marc |
Marc,
and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything in the way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on this kind of money? James K. ________________________________ From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Wed, November 17, 2010 2:09:46 PM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I notice that IMDB are > listing the movie as 2012 release and I am sure this had been listed as > 2011 previously I don't know if that's been mentioned here, but someone pointed out that change to me months ago. Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Administrator
|
> Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the
> IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also > noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. > That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast > will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything in the > way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on > this kind of money? I think earlier articles had the budget at $130 million. Who knows what's correct, or even if this film will ever be made? Frankly, I see a limited budget as a potential good thing. The original series did NOT have an infinite amount of money at their disposal, and some of the episodes were pretty low budget. Marc |
In reply to this post by James Killian
I could make my comedy sci-fi trilogy (very loosely based upon UFO) for a tenth of that! --- On Thu, 11/18/10, Billy Killian <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Billy Killian <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, November 18, 2010, 2:12 AM Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything in the way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on this kind of money? James K. ________________________________ From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Wed, November 17, 2010 2:09:46 PM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I notice that IMDB are > listing the movie as 2012 release and I am sure this had been listed as > 2011 previously I don't know if that's been mentioned here, but someone pointed out that change to me months ago. Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
Well Stevan given what has happen with remakes of other classic TV series of
late this cut budget could very well mean just that, they plan to go the comedy route heaven help us. But good luck with yours, James Killian ________________________________ From: Stevan Warburton <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Cc: [hidden email] Sent: Thu, November 18, 2010 11:43:13 AM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! I could make my comedy sci-fi trilogy (very loosely based upon UFO) for a tenth of that! --- On Thu, 11/18/10, Billy Killian <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Billy Killian <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, November 18, 2010, 2:12 AM Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything in the way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on this kind of money? James K. ________________________________ From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Wed, November 17, 2010 2:09:46 PM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I notice that IMDB are > listing the movie as 2012 release and I am sure this had been listed as > 2011 previously I don't know if that's been mentioned here, but someone pointed out that change to me months ago. Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
I agree, but comedy is the only writing medium I know and it would NEVER be a comedy version of the series just heavily influenced as it has had an impact on my life both in fiction and fact :-)
--- On Fri, 11/19/10, Billy Killian <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Billy Killian <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Friday, November 19, 2010, 4:18 AM Well Stevan given what has happen with remakes of other classic TV series of late this cut budget could very well mean just that, they plan to go the comedy route heaven help us. But good luck with yours, James Killian ________________________________ From: Stevan Warburton <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Cc: [hidden email] Sent: Thu, November 18, 2010 11:43:13 AM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! I could make my comedy sci-fi trilogy (very loosely based upon UFO) for a tenth of that! --- On Thu, 11/18/10, Billy Killian <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Billy Killian <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, November 18, 2010, 2:12 AM Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything in the way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on this kind of money? James K. ________________________________ From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Wed, November 17, 2010 2:09:46 PM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I notice that IMDB are > listing the movie as 2012 release and I am sure this had been listed as > 2011 previously I don't know if that's been mentioned here, but someone pointed out that change to me months ago. Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by James Killian
A lower budget forces greater creativity & stronger acting.
I'm all for lower budget, if it means I get a movie, and not watch a 2 hour video game (cough-Transformers)(cough-GI-Joe-cough) Look at Star Wars. The larger the budget, the worse the move. Matt --- In [hidden email], Billy Killian <sumitonjd@...> wrote: > > Marc, > and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the IMDB site for > the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also noticed the supposed > budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in > this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast will take a good deal of that leaving very > little for anything in the way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do > a good film on this kind of money? >    James K. > > > |
In reply to this post by pyschobomb
I have grown up with U.F.O., and Space 1999. I have always felt that both U.F.O., and Space 1999 were/are both series way ahead of its/their time. Both truly the best Special FX series of their time! With that said. I would enjoy seeing a new U.F.O. movie based on the same principle. Just imagine! Leave the "COMEDY" where it belongs! "NOT HERE!"
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Stevan Warburton <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 04:19:43 To: <[hidden email]> Reply-To: [hidden email] Cc: <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! I agree, but comedy is the only writing medium I know and it would NEVER be a comedy version of the series just heavily influenced as it has had an impact on my life both in fiction and fact :-) --- On Fri, 11/19/10, Billy Killian <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Billy Killian <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Friday, November 19, 2010, 4:18 AM Well Stevan given what has happen with remakes of other classic TV series of late this cut budget could very well mean just that, they plan to go the comedy route heaven help us. But good luck with yours, James Killian ________________________________ From: Stevan Warburton <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Cc: [hidden email] Sent: Thu, November 18, 2010 11:43:13 AM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! I could make my comedy sci-fi trilogy (very loosely based upon UFO) for a tenth of that! --- On Thu, 11/18/10, Billy Killian <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Billy Killian <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, November 18, 2010, 2:12 AM Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything in the way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on this kind of money? James K. ________________________________ From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Wed, November 17, 2010 2:09:46 PM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I notice that IMDB are > listing the movie as 2012 release and I am sure this had been listed as > 2011 previously I don't know if that's been mentioned here, but someone pointed out that change to me months ago. Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by James Killian
--- In [hidden email], Billy Killian <sumitonjd@...> wrote: I also noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. Only if you are making a crap American sciFi with no decent script that they have to hurl big effects at to make it sell. ie: Avatar or Skyline. Check out the excellent District 9. They made that on only $30m. Rob |
In reply to this post by Marc Martin
CONTENTS DELETED
The author has deleted this message.
|
Well first off there is a lot of difference in money from 1980's Alien 35
million to 95 million today. Back then the average budget for a film was 20 to 40 million. Now days its more like 200 million. Which make budget of something like District 9 seems like something done by Roger Corman for a million back in the 70's. There are a few FX people who can still do old school miniture effects but now days everyone is so caught up in doing CGI works its almost forgotten. And the other big problem is what you mention which instead of a good plot feeling the screen with explosions every few minutes to make up for it. James Killian ________________________________ From: "Hemmings, Rob K." <[hidden email]> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> Sent: Fri, November 19, 2010 10:03:14 AM Subject: RE: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! Agreed. Ridley Scott didn't do bad with only 14/28 million for Blade Runner. :o) (well, as long as you view the seminal Directors Cut version, rather than the dumbbed-down original release.) Little models, painted scenery, but you can't tell that in the film - those Blade Runner scenes look more realistic than any made using CGI and costing megabucks, as in more recent films (which others have already mentioned.) One (rhet.) question though: Are there still the skills out there to do stuff like this based on models?.. Best, -- Rob >-----Original Message----- >From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of >Marc Martin >Sent: 18 November 2010 03:08 >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > >> Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the >> IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also >> noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. >> That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast >> will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything in the >> way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on >> this kind of money? > >I think earlier articles had the budget at $130 million. Who knows >what's correct, or even if this film will ever be made? > >Frankly, I see a limited budget as a potential good thing. The original >series did NOT have an infinite amount of money at their disposal, and >some of the episodes were pretty low budget. > >Marc > > >------------------------------------ > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Ben_the_bear
Yeah! Everything he just said!
--- On Fri, 11/19/10, ben_the_bear <[hidden email]> wrote: From: ben_the_bear <[hidden email]> Subject: [SHADO] Re: UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Friday, November 19, 2010, 2:29 PM A lower budget forces greater creativity & stronger acting. I'm all for lower budget, if it means I get a movie, and not watch a 2 hour video game (cough-Transformers)(cough-GI-Joe-cough) Look at Star Wars. The larger the budget, the worse the move. Matt --- In [hidden email], Billy Killian <sumitonjd@...> wrote: > > Marc, > and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the IMDB site for > the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also noticed the supposed > budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in > this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast will take a good deal of that leaving very > little for anything in the way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do > a good film on this kind of money? >    James K. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by numinousme
My sentiments exactly. I was TRYING to demonstate (rather badly) the effect UFO had on me and the experiences I had at the time of inception of my lightbulb idea all those years ago. The whole story goes away from anything UFO SHADO related and comes back on itself as it transmoglified into a timetravel trilogy. I would absolutely NOT besmirch the good name of UFO; it would be my homage to it if anything else.
--- On Fri, 11/19/10, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: From: [hidden email] <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Friday, November 19, 2010, 3:09 PM I have grown up with U.F.O., and Space 1999. I have always felt that both U.F.O., and Space 1999 were/are both series way ahead of its/their time. Both truly the best Special FX series of their time! With that said. I would enjoy seeing a new U.F.O. movie based on the same principle. Just imagine! Leave the "COMEDY" where it belongs! "NOT HERE!" Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Stevan Warburton <[hidden email]> Sender: [hidden email] Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 04:19:43 To: <[hidden email]> Reply-To: [hidden email] Cc: <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! I agree, but comedy is the only writing medium I know and it would NEVER be a comedy version of the series just heavily influenced as it has had an impact on my life both in fiction and fact :-) --- On Fri, 11/19/10, Billy Killian <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Billy Killian <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Friday, November 19, 2010, 4:18 AM Well Stevan given what has happen with remakes of other classic TV series of late this cut budget could very well mean just that, they plan to go the comedy route heaven help us. But good luck with yours, James Killian ________________________________ From: Stevan Warburton <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Cc: [hidden email] Sent: Thu, November 18, 2010 11:43:13 AM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! I could make my comedy sci-fi trilogy (very loosely based upon UFO) for a tenth of that! --- On Thu, 11/18/10, Billy Killian <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Billy Killian <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Thursday, November 18, 2010, 2:12 AM Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything in the way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on this kind of money? James K. ________________________________ From: Marc Martin <[hidden email]> To: [hidden email] Sent: Wed, November 17, 2010 2:09:46 PM Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before, but I notice that IMDB are > listing the movie as 2012 release and I am sure this had been listed as > 2011 previously I don't know if that's been mentioned here, but someone pointed out that change to me months ago. Marc [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Tafkar
I for one really morn the loss of traditional model makers on film and TV; you know the object you are looking at on a 2 dimensional screen is 3 dimensional and is tangible; unlike millions of CG Pixels..
--- On Fri, 11/19/10, Hemmings, Rob K. <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Hemmings, Rob K. <[hidden email]> Subject: RE: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! To: "'[hidden email]'" <[hidden email]> Date: Friday, November 19, 2010, 4:03 PM Agreed. Ridley Scott didn't do bad with only 14/28 million for Blade Runner. :o) (well, as long as you view the seminal Directors Cut version, rather than the dumbbed-down original release.) Little models, painted scenery, but you can't tell that in the film - those Blade Runner scenes look more realistic than any made using CGI and costing megabucks, as in more recent films (which others have already mentioned.) One (rhet.) question though: Are there still the skills out there to do stuff like this based on models?.. Best, -- Rob >-----Original Message----- >From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of >Marc Martin >Sent: 18 November 2010 03:08 >To: [hidden email] >Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > >> Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look at the >> IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change I also >> noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. >> That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The cast >> will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything in the >> way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on >> this kind of money? > >I think earlier articles had the budget at $130 million. Who knows >what's correct, or even if this film will ever be made? > >Frankly, I see a limited budget as a potential good thing. The original >series did NOT have an infinite amount of money at their disposal, and >some of the episodes were pretty low budget. > >Marc > > >------------------------------------ > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by Rob Neal
Yeah, that's more like it
--- On Fri, 11/19/10, Rob <[hidden email]> wrote: From: Rob <[hidden email]> Subject: [SHADO] Re: UFO 2012 ! To: [hidden email] Date: Friday, November 19, 2010, 3:51 PM --- In [hidden email], Billy Killian <sumitonjd@...> wrote: I also noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. Only if you are making a crap American sciFi with no decent script that they have to hurl big effects at to make it sell. ie: Avatar or Skyline. Check out the excellent District 9. They made that on only $30m. Rob [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
In reply to this post by James Killian
Alien cost $11 million in 1978...
Bestest, John Ellis On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:37 AM, Billy Killian wrote: > Well first off there is a lot of difference in money from 1980's > Alien 35 > million to 95 million today. Back then the average budget for a > film was 20 to > 40 million. Now days its more like 200 million. Which make budget > of something > like District 9 seems like something done by Roger Corman for a > million back in > the 70's. > There are a few FX people who can still do old school miniture > effects but > now days everyone is so caught up in doing CGI works its almost > forgotten. > And the other big problem is what you mention which instead of > a good plot > feeling the screen with explosions every few minutes to make up for > it. > James Killian > > ________________________________ > From: "Hemmings, Rob K." <[hidden email]> > To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]> > Sent: Fri, November 19, 2010 10:03:14 AM > Subject: RE: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > > > Agreed. > > Ridley Scott didn't do bad with only 14/28 million for Blade > Runner. :o) > (well, as long as you view the seminal Directors Cut version, rather > than the dumbbed-down original release.) > > Little models, painted scenery, but you can't tell that in the film - > those Blade Runner scenes look more realistic than any made using CGI > and costing megabucks, as in more recent films (which others have > already mentioned.) > > One (rhet.) question though: Are there still the skills out there to > do stuff like this based on models?.. > > Best, > -- > Rob > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of > >Marc Martin > >Sent: 18 November 2010 03:08 > >To: [hidden email] > >Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > > > >> Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look > at the > >> IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change > I also > >> noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. > >> That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The > cast > >> will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything > in the > >> way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on > >> this kind of money? > > > >I think earlier articles had the budget at $130 million. Who knows > >what's correct, or even if this film will ever be made? > > > >Frankly, I see a limited budget as a potential good thing. The > original > >series did NOT have an infinite amount of money at their disposal, > and > >some of the episodes were pretty low budget. > > > >Marc > > > > > >------------------------------------ > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SHADO/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SHADO/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [hidden email] [hidden email] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [hidden email] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ |
In reply to this post by Tafkar
Hey Rob,
Note that Matt Gratzner has been a great miniature FX Supervisor since the mid 90's...and has owned his own highly lauded miniature FX shop. I admire this man and his work and that is the only reason I hold out any hope for this movie to be something we'll enjoy. That they are taking their time is also a good sign (not rushing to get it in the theatres). I am quite sure Gratzner doesn't want another Thunderbirds movie fiasco. The industry miniature FX skills are all still there...at this juncture anyway. CGI is a great tool but overused by lazy Producers and Directors. I know, I've done enough of it over the years and am just about burned out. I've done a lot of miniatures over the years too, but the last time was in about 2005 (which is a pity). The "fix-it-all-in-Post-Production-with-CGI" attitude is a sign of lazy talentless hack filmmakers that should be selling tires at Sears...IMHO ;-) Bestest, John Ellis http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0254918/ http://homepage.mac.com/twonky/LSFX/John_Ellis_Bio.html On Nov 19, 2010, at 8:03 AM, Hemmings, Rob K. wrote: > Agreed. > > Ridley Scott didn't do bad with only 14/28 million for Blade > Runner. :o) > (well, as long as you view the seminal Directors Cut version, rather > than the dumbbed-down original release.) > > Little models, painted scenery, but you can't tell that in the film - > those Blade Runner scenes look more realistic than any made using CGI > and costing megabucks, as in more recent films (which others have > already mentioned.) > > One (rhet.) question though: Are there still the skills out there to > do stuff like this based on models?.. > > Best, > -- > Rob > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On > Behalf Of > >Marc Martin > >Sent: 18 November 2010 03:08 > >To: [hidden email] > >Subject: Re: [SHADO] UFO 2012 ! > > > >> Marc, and anyone else who might be interested I also had a look > at the > >> IMDB site for the up coming UFO film and beside the date change > I also > >> noticed the supposed budget for the film. Only 95 million dollars. > >> That sort of on the low side in this day for a Sci-Fi film. The > cast > >> will take a good deal of that leaving very little for anything > in the > >> way of FX work or extras. Anybody think they can do a good film on > >> this kind of money? > > > >I think earlier articles had the budget at $130 million. Who knows > >what's correct, or even if this film will ever be made? > > > >Frankly, I see a limited budget as a potential good thing. The > original > >series did NOT have an infinite amount of money at their disposal, > and > >some of the episodes were pretty low budget. > > > >Marc > > > > > >------------------------------------ > > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SHADO/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SHADO/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [hidden email] [hidden email] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [hidden email] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |