> 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]
>
>