ABNorman wrote:I keep hearing that the mid-budget film is making a comeback. We're listening to different things.
I think the people I'm listening to are just bitter filmmakers who are upset that their own mid-budget films are not being financed. The reality is it's probably just because their projects suck and no one wants to see them.
i need for the two of you to reconcile the differences here so i can know how to engage the topic of mid-budget films
When in doubt, listen to me.
What's Bret Easton Ellis have to say on the subject?
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I think the people I'm listening to are just bitter filmmakers who are upset that their own mid-budget films are not being financed. The reality is it's probably just because their projects suck and no one wants to see them.
LoathedVermin72 wrote:You know I keep hearing people in the film industry bemoan how "the mid-budget movie" has disappeared and that only huge-budget and micro-budget films are being made these days, yet almost every movie in the top 10 at the US box office right now was budgeted around $30 to $60 million.
Isn't that micro-budget these days?
No, Annabelle is micro-budget - $6.5 million.
I think that should be a new category. That's way smaller than micro-budget.
Aren't you just thinking of low-budget films? How can a budget be smaller than micro?
LoathedVermin72 wrote:You know I keep hearing people in the film industry bemoan how "the mid-budget movie" has disappeared and that only huge-budget and micro-budget films are being made these days, yet almost every movie in the top 10 at the US box office right now was budgeted around $30 to $60 million.
Isn't that micro-budget these days?
No, Annabelle is micro-budget - $6.5 million.
I think that should be a new category. That's way smaller than micro-budget.
Aren't you just thinking of low-budget films? How can a budget be smaller than micro?
Yes, there's the spirit! How indeed? Let's figure this out. What word should we use?
