Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You can have 10 million (overall) budget like Snatch that had Brad Pitt in it, or 50 million for the matrix.l

Jesus.... Those movies are 20 years old. Brad Pitt called Guy Ritchie to work with him after liking Lock Stock and took a percentage of takings rather than money up front. The Matrix had a production budget of over $60 million dollars. (The fact that you don't know that the production budget only accounts for about 50/60% of the total budget to bring a film to market shows how ignorant you are regarding this topic) and we will forget the fact that AGAIN Reeves took 10% of the films takings at the box office.

Why can't you just hold up your hands and say "Yeah, $20 million was way off base, I was wrong about that." and move on? You were wrong, are wrong and continuing to be so does nothing other than make you seem like an arrogant fool.

Okay then, Under the Skin 13 million with Scarlet Johansson, Birdman 16 million etc. 20 million is not way off base, as films are made with that budget and less but that's not what we are arguing about, don't try and change the argument. We are talking about A-list starts being irrelevant when it comes to budgets, they can be in 13 million budget and 200 million so if they can be at both ends of the scale in budget then A-list actors are NOT factor in how much a budget is going to be, plus actors can get paid on the back end and not actually receive an upfront amount, so no actually you are wrong, and you know it.

None of those films you've mentioned are exactly "big science fiction epics" which warhammer 40k would pretty much demand being.

yes small artsy flicks can go foir substantially less, but 40k would by it's nature demand a HIGH budget. Thats the thing you're claiming a 40k movie could be made for 20 million, everyone else is saying that'd be unrelaistic for 40k. YOU'RE WRONG, no way about it.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Hollow wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
You can have 10 million (overall) budget like Snatch that had Brad Pitt in it, or 50 million for the matrix.l

Jesus.... Those movies are 20 years old. Brad Pitt called Guy Ritchie to work with him after liking Lock Stock and took a percentage of takings rather than money up front. The Matrix had a production budget of over $60 million dollars. (The fact that you don't know that the production budget only accounts for about 50/60% of the total budget to bring a film to market shows how ignorant you are regarding this topic) and we will forget the fact that AGAIN Reeves took 10% of the films takings at the box office.

Why can't you just hold up your hands and say "Yeah, $20 million was way off base, I was wrong about that." and move on? You were wrong, are wrong and continuing to be so does nothing other than make you seem like an arrogant fool.

Okay then, Under the Skin 13 million with Scarlet Johansson, Birdman 16 million etc. 20 million is not way off base, as films are made with that budget and less but that's not what we are arguing about, don't try and change the argument. We are talking about A-list starts being irrelevant when it comes to budgets, they can be in 13 million budget and 200 million so if they can be at both ends of the scale in budget then A-list actors are NOT factor in how much a budget is going to be, plus actors can get paid on the back end and not actually receive an upfront amount, so no actually you are wrong, and you know it.

None of those films you've mentioned are exactly "big science fiction epics" which warhammer 40k would pretty much demand being.

yes small artsy flicks can go foir substantially less, but 40k would by it's nature demand a HIGH budget. Thats the thing you're claiming a 40k movie could be made for 20 million, everyone else is saying that'd be unrelaistic for 40k. YOU'RE WRONG, no way about it.

Well you would likely use a no-named cast, could you imagine Jenifer Lawrence as a sister of battle lol for us fans it'd be ridiculous. 40k by its nature would be a high budget film, you obviously never saw the last one lol I never claimed it would be a high budget, I'd love it if it was, why do you think I said 20 million... I mean big film companies will berate you for using less budget than you were given, yeah that has more to do with the big executives expenses but people have an inflated view of how much a film can be made for.

When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

One thing to keep in mind is fandom crossovers and who the target market is. Who'd the target market of a 40k movie be? (and don't just say 40k players ) it'd effectively be the geek crowd, Sci-fi fans, that sort of thing....

well thing is the market for "geek fare" is pretty crowded right now, what with star wars, Marvel, DC and plenty of other things. that means the 40k target market right now has a LOT of choice. So you're going to have to make a great movie because a 40k movie would be in direct compeition with the Avengers, and Star Wars etc.

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

Yeah that's what I was saying but if that fan-film did good at sunshine or the other awards ceremonies they might change there minds if they did it right this time.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Robocop was 18 in the UK, R in the states.
An R rating is 18+ unless with an adult. In that case it doesn't matter what age you are.

Alien has several ratings, depending on the year and what version it is.
In the UK it originally had an X rating, which is higher than a 18+. In 1987 it was rerated to 18+, and the directors cut was rerated to 15+ in 2003.
In the US it's an R for the theatrical release, but MA for the uncensored TV version and apparently was rerated to PG for the TV version.

Predator already had a rerating, but not as much as Alien.
In the UK it was 18+ on release, 15+ in 2013
In the US its R.

And all 3 movies are rated 12 in France. Which is interesting, because in my observation those movies tend to be popular with adolescent males.

Woah those ratings are all over the place. Let me check the ratings for Martyr in the US and UK.
Oh, it's UK 18+ (LESS than Alien?), and US R?
Well that's weird. Let's go harder still with Thriller a cruel picture and Cannibal Holocaust.
Oh okay those movies are unrated in the US lol.
And for both the uncut version was banned in UK at least at some point .

Ratings are WEIRD man.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Nah, I got the reference. Its just that we don't talk about that movie 'round these parts.
*spits in a spittoon*

But it's the best official 40K movie ever made! What's not to love about it ?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

Yeah that's what I was saying but if that fan-film did good at sunshine or the other awards ceremonies they might change there minds if they did it right this time.

I really doubt that. At best they'd be nicer about fan films but they're not going to make films because some fan film did well.

In the wrong hands it could be like Stallone's Judge Dredd, in the right hands it could be like Karl Urban's. And to be honest in this instance the poorer one had the bigger budget. So although I agree it would require a hefty budget, more importantly it requires the right direction.

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

Yeah that's what I was saying but if that fan-film did good at sunshine or the other awards ceremonies they might change there minds if they did it right this time.

I really doubt that. At best they'd be nicer about fan films but they're not going to make films because some fan film did well.

It might change their mind to some degree, especially now that science fiction films are doing so well. They've learned from before, So they have a lot to work with if they do it again. But it is a massive risk. If they took in other shareholders for just the film, and made it as an advertising move for the franchise, to get more hobbyists in, more than a profit move they could spread a lot of that risk.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

Yeah that's what I was saying but if that fan-film did good at sunshine or the other awards ceremonies they might change there minds if they did it right this time.

I really doubt that. At best they'd be nicer about fan films but they're not going to make films because some fan film did well.

It might change their mind to some degree, especially now that science fiction films are doing so well. They've learned from before, So they have a lot to work with if they do it again. But it is a massive risk. If they took in other shareholders for just the film, and made it as an advertising move for the franchise, to get more hobbyists in, more than a profit move they could spread a lot of that risk.

But why take a risk like that based on a fan film? A bad sci fi film isn't good advertising and sci fi films being more popular doesn't change the fact that a bad films a bad film.

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

Yeah that's what I was saying but if that fan-film did good at sunshine or the other awards ceremonies they might change there minds if they did it right this time.

I really doubt that. At best they'd be nicer about fan films but they're not going to make films because some fan film did well.

It might change their mind to some degree, especially now that science fiction films are doing so well. They've learned from before, So they have a lot to work with if they do it again. But it is a massive risk. If they took in other shareholders for just the film, and made it as an advertising move for the franchise, to get more hobbyists in, more than a profit move they could spread a lot of that risk.

But why take a risk like that based on a fan film? A bad sci fi film isn't good advertising and sci fi films being more popular doesn't change the fact that a bad films a bad film.

Well they can gauge the response to it, if it just did well within the fan community then its a big no, but say it done well at these independent festivals/ceremonies like sundance, that would show that there is interest in other markets and with actual professionals within the film industry.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

Yeah that's what I was saying but if that fan-film did good at sunshine or the other awards ceremonies they might change there minds if they did it right this time.

I really doubt that. At best they'd be nicer about fan films but they're not going to make films because some fan film did well.

It might change their mind to some degree, especially now that science fiction films are doing so well. They've learned from before, So they have a lot to work with if they do it again. But it is a massive risk. If they took in other shareholders for just the film, and made it as an advertising move for the franchise, to get more hobbyists in, more than a profit move they could spread a lot of that risk.

But why take a risk like that based on a fan film? A bad sci fi film isn't good advertising and sci fi films being more popular doesn't change the fact that a bad films a bad film.

Well they can gauge the response to it, if it just did well within the fan community then its a big no, but say it done well at these independent festivals/ceremonies like sundance, that would show that there is interest in other markets and with actual professionals within the film industry.

You seem to be missing the point as usual. Even if a fan film does well that doesn't really justify making a film of 40k especially one that captures such a narrow view of 40k.

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

Yeah that's what I was saying but if that fan-film did good at sunshine or the other awards ceremonies they might change there minds if they did it right this time.

I really doubt that. At best they'd be nicer about fan films but they're not going to make films because some fan film did well.

It might change their mind to some degree, especially now that science fiction films are doing so well. They've learned from before, So they have a lot to work with if they do it again. But it is a massive risk. If they took in other shareholders for just the film, and made it as an advertising move for the franchise, to get more hobbyists in, more than a profit move they could spread a lot of that risk.

But why take a risk like that based on a fan film? A bad sci fi film isn't good advertising and sci fi films being more popular doesn't change the fact that a bad films a bad film.

Well they can gauge the response to it, if it just did well within the fan community then its a big no, but say it done well at these independent festivals/ceremonies like sundance, that would show that there is interest in other markets and with actual professionals within the film industry.

You seem to be missing the point as usual. Even if a fan film does well that doesn't really justify making a film of 40k especially one that captures such a narrow view of 40k.

Of course it doesn't automatically justify it, but if you actually read my comments rather than, being determined in trying to prove me wrong, you'd understand that it 'could' justify them in thinking it'll be a good idea. There is no right or wrong when it comes to them 'hypothetically' choosing to create a film. There is no way for you to prove that they wouldn't. Joining in one the 'yeah Delvarus is always wrong' is irrelevant, to your actual argument, its a nice buzz phrase to add, as everyone that I've argued with before does because I proved them wrong, they love coming out the woodworks. I've had debates with one or two intelligent people on here, the rest of you are all average intelligence and because you are insecure you band together and stroke each others egos. When I'm wrong I always admit it, you people are too insecure to do that, you just try your best to prove me wrong, even when its a subjective or hypothetical claim. That's why you always use other people saying 'yet again he's wrong' instead of actually proving me wrong. I don't need to make friends and find solace in consensus to feel like I'm right. I mean you's are all the same to me, but any thread I'm on, you follow me like flies and you all try and contradict me, its funny.

Let's take Dredd as a marker here. No A-listers, cult following, limited self contained storyline that non-comic fans can enjoy, $45 million budget. Tweak the visuals a little and you've got....

Necromunda - the movie

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

Yeah that's what I was saying but if that fan-film did good at sunshine or the other awards ceremonies they might change there minds if they did it right this time.

I really doubt that. At best they'd be nicer about fan films but they're not going to make films because some fan film did well.

It might change their mind to some degree, especially now that science fiction films are doing so well. They've learned from before, So they have a lot to work with if they do it again. But it is a massive risk. If they took in other shareholders for just the film, and made it as an advertising move for the franchise, to get more hobbyists in, more than a profit move they could spread a lot of that risk.

But why take a risk like that based on a fan film? A bad sci fi film isn't good advertising and sci fi films being more popular doesn't change the fact that a bad films a bad film.

Well they can gauge the response to it, if it just did well within the fan community then its a big no, but say it done well at these independent festivals/ceremonies like sundance, that would show that there is interest in other markets and with actual professionals within the film industry.

You seem to be missing the point as usual. Even if a fan film does well that doesn't really justify making a film of 40k especially one that captures such a narrow view of 40k.

Of course it doesn't automatically justify it, but if you actually read my comments rather than being determined in trying to prove me wrong, you'd understand that it 'could' justify them in thinking it'll be a good idea. There is no right or wrong when it comes to them 'hypothetically' choosing to create a film. There is no way for you to prove that they wouldn't. Joining in one the 'yeah Delvarus is always wrong' is irrelevant, to your actual argument, its a nice buzz phrase to add, as everyone that I've argued with before and proved them wrong love coming out the woodworks. I've had debates with one or two intelligent people on here, the rest of you are all average intelligence and because you's are insecure you band together and stroke each others egos. When I'm wrong I always admit it, you people are too insecure to do that, you just try your best to prove me wrong even when its a subjective or hypothetical claim.

Take your own advice. I'm reading the comments you're making and I'm stating why I disagree, it's not about me being right. A single 40k film isn't a great idea because even if it does well it can only really reflect one faction well which would probably be Guard or an Inquisitor as other people have said. That's not a great representation of 40k because you can't go in depth into the background that well.

You need to stop ranting about insecurities and how much better you are.

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
When it comes to budget there are huge differences between genres so $20 million in one genre just doesn't get you the same quality as the same money in a different genre. If you're making a drama set in the present with a limited cast and limited number of locations your budget will stretch further. Birdman is actually a good example of that. It was a great story with relatively few locations and special effects that had no A-listers in it (Emma Stone was a recognised actress but not A-list and the film revitalised Michael Keaton's career so he doesn't really count either). It's also worth noting a lot of big-name actors will do smaller indy projects as favours or as a challenge or just for a change of pace. Something that's clearly some sort of "franchise" style project is almost certainly not going to fall into that category.

If you're making a sci-fi film or TV series the same budget would get you nowhere. CGI, practical effects and action sequences are some of the most expensive in the industry, after paying for big names. You just can't compare 2 completely different types of films and their budgets and declare you can make one with the same money as the other. That's why I brought up Altered Carbon earlier. It's extremely recent and very similar to what you'd need to do to create a 40k TV series. Sure, you could probably do it for less than $150 million with similar results, but you definitely couldn't do it for only 15% of that budget. For a decent movie you'd likely need at least $80-100 million. That's just what it costs nowadays for that sort of movie. At that point the studio needs to be pretty sure it's got a hit on its hands before it even greenlights pre-production.

Sure there is a big difference, I'd love for there to be a massive budget, it could probably happen but the most realistic thing at present is a 20-50 million budget with a small production company. I mean we nearly have a film with that Inquisitor fan film. GW are probably waiting to see how that does before going the film route again. Look at resident evil degeneration, 75 million dollars and its amazing, you could easily do a good animated film for far less. It would look as seamless but it could still be great.

I think GW are just not making films again rather than waiting. Seeing as they cost a bit and there's 0 guarantee of payoff.

Yeah that's what I was saying but if that fan-film did good at sunshine or the other awards ceremonies they might change there minds if they did it right this time.

I really doubt that. At best they'd be nicer about fan films but they're not going to make films because some fan film did well.

It might change their mind to some degree, especially now that science fiction films are doing so well. They've learned from before, So they have a lot to work with if they do it again. But it is a massive risk. If they took in other shareholders for just the film, and made it as an advertising move for the franchise, to get more hobbyists in, more than a profit move they could spread a lot of that risk.

But why take a risk like that based on a fan film? A bad sci fi film isn't good advertising and sci fi films being more popular doesn't change the fact that a bad films a bad film.

Well they can gauge the response to it, if it just did well within the fan community then its a big no, but say it done well at these independent festivals/ceremonies like sundance, that would show that there is interest in other markets and with actual professionals within the film industry.

You seem to be missing the point as usual. Even if a fan film does well that doesn't really justify making a film of 40k especially one that captures such a narrow view of 40k.

Of course it doesn't automatically justify it, but if you actually read my comments rather than being determined in trying to prove me wrong, you'd understand that it 'could' justify them in thinking it'll be a good idea. There is no right or wrong when it comes to them 'hypothetically' choosing to create a film. There is no way for you to prove that they wouldn't. Joining in one the 'yeah Delvarus is always wrong' is irrelevant, to your actual argument, its a nice buzz phrase to add, as everyone that I've argued with before and proved them wrong love coming out the woodworks. I've had debates with one or two intelligent people on here, the rest of you are all average intelligence and because you's are insecure you band together and stroke each others egos. When I'm wrong I always admit it, you people are too insecure to do that, you just try your best to prove me wrong even when its a subjective or hypothetical claim.

Take your own advice. I'm reading the comments you're making and I'm stating why I disagree, it's not about me being right. A single 40k film isn't a great idea because even if it does well it can only really reflect one faction well which would probably be Guard or an Inquisitor as other people have said. That's not a great representation of 40k because you can't go in depth into the background that well.

You need to stop ranting about insecurities and how much better you are.

Well you did think it was a lapse of understandingin my case, so you did think there was a right or wrong in this hypothetical situation, rather than just stating your opinion against mine.

I love ranting, I piss off you all off just by proving you wrong on something and then you's band together to say stuff like 'you are always wrong etc. So I have no need to make friends with people that are already pissed off with me. As for your insecurities and me being more intelligent than you, that's just fact. Normally I'd be humble and civil but not with you lot, especially because you all report me for ridiculous infractions and try to get my comments deleted.

You not seeing what I mean is different to there being right and wrong.

You don't. It's tiring and inconsiderate of you. Despite that I really don't care about you or your mental issues.

Can we close this thread now?

pm713 wrote:
You not seeing what I mean is different to there being right and wrong.

You don't. It's tiring and inconsiderate of you. Despite that I really don't care about you or your mental issues.

Well that you thought, I didn't understand obviously has no bearing whatsoever, as if you read what I was actually saying, I obviously did understand, either you thought I didn't understand and you were 'right' or you didn't understand what I was saying, which I don't think is the case because you obviously did understand what I was saying. but its either one, or you are just using the 'you don't understand' because other people are saying that and you think that will bolster your opinion, especially in view of the other people on the thread.

I'm not inconsiderate, unless I'm prompted to be. I have great and civil conversations on this website, just not with you usual suspects. You band together insult me, report me and then you project onto me what you are doing, saying I'm inconsiderate. I don't take it personal, I was having a civil argument with you, (even with the insults we've thrown at each other in the past) until you did the predictable 'yet again you don't understand'. Yet you do this in the comfort of the mob, who agree with you and pat your back, regardless if you are right or wrong.


Pre-empting another argument: Yes I'm going to bring up another thread, but since you do the 'always wrong' thing, you are guilty of the same thing, just in a less detailed way.


I mean no one ever banded about this 'you are wrong as usual', until I was wrong on one point and now you have just grabbed hold of that like crack and are trying to use that as: usual behaviour from me, I admitted I was wrong and it was on a thread that I stated a fact, you all disagreed with, me for ten threads, forgetting what I originally said as you all ended up agreeing with me, yet you's did anything but say you were wrong, you's just reported me, for continuing the debate. We changed the subject and I was wrong, that it was improbable that Malcador could be the Emperor, I didn't even say it was impossible and bam here we are,.. small victories. People that are secure about their intelligence don't mind being wrong and admitting they are. and we certainly don't find solace in groups, when we are wrong.

Holy feth it's like I'm flying over ziggurats. Use spoiler tags ffs.

Okay. I'm going to bring this back to the lands of rational on topic discussion.

1. Yes, a movie can be made set in the 40k universe for 20-50 million. But that movie would not be a sweeping epic.

2. If you had 200 million, then yes, you can make whatever the hell kind of movie you want.

3. Each of these types of movies could be decent.

4. Script and storyboards will be torn apart purely due to budgetary constraints.

I know this because I wrote a relatively successful (for Ireland with a population of 4.5 million) novel set during the 1798 Rising. A few people were interested in turning it into a screenplay but the sheer scale of it was prohibitive, without Spielberg or somebody dumping a truckload of cash into the project.

Sonetimes cloth just has to be cut to suit your measure.

pm713 wrote:
A single 40k film isn't a great idea because even if it does well it can only really reflect one faction well which would probably be Guard or an Inquisitor as other people have said. That's not a great representation of 40k because you can't go in depth into the background that well.

You don't need to 'go in depth', you just need to convey the general feel. The grimdark, the surreal fuckedupness of the Imperium. Something between Sin City and Brazil in tone. Get Terry Gilliam to direct, that would go long way.

 Crimson wrote:

pm713 wrote:
A single 40k film isn't a great idea because even if it does well it can only really reflect one faction well which would probably be Guard or an Inquisitor as other people have said. That's not a great representation of 40k because you can't go in depth into the background that well.

You don't need to 'go in depth', you just need to convey the general feel. The grimdark, the surreal fuckedupness of the Imperium. Something between Sin City and Brazil in tone. Get Terry Gilliam to direct, that would go long way.

So how do you have things like Eldar or Orks? The things that separate 40k from generic sci fi aren't easily done in a single film and generic sci fi in 40k isn't great. You can have the darkness of the imperium but not the surrounding context of it which makes things look poorly overdone.

pm713 wrote:

So how do you have things like Eldar or Orks? The things that separate 40k from generic sci fi aren't easily done in a single film and generic sci fi in 40k isn't great. You can have the darkness of the imperium but not the surrounding context of it which makes things look poorly overdone.

You don't need to shove everything in one film. Ultimately 40K is about imperium. Chaos or Genestealer cultists would be good adversaries.

 Crimson wrote:

pm713 wrote:

So how do you have things like Eldar or Orks? The things that separate 40k from generic sci fi aren't easily done in a single film and generic sci fi in 40k isn't great. You can have the darkness of the imperium but not the surrounding context of it which makes things look poorly overdone.

You don't need to shove everything in one film. Ultimately 40K is about imperium. Chaos or Genestealer cultists would be good adversaries.

I doubt GW or anyone is going to make the next MCU. It's not just about the Imperium though. They get enough favouritism.

pm713 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

pm713 wrote:

So how do you have things like Eldar or Orks? The things that separate 40k from generic sci fi aren't easily done in a single film and generic sci fi in 40k isn't great. You can have the darkness of the imperium but not the surrounding context of it which makes things look poorly overdone.

You don't need to shove everything in one film. Ultimately 40K is about imperium. Chaos or Genestealer cultists would be good adversaries.

I doubt GW or anyone is going to make the next MCU. It's not just about the Imperium though. They get enough favouritism.

It has always been mainly about Imperium; like it or not, the other factions exist to be the adversaries of the Imprium. And when I said 'you don't need to shove everything in one film' I didn't mean to imply that there would necessarily be more films, merely that a film needs to have a cohesive focus. I think Urban's Judge Dredd film is good example of the sort of scope that would be feasible.

 Crimson wrote:

pm713 wrote:

So how do you have things like Eldar or Orks? The things that separate 40k from generic sci fi aren't easily done in a single film and generic sci fi in 40k isn't great. You can have the darkness of the imperium but not the surrounding context of it which makes things look poorly overdone.

You don't need to shove everything in one film. Ultimately 40K is about imperium. Chaos or Genestealer cultists would be good adversaries.

Well you can focus on two major factions, but you can also add a lot more and have them pretty much just be a support section in the film. Have them fighting in the background, have the protagonists interact with them here and there.

You could easily have a SM film with Guard fighting alongside them, or CSM and daemons or even the less likely alliances like Orks and Chaos, which are always funny, or the orks fighting alongside just because its fun, taking no real side.

 Skinflint Games wrote:
Let's take Dredd as a marker here. No A-listers, cult following, limited self contained storyline that non-comic fans can enjoy, $45 million budget. Tweak the visuals a little and you've got....

Necromunda - the movie

Dredd's a good example. It was made relatively cheaply, had a known but not A-list star, and was pretty well received by critics and fans. It also didn't do anywhere near well enough for the studio to want to make a sequel. That shows how tough a 40k film would be. Dredd had a known license, was a good film with a very modest budget and it was still a "failure" as defined by the studio. Unfortunately that's all that matters to the bean counters who fund these things.

I think the best chance of getting a 40k film made is if you get an extremely enthusiastic director or producer on board, as happened with the LotR films, or if you can get a bankable star to take it on as a passion project, as Ryan Reynolds did with Deadpool. You need something prior to starting production that will alleviate the risk for the studio.