B Movies

$7 Champagne

B movies can be like a seven dollar bottle of champagne, miles away from the real thing but every bit as fun.

I sometimes wonder if the most "alive," vervacious movies are necessarily made on a low budget...

Compare Star Wars: Episode IV to Episode I.  

Or True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, and Pulp Fiction on the one hand -- the getting-bloated Kill Bill 2 on the other hand, followed by the totally hit-and-miss Death Proof.

Energy and entropy, Mssrs. Lucas and Tarantino!  What's going on here, money or ego?

Re:$7 Champagne

SkyPilot:

B movies can be like a seven dollar bottle of champagne, miles away from the real thing but every bit as fun.

I sometimes wonder if the most "alive," vervacious movies are necessarily made on a low budget...

Compare Star Wars: Episode IV to Episode I.  

Or True Romance, Reservoir Dogs, and Pulp Fiction on the one hand -- the getting-bloated Kill Bill 2 on the other hand, followed by the totally hit-and-miss Death Proof.

Energy and entropy, Mssrs. Lucas and Tarantino!  What's going on here, money or ego?

I agree.  And what about Steven Spielberg whose greatest movie in my opinion is Duel.  Then they gave him quite a bit more money to do Jaws which was just as awesome.  But after that I think his movies got too "big".

Re:$7 Champagne

Speilberg got too big? Speilberg just became Speilberg.

What about former low-budget directors taking the helm of super hero mega-movies? I'm think particualrly of Sam Rami doing the Spider-Man movies and Christopher Nolan doing Batman Begins. You could accuse them of "selling out," but I think that phrase is pretty much meaningless. It's just a different phase of their careers. Personally I think that Nolan is moving into that phase waaaaaay better than Rami. I just watched the first Spider-Man the other day, man that is a bad movie. You talked about Star Wars Episode I, go back and watch Spider-Man, the dialogue is just as bad.

Re:$7 Champagne

Risselada:

  And what about Steven Spielberg whose greatest movie in my opinion is Duel.  Then they gave him quite a bit more money to do Jaws which was just as awesome.  But after that I think his movies got too "big".

I like Jaws too, and to me it's more of an exploitation creature feature than a blockbuster. 

Can you think of anyone who has given more consistently thrilling movies after they hit the big time? I'm pretty ignorant about Hitchcock (I've only seen Rope and Rear Window) but from the reviews I've seen, his later movies are more revered than his earlier contract work.  

Re:$7 Champagne

porcupine:

Speilberg got too big? Speilberg just became Speilberg.

What about former low-budget directors taking the helm of super hero mega-movies? I'm think particualrly of Sam Rami doing the Spider-Man movies and Christopher Nolan doing Batman Begins. You could accuse them of "selling out," but I think that phrase is pretty much meaningless. It's just a different phase of their careers. Personally I think that Nolan is moving into that phase waaaaaay better than Rami. I just watched the first Spider-Man the other day, man that is a bad movie. You talked about Star Wars Episode I, go back and watch Spider-Man, the dialogue is just as bad.

Well I've still always wondered what Spielberg might do with a challenge to make a movie now on an extremely limited budget.  I think the result might be something I would prefer to what he's able to make with his seemingly unlimited wealth.  I wonder if sometimes we are more forgiving to a movie when we know it had to work with limitations, which makes it more impressive.

I actually thought about mentioning Raimi as well.  Sometimes he still seems to use B-movie techniques in his huge budget Spider-man films.  Which leads me to believe he might almost still feel more comfortable in that role.  And I agree with you that the first Spider-man ain't THAT great.  And I heard the third was was the worst.

Re:$7 Champagne

Risselada:

I agree.  And what about Steven Spielberg whose greatest movie in my opinion is Duel.  Then they gave him quite a bit more money to do Jaws which was just as awesome.  But after that I think his movies got too "big".

   Interesting that you should mention those two movies, Rizzo.   Did you know that Spielberg intended for  JAWS  to be a sequel to  Duel ?   I actually heard him say this in an interview.   Actually there ARE a few similarities...   raplace the truck with a shark and Dennis Weaver with 'Martin Brody' and there you have it.   Also, you will notice that he used the exact same orchestral sound effect at the end of both movies...   When the truck is plunging over the cliff and when the exploded shark is sinking to the bottom of the ocean it is the exact same sound effect!   check it out!   I also heard that he 'lifted' this sound effect from an earlier dinosaur movie,  The Lost World  I think, where it was the sound of a T-Rex dieing or something like that... 

Re:$7 Champagne

porcupine:

What about former low-budget directors taking the helm of super hero mega-movies? I'm think particualrly of Sam Rami doing the Spider-Man movies and Christopher Nolan doing Batman Begins. You could accuse them of "selling out," but I think that phrase is pretty much meaningless. It's just a different phase of their careers. Personally I think that Nolan is moving into that phase waaaaaay better than Rami. 

Kevin, Nolan may be an example of somebody who got better after getting money.  I think the low-budget Following is weaker than all of his later films, but I wonder if that has more to do with experience than money.  In other words, maybe his later movies don't seem indulgent and bloated (like Spiderman 2 and 3) because his skill is growing in equal proportion to the budget?

porcupine:

Speilberg got too big? Speilberg just became Speilberg.

RISSELADA: "Well I've still always wondered what Spielberg might do with a challenge to make a movie now on an extremely limited budget.  I think the result might be something I would prefer to what he's able to make with his seemingly unlimited wealth."

Kevin, I believe that when Rizzo says Spielberg "got too big" he's saying that Spielberg's later movies lack the energy of Duel and Jaws.  What do you think about that, anyone?   

More generally though this seems to be a question about what gives a movie its verve:  is it the filmmaker's youth? Is it the filmmaker's conviction in the subject? And how does the movie's budget play into this?

This isn't just a question about movies, because every time we say of a musical act that we "like their earlier stuff better" I feel like we're getting at a similar issue.

Re:$7 Champagne

Dr_Gor:

Risselada:

I agree.  And what about Steven Spielberg whose greatest movie in my opinion is Duel.  Then they gave him quite a bit more money to do Jaws which was just as awesome.  But after that I think his movies got too "big".

   Interesting that you should mention those two movies, Rizzo.   Did you know that Spielberg intended for  JAWS  to be a sequel to  Duel ?   I actually heard him say this in an interview.   Actually there ARE a few similarities...   raplace the truck with a shark and Dennis Weaver with 'Martin Brody' and there you have it.   Also, you will notice that he used the exact same orchestral sound effect at the end of both movies...   When the truck is plunging over the cliff and when the exploded shark is sinking to the bottom of the ocean it is the exact same sound effect!   check it out!   I also heard that he 'lifted' this sound effect from an earlier dinosaur movie,  The Lost World  I think, where it was the sound of a T-Rex dieing or something like that... 

Yes Gor, I have identified these similarities myself as well.  Has Spielberg made a movie like this subsequent.  With a singular, relentless, non-human but somehow almost unstoppable villain?

Re:$7 Champagne

SkyPilot:

More generally though this seems to be a question about what gives a movie its verve:  is it the filmmaker's youth? Is it the filmmaker's conviction in the subject? And how does the movie's budget play into this?

This isn't just a question about movies, because every time we say of a musical act that we "like their earlier stuff better" I feel like we're getting at a similar issue.

I will not deny that youth seems to be a big factor.  Or possibly it's just youth in terms of how long they've been in the industry or how long they've been successful in the industry.

I think it's very hard many artists, no matter how original, risky, or raw they may have seemed in their youth to not eventually look at their artform as more of just their job or source of income after a certain number of years of success.  I don't even think they are doing this on purpose.  They still seem to think that what they are doing is fresh and original, but they have learned the commercial side of things.

Or else what they were doing when they first started seemed risky and different at the time, but now that they have done the same kind of thing so many times it doens't feel new anymore.  But somehow even artists who are aware this is happening seem to do no better when they specifically try to do something different.  It's like they suddenly do something different just becuase they realize they are falling into a trap of doing the same thing over and over not because they genuinely feel the urge to do something that just happens to be different.

I think the most successful artists realize what's different about them.  What makes them special and what the essence of their artwork is that makes it really appealing.  And they hold on to that while evolving and making changes around it.  Now what that one thing is could be anything, and sometimes it's difficult to pinpoint.  It can be very equivocal.

Re:$7 Champagne

Risselada:

 Has Spielberg made a movie like this subsequent.  With a singular, relentless, non-human but somehow almost unstoppable villain?

I haven't seen it, but it looks like E.T. is in that vein.       (kidding)