The Rover

[mahenoguy]

I assure you I did read your comments carefully leadcouncil....I still don't agree with you though . You state what you "Demand "from a film very articulately and good luck with that ( although I feel disappointment will continue to be a theme for you in your pursuit of entertainment ) I think a point by point rebuttal of your "Noted deficiencies " would perhaps imply that I owe you an explanation for my alternative point of view....which quite frankly I don't . You are most definitely in the Minority with your opinion of this movie ( on here at least anyway ) and I find that most people with a minority view often think that people who disagree with them are in some way stupid...un-privy to certain facts or actually secretly Do agree with them . I assure I am none of those things mate . I think you were unfairly harsh on this movie...plain and simple , no need to re-hash your points...I really did read them and even gave them a bit of thought ( perhaps more than I even should of ) As to lecturing me ( or anyone else ) on the merits of Mad Max.....look around you mate...your preaching to the choir .You are that one that used Mad Max as your benchmark for believability ....I never said The Rover was better than Mad Max and could list 100 things I like more about Mad Max than the Rover , but believability isn't one of them . for me though....there is a lot of room between my favourite film of all time , and a "Turd of a film " which you called this...I just think it is overly harsh . I have in no way implied your a fucking idiot for thinking it though . Starting a post with "eh..." has connotations that your talking to someone of lesser intelligence , or who is in some way missing the obvious so i'll give a bit of that right back to you with "Lots of people are going to disagree with you in this world leadcouncil.....they can't all be below you

[MWFV8]

The Rover cost $12 MILLION, or 24 times what MM would have cost in todays dollars.

The world of filmmaking has changed a lot. It costs a fortune to make and market a feature now. The comparison is unfair.

[leadcounsel]

The Rover cost $12 MILLION, or 24 times what MM would have cost in todays dollars.

The world of filmmaking has changed a lot. It costs a fortune to make and market a feature now. The comparison is unfair.

Clearly it's changed a lot, but that's part of the issue I have with modern films. TOO much reliance on expensive toys, and not enough about story telling.

But to disagree slightly, look at Jaws, filmed in 1975 for $8.5 million, or about $36 million today. Directors could spend money on the latest and greatest, but in addition Speilberg told a story. An awesome story with some creative film making.

I cannot see how the Rover could tally up a bill of $12 million. Nothing happened. There was no major advertising as far as I saw. I only learned of it here, and then sought out the Youtube ad. There was 1 minor stunt, rolling a pickup truck. There were a handful of actors. There was some minor gunplay. The acting was so sub-par that you could take some hungry out-of-work actors and put that together and do as good or believable of a job. Makes me think I'm in the wrong profession.

Just get some cameras, go in the desert, and put together a ridiculous story and make a fortune off folks with no discerning eye about movies. Do my own "Paranormal Activity" or "Blair Witch Project" of some sort...

[MWFV8]

Spielberg had serious concerns about movie budgets and returns after making Jaws. Given the way the cost of producing and marketing a movie was increasing, he was questioning the viability of the movie industry surviving given the capital risk needed to generate a return. He talks about it in his interview for the documentary Room 666. Check it out if you have the chance.

It's not so much stunts and gunplay that bump up costs, it's the cost of looking after and moving around a production team, it's insane, especially at union rates. The other big issue is how much you spend to try and secure a return. After the first five million you really need to start trying to get global exposure to turn ticket and DVD sales. One way to get exposure is to try and go after some high profile actors that will effectively front the production, those don't come cheap. If someone was trying to make Mad Max now it would be a very different story, a small fortune in additional costs and a need to attach a valuable name to get anybody to even notice the production exists.

That's not to water down Miller and Kennedy's efforts mind. They did something incredible and took on a very different set of tough challenges.

[mahenoguy]

Why don't you then Leadcouncil...it's obviously that simple. Make your film...get it distributed ...wow the world with your higher vision . It might even make "Folks with no discerning eye "like myself think perhaps your not just a wining self-entitled brat.......but a wining self-entitled brat with a vision . but I probably wouldn't be able to understand it with my obviously inferior comprehension of art .

[leadcounsel]

Why don't you then Leadcouncil...it's obviously that simple. Make your film...get it distributed ...wow the world with your higher vision . It might even make "Folks with no discerning eye "like myself think perhaps your not just a wining self-entitled brat.......but a wining self-entitled brat with a vision . but I probably wouldn't be able to understand it with my obviously inferior comprehension of art .

Believe me, the thought has repeatedly occurred to me. People will pay good money to sit in a chair and watch shite, which is what 90% of films are anyway. It's comical how bad the majority of films are, and they still make money even after dumping large fortunes into production costs - which is still mind boggling how some of these films cost what they do...

It really shouldn't cost what it does apparently cost... oh well. I know if I made a film it would have more realism than the bulk of the shite out there, and that adds to the entertainment value. People like and want realism if that's the films genre.

[MWFV8]

People will pay good money to sit in a chair and watch shite, which is what 90% of films are anyway..

That's a hell of a statement. There are more features released per year worldwide than the average person can watch in a lifetime.

Or do you mean 90% of big studio releases are "shite"?

[blackmocco]

Well I, for one, can't wait for leadcounsel to bring his remarkable expertise to the moviemaking industry. Most times when I'm watching some high concept action/sci-fi movie, I always find myself thinking: "yeah, this is great'n'all. But where's the realism that would really bring this thing to life? Raccoons can't talk, dumbass!"

I'll be first in line to see this. It's about time all these hacks who actually make movies for a living were given a smackdown by someone who's got all the answers. Bring it on, that's what I say!

[themanw/oaname]

he couldnt make it past a gaffer; and even then it's fairly hard to keep regular work doing that.

[BRC1974]

I liked the movie but this image made me laugh