×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Discworld Fan Film Possibly the Largest Scale Fan Film Ever

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the hunt-for-in-the-pir-discworld dept.

Movies 67

An anonymous reader writes "After clocking in at $82,000 on their Kickstarter campaign, two Troll Bridge trailers have been released online showing helicopter shots in New Zealand (video) and a large scale bridge set that was built and shot on (video). A Behind the Scenes (video) has also been released demonstrating what fans are now actually capable of, given decent crowd-funding. The film has finished shooting and is expected to be released next year. Sir Terry Pratchett has been apparently thrilled with the progress." But can it beat Star Wreck for best production award?

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

67 comments

The budget isn't $82,000 (5, Informative)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41311773)

Lest you auteurs out there get too exciting, thinking you're going to film your Michael Bay ripoff dream project for a song, keep in mind that the entire cast and crew *volunteered* on the project (some for years). If you were to factor that cost in, it wouldn't surprise me if the actual cost of this project was well north of $1 million.

I just wanted to mention that, because these kinds of fan films often advertise incredibly low budgets that mislead a lot of people to think that real filmmaking is easy and cheap, and anyone can do it. It reality it takes a team of pros to produce a decent effort (not just some shitty student film or Youtube novelty). It's just that very low-budget efforts often get those pros to *donate* their services. They're not going to do that for your average Michael Bay ripoff.

My personal favorite professional-grade fan film is Broken Allegiance [wikipedia.org], easily the best Star Wars fan film ever made (IMHO). It was shot in Australia with a volunteer cast and crew made up of film professionals for about $10,000. It's one of the few fan films I've seen with professional lighting, actors who aren't horrific, and a halfway decent script. And it's one of the few Star Wars fan films that plays it straight instead of doing the 10-millionth stupid parody of a franchise that's almost become a parody of *itself*.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (2)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41311909)

My personal favorite professional-grade fan film is Broken Allegiance [wikipedia.org], easily the best Star Wars fan film ever made (IMHO).

I'm partial to "Troops" myself...

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

pr0t0 (216378) | about a year and a half ago | (#41311973)

All suspects are guilty, PERIOD. If they weren't, they wouldn't be suspect would they?

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312005)

"Most people would call this the ass end of space, but I like the small town feeling you get around here. I mean, we know everybody. Everybody. "

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312359)

"Troops"

As I said, there are a million Star Wars parodies out there. I found the first 100,000 or so funny--then it got old.

Broken Allegiance is one of the VERY, VERY few Star Wars fan films that plays it straight and doesn't come off as just silly or amateurish.

Pratchett does not translate to screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41311953)

I would be very happy if proven wrong on this someday. So far, for some strange reason, all of the movies have taken the material very seriously. His work screams for some mad genius or a bar of mad geniuses to really bring the full effect to the screen.

By all means, keep trying. Or as Ventinari would say 'Don't let me detain you'.

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312027)

Hell, it doesn't translate out of any of the books whatsoever.

Discworld plays, board games, video games (yes, Discworld I and II were NOT "Discworld", just Simon-the-Sorceror style cash-ins), etc. 99% of the Discworld merchandise is absolute tat. Hell, even the endless calendars, "science books", and everything else are a waste of space.

I don't blame Pratchett and/or his agent for cashing in - far from it, I'd do the same. But it remains true that every adaptation outside of the books just can't do them justice.

Hell, I cringed through the first 10 minutes of the TV adaptations we had over in the UK "starring" David Jason, etc. Ick. I had to switch it off.

Some series you can do justice too (whether they have or not is another matter) - Lord of The Rings you can do quite well (though I don't like the current versions, there's sure to be a remake in 10 years time with even more "extra footage"), most sci-fi authors you can do quite well. But comedy literature is a tough one to crack and it won't translate to the screen properly at all.

All it *will* do is put people off trying to read the books because they've seen the (crappy) TV/movie versions.

In one book, Death has a scythe that's so sharp it slices his sentences in half when he speaks. Vimes is an ugly, fat, old alcoholic copper that kicks arse (okay, they NEARLY managed that in a lot of 80's cop shows). Unseen University is technically invisible (or not, depending on which part of which book you read). There are pages of explanations spread across 20+ books about how some of the elements of the world came about (e.g. klacks, other dimensions, Angua, Dibbler, etc.). How the hell do you translate that to a movie or even a play?

They should stop trying. At best you can attempt an amateur play or an audiobook reading. At worst, everything else you put out ruins the books even more.

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (4, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312095)

Death has a scythe that's so sharp it slices his sentences in half when he speaks.

"The ticking of the clock stitched the blanket of time."

Drop the unfilmable metaphors and you lose half of the best stuff.

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year ago | (#41391191)

Just needs a good narrator and screenplay to go with it. Not impossible but the combo is hard to come by.

Spaceballs did it well. The Princess Bride did it well. Maybe Mel Brooks should do it? Is he still alive?

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312613)

Different books give the reader different levels of "imagining" - the Harry Potter series, to pick an example that's similar to Pratchett in setting if not writing, doesn't give you a lot of leeway in imagining the settings and characters, it's firmly placed in our world with a few standard fantasy additions.

Pratchett, on the other hand, allows much more free reign for the imagination. I've not found any of the TV mini-series to match the images running through my head, it all seems a lot more cartoon-like and sanitised. I suspect they've used the Kirby/Kidby images as inspiration, because those never really matched my reading of it either. Personally I read Pratchett as much more deadpan and gritty than any interpretation I've seen - it's possibly a result of a strong American influence in recreating what is very British humour at its heart.

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (1)

Pseudonym (62607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41319423)

Interestingly, both Hogfather and Going Postal matched the characters I had in my head almost exactly. Especially Susan and Moist respectively.

(The Colour of Magic is best forgotten, though. In my head of, Rincewind is played by Rhys Ifans.)

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41313135)

Hell, I cringed through the first 10 minutes of the TV adaptations we had over in the UK "starring" David Jason, etc. Ick. I had to switch it off.

Going Postal is by far the best of the three, not least because of Jason's absence (and the Hobbit's). It might have been improved had they kept Jeremy Irons on as Vetinari and wrote a score that was longer than two pages but I was very satisfied with the result anyway.

Sadly, the best DW stories are those that are the hardest to film. I had hoped that we might see the witches in the next Sky One adaptation but it's probably going to be one of the new ones.

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (1)

blackpaw (240313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41319697)

The early animated adaptions are excellent - "Soul Music" was very well done, close to the book and I felt captured the spirit. Same people did "Wyrd Sisters", but I haven't seen that.

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | about a year and a half ago | (#41316297)

Going Postal was not great but it was a decent effort and quite watchable. And I'm really picky about that kind of thing.

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (2)

Angostura (703910) | about a year and a half ago | (#41317581)

I'd quite like Gilliam to have a stab at it.

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (2)

Pseudonym (62607) | about a year and a half ago | (#41319405)

Gilliam has been trying to get funding for his completed script of Good Omens for over a decade. (But it looks like it's going to be done as a TV movie instead.)

Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41321043)

This film is about an old man and a talking horse. I assure you, it is quite tongue in cheek. There is nothing wrong with wanting it to look nice though.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41311971)

I just wanted to mention that, because these kinds of fan films often advertise incredibly low budgets that mislead a lot of people to think that real filmmaking is easy and cheap, and anyone can do it. It reality it takes a team of pros to produce a decent effort (not just some shitty student film or Youtube novelty). It's just that very low-budget efforts often get those pros to *donate* their services. They're not going to do that for your average Michael Bay ripoff.

So basically, spending less money on a movie means they'll be less like Michael Bay movies?
Even if this were a $2 million movie, the quality seems to be on par with something atleast 10x more expensive.
And all we need to do is replace special effects with story and hollywood stars with actors.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

bernywork (57298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41311997)

> My personal favorite professional-grade fan film is Broken Allegiance,

Oh, come on!..... How can it not be Computer Boy?!?!?

http://www.flumps.org/funny/computerboy/images/computerboy.mov [flumps.org]

Sheesh....

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

bernywork (57298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312659)

Oh, and if you think the humour is kind of puerile, I'll give you that, but given how "serious" the Matrix is, I consider that part of it being a spoof.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312017)

...the entire cast and crew *volunteered* on the project

Yes, the same as Star Wreck (which I whould have named "Start Wreck"). Still, it would have taken Hollywood fifty million to film. BTW, that's one of my favorite movies and I can't wait to see the Pratchett film, if it's as funny as Pratchett's books it will be even better than Star Wreck.

incredibly low budgets that mislead a lot of people to think that real filmmaking is easy and cheap, and anyone can do it.

Well, writing is easy and cheap, but few do it and fewer do it well. Same as music and film and painting; you need talent to produce something good.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (2)

subreality (157447) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312085)

...keep in mind that the entire cast and crew *volunteered* on the project (some for years). If you were to factor that cost in...

I look at it the other way around: it's amazing what people are willing and able to accomplish for nothing when they're not whoring for Hollywood. Will they find it satisfying enough to keep doing it?

Conventional wisdom says this should never happen. The free software movement suggests that we might see a parallel free production line set up soon.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

Telvin_3d (855514) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312459)

Sure they find it satisfying enough to keep doing it. That's why most of them do it professionally. The point is that these volunteer projects don't scale well. It's easy (at least if you are active in the film community) to scare up a free pro crew for a weekend project. With a little work and an interesting idea you can get a dedicated group for a few weekends, or convince people to take a week off work.

But that only works because they have real full time jobs doing this. You can't say 'hey that went great. Everyone should quit their jobs and do more of this until we all run out of cash and starve to death.'

Small scale 'free' professional productions do not scale. At all.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

ewibble (1655195) | about a year and a half ago | (#41318739)

Yes, they need a day job, enough to survive comfortably but you also don't need to pay them millions either. People are basically willing to do it for free as long as they can survive. It just goes into a nice circle movie makes lots of money, people want their cut, movie cost more to make so has to make more, people want bigger cut, continue until movie makes as much as it can (that's a lot), justify amount of money made based on high costs. When reality a large portion costs are a result of the high amount income generated. Technology has made a lot of movie making much more efficient movies should be getting cheaper to make but they are not. You can generate crowds, generate scenery sets, computers are cheaper now, cameras are cheaper, film cost should be about zero. you may have a phone with more process power than 20 year old supercomputer.

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_expensive_films [wikipedia.org] 35/39 inflation adjusted movies where in or after 2003, 16 or 41% where in or after 2009,

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41323123)

People are basically willing to do it for free as long as they can survive.

Yeah, wait till you get married and start thinking about kids. You'll likely find your wife is a lot less tolerant of "just surviving."

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

ewibble (1655195) | about a year and a half ago | (#41326465)

I said surviving comfortably (in the first sentence), not having to worry where the next meal is coming from, or you have a place to sleep tomorrow, not being on the brink of survival. Sure everyone wants more but that is not necessary for creativity it may even be counter-productive there have been studies that show this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc [youtube.com]

The budget IS $82,000. (1)

monkeyhybrid (1677192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312145)

I see where you're coming from but it doesn't change the fact that the budget is $82,000. Yes, plenty of people are donating time and resources and yes, not everyone can produce a similar film for that money, but regardless of how, they are producing this film on a $82,000 budget. That's very impressive.

Re:The budget IS $82,000. (3, Informative)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312305)

No, he has a good point. The actual budget is far in excess of $82,000. $82,000 is just how much liquid cash they spent. The opportunity cost of the entire film is, as he stated, somewhere around $1 million or something.

Consider this. What if the people who volunteered their time instead just donated money?

If those people gave $1 million, which was then spent to hire other people to do what those people volunteered to do, the end result would be the exact same.
You'd have $82,000 left over to spend on the set, etc, having spent that $1 million dollars on acting, labor, etc.
Would the cost of THAT film be $82,000? No, it cost $1,082,000.

So because this money was donated, you're not counting it?
Or because the volunteers immideately "spent" the money on themselves, it doesn't count?
Its economics.

Re:The budget IS $82,000. (1)

monkeyhybrid (1677192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312761)

No, the budget is $82,000. They have a budget of $82,000 to spend on resources, regardless of the typical value of resources they are actually able to get their hands on.

If I wanted to produce a widget and set aside a budget of $82,000 to do a manufacturing run, that figure does not change if through various deals and favours I am able to get a factory to give me free, or very preferential rates, for whatever reason. Other widget manufacturers may still be paying the going rate of $1,000,000 to do the same but I don't work out the going rate for their factory time and add it to my budget, although I do understand I am getting $1,000,000 worth of resources for my $82,000.

In this context, budget simply means the planned amount of money to cover expenditure. If I can get people to do things for free, that's fantastic and I might end up with $1,000,000 worth of resources, but my budget was and will be $82,000.

Re:The budget IS $82,000. (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312837)

Okay, okay, so call it opportunity cost then. We're just arguing semantics.

Re:The budget IS $82,000. (1)

monkeyhybrid (1677192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312857)

I agree that we're largely arguing about semantics.

And regardless of budget, it looks like it could be a really good film. :)

Re:The budget IS $82,000. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41321053)

I don't understand why people are complaining about how much they spent? Regardless of the fact that the budget WAS $82,000 (I don't care if people volunteered or not, they didn't get paid, it was a labour of love) - why does it matter? Who cares if their time was worth money? It wasn't paid.

Why does it matter that "oh it's not really that easy to make a film look good, $82,000 isn't a reliable figure?" Thats fucking stupid. You're all fucking stupid.

Re:The budget IS $82,000. (1)

monkeyhybrid (1677192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312839)

I forgot to add, if people had donated $1,000,000 instead of their free time, then that would indeed give me a budget of $1,082,000. But that's not what people did so I have a $82,000 budget and the bonus that many of the resources I need are available for free, for whatever reason.

Re:The budget IS $82,000. (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | about a year and a half ago | (#41313283)

Not everything can be reduced to a dollar figure. Maybe the actors had a really good time producing the movie, maybe they saw it not so much as donating their time, but using their time for leisure. I know if someone gave me the choice of giving them $some money or going with them and having a good time, I wouldn't consider the two options equivalent at all.

Re:The budget IS $82,000. (1)

arose (644256) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315689)

Does that mean that every movie that reuses props needs it's budget revised? How about shooting on location in a city, does that need to be counted as how much a similar set would cost? Do 3Dfications have a budged in excess of the originals as their conversion budget clearly doesn't cover making the movie?

You're being delusional (1)

mapuche (41699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41313579)

I'm a tv producer. When producing a short, feature, tv series, etc. and you're looking for money you need to have very clear your budget. Maybe you can count with donations like this project, but any contribution should count as part of the budget.

It's very common when you're producing that your investors and partners don't want to pay for the whole development or pre-production, they think the same as you do that some work doesn't has a cost. But everything has a cost, from the original story (are they paying something to Mr. Pratchett or the editors?), to the guy doing the screen writing (hey, adapting a short story to a movie film takes time and talent, most of the time only the former), and all the rest of the stuff to finish a project.

What you do when the investors don't want to pay for the development? you include these figures in the production budget. But wait! the investor don't want to pay for the post-production, what you do? you include the cost in the development or start looking for more investors. They think your movie costs X, but in rality costs more, a lot more.

It's a trap to think you don't need to count donations as part of the budget, it's a trap investors use in their favor.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (3, Informative)

oddjob1244 (1179491) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312519)

Even with volunteer work, in a Youtube comment in the first link Snowgum films say they have exceeded the $82,000.

"Originally it was set at $82,000 - but we've since casually chugged on past that point."

Who knows how much this really cost.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

TrailerTrash (91309) | about a year and a half ago | (#41313993)

I'll add in Born in Hope, a LOTR masterpiece about the birth of Aragorn and the life & death of his father. If PJ claimed he filmed this, no one would blink, it's that good.

http://www.bornofhope.com/

No, I wasn't connected in any way other than being a fan....

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

jfengel (409917) | about a year and a half ago | (#41315583)

As it is, the trailer was remarkably uneven. The single shots of Cohen were well lit, well-composed, color-corrected, well-focused, etc. (Well, most of them were.) Not the greatest stuff in the world, but it looked like an actual cinematographer was at work.

The battle scenes, by contrast, looked like a student film. Shots were ill-composed, focus was automatic, color balance was set to "whatever". Clearly it was shot on a nice camera, but you have to know how to use a good tool to get good results.

The titles looked lovely, and it's nice that the tools to do that are cheap and available. But as I watched them drag on, it felt like they were reluctant to show me any real footage.

I'm all for fan films and the democratization of movie making. But good equipment and good tools doesn't make anybody a good filmmaker. It still takes work, a lot of work, and years to learn how to do it. The tools make it easier to get that experience, and this film is a good first step for somebody.

But if they think they've arrived... well, they clearly haven't. And underestimating the value of those who have suggests that they won't.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41321025)

The battle scenes were shot literally years before the rest of the film - the effort to get this film of the ground has been going on for over 8 years. And it was done at a virtually no budget cost, on a decent camera, but getting it to match a Red? That will never happen.

But they had to be included, and there was no real opportunity to re-shoot.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41319089)

What, have you never seen Star Wars Revelations [panicstruckpro.com]? The actors in it weren't "horrific" at all, far from it, and neither was the script amateurish. And it's not a parody, which is the ONLY reason it never made it into Lucas' stupid official contest and won.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about a year and a half ago | (#41323171)

What, have you never seen Star Wars Revelations

I'll check it out.

And it's not a parody, which is the ONLY reason it never made it into Lucas' stupid official contest and won.

Lucas only lets parodies in because he's afraid someone will show him up.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (1)

macraig (621737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41324857)

I've seen both (and have copies), and I think Revelations is the better production. It may have been less fannish than Broken Allegiance; the way it's still promoted seems like they wanted to use it as a vehicle to take them places, whereas I wonder if I could even find an online copy of Broken Allegiance now. How much of a difference in budgets existed I have no idea.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41320971)

I was sound recordist on the shoot and I can assure you that there is no way we had anything close to 1 million.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41322111)

I was sound recordist on the shoot and I can assure you that there is no way we had anything close to 1 million.

And I can assure you there's no way you read the post to which you were replying, because he didn't say they had $1M cash. He said if you count the cost of all the volunteered labor (you know, like how you brobably didn't get paid for any of the sound recording you did) the cost would probably be $1M.

Re:The budget isn't $82,000 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41322031)

My personal favorite professional-grade fan film is Broken Allegiance [wikipedia.org],

Professional grade? Sorry, but after wasting 25 minutes watching that (plus trying to track it down since the official website itself is broken), I have to say that was absolutely terrible. Lack of story, what little was there was terrible, combat was very poorly scripted, acting was terrible, and I thought I was watching Days of Our Lives at one point with the cheesy love scene and the music playing in the background. Some of the CG was decent (though some of it terrible).

If you want to say they did a great job for amateurs, then go ahead. But please don't try to say anything there was "professional-grade".

Other "parodies" (1, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about a year and a half ago | (#41311895)

I still don't think that it'll beat the "Sex Trek" series...

Interpret "beat" however you will...

Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous? (0)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41311955)

Outside of possibly being an excellent learning experience for the people involved - will anything non-farcical come out of this?

I don't mean ridiculous in that the Cohen/Discworld story is a parody, there's nothing wrong with that, but the production values of the trailer seem totally amateurish - as if you'd given panavision or Red cameras to a bunch of teenagers who'd rather be doing something else.

as a designer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41311991)

the titles font were terrible. It reminds me of the tv shows I used to watch on saturday/ sunday afternoons in the 90s.

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (0)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312157)

Yes. Amateurish.

Almost like it was being done by fans who are not professional film makers.

What do they call those? Oh ya...amatuers.

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312303)

Why do you have to be a professional film maker to make something that isn't ridiculous? I know two different film makers who aren't "professionals" who make films with excellent production values for virtually nothing. One makes short comedies and the other makes many variations of film.

If you watch the trailers you'll see good locations, costuming, and decent editing. You'll also see ridiculous acting and, apparently, ridiculous direction.

Don't conflate 'amateurish' with 'ridiculous.'

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (2)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#41313369)

Should all fan fiction be NYT Bestseller List worthy?
All fan art worthy of the Louvre, instead of something that looks like it belongs on my fridge?
I cringe to think of what you say about your kid's macaroni art family portrait.....

So why do amatuers making a fan film have to display a professional hollywood level of expertise?

The whole point is its a labor of love from people who love the topic, regardless of their expertise. It had meaning to them, as well as to (hopefully) other fans who can also appreciate it for what it is. I'm not conflating anything. You are however very confused.

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314251)

Should all fan fiction be NYT Bestseller List worthy?

Building yourself a strawman here? LOL. I didn't say it need be 'oscar worthy', I simply asked if anyone else thought the trailers were amateurish to the point of being ridiculous. If don't agree, great, but stop trying to make it sound like I'm disappointed it's not 'Avatar' in chainmail.

All fan art worthy of the Louvre, instead of something that looks like it belongs on my fridge?
I cringe to think of what you say about your kid's macaroni art family portrait.....

Sanctimonious much? :)

So why do amatuers making a fan film have to display a professional hollywood level of expertise?

Again, the only person making this stipulation is you. I, as is clear to someone less hotheaded and looking to argue as yourself, simply found the trailers to be shockingly amateurish.

If you had an OP that stated you thought the trailers looked great and wondered what other people thought - I would hope nobody who disliked the trailers would attack you for stating that you think fan films must be hokey pieces of crap...

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (1)

lennier (44736) | about a year and a half ago | (#41318149)

Should all fan fiction be NYT Bestseller List worthy?

It should aspire to be a lot better. Kevin J Adamson's.... material.... regularly features on that list. The bar really isn't that high.

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (1)

lennier (44736) | about a year and a half ago | (#41318211)

D'oh. Kevin J Anderson. I deeply apologise to all the hardworking Kevin J Adamsons in fanfic whose life I have inadvertently ruined by comparing to the perpetrator of Jedi Academy and Prelude to Dune.

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (1)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312327)

I think for a fan film made on a shoestring budget they looked very professional and well-done. Better than movies like The Gamers, which I hold up as pretty well done.

Do you know what goes into making a movie? I don't think you're being realistic at all. You want TV-show closed-set professionalism for $82,000?

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312545)

Do you know what goes into making a movie?

I do actually, and I know that is is INCREDIBLY hard work. That being said, it is certainly achievable.

$82,000 is a lot more money than many films are ever made with and I don't recall seeing too many that were laughably bad like the trailers were.

Making a decent film is tough, making a decent trailer is much easier. If the trailer(s) are hokey, the movie is going to be an order of magnitude worse. As Clint likes to say - "A man's got to know his limitations..."

I hope I'm wrong because I've loved lots of other fan films.

Do you remember the Star Wars 'Cops' parody 'Troops'? It was Rubio and friends with a LOT of ILM/Lucasfilm guys helping out, made for nothing.

I remember laughing my a** off while working at SoftImage when some of the DigitalStudio guys made cuts and trailers out of it.

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (3, Informative)

Zaphod The 42nd (1205578) | about a year and a half ago | (#41312657)

I guess Clerks was shot for like ~$23,000 and it was pretty professional cinematography. They had to shoot in B&W and most of the actors volunteered as well, though.

Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314115)

It's amazing what some people can accomplish. I play that movie as background noise when I'm coding all the time, lol - "In a row?"

Don't try to bend the spoon (2)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#41313553)

Is impossible to translate fully a Discworld book, just too much of them is not visual. Instead, try to do a different film that catches the spirit of it.

Ob (0)

Hognoxious (631665) | about a year and a half ago | (#41314639)

Sir Terry Pratchett has been apparently thrilled with the progress.

Because every time he watches it he doesn't realise he's seen it before.

Re:Ob. Does that come out as "Obvious"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41317687)

As your mother clearly didn't say to you, "thats not funny and its not clever", otherwise you woudn't think it an "obligatory" post.

Next time think again (and again, and again, and...) before unleashing your coruscating wit upon us.

Donations started 10 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41318729)

I actually donated $25 to the Troll Bridge project about 10 years ago.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...