Skyline

brianluce said:
I haven't seen either. But to review this thread, Battle LA decent movie made with a big budget?, Skyline crummy movie made on the cheap but highly profitable.
My question, which was more profitable?
Click to expand...

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2010/SKYLN.php
Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $21,416,355
+ International Gross $38,995,489
= Worldwide Gross $60,411,844
+ US DVD Sales: $8,014,342
= $68.4M

Production Budget $10,000,000

$68.4M
/ $10M
= 584% ROI, $58.4M over budget

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2011/BATLA.php
Theatrical Performance
Total US Gross $83,004,389
+ International Gross $118,647,570
= Worldwide Gross $201,651,959

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle:_Los_Angeles
Budget $70 million

$201M
/ $70M
= 187% ROI, $131M over budget

Keep in mind, what makes Skyline a crummy movie, and I agree that it's cr@p, is the lousy writing of the story which was sacraficed on the almighty SFX altar.
Completely disregarding that, plus understanding the goal of the directors, it's pretty cool. At least to me.
 
Last edited:
Saw it right after it came out. From beginning to end, terrible, terrible movie. The effects were really confusing because, in one shot of an alien spacecraft, the CGI would be just brilliant, and in the next shot of some soliders shooting at it, the basic gunfire compositing would be complete crap, like someone who was literally trying out Google results for "muzzle flash" on After Effects for the first time. I can understand not wanting to dish out the dough for blank rounds or a decent compositor/effects artist, but why even attempt making a large-scale alien invasion movie when you don't have the tools to tell the story without making your audience roll their eyes?

I guess, because you can make shitloads of money off it. Makes sense, from a business perspective, but I just really hated that movie.
 
Kholi -
http://www.mapquest.com/#ba082834264598fb0489427d

LC -
Bingo!
"I guess, because you can make shitloads of money off it. Makes sense, from a business perspective, but... " Yeah yeah yeah, bingo your but-self all the way to the bank crying. You know that crew is. :D

Sometime in the not so far far away future I'd like to see how far I can push schleppin' around my home and available resources (without permission!) while shooting in 1920x1080, then edit for content before layering in SFX.

I saw those cheap SFX too and just sneered them off as a time or budget issue.
I've seen worse.
Fo some reason when Wess Craven pulls BS like that it's kosher, but if these guys try something epically great, then...

It does remind me of an article I read a few months ago:
http://videocontestnews.com/2011/02/14/the-uncanny-valley-of-user-generated-content/

I think that may be the crux of it:
It's cheap.
We know it's cheap.
But it near-looks like something great.
It's almost great.
But it's not.
It's crap.
It could be great.
But it looks like guys with camera running around their own building...
... which it is, but...
It looks like...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_weight_classes#Professional_boxing
If Paranormal Activity broadcast on TNT would be classified as a Minimum Weight (maybe someone could make one cheaper than $15,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_Activity ) then when Skyline gets broadcast it'd be a Feather Weight, as $10M in post still ain't nothing to sneeze at, but shouldn't be expected to compete with District 9's $30M, Battle LA's $70M, Inception's $160M or Transformers: RotF's $210M.
That's just crazy-talk.
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/CreativeTypes/ScienceFiction.php

;)


EDIT: Anyone know of a reliable link to a list of independent films for a given year?

I'm thinking of, and tell me if this is pretty wacky being at a "indie talk" forum of all places, running down a list of indie films and breaking down their director/producer/writer commentaries into bit pieces for self-educational purposes.

Skyline was clearly indie prod - BUT - the best part are the commentaries. Being their first they really gave it up, too.

It was great for learning about $20,000 lenses, $3,000 curved tracks, cheap in camera effects the (semi)pros use, and that basically four guys with people they know can produce something big enough to irritate people as a near-miss.

Watch the commentaries for a Tony Scott or Jon Favreau movie and you get a lot of philosophical bullsh!t.

What can I/we learn by tearing apart other indie films?

http://www.independentmovies.net/2010/
http://www.pajiba.com/seriously_random_lists/the-best-in-independent-film-2010-.php
http://www.ifc.com/spiritawards/nominees/

Anyone got a more comprehensive list?

* * * *

EDIT, Part Deux:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film
An independent film, or indie film, is a feature film that is produced mostly outside of a major film studio. The term also refers to art films which differ noticeably from most mass marketed films. In addition to being produced by independent production companies, independent films are often produced and/or distributed by subsidiaries of major studios. In order to be considered independent, less than half of a film's financing should come from a major studio. Independent films are sometimes distinguishable by their content and style and the way in which the filmmakers' personal artistic vision is realized. Usually, but not always, independent films are made with considerably lower budgets than major studio films. Generally, the marketing of independent films is characterized by limited release designed to build word-of-mouth or to reach small specialty audiences.​

What got me looking at this was when I saw Black Swan listed as an IFC Indie Nominee, thought "Wha... ?", looked up some linky-dinks ( http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/searchlight-sing-swans-song-91095 ) and read:
Cross Creek Pictures would now co-finance the picture with Searchlight; Rick Schwartz's Overnight Films had been co-financing, though Schwartz will remain involved with the project. As part of the new financing arrangement, Cross Creek topper Brian Oliver is set to come aboard as a producer.

Shooting is scheduled to start in New York before the end of the year, with a budget estimated to be $10 million-$12 million. Searchlight had long been eyeing the pic but had not previously committed to finance or acquire rights.
Scott Franklin of Aronofsky's Protozoa Pictures will also produce, along with Arnold Messer and Mike Medavoy of Phoenix Pictures, with Phoenix's Brad Fischer and David Thwaites exec producing. The script was written by Protozoa's Mark Heyman based on an original screenplay by Andres Heinz.​

Good to know what the criteria is for indie prod.
 
Last edited:
Skyline:

I didn't mind the effects. It was the look of the image that bugged me. The Red MX did not hold up well in high contrast situations (like the parking garage). This was state of the art at the time, but now hopefully the HDRx can save highlights.

There is something about CMOS sensors that bugs me. Maybe it was the color correction, and maybe the lighting on the faces.

I have always preferred film. We'll see what the next generation looks like with high dynamic range.

Personally, I'd shoot 16mm over RedMX.
 
LastChancey said:
Saw it right after it came out. From beginning to end, terrible, terrible movie. The effects were really confusing because, in one shot of an alien spacecraft, the CGI would be just brilliant, and in the next shot of some soliders shooting at it, the basic gunfire compositing would be complete crap, like someone who was literally trying out Google results for "muzzle flash" on After Effects for the first time. I can understand not wanting to dish out the dough for blank rounds or a decent compositor/effects artist, but why even attempt making a large-scale alien invasion movie when you don't have the tools to tell the story without making your audience roll their eyes?

I guess, because you can make shitloads of money off it. Makes sense, from a business perspective, but I just really hated that movie.
Click to expand...

Haha. If I had to guess, each of the brilliant shots were ones that were used in the trailer? Am I right/wrong? We call those trailer moments, in which you beef up the scene to make the trailer look balls-out-bad-ass, which is the real selling tool for movies.

And, it is a business of course. Because of what they did, they'll be able to make another movie on matter how bad this one was.
 
rayw said:
Sometime in the not so far far away future I'd like to see how far I can push schleppin' around my home and available resources (without permission!) while shooting in 1920x1080, then edit for content before layering in SFX.
Click to expand...

Gotta be ambitious, these days. So much to compete with out there. If you can find a good VFX artist who likes your work, you should go for i.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_weight_classes#Professional_boxing
If Paranormal Activity broadcast on TNT would be classified as a Minimum Weight (maybe someone could make one cheaper than $15,000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_Activity ) then when Skyline gets broadcast it'd be a Feather Weight, as $10M in post still ain't nothing to sneeze at, but shouldn't be expected to compete with District 9's $30M, Battle LA's $70M, Inception's $160M or Transformers: RotF's $210M.
That's just crazy-talk.
http://www.the-numbers.com/market/CreativeTypes/ScienceFiction.php
Click to expand...

Okay, but here's the get, by the way: Skyline cost 1M to produce, production and post. The figure that you're talking about is for marketing, it cost another 9 or 10 to market, which is considered part of the budget.

These guys were working on Battle: LA post at the same time and, from what I've heard around here in LA (I live a total of four minutes from Marina Del Ray and the place they shot at, heard alot about the project before...just never watched it) they used a lot of pre-done VFX that were supposed to be for Battle: LA in their movie.

So, it cost about 1M total and the marketing is what pushed it to a 64M win. You can't do this without strong marketing.

I'm thinking of, and tell me if this is pretty wacky being at a "indie talk" forum of all places, running down a list of indie films and breaking down their director/producer/writer commentaries into bit pieces for self-educational purposes.
Click to expand...

If you have yet to watch the BTS from DAYBREAKERS, you should. That and MONSTERS is what inspired me to take a micro budget and shoot a feature last year.
What can I/we learn by tearing apart other indie films?
Click to expand...

Best way to learn is to check out what other people are doing and see how you can apply it to yourself, no doubt. I really enjoyed this read and I need to finally watch Skyline just to see how bad it really was.
 
polfilmblog said:
Skyline:

I didn't mind the effects. It was the look of the image that bugged me. The Red MX did not hold up well in high contrast situations (like the parking garage). This was state of the art at the time, but now hopefully the HDRx can save highlights.

There is something about CMOS sensors that bugs me. Maybe it was the color correction, and maybe the lighting on the faces.

I have always preferred film. We'll see what the next generation looks like with high dynamic range.

Personally, I'd shoot 16mm over RedMX.
Click to expand...

I'd shoot film over MX as well, but it's still more expensive for processing, etc. When S16 is cheaper it'll be great, and I'll probably switch over.

Right now I ritually shoot RED MX (there's one sitting on my floor this very moment, going to go out and shoot a Poptent spot this week) and it offers the most flexibility.

I think the problem with Skyline is that they pooped it out and didn't take care of the image as it should. Check Lars Von Trier's ANTICHRIST. Anthony Dod Mantle shoots RED and kills it, image looks fantastic. So, it just depends on who's using the camera, to be honest.

Being able to shoot 2 x RED MX on our micro-budget feature (30-50K) was a boon, I tell ya...
 
Kholi said:
1 - Gotta be ambitious, these days. So much to compete with out there. If you can find a good VFX artist who likes your work, you should go for i.

2 - These guys were working on Battle: LA post at the same time and, from what I've heard around here in LA... they used a lot of pre-done VFX that were supposed to be for Battle: LA in their movie.

3 - So, it cost about 1M total and the marketing is what pushed it to a 64M win. You can't do this without strong marketing.

4 - If you have yet to watch the BTS from DAYBREAKERS, you should. That and MONSTERS is what inspired me to take a micro budget and shoot a feature last year.

5 - Best way to learn is to check out what other people are doing and see how you can apply it to yourself, no doubt. I really enjoyed this read and I need to finally watch Skyline just to see how bad it really was.
Click to expand...
1 - I heard about some company named Raindrop or Waterfall Films that does some AE-type stuff. They any good? ;)

2 - Yeah, I thought that was mighty interesting. Their company had already been under contract for B:LA for FX, continued with their own pseudo in-house project, sued by Sony, but eventually let off the hook. Seems bad for business, but... do whatcha gotta do.

3 - It's all about the marketing and distribution, otherwise it's hardly worth the effort and expense. There are lots of good products out there that distributors didn't want, there are tons of fair product already distributed that consumers don't want (love looking over titles in the Walgreen's $3.99 bin that I wouldn't watch) and then there's just glorified (and some not so) industry fan fic cr@p that nobody is interested in, consumer or distributor.
"Look, ma! I made ninety minutes of sh!t I can't even give away!"

4 - Saw Daybreakers. Watched the BTS & commentary from a screen writing POV. Upon your rec I'll give it another go-round in with a different eye. Monsters is on my short list to check out, as well.
Here's some of my late 2010 & early 2011 reviews including Daybreakers.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/...bDsiGx5CoMlb2JunU/edit?hl=en&authkey=CJXH2tEH

5 - Hi-5! Amen. Indeed. And thank you for saying you enjoyed this read. Several, if not many, more to come. As long as you view Skyline with a proper perspective it my be more bearable.
 
Last edited:
polfilmblog said:
Skyline:

The Red MX did not hold up well in high contrast situations (like the parking garage). This was state of the art at the time, but now hopefully the HDRx can save highlights.
X.
Click to expand...

I'd blame the DP for that. RED is good in the right hands. Actually, from what I know, ANYTHING is good in the right hands...
 
rayw said:
1 - I heard about some company named Raindrop or Waterfall Films that does some AE-type stuff. They any good? ;)
Click to expand...

I see what y'did there. Haha.
2 - Yeah, I thought that was mighty interesting. Their company had already been under contract for B:LA for FX, continued with their own pseudo in-house project, sued by Sony, but eventually let off the hook. Seems bad for business, but... do whatcha gotta do.
Click to expand...

As long as you're not hurting anyone, for sure. Do until you're told to stop doing and choose when to ask permission. Haha. So shady sounding, but, hey...

I had no idea you wrote that. Good way to break it down, sir. I still need to find Skyline for free somewhere, so I can do some comparing.
 
Maybe it's cynical, but could it be possible Skyline came about because the filmmakers knew that they could create a very cool trailer? The trailer made me want to see it. They knew the word of mouth would be cruel, but because production costs were nil, they knew this would be a quick, easy, and dirty paycheck? Or am I being too grassy Knollish?

SPOILER 2 POSTS BELOW FOR SKYLINE...
 
Last edited:
brianluce said:
Maybe it's cynical, but could it be possible Skyline came about because the filmmakers knew that they could create a very cool trailer? The trailer made me want to see it. They knew the word of mouth would be cruel, but because production costs were nil, they knew this would be a quick, easy, and dirty paycheck? Or am I being too grassy knollish?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not cynical. Whether or not they intentionally did that, the fact is that the trailer is the ultimate selling tool, then cast or attached names (director, producer, etc), poster, then press.

It was a quick, easy paycheck. Dirty? I dunno, guess it depends on who you ask. I don't know if anyone ever really intends to make a terrible movie on purpose, it just sort of comes out that way. Kind of like birthing a bad kid? Maybe? I'm not a parent.

The Brothers think they make good movies, and some people like what they do, just not everyone. And, at the end of the day, we can't all be top dogs... some people will be happy enough sustaining a living doing something they really like!

A good trailer goes a long way. Listen to Michael Bay on Transformers BTS, he talks about how he plans his trailer moments. If you're trying to sell a movie to distributors, trailer = the best bet.
 
Skyline was no good. You could cut the first 15 minutes down to 5. And do the same with the rest of the movie.

I didn't expect the Scrubs guy to get stepped on though. The one surprise of the movie for me.
 
I saw Skyline on Netflix tonight. Overall I thought it was way better than Battle LA. There were some jolts, unexpected moments, and suspense. Some horror that worked IMO. VFX looked great on a 32" flatscreen.
There were a few eyeroll moments, like GF problems and melodrama in the midst of an extinction event, and also, that venetian blinds can shield and protect you from an advanced extra terrestrial civilization bent on exterminating humanity -- not to mention that it can also protect you from a nuclear blast detonated about 1/4 mile away.

But still, these guys made an intense little sci fi with a few actors, an apartment building and set of pirated compositing software. And they got rich off it. Why aren't we falling all over this instead of trashing it. See SKYLINE with low expectations and you'll probably pass through it not wanting your 90 minutes back.

and btw...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py_IndUbcxc&feature=player_embedded
 
Last edited:
That was one of those films that would have been a great short but didnt have enough substance to be a feature. The VFX looked straight off a tutorial web site. But the ROI was enough to warrant making it.


MONSTERS is a great example of low budget scifi done correctly.
 
Anim8 said:
That was one of those films that would have been a great short but didnt have enough substance to be a feature. The VFX looked straight off a tutorial web site. But the ROI was enough to warrant making it.


MONSTERS is a great example of low budget scifi done correctly.
Click to expand...

For me, the glaring omission was character. Who were those people? Only the security guy had any substance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top