Agree or Disagree?

sbryan

Well-known member
As we all know, we could always use better lights, better sound, better hardware, etc. And then I think to myself, the art of film lies in one's (or a crew's) ability to work with limitations. I think this explains why I like movies made by George Lucas (yes, I remember the original trilogy) but I don't respect him as a filmaker.

I saw The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly in the theater last week. For the most part, the movie was done on a low-budget; $100,000 back then was still relatively small. It always blows me away that over half of the dialogue in this movie was dubbed because they used Italian-speaking actors for the bit characters.

"More Feeling"

-Sean B.
 
sbryan said:
... For the most part, the movie was done on a low-budget; $100,000 back then was still relatively small. ... -Sean B.

The first movie in the series, "A Fistful of Dollars", had an approx. $200,000 budget. By the time TGTBTU came along the budget had risen to $1,200,000. That's twelve times the amount you claimed and a sixfold increase over the first. (Google)

Take into account the difference between the $U.S. dollar in the 1960s and the Italian Lira and even what $200,000 would buy or rent at that time and that was no small amount of money.

Even today, a lot can be done with $200K.

All that aside, there are always limitations. If you suddenly had all of the gear you ever dreamed of, you'll be limited by your own talent and experience along with all of the folks you regularly make films with and the quality of the script.

Regardless of what you have available, there's no subsitute for thoughtful practice and hard work. I would say, that people I encounter who try to make films, are some of the most resourceful, creative, dedicated and certainly passionate individuals I know.
 
Last edited:
Whoops, I think I was thinking of another budget.

Still, 1.2 Million dollars for that time is still below a lot of other films of the era (like Spartacus at 12 million).
 
Back
Top