How did they have cheaper effects with a bigger budget?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Mortal Kombat: Annihilation
radracer72 — 18 years ago(August 06, 2007 01:53 PM)
Seriously,MK1 raked in the cash,so we all saw a bigger,better(?),badder sequel coming along,but how in the name of the lord can you have a big Hollywood blockbuster budget with effects looking like someone just scratched on the film strip with a slice of ham dipped in ink and costumes that look like I could buy them at Walgreens? While this movie isn't as bad as they say it is,it looks bad. Does anyone no why?
-
-
dragonfly27 — 17 years ago(June 04, 2008 05:20 PM)
Did you see how many people were in that cast? There's a HUGE chunk of your budget. AND, it's SOP, when an actor returns for a sequel, he/she gets a bigger piece of the pie than then previous film. Then, start costuming all those addtional people and feeding them, etc. Also, just like handing anyone a bag of $$ to spend on something, not everybody is as good with $$ as others. Know what I mean? Maybe the people making the $$ decisions weren't as wise.
"A good lashing with a buggy whip would benefit you immensely." ~ Rhett Butler -
Zan-tastic — 17 years ago(September 11, 2008 12:14 PM)
I don't doubt it. When a stuntperson takes an acting role, they get paid as an actor. While it wouldn't be the millions of dollars given to a bigger named actor, it's still more than they'd make just doing stunts.
Wonder Twin Powers, ACTIVATE! Form ofa
Frost Giant! -
Gothor — 17 years ago(September 08, 2008 11:00 PM)
It's a mystery. Sort of like, "How did Hellboy II's budget increase from $60 to $80 million, yet the movie looked like it cost three times as much as the original?"
It all comes down to the skill and dedication of the filmmakers, set designers and CGI team. You can do a lot with a little. Or you can not give a crap and squander resources.
! -
ShrunkenHeadonKnightBus — 17 years ago(September 13, 2008 11:55 AM)
Honestly, I think the visual effects in both films were rather cheesy.
The Life and Lies:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10417741/board/nest/93744643 -
Gothor — 17 years ago(September 15, 2008 09:32 AM)
Reptile from the first film always looked a bit cheesy, but some of the effects (like the purple portal Shang Tsung hops through) were amazing and still hold up to this day.
Personally, I've always been impressed with how they handled Goro. I rememeber when the movie was announced, I thought there was no way they'd make a convincing giant dude with multiple arms. (This was before you could just CGI up an ogre.) And boy, I'm glad I was wrong, because Goro rules.
! -
ShrunkenHeadonKnightBus — 17 years ago(September 24, 2008 11:50 PM)
Agreed. Goro was pretty damned impressive!
The Life and Lies:
http://www.imdb.com/board/10417741/board/nest/93744643 -
tbone_pearson — 15 years ago(October 15, 2010 04:46 AM)
I would blame the director John R. Leonetti, who didn't direct the first one. He had more money but made a worse film. Not sure why they didn't have Paul W.S. Anderson direct this one, perhaps he didn't like the script. Not having all the original actors back really hurt this film too.
-
Black-Wolf — 17 years ago(November 24, 2008 02:19 PM)
Paul W.S. Anderson (director of MK1) wasn't on the project. At the time, he was the only one who could make a video game movie that was good. So it's no surprise to me that it sucked. Anderson never directs sequals. I'm not sure why. But the only Video game movie sequals I liked were Resident Evil, and the first one still kicked more ass than either of the other two.
Hellboy 2 was terrible and it looked cheap compared to the 1st one. The fish story ruined the whole movie.