Slashdot Mirror


Discworld Fan Film Possibly the Largest Scale Fan Film Ever

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?

14 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. The budget isn't $82,000 by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Informative

    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, 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*.

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:The budget isn't $82,000 by TWX · · Score: 2

      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...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:The budget isn't $82,000 by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:The budget isn't $82,000 by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      ...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.

    4. Re:The budget isn't $82,000 by subreality · · Score: 2

      ...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.

    5. Re:The budget isn't $82,000 by oddjob1244 · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

  2. Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  4. Re:The budget IS $82,000. by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  5. Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --
    GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  6. Re:Anybody else think the trailers were ridiculous by dywolf · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  7. Don't try to bend the spoon by gmuslera · · Score: 2

    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.

  8. Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen by Angostura · · Score: 2

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

  9. Re:Pratchett does not translate to screen by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

    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.)

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});