All Forums > Star Crossed > Star Crossed Forum Page 568 > Paying talent high rates = big budget flick? NO!
AuthorPost
Dirty Bob
Member


Lap Dance Connoisseur
209 Posts
2/03
Posted - May 4 2007 : 3:46PM
No names needed, but a producer recently went on an extensive, detailed tirade about how a recent release of his was a big budget release based on the rates paid to talent and staff.

That is absurd.

Paying talent high rates = big budget flick? NOPE.

conquistador
Deactivated User

Hellhamster.
2947 Posts
10/03
Posted - May 4 2007 : 3:58PM
Doesn't "big budget" imply a certain polished look and not (necessarily) high paid production staff and talent?
DrP0rn0
Senior Member

1836 Posts
5/04
Posted - May 4 2007 : 7:06PM
I think this is a matter of exactly what class of budget you are talking about. Something truely "bug budget" like "Pirates" cost something like 1 million dollars to make. Sets, costumes, and effects were a huge part of that.

I think I kind of agree with your general implication though. Let me spell it out to see if we are on the same page: I don't watch features hardly ever. I'd rather you pay talent in gonzo or "new girl" porn far better than features, as they are hotter and more interesting to me than features. Sound about right Dirty Bob?

Dr. P

Dirty Bob
Member

Lap Dance Connoisseur
209 Posts
2/03
Posted - May 5 2007 : 11:23AM
Dr P: Not really. I'm not talkng about personal preferences...I'm just simply saying that by referring to a release as big budget should not by any means be considered as such solely due to how much the talent is paid (within the norms, naturally).

Big budget is the final tally - including production, production values, and everything else.




Jump To: