--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], off_world_beings <no_reply@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Who will make the most expensive movie of all time, at 500 > > > > million dollars? > > > > > > > > It should be done. > > > > > > Either that or one could make 71,428 films like > > > Robert Rodriguez's "El Mariachi." That film was > > > made on a budget of $7,000, and remains one of > > > the tightest and most entertaining films of the > > > last twenty years.>> > > > > Yea, but I want an epic. > > That is your right. I was just trying to point > out that 1) the amount of money spent on an "epic" > or any other film does NOT correspond to how good > it is,>>
Well duh...yea. I still want an epic. << and 2) one could feed a million people for > a year for what you propose spending on such an > "epic,">>> Why bother? There are too many humans on planet earth. <<which after all would be seen only by > people from India and a handful of Indiaphiles > throughout the world. >> Not if it was done right. And with good actors. > > Besides, they might take that money and do as bad > a job with it as Peter Brook did with *his* TV film > of the Mahabharata. It's *exruciating*. >>> I thought it was quite good. Probably not enough car chases and explosions for you though. <<Forcing > audiences to sit through it could legitimately be > seen by Amnesty International as a form of torture. :-)>>> Or, it would be a good movie, but it takes imagination to see how that could happen . ;-) OffWorld
