MovieChat Forums > End of the Line (2008) Discussion > People seem to forget it's very low budg...

People seem to forget it's very low budget

posted 16 years ago by fred25_ca
9 replies | jump to latest

This post is mostly for people complaining there should have been more monsters in the movie. Now, before I start, i'd just like to say (unlike other people on these boards), I totally respect people not liking the movie, and even understand why. I'm not writing this email to magically make people like it. But rather to have people understand it more, and maybe respect it more in the end.

I saw the movie two years ago at Fantasia here in Montreal, and, the movie being a local movie by a local director, I was strongly impress (as we usually are when something decent comes out of where we live. In this case i'd fight that it's way more than just decent, but that would be for another thread).

Anyway, I was impress, and wanted to know more (especially after the questions and answers right after the movie) and so I wrote to the director (being a young director myself, though only making shorts... yet I hope), and was pleasantly surprise when he wrote back. And then I realise the movie is VERY low budget, mostly finance by the director himself.

Now, i'm not just ranting here for The end of the line, but rather for a whole community of small budget horror movies. People tend to forget how expensive monsters and FX can be. They are VERY expansive (having had some in my own movies, i know). From what I remember in the QA at fantasia, mr. Deveraux was saying he would have loved to have had more monsters in the movie, but just having them for that short amount of time nearly killed his budget.

Imagine yourself a horror filmmaker (as i'm sure many of you are, just like me, still in their beginning) with nearly no financing to back you up. You decide to mostly finance yourself. Remember The mist, by Frank Darabount ? How the monsters, while cool in design, were clearly CGI, and mostly missed ? (the movie was awesome btw, if you haven't seen it). Why was it so disappointing ? Because mr. Darabount only had 20 millions dollars. Now, if someone with 20 millions dollars, and a LOT of ressources, can fail with his SFX, can you imagine having 1/100 of his budget for an horror movie ? Because, i'm not exagerating here, mr. Deveraux REALLY did have a 1/100 of the budget of the mist, and probably 1/100 of the ressources too.

Now, write a script with that in mind. Because that's how all movies begin, with an idea and than a script. Than remember your budget. You cannot have monsters the whole movie, maybe 10 minutes, and MAX (and even then you're not sure). I've written myself a bunch of shorts, with no budget, and i've loved doing so. But i've always done it knowing I had no budget. I had to think realistically. Same with ANY low budget horror movies out there.

Then there are people who have no budget, and still put monsters through their whole movie, and they turn out to be laughable monsters, poorly done, and end up more hurting the movie than helping it (again, i've done that too ;) ). I say, better have fewer monster time, but them being much more believable.

That's why I respect The end of the line (of course, i'm a bit biased, the director being a local, but that wasn't my point here), simply because he was able to achieve so much with so little, instead of what most people here seem to think (so little with so much).

Open your eyes people, and next time you watch a low budget horror movie, don't watch it with the same mentality as if you were watching a 40 millions dollars hollywood movie. Judge THOSE movies in more of a severe mind, since they have the money, but be more open mind for smaller ones. Be them from Canada, the USA or wherever else.

That was my rant, a bit long it seems, but if you read it, thanks. ;)

-Fred

[–] Navaros 16 years ago

I can see the points you make, but I would make the counterpoint that with that in mind, they should not have set up a false premise at the beginning which implied that the movie was going to be much better than it actually is.

It definitely gave me the impression (whether accurate or not) that they spent most of their money on the first few minutes, and then ran out of money so had to make the rest of the film totally different and inferior. Hence, the initial very good scenes are setting up false hopes in the mind of the viewer, that the rest of the movie cannot possibly live up to. Therefore, it is understandable why that heightens a viewer's disappointment.

The best thing to do IMO would to have completely removed the good scenes from the start of the film, so that the whole film has a congruent premise and quality level.

[–] alucardvenom 9 years ago

It definitely gave me the impression (whether accurate or not) that they spent most of their money on the first few minutes, and then ran out of money so had to make the rest of the film totally different and inferior. Hence, the initial very good scenes are setting up false hopes in the mind of the viewer, that the rest of the movie cannot possibly live up to. Therefore, it is understandable why that heightens a viewer's disappointment.

A lot of movies tend to do that. They have opening scene which is usually really good to peek your interest, then middle is here and there, and ending is usually really good that nails it. Ending is probably the most important because it gives overall impression.

I know plenty of movies which are quite good most of the time, then ending ends up being quite bad, so overall quality of the movie drops.... or inverse. "SAW" was quite ordinary horror-thriller for example, yet it's the ending that really made it great.

Another movie which is fairly low budget and quite ordinary modern slasher movie - Frayed. It's wasn't that good at all, it's clumsy and lack of budget really shows, even the twist ending is quite stupid and fairly generic... yet, end credit scene was quite creepy and made me remember that, otherwise rather forgettable slasher movie. ;)

[–] mr-mart 16 years ago

Honestly, I didn't read your post, you wrote way too much for a guy who hates reading, to read it.
But, I just wanna say that I'd say that it doesn't matter weather or not the movie is a low budget. A movie is a movie, regardless of how money they had to spend on it, if it's bad, it's bad and visa verca.
The way you say it (or the way the subject says it), would be like some company hireing a guy who isn't good at the job, over a guy who IS good at the job, simply because the first guy wasn't educated, while the second guy was, and so you'd have to compensate for the advantage the second guy had over the other.
I'm not saying that the movie woulda been the same, nomatter how much money they spend on it, I'm just saying that the result is the result, and that's it, it doesn't get better by or worse, once it's done.

Just wanna say this: I LOVE this movie, it's great, it's one of my favourit movies, but I'm not giving it more credit because of the budget.

[–] fred25_ca 16 years ago

What's the point of answering if you didn't even read my post ? I was primaly talking about people dissing the movie because there weren't enough monsters. Next time, do read to what you respond. ;)

But as for your point, come back to me if you ever decide to make a movie. And you might be more apt to understand. There IS a difference between a budget and no budget. Especially for a director. If you do not have a good budget, chances are, you won't be able to afford a good d.o.p., or some potentially good actors, or a good SFX company. It does make a difference, if you experience it. You might be lucky and landed one good actor, but chance are, you won't be able to shoot in 35mm, or get some real sets, etc. Movies cost a lot, and yes, even the low budget movies you enjoy cost millions.

[–] alucardvenom 9 years ago

But as for your point, come back to me if you ever decide to make a movie. And you might be more apt to understand. There IS a difference between a budget and no budget. Especially for a director. If you do not have a good budget, chances are, you won't be able to afford a good d.o.p., or some potentially good actors, or a good SFX company. It does make a difference, if you experience it. You might be lucky and landed one good actor, but chance are, you won't be able to shoot in 35mm, or get some real sets, etc. Movies cost a lot, and yes, even the low budget movies you enjoy cost millions.

Yes, I agree. Even the low budget movies cost. It's a shame this director doesn't work anymore. He has talents. You can see that from his direction. He just needed bigger budget. But there's a shi*load of people who think they know what good direction is, then diss out every movie that's low budget as "bad". I've seen that dozens of times.

and also, I would like to point out. Being screenwriters is not that easy. Once you sell your screenplay, studio can do whatever the hell they want with it. They can completely rewrite it if they want to the point that they just keep your idea and change everything else. Problem is, sometimes they leave your name in "written by" and you take the blame.

Sometimes even producers demand certain things to be added into the movie even if it doesn't make any sense.

Yes, it happen to all of us. Everyone who ever worked behind the scene can confirm that. ;)

[–] MacTownShores 9 years ago

You don't even seem to have a firm grasp on the English language let alone the culture.

Where are you from may I ask?

[–] kya1 9 years ago

I think they did OK on such a small budget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

[–] activista 8 years ago

Never heard of this film, but I read a British horror anthology a couple of years ago called The End Of The Line---it was a good collection of horror stories about the underground subway. Reading the plot line of this film made me think of it.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

End of the Line is one of the best horrors of the 00s Imo. It's an action horror that also manages to be creepy and there's a lot more going on with it than appears on the surface. It's layered and a very intelligent horror film.
Those who want more monsters don't actually understand the film's real message Imo, no offence to them.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!