Jump to content

Talk:Low-budget film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American Graffiti?

[edit]

Wasn't this film made for a minuscule budget and then it made back LOTS of times the initial monetary outlay? I seem to remember it being the most profitable film of all time for awhile. Helenabucket (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

[edit]

This article is redundant with the B-film article and the Z grade film article. I suggest merging this article into the two different articles, as the subject is practically the same. I'm just an IP address, otherwise I would do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.98.244 (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I DAB'd your link above (away from the Z (film)) to what I believe your intent was. Please further explain just what it is you wish to occur in the merge. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 09:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions to Merge this article into two other articles is taking place HERE and and also Here.
Please do not post more in this section (it will be missed). GenQuest "Talk to Me"

The discussion should be in one place, and since this is the article that is proposed to be merged it is better to discuss it here. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose What the IP means is that we should break up the Low-budget films article, and split its sections between Z movie and B movie. Even though there is some obvious overlap I am against it: Z movies and B movies are characterized by quality, certain tropes, production methods and distribution: A Z-movie is almost certainly low budget, but low budget movies aren't necessarily Z-movies, or at least not always referred to with that terminology. Obviously there is an overlap, but the low budget article is essentially about "no-budget" films such as The Blair Witch Project and El Mariachi, and films with very small budgets gaining blockbuster level grosses (i.e. Rocky)—Rocky certainly wasn't a B-movie, it was more in the vein of an independent film that found a mainstream audience i.e. Plan 9 From Outer Space is famous because it's a crap movie that exemplifies the Z-movie genre, while The Blair Witch is famous because it was financed by credit cards and became a blockbuster. Essentially, the Z and B movie articles are about particular types of movies, whereas Low-budget films is about films with notably small budgets, that could be B-movies, Z-movies, independent films, foreign films etc. The key problem with the merge is where would we cover films like The Blair Witch and Rocky? I have a problem with covering them in either the Z or B movie articles when they are never described as such. I think "low budget films" is a notable topic that is not really synonymous with either Z and B movies, so I would prefer to retain all three articles. Betty Logan (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also oppose performing a merge. I think Betty broke it down very well, and I concur with her assessment. There will be redundancy with these kinds of topics because they overlap in some ways. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Betty's reasoning in opposing the merge. With no agreement in over a month, I'll remove the tags lest they become those ssort of forgotten ones that stick around for years.oknazevad (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Low-budget film

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Low-budget film's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BOM":

  • From Paranormal Activity: "Paranormal Activity". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2011-11-23.
  • From Epic film: Box Office Mojo. "All Time Box Office Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved 2007-07-12.
  • From Saw (film): "Saw (2004)". Box Office Mojo. Amazon.com. Retrieved August 16, 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

low-budget, ultra-low-budget

[edit]

SAG-AFTRA defines "low-budget" as "under $2.5 million" and "ultra-low-budget" as "under $250,000". Not sure if these thresholds merit inclusion in the article. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Low-budget film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Low-budget film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC

1949, by Albert Nerenberg. [[1]] (see the citations, in that article) 172.83.171.103 (talk) 19:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brother

[edit]

Brother should be in this list: Brother (1997 film) Victor Grigas (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This is a pretty badly written article compared to the vast majority of status quo wiki articles. It reads more like a rant than it does a resource for information, and feels less “informed” than it does “aware”. I’d suggest someone rewrite this. VG5wak0yTkhSbmxaVnp (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Low-budget_film&oldid=1247223558"