THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: abrader on August 11, 2008, 12:17:18 AM

Title: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: abrader on August 11, 2008, 12:17:18 AM
As the question of appropriate funding to finish Phantasm V looms in the air, its very interesting to see how the economies of previous installments worked out;

Phantasm - released 1979
Budget: $300,000
Revenue: $11,988,469
ITs clear as to why - between drive in, theatre, VHS, laserdisk and 2 DVD prints, this fucking movie has been WATCHED

Phantasm II - released 1988
Budget: $3,000,000
Revenue: $7,282,851
Print this in the USA already!

Phantasm III: Lord of the Dead - released 1994
Budget: $2,500,000
Revenue: appearantly - too embarrassing to mention
Straight to video release :( Too much Ho-tep for people to 'get it'

Phantasm IV: OBLIVION - released 1998
Budget: $650,000!!
Revenue: buwahaha
Straight to video - strangely the movie holds up because the cliches and dialog is so good. "cut me down boy" Its no budget no-set so its like watching Shakespeare...

Anchor Bay + Starz = Phantasm V?

The guys are too old no?

I heard they need $20,000,000 to do it right :(

Skrimm will surely die first no? Who the hell would take his place? (take his place in sci fi network made for TV movie hell)

Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: Joe Molotov on August 11, 2008, 01:50:40 AM
I read that Phantasm V was supposed to take place in Post-Apocalyptic America after most of the country had been taken over by the Tall Man and his minions. I bet that version will never get made. A reboot is probably more likely than anything else to get off the ground.
Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: Enl on August 11, 2008, 03:21:33 AM
Well first Roger Avary had a script written for Phantasm V that sounded pretty cool but that unfortunately never went through. Then there was a big rumor that Coscarelli wanted to do and epic Phantasm Trilogy reboot with the original cast in place. But once again that never surfaced.

At this point I think the only way we will ever see another Phantasm is in a remake form (shudder). Unlike other franchises like Friday the 13th and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Phantasm was strongly defined by its cast. I don't think I can see anyone replacing Angus Scrimm and Reggie.
Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: abrader on August 11, 2008, 08:13:53 AM
Angus and Reggie are alive and well - at the moment :(

Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: abrader on August 11, 2008, 10:07:19 PM
Now Don is sayin he only need 1M to shoot it.....

Damn im about to throw in on that joint.

Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: HyperZoneWasAwesome on August 12, 2008, 06:47:17 AM
Now Don is sayin he only need 1M to shoot it.....

Damn im about to throw in on that joint.


You won't get a cent back, and if you do it'll take years.  But you would be making the world a better place.

Bubba Ho-Tep's budget was like 1.2 mil or something.  Don C. can get some decent bang for his buck, I'll give him that.
Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: Nanosoft on August 12, 2008, 09:33:18 PM
I've always loved the first two, never saw those other ones.

I can't imagine The Tall Man being performed by anybody else.

And I don't even want to see what they do with the balls with a Hollywood budget, the reason they work in the original is because of how simple they are, they don't need to be whizzing past people in slow mo and shit to be effective (Which is how I could see them being done in a remake).
Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: abrader on August 12, 2008, 10:23:11 PM
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd276/bcg1969/Phantasm%201/funeral.gif)

THE GRAVESIDE SERVICE IS ABOUT TO BEGIN SIR

I just watched it again - I cant fucking get enough...

Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: abrader on August 12, 2008, 10:25:36 PM
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd276/bcg1969/Phantasm%201/TmanWalking.gif)

YOU PLAY A GOOD GAME BOY

Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: abrader on August 12, 2008, 10:29:40 PM
I've always loved the first two, never saw those other ones.

I can't imagine The Tall Man being performed by anybody else.

And I don't even want to see what they do with the balls with a Hollywood budget, the reason they work in the original is because of how simple they are, they don't need to be whizzing past people in slow mo and shit to be effective (Which is how I could see them being done in a remake).


Part II had the biggest budget.

Title: Re: Phantasm V: good/bad investment?
Post by: abrader on August 13, 2008, 08:17:44 PM
How does this sound as the plot?

Quote
The year is 2012 and there are only three U.S. states left. Between New York and California is the wasteland known as the Plague Zone. Unfortunately, the evil Tall Man controls that area. Since many people are dead, the Tall Man is able to make thousands of dwarf slaves for his planet daily in the Mormon Mausoleum. Besides him, the other residents are "baggers," human-like creatures that are infected by the Tall Man's blood, the dwarves, and, of course, the silver spheres, all trying to break out of the barrier that contains them and into the real world. A group of hi-tech troops are sent in to destroy the red dimension where the Tall Man gets his power. Reggie follows so he can find Mike after a series of nightmares he had. Will they be able to finally destroy the Tall Man for good?