"But I can't believe that good writing back then was so expensive that along with believable special effects low budget movies couldn't afford it."
It could be that the producers simply didn't know anything about the sci-fi writers working at the time. Even nowadays literary sci-fi is still a ghettoised genre that rarely impinges upon the mainstream, and a low-budget Hollywood producer circa 1960 might never have heard of J G Ballard or Walter Miller or Kurt Vonnegut etc. And it could be that they were wary of working with one of the few famous sci-fi writers of the time for fear that he or she might demand too much money, or try and take over the project.
It's actually surprising how little cross-pollination there is between the worlds of literary sci-fi and Hollywood. Especially because Destination Moon, 2001, Blade Runner etc were all classics in their day. There have been plenty of horror films based on novels by horror writers, and lots of gangster films based on crime novels and so forth, but sci-fi novels tend to be passed over.
I suspect there's also a perception that a good screenwriter can be trusted to turn out a good, exciting, dynamic screenplay even if the sci-fi is ropey, whereas a good sci-fi writer might turn out some splendidly clever sci-fi but would struggle badly to make the screenplay interesting to watch. Perhaps 2001, Blade Runner etc have actually made producers wary of hiring sci-fi authors; they don't want to fund a two-hour visual tone poem that will only make a profit after ten years, they want something that will get bums on seats immediately.
reply
share
gnome-5
13 years ago
"Perhaps 2001, Blade Runner etc have actually made producers wary of hiring sci-fi authors; they don't want to fund a two-hour visual tone poem that will only make a profit after ten years, they want something that will get bums on seats immediately."
This may be true of Blade Runner, but it certainly isn't true of 2001, the more "tone-poemy" of the two. 2001 put bums on seats immediately, and made good money.
reply
share
Ashley Pomeroy
13 years ago
"This may be true of Blade Runner, but it certainly isn't true of 2001, the more "tone-poemy" of the two. 2001 put bums on seats immediately, and made good money."
I always assumed it took years to make the money back, although I can't find any concrete references.
Still, the first Planet of the Apes film was based on a sci-fi novel, and made a tonne of cash; it's a shame that the practice seemed to fizzle out. The impression I get is that audiences quickly tired of depressing, thoughtful films - some of which were admittedly lousy - and then Star Wars came along and the world moved on.
reply
share
gnome-5
12 years ago
"I always assumed it took years to make the money back, although I can't find any concrete references."
According to IMDB, the film cost 10.5 mil to make. By the end of 1969, it had earned 12 mil outside of the US. About half of that would have gone to the studio. Back then, movies earned more in the US than outside (the opposite of the situation now), so it probably made more than 12 million in the states. Again, about half went to the studio. So I would guess that 2001 turned a profit early on, rather than taking years.
reply
share