MovieChat Forums > The 6th Day (2000) Discussion > Surprised by the choice of director. Pro...

Surprised by the choice of director. Probs why this looks dated


The director, Roger Spottiswoode, pretty much does straight to video and TV movies. He had a couple of big movies (if Turner and Hooch and Stop Or My Mom Will Shoot are 'big movies') and had the very successful Tomorrow Never Dies.

I'm thinking he had a fluke with that one and the studios thought they could make The 6th Day look like that. But he must have had help with that, as this movie looks like a TV movie/Straight to DVD.

It's not a bad movie, it just doesn't have the blockbuster vibe.

reply

... as this movie looks like a TV movie/Straight to DVD.
Oh really! You must have extremely high expectations of your TV movies. An $82 million dollar film looking like a TV movie?

I don't think it's a great film by any means, but I do think the production values of the film pretty accurately reflect the budget spent on it.

reply

It has it's flashy moments, but the way it is shot just looked like your standard tv movie. Not very exciting.

reply

An $82 million dollar film looking like a TV movie?


OP has a point. Let's also not forget that nearly a third of that budget was spent on Arnold's salary alone.

Anyone here mentions Hotel California dies before the first line clears his lips.

reply

OP has a point.
Not that much of a point, by any stretch of the imagination.🐭

reply

No? Fact: the movie's budget was $82 million. Arnold got paid $25 million out of that budget. Let that fact sink in for a minute.

reply

I agree. The movie DOES NOT look like $82 mill was spent on it. Not in the slightest.
--------------------------------------------
I own you.

reply

Xmen, Gladiator, MiII were all made the same year. They certainly don't look like TV movies.

reply

$81 mil probably went towards Arnie's salary...

--------------------------------------------
I own you.

reply

It does look cheap. The tilted camera angles don't help either. It doesn't look much more expensive than the Van Damme movie REPLICANT that was released a year later, which also had Michael Rooker in it.

Then again, Terminator 3 was made for 200 million and doesn't look that expensive either.

reply

I actually thought the name of the director was a non daplume for someone unknown and not a reputable director?

I am surprised to learn he's a proper director.

reply

[deleted]

It might have been though still that name just sounded odd to me.

reply

The movie is slightly dated in certain tech, like no cellphones/texting but is futuristic enough but not with ridiculous future tech...
The cars and whisper copter look like something that could come out today, but not 17 years ago...

The director was ok, just not great, with the budget of the movie and surely 1/4 of it went to Arnold...

reply

I agree, it does have that straight to DVD look, I said in another thread it looked like a Canadian Sci Fi show. It's the bland locations , productions design and b movie actors other then Arnold.

reply

I hate when I'm watching a sci-fi show and realise that it does look rather bleak outside, and then realise it wasn't shot in America, but Toronto. BTW, are you talking about The Outter Limits?

reply

I'm from Canada so I don't think shooting in Canada automatically means terrible looking, but back in the mid 90's there were a couple of sci fi shows on tv , Forever Knight, Tek War and Earth Final Conflict that come to mind.

It wasn't just the locations , there are plenty of movies shot in Canada that look great, it's the actor's, costumes etc that contributed to 6th Day looking cheap.

reply

I don't know why they try to make these movies out to be in america when we can tell it's clearly not.

reply