Low Budget my butt

I've been watching this thread for a long time...everyone either loves or hates this movie. Those who love it say "so what if it's low budget" and other say it looks like poop.

No one has responded to my commenting that the low budget is no excuse for the film's lack of quality.

There are things that could have been done better *without* increasing the film's budget.

The director and the editor have both edited enough of these low budget movies to know what to do.

Unless they're making these to make quick bucks. Has anyone considerred that? Look at how many movies the director has done. No one can honestly make that many movies and honestly say they've been passionate about every one of them.

I bought this movie on a rack of many, many other $2 no-name horror movies. If they're using cheap to semi-cheap equipment, which we all know they are this is definately something that can be profitable. Even with expensive equipment here and there, with that many films, it must have paid off.

So here's what I'm trying to ask....Why don't the film makers give more attention to detail? For instance, in the beginning, they have shots of the band playing. As soon as they cut to the dialogue, it's very apparent those two sequences were shot on different days. More than likely this is due to scheduling conflicts.

Here's how they could have gotten around that, without increasing the budget. Use the audio from the band in throughout the dialogue, and cast extras to play the band members. As long as they're in the background, no one will notice. Ta-da!

Even if they don't have the money to get costumes for the extras to match that of the band, all they have to do is tell the band to wear something easy to find, something common, so that they wont' have to spend money to match those costumes.

Watch that part of the movie again. There's a blunt change in the audio. It stands out like a sore thumb.

There are many other problems like this. There's one shot of the van driving that looks like it was shot with the gain all the way up. Come on! Light it better, or shoot it differently.

This film has many amateur level mistakes that could have been easily prevented on any budget.

With that many films behind them, my personal opinion is that the film makers are only in this for the fun of it, or possibly for the money. That's their business...but be honest with yourselves, this movie is crap. Not necissarily the idea, but the execution of it.

The interviews are all shot in the same room, someone's living room by the looks of it, probably a cast party after they finished shooting.

Don't give me any "they had a low budget" nonsense unless you know what you're talking about. If anyone can actually back up this movie without using that excuse, I'd love to hear it. All I can think of is that they're just having fun, or just making money.

I don't want to turn this into a flame throwing contest either, so let's keep intelligent.

Of course, if I come back in a few months and see that this comment has no intelligent responses...I won't be surpised. But hey, prove me wrong!