Low Budget Sci-Fi Films That You Enjoyed!

[Truth_Seeker]

Even though Sci-Fi movies usually require a lot of money to produce, some directors have proven over the years that a good film could be done with a relatively low budget. The most recent example of that is "Moon" (5 million $).

Some of the other low budget films I enjoyed are:

- "Critters" (2 million $)
- "Stargate Continuum" (7 million $)
- "Hardwired" (5 million $)
- "28 Days Later" (8 million $)
- "Tremors" (11 million $)
- "Android Apocalypse" (1 million $)
- "Screamers 2: The Hunting" (N/A)
- "Alien Hunter" (N/A)

...and many more.

 

[Hermiod]

Despite the poor acting, I enjoyed Scanners which only cost $3.5m. (Though that was in 1981).

 

[Truth_Seeker]

I almost forgot about "The Arrival" (5 million $).

 

[Jetfire]

$23 million low budget??? That is how much Pitch Black cost to make...which I liked...but it looked low budget.

 

[Skywalker]

Star Wars ($8-11 million)

 

[Truth_Seeker]

Despite the poor acting, I enjoyed Scanners which only cost $3.5m. (Though that was in 1981).

Speaking of David Cronenberg, "The Fly" was made for $15m. and was pretty good.

 

[Klaus]

Can't believe we got this far without mention of Dark Star!

...and for modern films, District 9.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

"Battle Beyond The Stars" (about US$2M back in 1980) and its spiritual (and probably even cheaper) successor, "Space Raiders". Both incredibly enjoyable films.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Speaking of David Cronenberg, "The Fly" was made for $15m. and was pretty good.

$15 million wasn't low budget in the mid-1980s. $14-16 million was the standard budget range for a studio film at the time. $20-30 million was big budget, and higher than $30 million was crazy money. Top Gun was released in 1986, the same year as The Fly, and had about the same production budget.

 

[Myasishchev]

Gattaca, which doesn't look low budget, although that's easy enough since it has virtually no real special effects other than some space launches in the background and perhaps the solar panel field.

District 9 is good and doesn't look low budget, at all, and would have more of an excuse to be.

 

[Tom]

I think we need an Inflation scale here.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

The Terminator, with a budget of around $6.5 million, was relatively low budget by the standards of 1984, especially given the scale of action it presented. Great use of resources there.

 

[Truth_Seeker]

I think we need an Inflation scale here.

That might be a good idea. Star Wars: A New Hope would probably cost $100m. today.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

Inflation in movie budgets has far outpaced general economic inflation, as is amply demonstrated when adjusting past budgets into current dollar values.

Star Wars, which wasn't by any means low budget by the standards of 1977 (although it got great production values from its budget - more so than some big budget films of the time), adjusts to a budget of just $38.65 million in 2008 dollars (that's using the most-often cited budget figure of $11 million as a starting point).

Top Gun adjusts to a budget of $29.08 million in 2008 dollars. That would be low budget by today's standards. A film like that would cost $100-150 million if made today.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

They made a Screamers 2?

I recall enjoying the first one, though some effects shots weren't too hot.

 

[The Evil Dead]

Moon.

 

[Truth_Seeker]

They made a Screamers 2?

I recall enjoying the first one, though some effects shots weren't too hot.

The first one was awesome. I didn't include it because I thought that $20m. is not exactly a low budget.

 

[Out Of My Vulcan Mind]

A Scanner Darkly (2006), estimated production budget of $8.5 million.

 

[OmahaStar]

I thought this was for low budget films. My first choice would be Monster of Phantom Lake, which had a budget of approximately three thousand dollars.

 

[Truth_Seeker]

I think we better establish a maximum budget for this thread.

For example $20m. or less!