Let's face it: DC2 is a LOW BUDGET movie!

The first DARK CRYSTAL was a high budget + state of the art movie, back then (1982). You can see by everything on-screen that it was VERY expensive and time-consuming.

Now the sequel (at a 20-30 millions cost) is a low budget movie by today's standards.
Imo it would cost about 100-200 Millions to make it "right".

Jeez 20 million thats all? Well i mean they're not hiring big actors or doing huge special effects...so idk maybe itll be ok...

Yes, I really hope they manage to make a good sequel... even without much money.

I hope its gonna be good, was the muppet movie or any other of theirs low budget? i bet they were...does anyone know?

Well, while I understand that some things cost money to pull together, and of course the people working on the film need to be payed, I don't think you should judge the movee just by the amount of money that is spent on it.Perhaps it will not be very good; perhaps it will be great! I don't like to think though that just because you don't have, or don't choose to spend a lot of money, you can't make a good film.

Yeah, don't judge based on budget. If you use that, then Star Trek: The Motion(less) Picture was a better film than Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and we all know that isn't true.

Yeah - Star Trek II blowed the socks off of I. (I'm kinda surprised I was higher budget, actually, which goes to show that money is far from everything).

I definitely am still excited about the new movie. The most important thing, when you come down to it, is the storytelling, so let's hope that piece is good.

100-200 million dollars is outragious and frankly I wouldn't want to see a sequel that expensive. 20-30 million is an adequate budget of a film of this size.

I agree, often the really high-budget movies are pretty lousy anyway. And it doesn't exactly seem in the spirit of JH to break the bank for a movie. Creativity should make up for what is lacking in money.

"300" is a movie with all CG backgrounds and costed about 60 Mio.
And that's a movie without big stars or high- tech animatronic characters.

so then what's your point Laszlo? You just conceded to the foundation of your argument.

The original film cost (in 1982 dollars) around $15-million to make. Sure, that's a lot of money but it's was not outlandishly high. 1983's Return of the Jedi was over twice that amount (costing $32.5-million to produce) and 1980's Superman II was close to four times the cost of Dark Crystal. And yes it did take a long time to produce (nearly 5 years from conception to final product).

Now, first, who said the sequel will be a $20-40-million project?

Take for example "The Lord of the Rings" movies or the "Star Wars" prequels (which had tons of special effects, epic locations, characters, big-name actors...). Out of the three "Lord of the Rings" films, not one cost over $100-million to make. Now with Power of the Dark Crystal you don't have location shooting or top name celebrities, it is probably not as epic in scale as Lord of the Rings and won't be as long either. They could easily make a quality art film that blends top rate puppets with top rate CGI environments and make the film look awesome for less than $50-million.

Also since when did money make a film good or bad? The film could be sock puppets in front of cardboard sets colored with crayon and could be excellent (okay maybe not this film, as part of The Dark Crystal is the visual artistic stimulation, but $50 million could easily allow the level of artistic, innovated and creative excellence we are all craving). Good movies need quality character development, plot, direction, cinematography, tone, pacing and heart - all of which money can't buy. They could spend $100-billion on it and it would still stink it that stuff isn't there. Sure I don't want this to be cheap, hokey or poorly done - that would break the illusion and take you out of the reality of the world. But given the material, the current technology and company's make-up they could make this film surpass our expectations and please us (or at least me) for way less that $100-million. With the Henson Company and Creature Shop, Brian Froud, Genndy Tartakovsky, David Odell and others on board the film is in good hands. I know Henson wouldn't allow the film to be a cheap piece of junk and they will spend enough money to do the material and the legacy of the original justice. The budget isn't my concern – it's the story, the characters and the spirit of the film (but from what I've seen/heard, they are in good hands). I wouldn't judge the film by the budget. Wait for them to make the film (and see it) before you say it stinks.

Yeah, it was- TMP had 45+ million and TWOK only had 12 million. Of course, for quite a few of the ship shots, they used stock footage from the first one.

The budget isn't my main concern, my concern is, [which is connected to the budget] the way in which Thra/creatures/gelflings are represented. My faith is divided. I love what Genndy has done in his past, and I am confident in his skills, on the other hand, I've seen MirrorMask, and the story WAS intriguing, but because the budget was so constrained it became visually evident, ergo affecting the film as a whole.

We've been able to see some preliminary sketches, and a piece of Brian Froud's concept design as well as the three main characters/puppets, Jen, Kira, and Thurma. So far, they look amazing, my main concern is backgrounds, CGI integration, CG matte paintings, and the rebirth of Thra through the eyes of a modern director. Nothing about Thra is modern, nothing about the world that Jim Henson originally envisioned is flashy or sleek. The World of the Dark Crystal is riddled with ancient history, atrocities, genocide [the eradication of the Gelflings as it were] and a lost society. The key word here is "BELIEVABILITY."

Genndy could have the best of intentions with the greatest of skills but if he is reigned in by Henson's limited funds, The Power of the Dark Crystal will fail. The question is, "Is Disney Involved?" Disney is now the parent company of Henson and that means Genndy has the possibility of having a more then mediocre budget. Lisa Henson is a producer on this film but thus far, she's only a name, and not a tested producer, she has her job because of who she is, not because of what she can do. This film will be a major testing ground for her. The Paris Hilton of film producers you might say.

As an artist myself, I'm always challenged to make better art when my funds are limited, and in the original film, that challenge turned into genius. The challenge to create such a film in today's market is great. It's easy to rely on CGI as a medium/tool in which to tell the story as opposed to enhancing or accenting a story. I've always been a proponent of making everything as real as possible and using CGI as a last result. From day one, when this film was announced CGI has been in nearly every article or story involving this film. Not once have I read nor have I heard any kind of attention payed to real-world detail, whether that's from Lisa Henson, or Genndy Tartofsky themselves. That said, I'm not sitting here biting my nails because, yet again, I haven't seen much, it's only been talk.

A lot is riding on this film, not just a successful sequel but the Henson brand, and whether or not Jim Henson's children can bring pride back to their surname. As many of you know, Jim Henson never wanted a direct sequel to this film. Being a lover of the Dark Crystal from early childhood, I've always envisioned a sequel or prequel of sorts.

If this film is successful it will be because everything worked, the budget, the producers, the directors, Jim Henson's original vision and the quality of craftmanship.

Here's Hoping.

J.M. Prater

Not true, The Jim Henson Company is an independent company and is not affiliated with Disney.

you really don't need millions and millions to do a movie that's not gonna be 100% cgi like cars/shrek/over the hedge. it's supposed to be 90% puppetry. isn't that what it's mostly about in the first one? it need not be cgi that would ruin the "feeling" you get when you watch it.

My point is DC2 has a more elaborate and detailed world and therefore should cost more to make "right". I don't have a good feeling about them using all CG backgrounds...

I know where you saw that. But I have many older reports (magazines) where they say 25-30 Millions. So I don't know what's true

But technology has advanced in the 25 years since to allow them to achieve the same, or better, level as the original for less money. Plus creating a rich and detailed CGI world is cheaper than building rich and detailed sets.

Look at Sin City, it is a beautiful film that had all-CGI environments which were done by the same company as are going to do the DC2. Sin City cost only $40-million to make. And since then the technology has only gotten better (and cheaper)...plus Sin City had lots of big name actors. They could clearly make this for less then $50-million and do it "right"...in my opinion.

Low budget movies made by Henson

Henson actually has a pretty good track record in recent years of putting together decent movies with fairly low budgets. Mirrormask was great and it was made for about 5-10 million. Five Children and It was also very well done and can't have had a huge budget. I'd say the amount of money they're putting into DC2 should be plenty.