Studios need to spend less... anyone else agree?

[azul017]

Seems like movie studios are spending a lot more money on pricey tentpole movies, and hoping that flashy CGI and big names will attract audiences. After that mess Disney encountered when they butted heads over The Lone Ranger's budget (Verbinski's original budget was a whopping $275M, which Disney wanted reduced to $200M), I've noticed Disney is paying through the nose on two other films. Apparently John Carter of Mars's budget is near $300M and 2013's Oz, the Great and Powerful is around the $200M mark. (And Universal's slate of underperformers/flops like Wolfman and Robin Hood were each touted to cost $150M-$200M apiece, another example.)

Some movies, like this year's Conan the Barbarian remake was budgeted at a whopping $90M (when it should've cost half or even a third of that) have no business costing that much. With studios cutting back, wouldn't it make more sense to divide a $200M budgeted film into 10 less riskier $20M films? A lot less risk and potentially a lot more gain.

What do you guys think? For me, it's not just the budget, but the movies themselves need to be better too.

[Attrage]

I don’t know that it’s altogether a matter of “hoping”…flashy CGI and big names do attract audiences. Plus, these days the big studios are not as concerned when a film tanks at the box office, because of the changing viewing habits of audiences. Budgets often get more than recouped with the home cinema market, hence the oodles of releases of most movies (extended cuts, enhanced “never before seen” special features, director’s expanded editions...etc etc).

Thankfully there will always be the little independent films that cost next to nothing but end up scoring big time with audiences.

But anyway, I agree with you, it would make more sense to divide the budget...but it's never gonna happen

[the5thghostbuster]

Yeah, they need to cut budgets, and they will likely have no choice if the current trends keep up.

While audience viewing habits have changed, it still takes YEARS for home video sales to make up for a theatrical release' budget if it tanks. Hell, with the creative accounting of Hollywood, every Harry Potter film never made a nickel at the box office!

But with pricy duds out this past summer, a turning of the tide against 3D, and the success of low budget comedies this past summer, I think we may see a change over in the way Hollywood does business, and the types of films it produces because of it, that we have not seen since the 1960s.

[molly1216]

agreed...they are not encouraging creativity with inflated budgets.
they are also not doing a very good job of watching the pennies...
i remember when they black listed Cliff Robertson for daring to question the budget line items.
it seems since then double dipping and pay offs have probably exploded and become more engrained.

i never thought i would bemoan the death of the STUDIO system. but they did work well economically.

[azul017]

I don’t know that it’s altogether a matter of “hoping”…flashy CGI and big names do attract audiences. Plus, these days the big studios are not as concerned when a film tanks at the box office, because of the changing viewing habits of audiences. Budgets often get more than recouped with the home cinema market, hence the oodles of releases of most movies (extended cuts, enhanced “never before seen” special features, director’s expanded editions...etc etc).

The home video market ain't what it used to be. More and more people are switching to Netflix or Redbox rather than blind-buy a DVD/Blu-ray or see it at the theaters. If it's a popular movie or popular with families, then it'll do well on home video. Other titles... not so much.

Make good movies and market them well, then people will come to see them. Flashy CGI and big names just aren't enough anymore.

[mkiker2089]

The problem with the Tentpole movie is that it's not sustainable. The studios are hedging too much of their bets on one movie, and it pretty much depends on the others putting their big movie on a different weekend.

Also it's draining creativity. I love the big budget movies as much as anyone. I'm already sold on the next Pirates movie for example. I also like the smaller movies. Land of the Dead couldn't have been made any bigger as a counter example.

[Steve T Power]

Also it's draining creativity.

Honestly, I really can't agree with that statement at all. No one can tell me that the Pirates flicks weren't creative, or the Harry Potter films, or Lord of the Rings, or even, yes, Transformers because of the use of inflated budgets and crazy CGI. If anything it was these crazy effects budgets that allowed the characters to be so competently designed and executed (and yes, that Includes Transformers). No one can tell me that John Carter of Mars, at over 300 million, doesn't look like one hell of an imaginative and creative effort, likewise Avatar, and even the much maligned prequels. There's an ability to capture imagination like never before, a wealth of creative individuals with the tools at their disposal to breathe life into their creations like never before.

Does that mean a film should cost 300 million dollars? It all depends really. Avatar's 240 million budget is completely justified to me by the quality of what we're witnessing, but there are other instances that speak the opposite: Conan is a prime example: When Centurion could be made for 12 million, and Ironclad made for $25 million, I have no idea why Conan had to cost $90. Doesn't mean it wasn't bad ass, but it definitely could have been better executed from a financial standpoint.

[mkiker2089]

By draining creativity I mean things are more likely to conform to committee standards than be made as a true artistic creation. The Pirates films, Harry Potter, and a few others are exceptions I think. More often we get things like War of the Worlds and ID4. Both are enjoyable but both are also a bit derivative and somewhat predictable as well. As budgets get bigger and returns get even more unpredictable I can see the created by committee issue to get even bigger.

we remember the exceptions but every year has had a few forgettable popcorn flicks with massive budgets and tiny scripts.

[mavrach]

Bingo Mkiker. Make the action as flashy as you like, if it's the same old story it's dull. Most of the big comic movies are the same over and over again, how many times can you watch the villain almost beat up the hero only to get saved by an ally you didn't know was just offscreen, or wonder if the hero is going to fall off the cliff for the thousanth time? You'll never see the hero die, complicated moral messages, thorough debate, major cultural references, or movies that you get more out of after watching it more and more times. The big movies are all "safe" for the studios and made to appeal to as many people as possible.

I said this when the last movie came out, but I think Harry Potter has been the only exception to this rule that I can think of.

[azul017]

If anything it was these crazy effects budgets that allowed the characters to be so competently designed and executed (and yes, that Includes Transformers). No one can tell me that John Carter of Mars, at over 300 million, doesn't look like one hell of an imaginative and creative effort, likewise Avatar, and even the much maligned prequels. There's an ability to capture imagination like never before, a wealth of creative individuals with the tools at their disposal to breathe life into their creations like never before.

That's true. However, that doesn't mean directors can't curb costs by either forgoing their huge upfront fees for backend deals and/or using old-school techniques like models, matte paintings, and in-camera trickery whenever possible. That's inexpensive compared to contracting various visual effects companies to do everything. A lot of these movies just use CGI as a big crutch, and not as an element to help tell the story.

[Steve T Power]

If anything it was these crazy effects budgets that allowed the characters to be so competently designed and executed (and yes, that Includes Transformers). No one can tell me that John Carter of Mars, at over 300 million, doesn't look like one hell of an imaginative and creative effort, likewise Avatar, and even the much maligned prequels. There's an ability to capture imagination like never before, a wealth of creative individuals with the tools at their disposal to breathe life into their creations like never before.

That's true. However, that doesn't mean directors can't curb costs by either forgoing their huge upfront fees for backend deals and/or using old-school techniques like models, matte paintings, and in-camera trickery whenever possible. That's inexpensive compared to contracting various visual effects companies to do everything. A lot of these movies just use CGI as a big crutch, and not as an element to help tell the story.

The problem is scope and scale, and the changing of the industry. traditional in camera effects, model making, matte paintings, have been, sad to say, made obsolete. The pros in those fields now sell their services at a premium, and it's costly and inefficient when you can just film against a green screen and drop in a background, or insert hundreds of highly detailed, photorealistic models into a scene. The thing about CGI, is many still don't entirely realize HOW it works. Filmgoers don't entirely understand it. The thing is: it has supplanted traditional effects, but it works in much the same way, and is considerably more efficient to wield effectively. As a tool, it's only as good as the wielder, much like the techniques you mention, but it has made life considerably easier, more flexible, and yes, even less costly in the end. Something like pirates would have cost triple the budget if everything had been done traditionally, and probably wouldn't have looked as good. Avatar could never have been done, plain and simple. Cameron was dead on with that appraisal.

Do some creators go overboard? Hell yes. Lucas' prequels are guilty of this without a doubt, when just about every scene is a greenscreen soundstage instead of a suitable location. That said, if you look at the prequels, the budgets weren't ridiculously over the top compared to some other extravaganzas (*cough*Pirates 3*cough*). Then you get someone like Peter Jackson, who melded CGI and traditional make up, miniatures, mattes, and just about every other method under the sun to BRILLIANT effect in the Lord of the Rings films. And technically speaking, those things were budgetary monsters at over 360 million for the trilogy - essentially filmed as one film, but one could argue the semantics there. How about Avatar, which combined excellent use of full scale sets, constructed models, and incredibly lifelike CGI, combined with a truly remarkable "virtual stage" that was used for mocap work. I can't take anything away from that flick with regards to budget, every nickel is there to see.

As for stuff like ID4 and War of the Worlds, War of the Worlds created the blueprint, and Spielberg's take was nothing if not a visually captivating and human story. ID4 is the one I really don't get, stunning use of optical composits and miniature work, VERY little in the way of CG, in all respects a pretty "traditionally" made sci-fi actioner that got great word of mouth when it was released, is now maligned like the black death by the very people who cry for a return to traditional effects and abandoning CG.

In truth for me though, when it comes to effects, traditional, CG, or otherwise, there's Blade Runner, and then there's everything else.

[azul017]

In truth for me though, when it comes to effects, traditional, CG, or otherwise, there's Blade Runner, and then there's everything else.

Oh absolutely. That movie is just a technical marvel, even today.

I also think some productions just drive up shooting costs because the filmmakers want to shoot in the actual Caribbean, New York, et al. or because the crew members want to be closer to their families. I mean, Brian de Palma shot The Black Dahlia mostly in Bulgaria, and that film only cost $40M. That's pretty impressive with the actors involved, and it looked like it was made for 2x or 3x that. I'd like to see more movies made that way.

[Andrew Forbes]

Conan is a prime example: When Centurion could be made for 12 million, and Ironclad made for $25 million, I have no idea why Conan had to cost $90. Doesn't mean it wasn't bad ass, but it definitely could have been better executed from a financial standpoint.

Well, it wouldn't have been the same movie. The scope of Conan was vastly greater than either of those movies, as was the complexity of the effects. It featured mythic creatures, fantastical environments and set-pieces larger than anything in Centurion or Ironclad.

By draining creativity I mean things are more likely to conform to committee standards than be made as a true artistic creation. The Pirates films, Harry Potter, and a few others are exceptions I think. More often we get things like War of the Worlds and ID4. Both are enjoyable but both are also a bit derivative and somewhat predictable as well. As budgets get bigger and returns get even more unpredictable I can see the created by committee issue to get even bigger.

Don't equate War of the Worlds with Independence Day. It may not have an original bone in its narrative body, but Spielberg was firing on all cylinders visually. People may complain about CG monkeys and happy endings, but the man's visual invention doesn't ever seem to slow down, regardless of the budget he's working with.

[mavrach]

By draining creativity I mean things are more likely to conform to committee standards than be made as a true artistic creation. The Pirates films, Harry Potter, and a few others are exceptions I think. More often we get things like War of the Worlds and ID4. Both are enjoyable but both are also a bit derivative and somewhat predictable as well. As budgets get bigger and returns get even more unpredictable I can see the created by committee issue to get even bigger.

Don't equate War of the Worlds with Independence Day. It may not have an original bone in its narrative body, but Spielberg was firing on all cylinders visually. People may complain about CG monkeys and happy endings, but the man's visual invention doesn't ever seem to slow down, regardless of the budget he's working with.

But that's the problem, as well as being the potential of a larger budget. That was exactly my problem with War of the Worlds. That movie looked absolutely incredible, but I hated it because of the story choices. Again, the happily ever after tone that did not fit with the movie. I so wanted to love that movie and see those visuals again, but I felt dumber after leaving the theater.

A bigger budget of course carries with it more potential to do more. But the problem is that money has investors who are not artists, just businessmen who all want to see a movie made a certain way so they can be guaranteed a return. I wish they could give all that money to a good director & screenwriters and let them do their thing and give us our superbudgeted epic groundbreaking movie, but at this point I've given up.

A bigger budget allows you to be more creative, but a smaller budget FORCES you to be more creative.

[mkiker2089]

Don't equate War of the Worlds with Independence Day. It may not have an original bone in its narrative body, but Spielberg was firing on all cylinders visually. People may complain about CG monkeys and happy endings, but the man's visual invention doesn't ever seem to slow down, regardless of the budget he's working with.

As Mavrach said, that is indeed the problem. WoTW was a pleasing to look at mediocre movie with great effects. ID4 however was damn fun and is still a great experience to watch. The least you can do if you insist on making a "popcorn movie" is keep it fun.

[Lightning]

OK TAKE ME FOR EXAMPLE I HAVE PRODUCED/DIRECTED/STARED IN THE BIGGEST SELLING INDIE MOVIE IN ATLANTIC CANADIAN HISTORY AND MY BUGGET WAS 7,500 PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT KNOWING WHAT TO DUE WITH WHAT YOU GOT MAGAZINES ALL OVER NOTHE AMERICAN HAVE SAID THAT MY FILMS ARE THE BEST OF JACKIE CHAN AND VAN DAMME OK I DUE SOMETIMES WISH NOT TO USE SO MUCH AFTER FX BUT THE TRUTH IS THE PEOPLE LIKE IT AND BYE IT THATS WHAT COUNTS agreed...they are not encouraging creativity with inflated budgets. MOST not doing a very good job of watching the pennies.
www.badactinggoodkungfucanada.webs.com official website thansk everyone

[Bryan Pope]

^^^ Uh... whoa.

[mavrach]

Well I'm sure that's better than Avatar at least.

[mkiker2089]

Well I'm sure that's better than Avatar at least.

Actually I put Avatar right in the middle of this as well. To me Avatar is what ID4 was when it came out. A movie that appeals to a person's eye candy receptors to the point that people convince themselves a story must have been in there somewhere. It's also going to age the same with people at first just brushing it aside with "yeah a lot of people liked it, I saw it later" and then later on with pure denial "I never liked it that much, but it sure is pretty."

Avatar = Vanilla Ice

[the5thghostbuster]

OK TAKE ME FOR EXAMPLE I HAVE PRODUCED/DIRECTED/STARED IN THE BIGGEST SELLING INDIE MOVIE IN ATLANTIC CANADIAN HISTORY AND MY BUGGET WAS 7,500 PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT KNOWING WHAT TO DUE WITH WHAT YOU GOT MAGAZINES ALL OVER NOTHE AMERICAN HAVE SAID THAT MY FILMS ARE THE BEST OF JACKIE CHAN AND VAN DAMME OK I DUE SOMETIMES WISH NOT TO USE SO MUCH AFTER FX BUT THE TRUTH IS THE PEOPLE LIKE IT AND BYE IT THATS WHAT COUNTS agreed...they are not encouraging creativity with inflated budgets. MOST not doing a very good job of watching the pennies.
http://www.badactinggoodkungfucanada.webs.com official website thansk everyone

...did we jest get a drive by film plug?

[mkiker2089]

OK TAKE ME FOR EXAMPLE I HAVE PRODUCED/DIRECTED/STARED IN THE BIGGEST SELLING INDIE MOVIE IN ATLANTIC CANADIAN HISTORY AND MY BUGGET WAS 7,500 PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT KNOWING WHAT TO DUE WITH WHAT YOU GOT MAGAZINES ALL OVER NOTHE AMERICAN HAVE SAID THAT MY FILMS ARE THE BEST OF JACKIE CHAN AND VAN DAMME OK I DUE SOMETIMES WISH NOT TO USE SO MUCH AFTER FX BUT THE TRUTH IS THE PEOPLE LIKE IT AND BYE IT THATS WHAT COUNTS agreed...they are not encouraging creativity with inflated budgets. MOST not doing a very good job of watching the pennies.
http://www.badactinggoodkungfucanada.webs.com official website thansk everyone

...did we jest get a drive by film plug?

Probably a spammer trying to be somewhat relevant to avoid the filters. I could be wrong however.

[the5thghostbuster]

OK TAKE ME FOR EXAMPLE I HAVE PRODUCED/DIRECTED/STARED IN THE BIGGEST SELLING INDIE MOVIE IN ATLANTIC CANADIAN HISTORY AND MY BUGGET WAS 7,500 PEOPLE ITS ALL ABOUT KNOWING WHAT TO DUE WITH WHAT YOU GOT MAGAZINES ALL OVER NOTHE AMERICAN HAVE SAID THAT MY FILMS ARE THE BEST OF JACKIE CHAN AND VAN DAMME OK I DUE SOMETIMES WISH NOT TO USE SO MUCH AFTER FX BUT THE TRUTH IS THE PEOPLE LIKE IT AND BYE IT THATS WHAT COUNTS agreed...they are not encouraging creativity with inflated budgets. MOST not doing a very good job of watching the pennies.
http://www.badactinggoodkungfucanada.webs.com official website thansk everyone

...did we jest get a drive by film plug?

Probably a spammer trying to be somewhat relevant to avoid the filters. I could be wrong however.

More than likely. And darn it, I meant to type 'just' not 'jest'. Though this could be a jest

[Jim_Thomas]

The problem with the large budget trend is that some studios seem to think that if they throw enough money at the movie, it will make money. And sadly, it tends to work because lots of money may not make a good movie, but it will often get the masses interested enough to turn out for a number of weekends. It's too easy to go for spectacle over substance.

But look at movies like Moon. Magnificent movie made for $5 mil. Would better effects have improved that movie? I doubt it.

Another problem is the ready availability of money can dampen certain types of creativity, the creativity borne of necessity, whether it's Spielberg showing the shark less because the damned thing didn't work, or Harlan Ellison turning Demon with a Glass Hand into a vertical chase because all they could get was money to shoot in a single building.

[Steve T Power]

But look at movies like Moon. Magnificent movie made for $5 mil. Would better effects have improved that movie? I doubt it.

I generally don't consider Moon to be a "great" example. The miniature effects were astounding, no doubt, but the scope of the screenplay was pretty small scale and intimate. Moon wasn't Avatar or Star Wars. A better example might be Serenity, which managed a pretty epic scope and feel, with tons of action and some silly good effects work for a budget of $40 million. Which kind of begs another question. Which would you prefer? Stylish, if not entirely convincing visuals? or photo-realistic CG?

[Bryan Pope]

Which would you prefer? Stylish, if not entirely convincing visuals? or photo-realistic CG?

I'll take an intelligent, strong, original story with second-rate effects over a slick fx extravaganza with a cookie-cutter screenplay any day.

Of course, if I can have the best of both worlds, well, that's good too.