4 ms·

What would have been considered a mid budget film?

by mywacaday 5y ago

prpl 5y ago
Probably many movies you can think of from the 90s/00s that were not blockbusters, especially romcoms.
chalst 5y ago
Being John Malkovich had a budget of $13 million in 1999 - I'm guessing that's mid-range.
handrous 5y ago
Not a great link, but this covers the gist of it: https://www.flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budget-cinema-left-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia https://www.flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budge... It quotes a (clearly a bit exaggerated for effect, at the low end) range of $500,000-$80,000,000 as "mid budget", and gives examples of the category including Blue Velvet, The Godfather, and Hairspray. It's not that no films are made in that range anymore, just that it's much harder to find financing for a project in that range for a film intended for wide release and any amount of promotion. The money guys want a nothing-budget movie that might become a hit (the startup model), or huge can't-lose projects with likely outcomes that don't include a loss, or not much of one (the formulaic international-friendly [by which I mean China-friendly] action blockbuster that everyone seems to hate, but that nonetheless consistently make piles of money) It quotes a bunch of mid-budget directors complaining about this, some leaving filmmaking entirely because their options seem to be to go back to making shoestring-budget movies like they did when they were starting out, or start working on projects they don't like (huge-budget films), aside from self-financing. They seem to be concerned about how the next generations of directors will develop their careers, without stable financing for directors who've "made it" but don't want to make Marvel movies and such—IMO we're probably heading back to something resembling the studio system, largely, so the era of lots of Important Directors who Really Matter may be on its way out, anyway, at least for a while. [EDIT] Also, searching things like "the death of the mid-budget film" turns up tons of material like this.
xnyan 5y ago
Moreso than it's production cost (though that's a big part of it) a mid-budget is a hollywood-level (full production and cast) movie that does not attempt to be all things to all people. This could be something like a romantic comedy, a medium-scale character study or a high-concept scifi - something that costs say 40 million to make, returns 80 million and is never intended to be a blockbuster. Lots of reasons why they are less common. One is absolutely that more and more, TV is able to serve as well or better in the mid-budget role, the quality of TV has vastly improved in the last 20 years. Studios are less interested in investing 40 million to double their money and would rather risk hundreds of millions on the chance to make billions.

What would have been considered a mid budget film?

prpl 5y ago

Probably many movies you can think of from the 90s/00s that were not blockbusters, especially romcoms.

chalst 5y ago

Being John Malkovich had a budget of $13 million in 1999 - I'm guessing that's mid-range.

handrous 5y ago

Not a great link, but this covers the gist of it: https://www.flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budget-cinema-left-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia https://www.flavorwire.com/492985/how-the-death-of-mid-budge... It quotes a (clearly a bit exaggerated for effect, at the low end) range of $500,000-$80,000,000 as "mid budget", and gives examples of the category including Blue Velvet, The Godfather, and Hairspray. It's not that no films are made in that range anymore, just that it's much harder to find financing for a project in that range for a film intended for wide release and any amount of promotion. The money guys want a nothing-budget movie that might become a hit (the startup model), or huge can't-lose projects with likely outcomes that don't include a loss, or not much of one (the formulaic international-friendly [by which I mean China-friendly] action blockbuster that everyone seems to hate, but that nonetheless consistently make piles of money) It quotes a bunch of mid-budget directors complaining about this, some leaving filmmaking entirely because their options seem to be to go back to making shoestring-budget movies like they did when they were starting out, or start working on projects they don't like (huge-budget films), aside from self-financing. They seem to be concerned about how the next generations of directors will develop their careers, without stable financing for directors who've "made it" but don't want to make Marvel movies and such—IMO we're probably heading back to something resembling the studio system, largely, so the era of lots of Important Directors who Really Matter may be on its way out, anyway, at least for a while. [EDIT] Also, searching things like "the death of the mid-budget film" turns up tons of material like this.

xnyan 5y ago

Moreso than it's production cost (though that's a big part of it) a mid-budget is a hollywood-level (full production and cast) movie that does not attempt to be all things to all people. This could be something like a romantic comedy, a medium-scale character study or a high-concept scifi - something that costs say 40 million to make, returns 80 million and is never intended to be a blockbuster. Lots of reasons why they are less common. One is absolutely that more and more, TV is able to serve as well or better in the mid-budget role, the quality of TV has vastly improved in the last 20 years. Studios are less interested in investing 40 million to double their money and would rather risk hundreds of millions on the chance to make billions.