3 ms·

The problem is movies have become too expensive to make. When a movie cost 100-200 million dollars to make, studios believe that to be successful they must mak

by bradly 15y ago

The problem is movies have become too expensive to make. When a movie cost 100-200 million dollars to make, studios believe that to be successful they must make, or more typical take, a brand and develop a movie around that brand. Studios need a brand that ideally people already know that they can franchise into a cartoon, plush dolls, a theme park ride, and 3 sequels in hopes to try and get the 150 million back. This why we end up with Land with the Lost and a baker's dozen of Charlie's Angels movies. I wish I could say the studios were wrong and that people vastly prefer a movie with just a great story rather that 3D explosions, but sadly I'm not sure that is the case for most movie-goers in America. edit: Down voted already, eh? Do you disagree or am I way off base here?

jarito 15y ago
You say that like it is some force of nature. Movies don't have to be expensive to make and Ebert specifically called out that the bright spot for 2011 was independent films. You are correct about branding, but the movie studios decided to make these big budget movies. They are gambling big for a big payoff when they certainly could make great movies significantly cheaper. I bet if you looked at studio executives' compensation packages, you could draw a link between their compensation and the 'go big or go home strategy'. I would bet they make a lot more money in bonuses if the studio has a huge year than one with good year over year growth. Add that to very little downside if they create flops (just blame the pirates!) and you have a recipe that likely explains the current behavior of the systems. Just a guess.
- bradly 15y ago
  Thanks for the reply. You are right that movies don't have to be expensive, but I do believe to get the kind of revenue that the big studios want, the studios believe the movies need the big name actors, the explosions and special effects, and 3D. The indies and docs were a bright spot in terms of enjoyment for the movie goes, but I do not know whether the studios believe they are a bright spot or not.
  - Game_Ender 15y ago
    You can actually get decent effects and explosions these days for "cheap". District 9, one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies, had a budget of $30 million and was amazing. If they made movies around that size, they would lower their risk profile, while still having enough effects punch to make a blockbuster.
  - Retric 15y ago
    If they did not play accounting games they could pay actors based on movie revenue without increasing upfront costs. However, major studios are setup as cost plus contracts where they get upside on successes and still make money even if nobody sees the movie. Also, if you look at the actual costs it's not hoard to find advertizing more than 50% of the budget for mildly expensive films. Because advertizing is effectively a huge fixed cost they are incentive to make expensive movies with big stars and or explosions that they can leverage to make their advertizing less expensive. EX: Jurassic park and Avatar could show Dinosaurs and so did not need big name talent to get people into seats.
watmough 15y ago
Yes, totally agree. There's a dead feeling that comes with movies that have been made as commercial vehicles, rather than as pieces of art. Sometimes the results aren't too bad, Batman, Ironman etc., but other times they are just phoning it in.
jarjoura 15y ago
In the early 2000s, during "the great media consolidation" as I call it, studios were pumping upwards of 300 million into films assuming they'd return twice that worldwide. * Lord of Rings * The Matrix * Pirates of the Caribbean I'd say for the most part that money has been made back.
wj 15y ago
Blog post titled The purpose of drama, and its relationship to Cameron Diaz’s ass. It is by the writer of Charlie's Angels Full Throttle. Great blog for those interested screenwriting. http://johnaugust.com/2008/the-purpose-of-drama-and-its-relationship-to-cameron-diazs-ass http://johnaugust.com/2008/the-purpose-of-drama-and-its-rela...
wisty 15y ago
One thing you are missing is how much they try to distort theatre takings. Because audience numbers (or take, compared to the other movies) will determine how much they get for TV rights, DVD rental profits, and how much the DVD shops will push their product, they just want to sell seats. They pour more and more money into in-cinema ads (where else to you get movie-goers?), which kills the incentive to go to the cinema. But the cinemas don't really care if overall number go down a bit, as long as they get the advertising dollars. And the distributors don't really care, as long as they can push their movie to the #1 spot, even if overall numbers are down.
Joeri 15y ago
Movies aren't expensive to make, unless you want to make them expensive. The technology involved has been getting cheaper year after year. Take "monsters" for example. It's a sci-fi movie in the best tradition, that doesn't look low-budget, and that cost less than a million dollars to make. I think the problem is that studio's have too many incentives to increase budgets and few reasons to trim them. I'm sure they could make the same movies they make today for a fifth of the budget, if they reorganized themselves around doing that.
- erichocean 15y ago
  Movies are very expensive to market (average cost in Hollywood is over $20 million in marketing), and a movie _without_ marketing -- virtually regardless of the how much it cost to make -- will do almost no theatrical business at all. Tarsem's "The Fall" is a great example: the guy spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money making a pretty interesting film, had no marketing, and did just a few million at the box office, despite moviegoers liking the film.
  - GFischer 15y ago
    I' never heard of it, but it doesn't seem like a mainstream movie: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-fall-2008/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-fall-2008/ The niche audience liked it just fine, but I don't know how they could turn it into recouping those millions.

by bradly 15y ago

jarito 15y ago

You say that like it is some force of nature. Movies don't have to be expensive to make and Ebert specifically called out that the bright spot for 2011 was independent films. You are correct about branding, but the movie studios decided to make these big budget movies. They are gambling big for a big payoff when they certainly could make great movies significantly cheaper. I bet if you looked at studio executives' compensation packages, you could draw a link between their compensation and the 'go big or go home strategy'. I would bet they make a lot more money in bonuses if the studio has a huge year than one with good year over year growth. Add that to very little downside if they create flops (just blame the pirates!) and you have a recipe that likely explains the current behavior of the systems. Just a guess.

bradly 15y ago
Thanks for the reply. You are right that movies don't have to be expensive, but I do believe to get the kind of revenue that the big studios want, the studios believe the movies need the big name actors, the explosions and special effects, and 3D. The indies and docs were a bright spot in terms of enjoyment for the movie goes, but I do not know whether the studios believe they are a bright spot or not.
- Game_Ender 15y ago
  You can actually get decent effects and explosions these days for "cheap". District 9, one of my favorite Sci-Fi movies, had a budget of $30 million and was amazing. If they made movies around that size, they would lower their risk profile, while still having enough effects punch to make a blockbuster.
- Retric 15y ago
  If they did not play accounting games they could pay actors based on movie revenue without increasing upfront costs. However, major studios are setup as cost plus contracts where they get upside on successes and still make money even if nobody sees the movie. Also, if you look at the actual costs it's not hoard to find advertizing more than 50% of the budget for mildly expensive films. Because advertizing is effectively a huge fixed cost they are incentive to make expensive movies with big stars and or explosions that they can leverage to make their advertizing less expensive. EX: Jurassic park and Avatar could show Dinosaurs and so did not need big name talent to get people into seats.

watmough 15y ago

Yes, totally agree. There's a dead feeling that comes with movies that have been made as commercial vehicles, rather than as pieces of art. Sometimes the results aren't too bad, Batman, Ironman etc., but other times they are just phoning it in.

jarjoura 15y ago

In the early 2000s, during "the great media consolidation" as I call it, studios were pumping upwards of 300 million into films assuming they'd return twice that worldwide. * Lord of Rings * The Matrix * Pirates of the Caribbean I'd say for the most part that money has been made back.

wj 15y ago

Blog post titled The purpose of drama, and its relationship to Cameron Diaz’s ass. It is by the writer of Charlie's Angels Full Throttle. Great blog for those interested screenwriting. http://johnaugust.com/2008/the-purpose-of-drama-and-its-relationship-to-cameron-diazs-ass http://johnaugust.com/2008/the-purpose-of-drama-and-its-rela...

wisty 15y ago

One thing you are missing is how much they try to distort theatre takings. Because audience numbers (or take, compared to the other movies) will determine how much they get for TV rights, DVD rental profits, and how much the DVD shops will push their product, they just want to sell seats. They pour more and more money into in-cinema ads (where else to you get movie-goers?), which kills the incentive to go to the cinema. But the cinemas don't really care if overall number go down a bit, as long as they get the advertising dollars. And the distributors don't really care, as long as they can push their movie to the #1 spot, even if overall numbers are down.

Joeri 15y ago

Movies aren't expensive to make, unless you want to make them expensive. The technology involved has been getting cheaper year after year. Take "monsters" for example. It's a sci-fi movie in the best tradition, that doesn't look low-budget, and that cost less than a million dollars to make. I think the problem is that studio's have too many incentives to increase budgets and few reasons to trim them. I'm sure they could make the same movies they make today for a fifth of the budget, if they reorganized themselves around doing that.

erichocean 15y ago
Movies are very expensive to market (average cost in Hollywood is over $20 million in marketing), and a movie _without_ marketing -- virtually regardless of the how much it cost to make -- will do almost no theatrical business at all. Tarsem's "The Fall" is a great example: the guy spent tens of millions of dollars of his own money making a pretty interesting film, had no marketing, and did just a few million at the box office, despite moviegoers liking the film.
- GFischer 15y ago
  I' never heard of it, but it doesn't seem like a mainstream movie: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-fall-2008/ http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the-fall-2008/ The niche audience liked it just fine, but I don't know how they could turn it into recouping those millions.