3 ms·

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

by 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.