4 ms·

According to the analysis [1] from the Institute for International Film Financing [2], movies with budgets higher than 10 Mil. have a worse ratio of breaking-ev

According to the analysis [1] from the Institute for International Film Financing [2], movies with budgets higher than 10 Mil. have a worse ratio of breaking-even: roughly 6 of 10 loose money based on box office alone vs. only 4 of 10 fail in the less than 10 Mil. category. I agree that making movies is expensive, but we shouldn't fall prey to the availability heuristic. To circumvent this, it might help to think about TV: What would it cost to produce original content for a 24/7 stream? [1] http://abovethelineproducer.blogspot.com/2011/12/hollywood-profits-quantitative-drivers.html http://abovethelineproducer.blogspot.com/2011/12/hollywood-p... [2] http://filmfinancing.org/ http://filmfinancing.org/

Keyframe 15y ago
You have to consider there are story driven movies/shows which can get made for lower budgets (Primer for example) as well as setpiece driven shows or spectacles which simply can't be made for smaller amounts of money (setpiece cnostruction can get pricey and can't be replaced with VFX). As for TV costs, I was involved in a Big Brother show as a director for example - reality shows are among the cheapest content you can produce (hence why there are so many of them)... 3 months of that show production was I believe in 3-5 million euros range. And that was the cheapest content you can produce, with producers that watched every penny spent with relatively cheap workforce.
waterlesscloud 15y ago
This seems to base the idea of profitability on US box office alone, which makes it more or less meaningless. The bigger the budget, the more likely there are strong revenue streams from other sources. For example, for large tentpole pictures domestic box office is often only 1/3 of the total global box office. This study appears to be rather shallow.
- cschwarm 15y ago
  My point was that there's no need to think that big, initially. There's also money in story driven movies and shows, as Keyframe calls it. Disruption of passive entrainment structures is more likely to happen from below, not from above.

Keyframe 15y ago

You have to consider there are story driven movies/shows which can get made for lower budgets (Primer for example) as well as setpiece driven shows or spectacles which simply can't be made for smaller amounts of money (setpiece cnostruction can get pricey and can't be replaced with VFX). As for TV costs, I was involved in a Big Brother show as a director for example - reality shows are among the cheapest content you can produce (hence why there are so many of them)... 3 months of that show production was I believe in 3-5 million euros range. And that was the cheapest content you can produce, with producers that watched every penny spent with relatively cheap workforce.

waterlesscloud 15y ago

This seems to base the idea of profitability on US box office alone, which makes it more or less meaningless. The bigger the budget, the more likely there are strong revenue streams from other sources. For example, for large tentpole pictures domestic box office is often only 1/3 of the total global box office. This study appears to be rather shallow.

cschwarm 15y ago
My point was that there's no need to think that big, initially. There's also money in story driven movies and shows, as Keyframe calls it. Disruption of passive entrainment structures is more likely to happen from below, not from above.