4 ms·
This is wrong in so many ways. > the blockbusters make the bulk of the revenue to even greenlight art house films; without the mass market films, there wouldn'
by AlbertCory 3y ago
This is wrong in so many ways.
> the blockbusters make the bulk of the revenue to even greenlight art house films; without the mass market films, there wouldn't even be any art house films (of a sizable budget like 10 to 50 million dollars, not indie films).
Your assumption seems to be that big studios somehow use the profits of blockbusters to subsidize arthouse films. That would be wonderful if true.
It's false, though. Art films are financed from different suppliers of funds, and they even play in different theaters.
> there wouldn't even be any art house films (of a sizable budget like 10 to 50 million dollars, not indie films).
I don't know what this means. Before you were talking about arthouse films but now it's low-budget studio films??? What are you saying?
- satvikpendem 3y agoMy mistake, I shouldn't have said art house, you're right that I'm talking about low budget studio films that are more serious in tone or have something unique about them and aren't just another action film. I don't mean indie art house films literally.
- AlbertCory 3y agoOK. Studio finances are too murky to understand, but I suspect the blockbusters that succeed mainly finance the ones that don't. But you could be right; maybe in hard times they clamp down on ALL the spending.