4 ms·

Exactly. Many people think that the cost of movie production is absurd. WHat could they possibly be spending $200m on?! Salaries.

TylerE 13y ago
The thing is, if you're not doing some sort of incredibly bloated production, you don't need 10,000 people to make a movie. Most movies are NOT Lord of the Rings. For instance, one of the best critically received movies of the last decade was probably No Country For Old Men. Budget? $25 million. Made back well over triple that at the US box office alone. The King's Speech? $15 million, made over $135 million Argo? $44 million, and that had lots of expensive location shoots in the middle east The Hurt Locker? $15 million Slumdog Millionaire? $15 million Crash? $6.5 million Million Dollar Baby? $30 million All movies that did very well at the box office, and were made for $25 million or less (with one exception). They also all won the Best Picture oscar. So there is PLENTY of evidence that you can make a great movie without getting anywhere near a 9-figure price tag. Of course, for "indie" films, you can go well under that. "Clerks" cost about as much a new car. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was barely over $100k....the first Saw movie was made for just over $1m and grossed 100 times that.
- vinceguidry 13y ago
  You said your approach was to "make a bunch of movies for not a lot of money." No one's arguing the "not a lot of money" part, what I'm saying is that you can't make a bunch. You can produce one really great movie every two years if you're amazing. That's it. It will take you twenty years to get to "a bunch". That's after ten years of learning how to make movies. It's that hard. This is my friend's website. He takes his craft very seriously and is a workaholic. No day job, this is all he does: http://www.villainpictures.com/work/index.html http://www.villainpictures.com/work/index.html Five finished, full-length projects in the last 12 years, two more in the pipe.
  - TylerE 13y ago
    I never said "make a bunch", other people may have tried to put those words in my mouth, but that was certainly not my intent. I am, in fact, arguing for quality over quantity....just a sort of slightly stodgy quality of actually letting talented people create instead of just writing a ginormous check to whoever is hot at the moment. Think BBC Miniseries sort of approach, but with actual budgets - not extravagant, but not skimping either...the Coen brothers are probably the best example in Hollywood. Woody Allen is sort of on the same wavelength as well, and has turned out a film a year forever, and they pretty much all have made money.

TylerE 13y ago

The thing is, if you're not doing some sort of incredibly bloated production, you don't need 10,000 people to make a movie. Most movies are NOT Lord of the Rings. For instance, one of the best critically received movies of the last decade was probably No Country For Old Men. Budget? $25 million. Made back well over triple that at the US box office alone. The King's Speech? $15 million, made over $135 million Argo? $44 million, and that had lots of expensive location shoots in the middle east The Hurt Locker? $15 million Slumdog Millionaire? $15 million Crash? $6.5 million Million Dollar Baby? $30 million All movies that did very well at the box office, and were made for $25 million or less (with one exception). They also all won the Best Picture oscar. So there is PLENTY of evidence that you can make a great movie without getting anywhere near a 9-figure price tag. Of course, for "indie" films, you can go well under that. "Clerks" cost about as much a new car. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was barely over $100k....the first Saw movie was made for just over $1m and grossed 100 times that.

vinceguidry 13y ago
You said your approach was to "make a bunch of movies for not a lot of money." No one's arguing the "not a lot of money" part, what I'm saying is that you can't make a bunch. You can produce one really great movie every two years if you're amazing. That's it. It will take you twenty years to get to "a bunch". That's after ten years of learning how to make movies. It's that hard. This is my friend's website. He takes his craft very seriously and is a workaholic. No day job, this is all he does: http://www.villainpictures.com/work/index.html http://www.villainpictures.com/work/index.html Five finished, full-length projects in the last 12 years, two more in the pipe.
- TylerE 13y ago
  I never said "make a bunch", other people may have tried to put those words in my mouth, but that was certainly not my intent. I am, in fact, arguing for quality over quantity....just a sort of slightly stodgy quality of actually letting talented people create instead of just writing a ginormous check to whoever is hot at the moment. Think BBC Miniseries sort of approach, but with actual budgets - not extravagant, but not skimping either...the Coen brothers are probably the best example in Hollywood. Woody Allen is sort of on the same wavelength as well, and has turned out a film a year forever, and they pretty much all have made money.