GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Studios back away from Big Budgets

POSTED BY: CYBERSNARK
UPDATED: Monday, July 17, 2006 07:37
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1401
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 10, 2006 3:09 AM

CYBERSNARK


The originating site ( http://www.latimes.com/business/custom/cotown/la-ca-busted9jul09,1,670
2344,full.story?coll=la-headlines-business-enter
) requires a signup, so I'll post what I believe to be the full article (I got it from http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?showtopic=39224)
Quote:

THE real magic of Hollywood is not the knee-buckling resonance of a perfect screen kiss or the ability to conjure an army of Orcs from the plains of New Zealand. The real magic of Hollywood, as any agent, screenwriter, director, actor, producer or studio executive will tell you, is that movies get made at all. Especially now.

Some years back, a commitment from an A-lister, those actors or directors whose track records proved they could deliver a big opening weekend at the box office, usually guaranteed a big-budget project would get a green light. Then the formula changed — it often took getting a star to commit to the project and then trying to get them to cut their fee. But now, apparently, even that is not enough, as filmmakers on a variety of projects are beginning to learn.

Whether the rupture of a film project is officially pegged as a disagreement over the script, the director or the star's deal, the negotiations have simply gotten tougher, and the likelihood of compromise slimmer once the budget tops the $100-million watermark — even though a few million dollars might be all that separates the sides.

Filmmakers have been complaining for years that they can't get studio support for midlevel movies — films with a budget between $25 million and $80 million. Although they have created indie divisions for small-budget films, the studios' emphasis has turned to high-concept films, an increasing number of which have budgets that quickly top $100 million — and a handful more that double that figure. With that much money at stake, it's not surprising that studios have gotten more jittery.

"The number of movies that cost more than $100 million is increasing," says producer and former Twentieth Century Fox studio head Bill Mechanic. "And once you cross the $100-million mark, it's just very hard to get your money out. Some make money, but a lot don't. And that can be a pretty big don't."

"Used Guys," a high-concept, big-budget comedy that was to star Carrey and Ben Stiller, provides one of the best recent case studies in how a $100-million-plus film can fall apart. A few months ago Fox, in partnership with Sony, pulled the plug on the project.

Yanked just weeks before shooting was to begin, the "Used Guys" collapse caused not so much shock as dismay within the industry. This was a film that had already cleared all the hurdles — it had three big-time moneymakers attached; everyone was happy with the script; Fox and Sony are in good health financially and, more important, they were prepared to break the $100-million barrier, despite it being a comedy.

"It just didn't make any sense" to halt production, said an industry insider not directly associated with the project.

From where Fox sat, it made perfect sense. Yes, they were prepared to go over $100 million, but originally the budget had been closer to $106 million — the trinity of Carrey, Stiller and director Jay Roach doesn't come cheap, though they took pay cuts to work together. (Still, according to those familiar with the deal, their combined salaries made up more than half the budget.) Then the schedule was pushed back when Stiller's work on another Fox movie went into overtime. The budget crept up to $110 million as Roach and his co-producers, Stiller and Stuart Cornfeld, realized that the movie's setting — a female-dominated future world — added special-effects expenses that cost more than originially anticipated.

With $6 million already sunk into sets, Fox asked Roach to commit to a budget of $112 million. For a variety of reasons, he was not prepared to do so, nor was he willing to ask either Stiller or Carrey to further cut their deals. In May, figuring that the only way the studio would make any money on the film was if "Used Guys" became one of the top-grossing comedies in history, Fox decided to pass.

(Emphasis mine.)

Could this be the turning point? Sounds to me like any studio exec with half a brain cell (I know, that still rules out most of them) would be scrambling for new, cheaper talent.

Folks who are highly talented, and who are still used to relying on that talent instead of their inherent celebrity. Folks like. . . Oh, I don't know. . . a certain TV cast, maybe. . .

-----
We applied the cortical electrodes but were unable to get a neural reaction from either patient.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 10, 2006 3:24 AM

EST120


Quote:

Originally posted by Cybersnark:
Could this be the turning point? Sounds to me like any studio exec with half a brain cell (I know, that still rules out most of them) would be scrambling for new, cheaper talent.



Sounds interesting. I certainly hope that lower budgets would lead to higher quality storytelling, but who knows. I think movies like comedies are more susceptible to this, though, maybe because of the general lower budgets overall for those kinds of movies (I cannot think of a comedy that cost over $100 million to make) and the relatively lower box office returns overall (maybe because people are less likely to see comedies repeatedly?). Epic features and action movies seem to be spending more than ever. Based on what I could find, consider the budgets for the big action releases from this summer so far.

Mission Impossible: $150 million
X-Men: $210 million
Superman: $260 million
Pirates of the Caribbean: $200 million

Not including advertising costs and such. Pretty healthy, possibly slightly obese expenditures.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 10, 2006 4:11 AM

JTSKIER1200R


I noticed this same article and the first thing I thought about was another Serenity. It was cheap to make and Im sure it is turning a good profit now on DVD and misc sales. BUt, Id still rather have the series back, but a BD sequal would be good too. LEts hope the movie execs are paying attention.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 10, 2006 4:17 AM

CHRISISALL


*Dancing the Dance of Joy*

This is Joss' time, my friends!

B-Movie Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 10, 2006 4:26 AM

LORACLE


Here's another story with a similar theme. Interesting trend, I think.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060705/OPINION03/6
07050381/1032/ENT


Beyond the stars

Big names lose clout as special effects, unknowns and ensembles fuel blockbusters


Putting together a hit movie in Hollywood must have seemed a pretty straightforward deal once upon a time: Find a big-name star, get a script, toss in a director who'll keep the camera focused and there you go.

In the modern blockbuster era, though, when films are more likely to be fueled by well-known source material, ensemble casts and special effects, the time of the all-powerful movie star is long gone. And the reason may be that celebrities once available only on the big screen are now available through a multitude of media.

In decades past, one big name -- John Wayne, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Julia Roberts, Jim Carrey -- seemed enough to guarantee box-office success. Now the one-star blockbuster is nearly a dinosaur while the no-star or ensemble blockbuster is fairly commonplace.

Remember Kevin Costner in "Dances with Wolves"? Or Mel Gibson with "Braveheart"? Those were the old days. These days, a blockbuster is more likely to mimic the current success of "Superman Returns," which has earned some $84.2 million in less than a week in theaters. It stars complete unknown Brandon Routh and is based on source material familiar to everyone.

Meanwhile, "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," the sure smash due in theaters Thursday, won't be relying just on the drawing power of star Johnny Depp. It also features Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom, stars who commonly headline their own smaller films. And it also draws on an already established franchise.

"The idea of the movie star is rapidly disintegrating," says Kip Pardue ("The Rules of Attraction," "Remember the Titans," "Imaginary Heroes"), part of a generation of young actors who've grown up in what might be called the Ensemble Age of Cinema.

"The really big movies now are becoming concept movies," he says. "They're movies in which the star is not the driving force."

So far this summer, the one major, star-driven action film to debut -- "Mission: Impossible III," featuring Tom Cruise, formerly thought to be the gold standard of stardom -- has performed far below domestic box-office expectations. (It made $12 million less than its predecessor on its opening weekend and seems ready to stall at about $75 million below the total earnings of "M:I 2").

Meanwhile, examples of non-star, ensemble or concept-driven smashes abound, including:


"X-Men: The Last Stand," the year's top film so far, with more than $225 million and counting, features a laundry list of actors -- Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Anna Paquin -- none of whom could likely headline such a success on their own.


The only film to top $200 million in the year's first four months of 2006 was "Ice Age: The Meltdown," an animated film with an ensemble of second-tier star voices.


The year's second biggest hit, "The Da Vinci Code," does indeed star onetime powerhouse Oscar-winner Tom Hanks. But there's a strong argument that with the popularity of the novel it's based on, the movie could have starred Homer Simpson and it would have still made more than $200 million. Especially since Hanks had a couple of comparative flops ("The Ladykillers," "The Terminal") prior to "Da Vinci."


Hanks, though, has one bright distinction: On the list of the top-15 all-time domestic hits, he has the only star-driven film ("Forrest Gump," No. 14). All the others -- "Lord of the Rings," "Star Wars," "Shrek 2," "Spider-Man," etc. -- are either ensemble pieces or featured comparative unknowns at the time of their release.

While star-driven blockbusters still exist, especially as comedies -- Adam Sandler had "Click" in June -- their numbers are on the wane for obvious reasons.

"Historically, star power has been overrated," says Brandon Gray of the online movie site Box Office Mojo. "There are really only a handful of stars that can truly draw a crowd."

But there are plenty of stars who ask upward of $15 million a picture, with many demanding a cut of the ultimate profits. This likely led to the casting of the undoubtedly inexpensive Routh in "Superman Returns," a movie which still had an estimated production budget of $260 million.

"The special effects are the stars in movies today," says Gray.

Last summer's hits, "Fantastic Four" (with not-so-big-names Michael Chiklis and Jessica Alba) and "Batman Begins" (with relatively obscure Christian Bale), back up the assertion.

Stars used to shine brighter on the big screen when movies were pretty much the only visual medium available to the public. But these days stars pop up in a wide variety of places.

"We really are still into our celebrities. We love our superstars more than ever before. But I just don't think we're getting our fixes at the movies any more," says Kerry Ferris, a sociologist at Northern Illinois University who studies celebrity.

The creaky star machinery that was built by the old movie studios of the '30s and '40s just can't compete with modern technology. The gossip columns and newsreels of yore have given way to far more instantaneous and in-depth coverage on television and via the Internet, says Ferris.

"We're getting our celebrity contact hours on other screens," says Ferris. "We get more real time information and more intimate information, and that apparently trumps movie watching."

And that change has had a weakening effect on the power of the modern movie star that's not likely to fade anytime soon.

"There's very few people now, if any, who can compare to Cary Grant, John Wayne, James Cagney," says box office analyst Gray. "They pretty much all pale in comparison."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 10, 2006 5:12 AM

DEEPGIRL187


At times like these, I tend to remember this little tidbit of information.

In around 1992, Robert Rodriguez made El Mariachi. For around 6,000 dollars. At the time, it was a little known film, but eventually grew to spawn two big-name sequels; Desperado and Once Upon A Time In Mexico.

Maybe there is hope. The industry can't continue to be ran by money-grubbing actors and directors, or they'll go broke. So that being said, we do as the captain said. We hold.

**************************************************

"I...won't be just a memory."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 17, 2006 4:13 AM

LORACLE

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 17, 2006 4:35 AM

DEEPGIRL187


I agree with a lot of what the author said; except the part about Daniel Radcliffe. I thought he was really good in the first Harry Potter.

And I'm also pleased that he mentioned Joss in the article. Of course, it goes without saying that Joss is waaay smarter than you average Hollywood director.

**************************************************

"These words are all I have so I'll write them."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, July 17, 2006 7:37 AM

LORACLE


Here's a similar article.

One of my secret hopes is that someday Joss Whedon will make Firefly a re-occuring mini-series that is perhaps shown on TV but ultimately designed for release to DVD. After reading this article, maybe it's not so far-fetched.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/columns/grove_display.jsp?vnu_con
tent_id=1002839325

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL