Last week I saw Prince of Persia Sands of who cares, which was a shit storm in and of itself, but when I checked out some reviews on it afterward I noticed a startling figure. The projected budget of the film is $200 million dollars. Really? For what? The specials effects where sci fi channel quality at best which I can appreciate on some level just not at $200 million. Like you wouldn't pay $200 for a $20 hooker you know. I guess locations, flying people around and stuff, but $200 million? Even if you did get a special effects house to do a movie like this and a majority of the money went to them, you are saying that you paid a team of a few dozen people $120 million for a years worth of work to play after effects over Jake G's face??? Then again maybe it's not that much money considering that Disney probably thought they thought they had the next Pirates of the Carribean but look what they were getting and what they went with, Jake Gyllenthaal who most people still only know him from Darko. You have a video game that was semi popular but never reached the level of say a halo or bioshock or Mario Kart. Then you have a movie based around a culture that isn't too popular right now in the US. Why would anyone say that is worth spending $200 million dollars? Why couldn't it have been made for $80 million?
But here is the twist, the movie still made a shit ton of money (approx $370 million all told with release and video, only $90 was domestic or 25%). Just made much less in gross profit than it would if it was made for $80 million which it easily could have been (see first Mummy for $80 million in budget). What effect does having it cost $200 million vs $80 million or even say $120 million which is still a nice chunk of change for a decent action picture?
- Sahara $160 million
- UP $175 million
- Wall-E $180 million
- Evan Almighty $175 million
- Toy Story 3 $200 million
- Tangled $260 million (WTF)
- How do you know? $120 million
- Funny People $75 million
- The Out of Towners (199) $75 million
- See any current Adam Sandler movie
- Town and Country $105 million
- The Wolf Man $150 million
- A Sound of Thunder $80 million
- The Invasion $80 million
When did it become this acceptable for budgets going over $100 million so many times, but now it almost seems $200 million is a flick of the wrist. I get UP, Toy Story, and Wall E were huge feats in computer animation but take into account that the original Toy Story cost $30 million. Haven't computers improved since then? Shouldn't special effects be getting cheaper and cheaper, that was suppose to revolutionize the entire industry. You wouldn't have to blow up a real truck, you could do it digitally. That was suppose to be cheaper, now it is more expensive and for everything. But again, the twist is with all new media outlets, expanding foreign markets, movie channels, netflix, DVD's, Blu Rays, with enough marketing it is almost impossible to lose money. So what is the big deal as long as they make there money back?
This issue has been brought up before by actors when they defer upfront pay to get more back end dollars. See if an actor or actress wants to take a risk that the movie will be a big hit they get production agreements that they make a percentage of the gross profits after producers recoup all their expenses instead of taking a flat fee upfront. Keanu Reeves is famous for doing this with the Matrix sequels and making a few hundred million dollars in the process. This is where it gets fishy, and what actors have been accusing producers of doing. They claim that producers are inflating prices of production in order to pass on less and less to actors who take a percentage. What is an expense then? See that car over there, that is my personal drivers car, I have to pay him $20,000/day to drive me around where ever I want, well there you go, that is an expense right. I have the carrots at the craft services table brought in specially and they cost $500/lb, by the way it is my brothers garden that isn't registered you know. Is this what is going on in film? Remember when that guy from Independence Day said you don't really think it costs $20,000 for a hammer, $10,000 for a toilet seat, this is kind of similar to this I think if I remember my AP History. So could a producer potentially get a personal expense paid for plus make larger profits. Like oh we need to buy 10 lincolns to spin around but don't break them they are christmas presents for some of you guys. Then boom that takes care of Christmas for a lot of people. Instead of making $30,000, he makes $20,000 but writes-off all there personal expenses as a loss as a production budget asset.
I guess I can see why the actors are getting mad they are getting railroaded so they decide to take the higher salary upfront but guess what then the producer can add that as expense then another win win. So lets say in both situations you get $8 million but with the deferred you would get $2 million plus you would make $6 million on the backend. The producer could now say that all 8 million was expense instead of getting you $6 of their profits. But in the end is this something to get upset about, just Hollywood doing things dirty, same ol same old. Maybe it is part of the reason why ticket prices have gone up okay. But consider we are entertained more for far cheaper. Everything is cheap when you spread it out, with a movie you get marketing for a year sometimes, if you love trailers you are entertained throughout for free.
Although it seems this trend is reversing slightly. More and more the new generations are realizing that they can do what everyone else does for 1/10th the price. In 2009-Present You had District 9, Monsters, Skyline, all Made for an average budget of what $13 million, and all grossed at least 400% their budget just domestically. Or close enough, I'm not that great with numbers. Sure there will always have the tent pole pick that gives them license to print money essentially, but slowly funded, cost savings approach will get better year after year since it benefits a greater group of people doing it that way and you have more control. When there is more money there is more control, and $200 million is mighty big.
Maybe everyone had to go through that cycle, it is a right of passage for the league of movie makers. You start out financing your own shit then you work up until movie studios are pretty much your personal ATM. Bruckheimer can do it now because of what he did in the 80's and 90's, Blomkomp will probably be that guy in the 2030's, I mean look at James Cameron he made his for $600 million dollars or something but the movie still made more than 3 times that, but he started out with movies like Terminator, taking the risks. Now he can basically use a budget to make his own special effects company that he now uses to make money on top of the billion dollars he probably made for Avatar. You also have to think maybe some actors are in on it too. Like the producer won't cut a deal for anybody but this dude, and he does and he gives him an expense account as part of the budget and runs up all sorts of tom foolery. Aren't commercials getting to that point? Commercials are costing millions of dollars now.
No comments:
Post a Comment