Another Way To Make Movies Cheaper: Forget The Stars
from the who-needs-'em? dept
Back in April, at the Cato Institute conference on copyrights, someone in the audience from NBC Universal challenged both me and professor David Levine with the same question: How can the movie industry continue to make $200 million movies without stronger copyright protection? Of course, that's the wrong question. People watching a movie don't care how much it costs to make a movie -- they just want a good movie. Back in May, we noted that one way to make a movie cheaper is to rely on newer technologies that make special effects much, much cheaper, taking out one element of the high cost of making movies. Another point, which Levine stated on his panel, is that a huge part of the budget in $200 million movies is the high cost of paying certain movie stars who are supposed to make the movie a success. Thanks to John for calling our attention to an article highlighting that for all the money that goes to the big A-list movie stars, there's no evidence they help a movie do any better. So, again, it appears that the answer to the guy at NBC Universal is pretty straightforward: don't make $200 million movies any more. That doesn't mean worse movies, it just means learn how to be smarter about spending money.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And join the Europeans/Canadians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
I dont have a clue about Hong Kong though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
he's saying keep that standard, just dont fork out 50-100 million dollars on a tom cruise when u can get someone alot cheaper, and better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
obviously if a person is good at what they do, like chan and li - they should be in the movies, but nobody is worth that amount of money... no chance..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
There are truly great actors that not only can "make" a movie, but they will just by association draw a larger audience. Now granted there can sometimes be extremes where people are paid for the name and they add nothing. But could you image how Forest Gump would have been if someone other than Tom Hanks had played it?
Movie studios are businesses and they can make mistakes just like other businesses that overpay employees, but at the same time, I would think that they go though a cost benefit analysis of who thye hire. If they think that $5 mil to get Tom Cruise will make a $4.5 mil dollar difference over hiring a no-name guy for $500k, then they will make a business decision to use him. Just because YOU would do it for $5000 doesn't mean that what Tom Cruise would add isn't worth that $4,995,000 difference.
Now, I'll be the first to say Tom Cruise isn't worth it, but that is a seperate story/argument. Your wife/girlfriend might happen to think differently though
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
See - good movies can raise stars....stars can not raise movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And join the Europeans/Canadians?
The bottom line is that if you make a movie based on government handouts with imposed restrictions, you often get you you would expect.
There is a lot of talent in Canada, not only among actors, writers, directors, and such, but also talented editors, special effects houses, and more. I would like to start seeing Hollywood quality movies coming out of Canada, but MADE in Canada by Canadians, but the problem is that most people seem fixated on getting their tax benefits. So budgets remain low and so too the expectations.
When it comes right down to it, there are a lot of movies made in Canada funded by Hollywood production studios and they turn out well. The movie was shot in Canada, employed lots of Canadian crew members, used Canadian special effects and editors, and even had Canadian talent in the cast or directing, writing the film, and hey, the movies didn't suck!
But the moment some Made By Canada movie is funded by the government, the movies have a certain low budget amateur quality to them, even though it might use some of the same crew and cast talent.
I am not putting down Canadian television and movies in general, as there have been some pretty good successes and cult favourites, but I just tire of seeing bad movies coming out of this country that have the big Canadian Film and Television Tax Credit logo slapped at the end of it. Its like a Stamp of Disproval that almost guarantees crap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good point
As for the superman flick, the only reason I even saw the movie was because Kevin Spacey was Lex Luther. If he wouldn't have been in the movie, I would have had NO desire to see it. And for the ridiculous budget, I thought it was a pretty poor film.
I do agree that the world is changing and hollywood needs to roll with it, or they will be left behind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Old Hollywood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you get what you pay for
I totally agree with this article, but I also think you get what you pay for. A studio should be more than willing to pay a talented actor a fair share for being in their movie. Lets face... most movies that come out of hollywood are merely business deals with investors looking for a sure thing. They are the ones who want a well known name that they can feel good about dumping their money into a project attached to that name. NO one would have gone to see a movie about snakes on a plane if it were not for "you know who". Me? I'll continue to go to the local independent films where the real "art" is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i don't have figures, but if they spend over $600,000 then it could make a headline. The entire industry is like this. Restrictions are encouraging innovation. I dare you to make Linux OS without using the letter 'e'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serenity
Besides, I'm not entirely buying the premise. I mean, it's not like we've done an A/B test and made the same movie, one with a "name" and one without, and tested the results.
For a while I really liked Michelle Pfeiffer and saw practically everything she made, inlcuding stuff like White Olleander that I wouldn't have seen otherwise. My girlfriend felt the same about Brad Pitt.
You see, I want to watch GOOD movies. If you can do it for twenty-grand, a k-Mart camcorder, and no-name actors, then go for it... but I'm willing to bet that the odds of making a good film that way are poor.
One thing to keep in mind is that the top people in ANY profession (doctors, baseball players, singers, insurance salesmane, you name it) are expensive. I don't see why actors should be any different.
Use a talented writer, add a talented director and producer and experienced actors, riggers, grips, stagehands, set builders, musicians, and so on, and the odds of making a decent film (and getting your money back) go way up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Serenity
I fail to see how the fact that it cost this one movie $40 million means the official floor for movie making must be $40 million.
As for how it should be recouped, we've gone over this a hundred times (and you even see others mention it here in the comments). People LIKE GOING TO SEE MOVIES if you make the experience good. So, you can still recoup the money -- even if you offer the movie in many other formats. People like convenience and they like the experience of going out and seeing a movie on a big screen with comfy seats and a nice sound system.
There are plenty of ways to recoup the costs of a movie, whether it costs $4, $400,000, $40 million or $400 million.
One thing to keep in mind is that the top people in ANY profession (doctors, baseball players, singers, insurance salesmane, you name it) are expensive. I don't see why actors should be any different.
No one's saying they should be paid well. The point is that the studios insist they need to pay many millions of dollars, and the economic evidence suggests that the return just isn't there.
Use a talented writer, add a talented director and producer and experienced actors, riggers, grips, stagehands, set builders, musicians, and so on, and the odds of making a decent film (and getting your money back) go way up.
No one's saying movies should be made for free. But the point is they don't need to be $200 million affairs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
high cost movies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are plenty of movies that were totes as Hollywood hits that were actually bombs. I believe this is because to much money was spent on special effects and not on plot. For example, the Matrix had a good plot and a relatively small budget. It was a sleeper hit, and I watched it several times. While some people liked the sequels to the Matrix, there was no plot and far to much money in special effects. The special effects were cool, but I never watched the movies again.
Another example of spending money wisely in movies are the ones the Saturday Night Live (SNL) actors are famous for making. Most of the movies are low budget, and most turned a profit. Each SNL actor relied upon their unique contribution to comedy (often outlandish humor) and a good script to compensate for minimal budget effects. The movies did not gross as much as the "blockbuster hits" but they made a profit.
Movies do not have to be high budget to be success, they only need to be well written and well acted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waterworld.
Hmm, now, Napoleon Dynamite, Reservoir Dogs, El Mariachi, Desperado. There are many, many more than that but i think you get the idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php
Check out Blair Witch. Now that was profitable. No big name stars, no special effects, camcorder quality. A good movie doesn't need a star. That said, I do watch certain stars, but more for what I expect the movie to be like because they are in it rather then because they are such great actors. Love Stallone movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie profits...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then how about low-budget Disney?
http://www.happy-page.jp/gazou/147.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
European movies
a. (non-British) you're not interested in watching movies with subtitles
b. the movie studios are to a large extent also the movie distributors, so non-Hollywood films struggle to get a theater release in the USA.
c. (closely related to b) a big part of the Hollywood budget is spent on promotion. There are lots of great films out there that you've simply never heard of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talent?
There's a distinct shortage of truly talented writers in Hollywood at the moment, or at least it's not the talented writers whose films are being made. It's those writers who put in lots of explosions, etc. The Hollywood experience is completely stale for many people of any intelligence.
I notice you say 'experienced' actors rather than talented. That was a well chosen word. I would never accuse Tom Cruise, for example, of not being experienced....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Animal House/Star Wars
I think both movies did quite well with their "no-name" casts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pay based on results
Anyhow, because it is often hard to determine how well a movie will do, why don't you pay actors a small base salary for production (ie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One small point
That being said, I really agree with the idea that "star" actors are paid too much. If 20-30% of your budget is to have one or two people around for a few hours every day, then doing badly may be because of bad business sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
forget the stars
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
canadian filming
[ link to this | view in chronology ]